# Set System discussion - is it a hit or a miss?



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

I'll be glad to move my comments over here. 



> I had the opportunity to be a spectator for some time this weekend, and I can say that I do NOT like the new match system. everyone thought it was bad enough to let 12 arrows decide the better archer - now there's a mess and we're left to deal with it. FITA initiated this new system, and wisely the NAA followed - our archers do need to learn the new game, however, I still say it is a move in a completely wrong direction.
> 
> First off, this new format has done absolutely nothing for spectators. In fact it has left everyone in a cloud. There's nothing like watching a match not having any idea the quality of the athletes' abilities. It's like listening to a tennis match on the radio with a rookie announcer that doesn't know a baseline from the back court. If you want to know anything, you absolutely need a spotting scope and an excellent angle, and even then we all know the shadows can disguise what you see. They have actually made spectating more expensive Not simpler to understand, but now impossible to follow.
> 
> As for the archers, the slightly lower ranked athlete now has the edge. The match play system has now taken those precious few points gained by the slightly better archer and laid them to waste. Not only that, but the athlete now has no idea who they are going against - see above for the lack of meaningful feedback. Absolutely pitiful.


And this:


> No where in any sport do I know of a system where only the athlete knows how the matches were won or lost. Scoring is now a big secret to those watching, which is rediculous. There were a number of upsets last weekend. Unfortunately we don't know how they were played out.


I seem to remember making a thread about this very topic a while back. Now that we've had a chance to see it in play I strongly dislike it. This is an abomination to the sport.

Disclaimer - I realize the NAA is only following the FITA lead, so this is not a reflection on USAA. I only hope they can be a guiding light to help return us to something sensable.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

It's one of the best things in many, many years that has been introduced into this game. Removes a big portion of the luck factor and allows the best archers to actually be the best.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

zal said:


> It's one of the best things in many, many years that has been introduced into this game. Removes a big portion of the luck factor and allows the best archers to actually be the best.


I'll disagree with the luck factor. In fact, one of my wins in 2009 on a state level was thanks to the set system and the luck factor.

Background - the 2009 Arizona Iron Archer was one of the events that was to use the set system for indoor. You had three days of qualifying rounds. You had to attend at least 2 of the 3 days.

The QR scores was used to generate flights. You had a gold/medal/bronze flight.

The final day was a round robin within those flights.

My scores on the QR wasn't all that great. In fact, one day absolutely sucked.

However, I ended up being undefeated in the round robin. So, I ended up winning my flight.

One could argue that I was consistent when it counted. I felt that I was lucky, mainly since I was shooting a prototype bow *and* a prototype stabilizer at that event. Either way, it was a win, but people can argue that this is another example of the benefit or failure of a set system.

On a side note, I would definitely like seeing the individual set scores be incorporated with the overall match results. I'm sure the Ianseo guys are cringing when I mention stuff like that.

-Steve


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's a good thing if you win. Not so good if you lose. Just like anything else...

Look folks, the game has changed. Champions adapt instead of complain. Whether it's more "fair" or not is like arguing what shade of blue the sky is IMO. I see this as a rather minor, but positive change. It does help remove "some" of the luck factor that many have complained about for years. And the idea of "sets" is not new by any means and should be easily understood by viewers. 

However, I agree with an earlier post (on the other thread) that archery, like golf, is watched by participants and not really the general public. So until and unless more people participate in archery (and the new youth programs are a great step in the right direction), the viewership will not really be affected by these changes. I see these changes as ways to make the competition a little more fair. That's just good for the sport.

John.


----------



## adamg32 (Feb 1, 2008)

Huntmaster said:


> As for the archers, the slightly lower ranked athlete now has the edge. The match play system has now taken those precious few points gained by the slightly better archer and laid them to waste.


Huntmaster, I was wondering if you could clarify this a bit for me. I've only shot the set system once, so my experience is very limited, but it would seem to me that the slightly better archer *should* still eek out a win because they're maybe shooting a point or two better per "round" (I don't remember what each end is specifically called). Thanks in advance!


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

zal said:


> It's one of the best things in many, many years that has been introduced into this game. Removes a big portion of the luck factor and allows the best archers to actually be the best.


On the contrary! Having seen this action a couple of times now, it increases the luck factor.

I shouldn't be complaining because I am one of those archers who can really chunk an occassional arrow (it takes alot of 10s to make up for my misses)... and this system is DESIGNED for people like me. Chuck and arrow... no worries that I'm not consistant, I can still will the match.

We have now seen the lower scoring archer win the set match on more than one occassion... and this is brand new. 

It in no way helps the high level/consistant archer... they still have to shoot 12 arrows to win the match... something they were doing anyway. But for the wild card... holy cow we can make ALL KINDS of mistakes in a 6 arrow end and still sneak by.

So on one hand... HECK YA! But I can certainly see the problems.

As has been said, for now, it is what it is and we just all adapt. But no, I don't think it's the second coming for archery.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

adamg32 said:


> Huntmaster, I was wondering if you could clarify this a bit for me. I've only shot the set system once, so my experience is very limited, but it would seem to me that the slightly better archer *should* still eek out a win because they're maybe shooting a point or two better per "round" (I don't remember what each end is specifically called). Thanks in advance!


Taking my own view on this...

Like in tennis, you have a game, set and match. In archery's case, each end is a "set". 

When you win a set, you get a certain number of points. Whoever reaches the official point threshold first wins the "match".

In my own experience with the set system, I've been able to come back and win the match a couple of times. In the last end that I shot using the set system back in late 2009, I had to shoot a closest to center tiebreaker. I was actually behind on that set, came back to tie it, and then won it with the tiebreaker.

Luck definitely has a factor in it. In an OR style scoring, I would have been totally hosed from the get go. 

Does it even out the playing field? Possibly. This may be one of the reasons why so many people have issues with this system. A dominating archer could lose out to luck.

However, there are examples of people controlling their own destiny as well. At the Arizona Cup's Bronze medal compound male match, Rodger Willett just hammered out 10's and X's one right after the other. He swept his opponent handily in 3 straight sets. As I mentioned in the other thread, Willett beating out Rigoberto was one of the coolest matches to watch - Rodger lost out to Logan Wilde 3-7 in the semis, and then he turned around and just crushed Rigoberto from El Salvador.

If I do look at things from a 30,000 foot view - each archer has to do their best no matter what round they are in. They can only control the arrows they shoot. It makes no difference if they are shooting an OR/QR or a set system. 

If the unknown archer rises up to the occasion and wins - how is that bad? I am being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but the question still remains - is giving an unknown a greater chance to succeed a bad thing for archery?

-Steve


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

adamg32 said:


> Huntmaster, I was wondering if you could clarify this a bit for me. I've only shot the set system once, so my experience is very limited, but it would seem to me that the slightly better archer *should* still eek out a win because they're maybe shooting a point or two better per "round" (I don't remember what each end is specifically called). Thanks in advance!


fairly evenly matched archers tend to gain points a few at a time, then loose a couple, then gain a few more (this goes on from the top to the bottom of the ranking). In a set match, if I shoot 4 points better than you on the first match, but you beat me by 1 point the next match, we tie the next. Now we're sitting even with a tie breaker. We both shoot a 9, but yours is closer to the center. 

Who is the better archer here? I've won by 3 points, but you win. Or even if you won the third set by one point, I'm still up by 2. Neither of us screwed up. We just shot our normal games, and I had a slightly better group in the first 6 arrows. In the end, closly matched archers are a crap shoot to get it right. 

Yes, I can see the dropped arrow arguement, but in that case, the one who didn't drop an arrow that shouldn't have been shot wins the match. Isn't that the point of this game? Shooting good arrows, or at least as good as you are capable?


----------



## NM-HOYT-MANIAC (Jan 3, 2004)

i'm sorry but i'm not for anything that brings luck into the picture. These matches should be determined by skill not luck. I kinda have a sour taste in my mouth about the whole thing because I was one that kinda got bit by the new set system. I had a higher total arrow score than my opponent but I lost in a 1 arrow shoot-off. I'm not complaining because i lost, because I knew the rules going in, but you can see where the whole thing would leave a sour taste in your mouth.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

Like I said before, this is a different game now. Get on the bus or get off, but don't complain.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Does anyone know of a Youtube link that we can see this being shot? Haven't run into one around here and would be interested in how it looks....

SB


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Scott.Barrett said:


> Does anyone know of a Youtube link that we can see this being shot? Haven't run into one around here and would be interested in how it looks....
> 
> SB


Not that I'm aware of, but it looks just like an OR, but on the score boards you only see numbers under 4 (or 6 depending on matches). After the first two sets of arrows are shot, over half of the field will wait for the ones that are not decided, and then the 1 arrow shootoff for the couple that the 3rd round didn't decide. 

There's another weak point of this system. Win on two sets of arrows, and you get to sit for 15 or so minutes to wait for the next match to start, where your next opponent may have just finished.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Heh. Video tutorial for explaining a set system? That would be interesting.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> As I mentioned on the Arizona Cup thread, this is a dedicated discussion for the set system.
> 
> Mention your likes, dislikes, and other general comments...
> 
> ...


From FITA website FAQs Competition Format
http://www.archery.org/content.asp?id=4673&me_id=3298


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Serious Fun said:


> From FITA website FAQs Competition Format
> http://www.archery.org/content.asp?id=4673&me_id=3298





> 2) Why was the Set System created?
> In the strategic World Archery Plan 2007-2012, one focus was on “Events”. Among several aspects that were identified, FITA wanted to address the fact that, on a previously 12-arrow match, there were sometimes matches that would look like lost after one end due to a bad shot (some rare times unlucky). *The archer who shot the bad arrow would fall too far behind his opponent in the scoring and the public would lose interest*.
> 
> *By breaking down the match with sets of three or six arrows, FITA still gives the chance to the better archer to beat his opponent with consistence*, and also believes that more matches will be contested until the last arrow. That should bring even more excitement to the competition!


And here we have it. The person that drops an arrow now has a chance, and in the very next sentense, it gives the chance for the "better archer" to win with consistancy.

This never did have the intention of finding the best archer. It's only an to keep the spectators interested (again, it's hard to be interested in something you can't possibly follow), and I suggest at the expense of the athletes.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

So here is my understanding of what I've read so far....

In my first set, I shoot 5 10's in a row and then have a bad shot and hit a 6 for a total of 56. My opponent shoots a 57 and gets the two points.

In set two, I shoot a 60 and he has a 52. Just crushed him, but all I net is 2 points....

We are now tied, so we go to a third set. He shoots a 58, I shoot a 57....I lose and the match is over....

So before the rule change, I would have won by a score of 116 to 109....a seven point thrashing! But now I am packing up and going home event though I scored more points and was more consistent with a better set average!

I see how this raises the stakes because you can't build a insurmountable lead. If you have a bad shot, no need to come back....just concede the set and start the next one!

Not sure I am really liking this setup, but I'll report back after Texas!

SB


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

Scott.Barrett said:


> So here is my understanding of what I've read so far....
> 
> In my first set, I shoot 5 10's in a row and then have a bad shot and hit a 6 for a total of 56. My opponent shoots a 57 and gets the two points.
> 
> ...




Not a big FITA shooter but i have to agree.Kinda weird??? i understand the change for the Oly run but thats kinda different.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

bigGP said:


> Not a big FITA shooter but i have to agree.Kinda weird??? i understand the change for the Oly run but thats kinda different.


In reality, instead of best 12 arrow score, it's best 2 out of 3 or you can slide through with two ties and a win! This is starting to get like hockey, which I don't understand either.....

SB


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Scott.Barrett said:


> So here is my understanding of what I've read so far....
> 
> In my first set, I shoot 5 10's in a row and then have a bad shot and hit a 6 for a total of 56. My opponent shoots a 57 and gets the two points.
> 
> ...




Other than the 288 arrow system that Pace and McKinney shot under, such unfairness can happen

I think when Barrs won the Olympics in 1988 with the Fita and Grand Fita, he never had the highest total score-he just had the highest score on the crucial final passes. In fact I cannot think of an Olympics where the guy with the highest point total won. I know Huish didn't and Fairweather was around 20 in the qualification round. 

In the ARizona Cup about a decade ago, Barrs was seeded first with I believe a 1338 and he lost in the first round to a guy with an 1100 or less. Jay told me the guy shot more tens in that 18 arrow round than he did in the 72 arrow long distance in the FITA!. so we have jay barrs with a total for 162 arrows at around 1500 and the guy who beat him below 1275. Fair?

I won an open table tennis tournament many years ago. I was an all out topspin attacker playing an older but steady defensive player. The first game he beat me 21-4 because I was missing left and right. The second game he was up 20-3 when I got in the zone and my smashes and loops started landing and I beat him 22-20 but I was playing as hard as I could-too hard. The Next game, he got stronger, I was tired from that comeback and he won 21-8 as I rested. The next game was close but I won, 21-19 on a couple lucky shots. The last game I started off slow but got hot and after my coach told me to change serves, I won a 21-15 game

lets see, I won 76 points, he won 96 points but I got the 200 bucks and the trophy and he went away with only 100 despite being the better player (which he was based on rankings and whom he beat to get to the final)


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Jim C said:


> Other than the 288 arrow system that Pace and McKinney shot under, such unfairness can happen
> 
> I think when Barrs won the Olympics in 1988 with the Fita and Grand Fita, he never had the highest total score-he just had the highest score on the crucial final passes. In fact I cannot think of an Olympics where the guy with the highest point total won. I know Huish didn't and Fairweather was around 20 in the qualification round.
> 
> ...


So that shows what the change has been....It used to be a one and done shootout...12 arrows, best score moves on! Didn't matter much about what qualifying was, you made it in and now you get on a win streak...just like March Madness! Not necessarily the best team overall, but the best for that set of games and maybe a little lucky.

What we've done now is switch to the World Series format....you just have to win a best of series of sets. Doesn't matter if you lose the first game 22-1, and win the next two 1-0, you're moving on!

New format would seem to award consistency....


----------



## b.mcnice (Mar 24, 2008)

*six or half a dozen*

I don't care either way..... for me archery is archery. Rather than spend my time arguing over spilled milk I think I'll use my time to refine my skills to learn the "new game" of set based matches.

.....and if I can't cut mustard with the new system I guess I can always take up curling......:RockOn:


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

b.mcnice said:


> I don't care either way..... for me archery is archery. Rather than spend my time arguing over spilled milk I think I'll use my time to refine my skills to learn the "new game" of set based matches.
> 
> .....and if I can't cut mustard with the new system I guess I can always take up curling......:RockOn:


I am so going to be on the US Curling team in 4 years...which means I have 3.8 years to relax before I have to find out where the tryouts are and start training!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Scott.Barrett said:


> I am so going to be on the US Curling team in 4 years...which means I have 3.8 years to relax before I have to find out where the tryouts are and start training!


I suspect the people who make the curling team practice every bit as hard as archers and there seems to be alot more strategy there. When I was at the OTC as a skeet shooter (I also was a decent college squash player and master level TT competitor) I used to hear the volleyball players, track athletes etc make fun of the shooters-some of whom were in their 50s (air pistol for example) or had a gut etc. To people who don't understand archery I am sure they would bash our athletes when they are compared with gymnasts, table tennis players, tennis players, hurdlers, swimmers etc who are far more agile. I have seen world class archers-even recurve archers-who are heavy and I doubt could run a mile. I have never ever seen a world class tennis player, table tennis player or gymnast who had the slighest bit of extra weight on them


In other words, be careful about bashing other sports :wink:


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Scott.Barrett said:


> So that shows what the change has been....It used to be a one and done shootout...12 arrows, best score moves on! Didn't matter much about what qualifying was, you made it in and now you get on a win streak...just like March Madness! Not necessarily the best team overall, but the best for that set of games and maybe a little lucky.
> 
> What we've done now is switch to the World Series format....you just have to win a best of series of sets. Doesn't matter if you lose the first game 22-1, and win the next two 1-0, you're moving on!
> 
> New format would seem to award consistency....




At the Az. Cup that seemed to be how it worked. The more consistent archer has a better chance of winning. Will there be upsets, yes, just like there are in all sports. For some reason there seems to be an issue with separating the way the qualifier is scored and the way the OR round is scored. The FITA qualifier is an accumulation of all the points. The set system and even the old OR round is a series of separate matches. Points are not accumulated. You win one set, that is over and you go to the next. People seem to keep wanting to add up all the points for the whole match. I would imagine that if you added up all the points scored in a tennis match that some outcomes would be changed. It might be the same in the World Series if you added all the points scored in all the games to determine the winner. I may not have presented this the best way, so I hope everyone understands where I was going

What I would like to see is a set-up like tennis where we knew the accumulative scores of each set and see the match scores. Change is always difficult. Some will like this and some will not. We shall see.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Well it seemed that the people on the podiums were the usual suspects or at least people consistently in the mix pre-set system.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Ya know, it's funny that everyone keeps comparing this system to tennis. In actuallity, it is nothing like tennis. A match between two tennis pros can last for hours. The truely better athlete comes out the other end with the hardware. When they are finished, I bet they've given it all they have.

Clearly in the document offered up by FITA, this new system was not designed to test the athlete. It now concerns me that our national championship process could be in jepordy because of this move by others. I understand the need to be able to play the game, but it is clearly not designed to find the best athlete.


----------



## adamg32 (Feb 1, 2008)

Huntmaster said:


> fairly evenly matched archers tend to gain points a few at a time, then loose a couple, then gain a few more (this goes on from the top to the bottom of the ranking). In a set match, if I shoot 4 points better than you on the first match, but you beat me by 1 point the next match, we tie the next. Now we're sitting even with a tie breaker. We both shoot a 9, but yours is closer to the center.
> 
> Who is the better archer here? I've won by 3 points, but you win. Or even if you won the third set by one point, I'm still up by 2. Neither of us screwed up. We just shot our normal games, and I had a slightly better group in the first 6 arrows. In the end, closly matched archers are a crap shoot to get it right.
> 
> Yes, I can see the dropped arrow arguement, but in that case, the one who didn't drop an arrow that shouldn't have been shot wins the match. Isn't that the point of this game? Shooting good arrows, or at least as good as you are capable?


Aha. That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## PDS-JOAD (Jun 1, 2009)

What folks are saying about luck is statistically the concept of randomness and sample size. In the pre-OR days the sample size was large, 144 arrows. In a sample that large the better archer could shoot enough high scoring arrows to overcome the occasional bad shot, while the less accurate archer got plenty of chances to put low scoring arrows on the target. With the OR a smaller sample of 12 arrows was introduced and some top archers lost to lower ranked competitors due to one or two bad arrows. Also due to cumulative score it didn’t matter what order you shot your arrows, e.g four 8s followed by eight 10s added up to the same as those same arrow values shot in a different order. While a single bad arrow could effectively end the OR, the other competitor still had to finish strong. Now with the set system the sample size is smaller (6 or 3 arrows) and the order matters since score is not cumulative. A smaller sample size (fewer arrows) is more variable than a larger sample and thus the impression of luck playing a role. But is a great archer shooting an unlucky shot in an OR and falling behind any more lucky than a weaker archer shooting a lucky great shot and getting ahead on a match. Also in the case of a tie another match is shot, giving the better archer more chances to shoot high value arrows. I think the statistics will eventually bear out that the most consistent archers will win the most matches. You end up shooting the game end by end (matches) rather than total score. The archer who can win more ends will win more sets. This seems to reward consistency overall even though some sets will be upsets. Pete


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Huntmaster said:


> Ya know, it's funny that everyone keeps comparing this system to tennis. In actuallity, it is nothing like tennis. A match between two tennis pros can last for hours. The truely better athlete comes out the other end with the hardware. When they are finished, I bet they've given it all they have.
> 
> Clearly in the document offered up by FITA, this new system was not designed to test the athlete. It now concerns me that our national championship process could be in jepordy because of this move by others. I understand the need to be able to play the game, but it is clearly not designed to find the best athlete.


true-and that has been the case since 1988 or so

TV revenues and USOC/IOC money dictates the game, not getting the best possible archer. Besides, I heard people say it was boring to go to the archery finals and realizing darrell didn't have to shoot his last two quivers to win. Ever see that great picture in Al Henderson's book of DP shooting his last shot in Montreal with the scoreboard in the background=remember how far up he was on the rest of the field?


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*The full effect*

While the discussion here has been interesting, it doesn't mean an awful lot as the full effect of the FITA changes have not been felt yet with 50 meter qualifications and hit or miss targets. We won't be worried about points anymore, just with how many times we hit the gold at 50 meters. This discussion will take place all over again after the 2nd World Cup in Turkey and the third World Cup in Ogden when the hit or miss targets will be unveiled for the compounders. I just hope FITA stops at fifty meters. I would hate to see top archers who love outdoors and the challenge of distance reduced to an indoor game being shot outdoors in the name of trying to make compound different from recurve. There is something about watching an arrow fly 70 meters down range to find the X that makes it interesting to me. Just my opinion.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

lcv said:


> While the discussion here has been interesting, it doesn't mean an awful lot as the full effect of the FITA changes have not been felt yet with 50 meter qualifications and hit or miss targets. We won't be worried about points anymore, just with how many times we hit the gold at 50 meters. This discussion will take place all over again after the 2nd World Cup in Turkey and the third World Cup in Ogden when the hit or miss targets will be unveiled for the compounders. I just hope FITA stops at fifty meters. I would hate to see top archers who love outdoors and the challenge of distance reduced to an indoor game being shot outdoors in the name of trying to make compound different from recurve. There is something about watching an arrow fly 70 meters down range to find the X that makes it interesting to me. Just my opinion.


 I wondered why the more accurate compounds weren't playing at longer distances. Even slightly built women can reach 90M with a compound easily


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2010)

the purpose of the hit miss is to hide the real score of each set/match, an arrow in the dirt = a 1mm miss, on a regular scoring target it is much harder to justify a bad shooter winning but a hit/miss the score is hidden there by hideing a poor shooter


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Jim C said:


> I wondered why the more accurate compounds weren't playing at longer distances. Even slightly built women can reach 90M with a compound easily


Jim,

If I recall, Vittorio or someone mentioned that the Russian compounders were taking the 40cm Hit/Miss target and nailing it at 70 meters instead of 50.

Eric Bennett (US Paralympic Archer) and I were talking about this same thing last night at the shop we both teach for while he was coaching my son and I was done with my students. He sees no reason why the hit/miss target isn't at 70. I agree.

Either way, I do see the need for differentiation. And - this is a pretty decent SWAG on my part, it wouldn't have gotten this far if the target and format didn't have backing on the IOC level. FITA wouldn't be wasting their time if this format didn't have some acceptance above their heads.

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Sean McKenty said:


> the purpose of the hit miss is to hide the real score of each set/match, an arrow in the dirt = a 1mm miss, on a regular scoring target it is much harder to justify a bad shooter winning but a hit/miss the score is hidden there by hideing a poor shooter


This is where some sort of reactive target is key.

Use an Iron Pig - miss, and you have major wreckage. Of course, you'd have Easton having to ramp up their cheapie arrows again. There is no recognizing a miss there.

In other shooting sports, reactive targets make it exciting for hit/miss. There is no mistaking either. 

The hit/miss format here isn't the best, well thought out plan.

Either way, I'm doing my job and ensuring that the kids going through the classes I'm teaching know what the target looks like and know how to do a set system. If I don't, I'm not doing my job as an instructor.

-Steve


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

Steve

Without trying to sound like a smart butt, and as long as you understand the need to differentiate between recurve and compound, would you explain it to me? I never understood the need in the first place.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lcv said:


> Steve
> 
> Without trying to sound like a smart butt, and as long as you understand the need to differentiate between recurve and compound, would you explain it to me? I never understood the need in the first place.


FITA compound bows with let off, peep sights and mechanical releases are more efficient and more accurate than FITA recurves. A comparably talented compound shooter will always (well, almost always) out shoot a recurve shooter. Putting compounds and recurves in the same class would be like putting stock cars and formula 1 cars in the same race, or pro stock vs. top fuel dragsters. They are different equipment classes with different inherent capabilities. It would be silly to put them together.


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

Warbow

You misunderstood my question as I am well aware of the difference in bows. The question was why do we have to have different games for the bows. I said nothing about recurves competing directly against compounds.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I'll agree with Warbow in this case. I'll use the scores Jake Kaminsky put up in Vegas versus Dietmar's scores at Vegas. Jake never shot a perfect score. Dietmar did. 

Compare that to the AZ Cup. Dietmar shot a 1396 in qual. Jame shot a 1328. Brady's 1351 would have placed him in 29th in compound. 

Compound should have a differentiator to showcase their inherent accuracy. 

However, there is a flip side to this. Recurve always has shown off their long distance talents. There is a skill set that really shows off good talent at 70 plus meters. 

Compound gets it with leverage. Recurves get it with sheer form. 

I'm guessing here - but FITA wants to let the purists stay purists. They figure that Compounders would jump at the chance to change formats to get a chance at the tournament every 4 years. 

The catch is that a lot of the higher profile compounders aren't crazy about it. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lcv said:


> Warbow
> 
> You misunderstood my question as I am well aware of the difference in bows. The question was why do we have to have different games for the bows. I said nothing about recurves competing directly against compounds.


Thanks.

I was wondering why we need different games as well, but I wonder to what extent it is to protect the recurve competition from seeming too much like compound and vice versa, to keep the turf separate--but, I have no idea.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

lcv said:


> Warbow
> 
> You misunderstood my question as I am well aware of the difference in bows. The question was why do we have to have different games for the bows. I said nothing about recurves competing directly against compounds.


Again, I don't know why. I just know the justification for it is to make a reason for Compound to get into the games. 

I guess you could call it a dicipline. Just like Rugby used to use Rugby Union instead of sevens for the Olympics, then got dropped, and now Rugby Sevens is being petitioned and I think it's set for 2016. 

It's still Rugby, but with slight changes. The same can be said for the compound hit/miss. Its still archery, but with slight changes. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Again, I don't know why. I just know the justification for it is to make a reason for Compound to get into the games.


I wonder if that is a requirement? Do any of the Olympic games have competitions that are exactly alike with people competing in different equipment classes, or do they need to be different to have a better chance at being included? Is that why?

Though, there is 4 man and 2 man bobsled, and luge and skeleton...so I don't know.

Maybe we should go back to unaided longbow instead, like first time Archery was introduced into the modern Olympics?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> I wonder if that is a requirement? Do any of the Olympic games have competitions that are exactly alike with people competing in different equipment classes, or do they need to be different to have a better chance at being included? Is that why?
> 
> Though, there is 4 man and 2 man bobsled, and luge and skeleton...so I don't know.
> 
> Maybe we should go back to unaided longbow instead, like first time Archery was introduced into the modern Olympics?


Fencing. Foil, Epee, and Saber. Same sport, different equipment.
----
Update as my caffeine starved brain forgot something.

Each variant has different people on the team. So, you'd have an Foil specialist, an Epee specialist, and a Saber specialist. IIRC, the current #1 ranked female in Saber is a US Olympian...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Fencing. Foil, Epee, and Saber. Same sport, different equipment.


No, they each have different target area, scoring and rules. Granted they are all "fencing" the same way that all the various running events are all "running," or whatnot.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> No, they each have different target area, scoring and rules. Granted they are all "fencing" the same way that all the various running events are all "running," or whatnot.


And would not the Compound Hit/Miss be a different target area, scoring, and rules? 

It's still archery.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> And would not the Compound Hit/Miss be a different target area, scoring, and rules?


That's what I'm asking. There is no inherent reason why Compound should have to have different rules other than, perhaps, a farther distance or smaller target. Why are they proposing a different game for Compound? Is to try and make it seem like the Olympics needs both because they are "different" events even though there is no reason they have to be very different at all?


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*Warbow*

That was my original question as well. One look at the rolling rankings shows which type bow is more accurate. That statement has nothing to do with the talents of the recurve shooters who I admire greatly. It is just fact. Over the last four years the World Cup has been shot at seventy meters for both bow types with good response from both recurve and compound fans alike. So my question was why is there a need to differentiate now? I think FITA has nothing but good intentions. I just want to understand the reasoning.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

If you read the FITA newsletters over the past couple of years you would know that the reason is crystal clear- IOC demanded this magnitude of change to even consider allowing compound in the Games.

It's odd that no one has commented on the post by PDS-JOAD. It's easily the most intelligent post here on the matter so far. Bravo.



> The catch is that a lot of the higher profile compounders aren't crazy about it.


Yup, true enough. Which is why there will no doubt be a new crop of high profile compounders who embrace and succeed at this new format. 

The whiners and complainers will end up by the wayside because without a WINNING ATTITUDE they will no longer be dominant. They'll fall to the shooters with a WINNING ATTITUDE who don't complain, but get out there and get the job done. 

Just like always.

Same on the recurve side- those who are negative (or poisoned by the ill-considered opinions of others) will fall by the wayside and new ones will rise up.

After all, this is still a mental game. Attitude is everything.


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

I must have missed those newsletters that are Crystal clear. Please let me know which one states that the IOC demands it to get compounds into the Olympic's so I can read it. I have no real objection to the set system vs the OR round. I just question the hit or miss and the 50 meter distance. One thing is true though. The top compounders will adapt to the new rules and most likely will continue to win under the new system, because they are that good. I'm not going to hold my breath on the Olympics though.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

It forces you to shoot well constantly, and if for some reason you have a bad shot, maybe a gust of wind or equipment failure or something, you can still finish the job.

If you just shot fewer good sets than the opponent but for some way manage to score higher, your opponent is the better archer that day, really.

The game changes, and we must adapt to it. Top archers don't worry about things like these, only hobbyists and wannabes.


----------



## leon22200 (Jun 20, 2007)

Well I have read all the thread and I'd like to say one thing: any change will have positive and negative feedback.
In my eyes a new rule must have a chance... and may be adapted if it does not work out well. But the way should be to look forward and not to continue to state: "But with the old system I was better, .. I would have won,... He would have lost by 5 points..."
Let's keep an open mind.

Set System: It is like PlayOffs... is there somebody out there not understanding the PlayOffs. We have a ranking round (regular season) and finals (play offs)... every set (match) is exciting and can change the outcome. If you hit only 10's (or if you just hit all the time) you donot have a problem!

BTW: Fencing is a good way to show how different rules makes the different disciplines interesting... some like epee more others don't!


----------



## Harrison Ooi (Mar 14, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> It's a good thing if you win. Not so good if you lose. Just like anything else...
> 
> Look folks, the game has changed. Champions adapt instead of complain. Whether it's more "fair" or not is like arguing what shade of blue the sky is IMO. I see this as a rather minor, but positive change. It does help remove "some" of the luck factor that many have complained about for years. And the idea of "sets" is not new by any means and should be easily understood by viewers.
> 
> ...


Champions hate it too, Dave Cousins:Its f#%$tarded! Braden Gelentien: Set system sucks!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Shinigami3 said:


> If you read the FITA newsletters over the past couple of years you would know that the reason is crystal clear- IOC demanded this magnitude of change to even consider allowing compound in the Games.
> 
> It's odd that no one has commented on the post by PDS-JOAD. It's easily the most intelligent post here on the matter so far. Bravo.
> 
> ...


This does not address the main issue

is this constant change good for the sport


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

So I have a question. If I score a higher score for the regular points, but my opponent won more set points, who is REALLY the better archer? I want an honest opinion, who really shot better that day? I happened to be a bit more inconsistant than the other guy, but I still shot a higher score, who is better?


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Sighting In said:


> So I have a question. If I score a higher score for the regular points, but my opponent won more set points, who is REALLY the better archer? I want an honest opinion, who really shot better that day? I happened to be a bit more inconsistant than the other guy, but I still shot a higher score, who is better?


I don't mean to sound like a smartass, but the answer is simply The Archer who won. That archer was the best at that time. He was more consistent at that time. He won more sets. You cannot us total points scored. Each set is a separate event that forms the match.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Sighting In said:


> So I have a question. If I score a higher score for the regular points, but my opponent won more set points, who is REALLY the better archer? I want an honest opinion, who really shot better that day? I happened to be a bit more inconsistant than the other guy, but I still shot a higher score, who is better?


What regular points. There are no such things as regular points, only set points.

You don't expect for nhl teams to get any starting points from previous matches against that particular opponent.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

zal said:


> What regular points. There are no such things as regular points, only set points.
> 
> You don't expect for nhl teams to get any starting points from previous matches against that particular opponent.


how can you compare the two? Ok, then hockey games should last about 3 minutes and be played out on a dark rink so that no one knows just how the winner earned the hardware.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I'll use two analogies here.

American Rules Football - if you track stuff like possession time, yardage gained on the ground, yardage gained from the air, so on, so forth, you're able to reasonably discern how the game went.

Baseball - if you look at various statistics, like the box score, pitcher stats like Earned Run Average and how many strikes, along with the lineup stats, you have a reasonable idea how the game went.

In both cases, you have absolutely no idea if Derek Jeter made this amazing behind the back catch, or if Larry Fitzgerald extended himself to make this wonderful play to catch the winning touchdown.

I place these two examples to find out what the spectators want. Do they want stats to where they can discern an end by end playback to see how the match went? Are we (collectively) gathering enough stats to satisfy those who are far away and "watching" via live scoring?

-Steve


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the change to a "set" system as a big change. Upsets can and will happen, and when they do, the higher ranked archers will always be, well, upset about it. Tough. Upsets happened under the 18 arrow format, the 12 arrow format, and now the set format. Funny to see however that the finals played out the same way (at least for the recurve men) with the 12 arrow match and the sets. 

Sets is not a big change. You're still shooting the same bows at the same targets at the same distances. The compound changes ARE a big change IMO. Of the three variables (equipment, distance, target), TWO have changed. That's worth talking about. 

John.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Harrison Ooi said:


> Champions hate it too, Dave Cousins:Its f#%$tarded! Braden Gelentien: Set system sucks!


Hehe...I was trying to avoid specifically naming certain archers and their reactions. Cousin's use of earthy portmanteau based terms on his Facebook page was typical...and predictable. 

To address Jim C's question of change. Change is good sometimes. Change is hard. Change is sometimes necessary. I don't know that it was in this case.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

leon22200 said:


> BTW: Fencing is a good way to show how different rules makes the different disciplines interesting... some like epee more others don't!


I'd say fencing is another example of a fun sport that doesn't play well on TV--and they even dumbed down the rules for TV, changing in touches against to touches for, because they thought TV audiences were two stupid to understand touches against.

The coverage of fencing in past Olympics has been terrible. You really need *super* slow mo replays to see what happens, not ordinary 50 or 60 field per second TV slowed down, fencing is just too fast for ordinary TV.

I'd point out that archery has it over fencing in "fairness" of judging winners because archery scores are objective--especially when they aren't head to head. But fencing *has to be* head to head.


----------



## b.mcnice (Mar 24, 2008)

PDS-JOAD said:


> What folks are saying about luck is statistically the concept of randomness and sample size. In the pre-OR days the sample size was large, 144 arrows. In a sample that large the better archer could shoot enough high scoring arrows to overcome the occasional bad shot, while the less accurate archer got plenty of chances to put low scoring arrows on the target. With the OR a smaller sample of 12 arrows was introduced and some top archers lost to lower ranked competitors due to one or two bad arrows. Also due to cumulative score it didn’t matter what order you shot your arrows, e.g four 8s followed by eight 10s added up to the same as those same arrow values shot in a different order. While a single bad arrow could effectively end the OR, the other competitor still had to finish strong. Now with the set system the sample size is smaller (6 or 3 arrows) and the order matters since score is not cumulative. A smaller sample size (fewer arrows) is more variable than a larger sample and thus the impression of luck playing a role. But is a great archer shooting an unlucky shot in an OR and falling behind any more lucky than a weaker archer shooting a lucky great shot and getting ahead on a match. Also in the case of a tie another match is shot, giving the better archer more chances to shoot high value arrows. I think the statistics will eventually bear out that the most consistent archers will win the most matches. You end up shooting the game end by end (matches) rather than total score. The archer who can win more ends will win more sets. This seems to reward consistency overall even though some sets will be upsets. Pete


Agreed.

For a sport that is lacking of any strategy I thought the goal before the change was to hit the center. If I understand it correctly the goal now is to hit the center. Whether its 144 arrows or 1 arrow I try to hit the center it's not rocket science like curling strategies & techniques.

I apologize for my ignorance I feel like a simple minded fool when I read all of the posts on this topic. Until otherwise, I guess I keep trying to hit the center.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

The problem I have with sets is that too many times the archer with the higher total score loses.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

Jake Kaminski said:


> The problem I have with sets is that too many times the archer with the higher total score loses.




pretty much,what other sport does this happen????


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Jake Kaminski said:


> The problem I have with sets is that too many times the archer with the higher total score loses.





bigGP said:


> pretty much,what other sport does this happen????


Boxing. You can be totally behind on points, go to the 12th round, and then KO your opponent.

You win, but you are behind on points. 

-Steve

Historical note - Sugar Ray Robinson did exactly that in 1957. He was behind on points when he KO's Fullmer.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> Boxing. You can be totally behind on points, go to the 12th round, and then KO your opponent.
> 
> You win, but you are behind on points.
> 
> ...




OK i will concede that i didn't ask the question properly.LOL 

How about is there another NON-contact sport where the other athletes performance doesn't physically effect yours? (Knees knocking because your shooting against Jesse broadwater doesnt count) .In tennis if the other player catches fire you dont even get a chance.You get the point.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jake Kaminski said:


> The problem I have with sets is that too many times the archer with the higher total score loses.


Yes, I agree that this does seem like a problem. 

However, is this any different than a competitor shooting a good score and losing a match, even though many poorer scores advanced? I see this ALL the time and have never agreed with it. 

Years ago, I proposed an elimination system that I believe would be about as fair as we can get. Simply cut the field in half based on 12 arrow scores until the final four archers face off. Because nobody is interested in seeing a good archer shoot a good score and still lose when poorer archers shot lesser scores and won. That doesn't serve the purpose of finding the best archers, which is why you hold a tournament in the first place...

So, shoot a 72 arrow ranking round, then cut the field to 32. Then line up 32 archers and shoot 12 arrows. Top 16 advance. Then shoot 12 more arrows and the top 8 advance. Then 12 more, and finally the top four shoot head to head matches to determine the gold and bronze medal matches. Do that using the set system, or whatever you like. Because at least by then, it would be hard to argue that we're not dealing with the four best archers on the field. 

I believe this is a very simple, easy to understand system. Much like shooting a score to make "the cut" in a golf tournament. If you are below the "cut line" you go home. If not, you move on. 

Easy.

John.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

bigGP said:


> OK i will concede that i didn't ask the question properly.LOL
> 
> How about is there another NON-contact sport where the other athletes performance doesn't physically effect yours? (Knees knocking because your shooting against Jesse broadwater doesnt count) .In tennis if the other player catches fire you dont even get a chance.You get the point.


If you count NASCAR as a sport, there is a mathematical possibility that you can continually finish in the top 5 every race and win the championship, especially if other drivers spread wins around and there's no one single driver that continually wins. 

But, until Jimmy Johnson quits winning, there won't be an opportunity to test that theory in the modern era. 

-Steve


----------



## b.mcnice (Mar 24, 2008)

*training for set matches*

Jake,
Does your preparation for OR or set matches differ from a training perspective?


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

You're missing the fact that top 8 advance straight from the qualification round, so it completely removes the factor that best scorers at fita/70m round drop at first match.

Field should be fairly even at top 16.


----------



## Jake Kaminski (Mar 10, 2007)

ZAL you a re correct on the world scale, here in the US that is not the case.


b.mcnice Yes i train slightly different shooting sets against the other RA's instead of 12 arrow passes. 

John, I would say that there is not much of a difference between losing a set match with a higher score and losing to an underdog even though i shot a great score, but I lost my quarter final match, I won the first two sets, 29-23, 29-24, and lost the next three with something like (IIRC) 27-29, 25-27, 25-26, After 12 arrows I was up 8 points 111-103 and after all 15 arrows I was still up a few points. That is not a very close match by any means according to the old system. I feel as If I was the better archer that day, he did win according to the SET system rules, and I would have won according to the old rules, but if I shot a 111, and he shot a 112, I would feel MUCH MUCH better about being beat, but I lost 111-103.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, I agree that this does seem like a problem.
> 
> However, is this any different than a competitor shooting a good score and losing a match, even though many poorer scores advanced? I see this ALL the time and have never agreed with it.
> 
> ...


From a tournament operations point of view, having an instant determination of who move one and who retires helps to keep the tournament moving.
If the field were cut in half at each round up to the top four, at the end of every round, time would be taken to collect score cards, determine the cut, conduct shoot offs for any tied scores, assign target and so forth. So the stragegy maybe be simple and easy but it would be time and resource consuming.


----------



## bigGP (Dec 9, 2002)

jake kaminski said:


> zal you a re correct on the world scale, here in the us that is not the case.
> 
> 
> B.mcnice yes i train slightly different shooting sets against the other ra's instead of 12 arrow passes.
> ...



ouch!!!


----------



## CT MastersCF (Mar 14, 2009)

*timely scoring*



Serious Fun said:


> From a tournament operations point of view, having an instant determination of who move one and who retires helps to keep the tournament moving.
> If the field were cut in half at each round up to the top four, at the end of every round, time would be taken to collect score cards, determine the cut, conduct shoot offs for any tied scores, assign target and so forth. So the stragegy maybe be simple and easy but it would be time and resource consuming.


Bob...

Good point. You've seen the Danage system first hand. (I won't until July, so I have no experience with it.) Does this system provide timely enough scoring so that those who make the cut in each round can be identified immediately and be given the next target assignment shortly thereafter?

What comes to mind after watching some of my students compete in our pool is that the the finish times and placings are displayed immediately and automatically. Could we do something like that in a major archery tournament with, say, 32 archers shooting simultaneously? Certainly not automatic scoring yet (nonetheless, that seems to be something the sport could use for major events ... I'm sure the technology is there.) Scores updated every three arrows along with the relative placings? I could see THAT generating some excitement among spectators as the round (12 arrows or 18 arrows, take your pick) progressed.

As a masters-level, compound fingers shooter, I don't get a chance to sompete in an OR round unless it's against release shooters. Not much chance there, but I am interested in the diverse views expressed here as it affects the health of the sport long-term. I think this has been a good discussion. 

Ray


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

CT MastersCF said:


> Bob...
> 
> Good point. You've seen the Danage system first hand. (I won't until July, so I have no experience with it.) Does this system provide timely enough scoring so that those who make the cut in each round can be identified immediately and be given the next target assignment shortly thereafter?
> 
> ...


Cutting the field in 1/2 will require some sort of tie breaker as it it likely that there will be some ties scores to enter into the top half. Just determining who shoots in the shoot off would be challenging. The old 12 arrow method was easy to follow. Win you move on, loose you go home. A few ties here and there to give a little more excitement and a chance to go to the restroom. 
Simple to understand and simple to execute. Ideally a match play system incorporate both.


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

Jake Kaminski said:


> I feel as If I was the better archer that day, he did win according to the SET system rules, and I would have won according to the old rules, but if I shot a 111, and he shot a 112, I would feel MUCH MUCH better about being beat, but I lost 111-103.


Ouch it is really unfair. 
The only way to fix it in my opinion would be to use hit/miss targets. It would be much harder to win with lower number of hits:wink:

On another note how about sending few thousand letters to FITA president stating how much the current system is unfair. System which was pushed down our throats without asking archers opinion. If they decide that we have to use from now on suction cups on the arrows instead of sharp points so archery would be safer - do we have to take it? -- Just saying!

George


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, I agree that this does seem like a problem.
> 
> However, is this any different than a competitor shooting a good score and losing a match, even though many poorer scores advanced? I see this ALL the time and have never agreed with it.
> 
> ...


John,,,,
I love this system that you propose.Some say it would take time to do this. Seems like in an European indoor event at Nimes the archers walked up and posted their scores above the target at the end of each end. This could be done in your system and with that being done it would not take too long to pick out the top 16 scores to advance from the 32 qualifiers. And than proceed as you have suggested. It is a K.I.S.S. method that seems very simple to me. This is a great sport that everyone can do from young to old.I started shooting in the sixty's and the same ideas were brought up than to get more people to Vegas and Cobo Hall when those two matches were the biggest in the country. But when it comes down to it,this is a very simple sport. Each arrow is suppose to go into the X. Anything else is failure. Make it fun for the archers and the sport will grow.This sport takes alot of work to become great. Lets let those great ones rise to the top. Paula


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Georgemay said:


> Ouch it is really unfair.
> The only way to fix it in my opinion would be to use hit/miss targets. It would be much harder to win with lower number of hits:wink:
> 
> On another note how about sending few thousand letters to FITA president stating how much the current system is unfair. System which was pushed down our throats without asking archers opinion. If they decide that we have to use from now on suction cups on the arrows instead of sharp points so archery would be safer - do we have to take it? -- Just saying!
> ...


Heh...so Kristin Braun's skit on the now defunct Jay Leno Show was a bad idea then?

(For those who didn't see the video, Kristin shot at Wanda Sykes with a suction cup tipped arrow, with Wanda Sykes being behind a polycarbonate plate.)

http://www.thejaylenoshow.com/video/episodes/?vid=1173202#vid=1173202

-Steve


----------



## Georgemay (May 27, 2008)

Beastmaster said:


> Heh...so Kristin Braun's skit on the now defunct Jay Leno Show was a bad idea then?
> -Steve


Aha, its a matter of time then, when FITA will come up with OR where we will be shooting at each other to make it more interesting
George


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Georgemay said:


> Ouch it is really unfair.
> The only way to fix it in my opinion would be to use hit/miss targets. It would be much harder to win with lower number of hits:wink:
> 
> On another note how about sending few thousand letters to FITA president stating how much the current system is unfair. System which was pushed down our throats without asking archers opinion. If they decide that we have to use from now on suction cups on the arrows instead of sharp points so archery would be safer - do we have to take it? -- Just saying!
> ...


Post your comments on http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/World-Archery/182318993402?v=wall on the discussions page


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Georgemay said:


> Aha, its a matter of time then, when FITA will come up with OR where we will be shooting at each other to make it more interesting
> George


I bet those things get one heck of a drift from the wind


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

I am on the fence about it all. It is the game and thus we will play the game as laid out and not complain about. Last year we heard how the 12 arrow matches didn't prove anything. We have all heard it for years for that matter. But you know what, it was the game being played. Kiley was able to tie up the score in the 4th end and win in a shoot off last year for a Gold medal. Had it been the set system it would have been over after the first three ends because it would have been 6-0. But she kept it close enough to tie the score in the last end and then win the shoot off. A broken nock on an arrow that results in a miss would end any chance under the old system but not under the set system. Seems to me that there is no advantage to either system and we have to play whatever game is laid out. I think that FITA will rethink this and change their minds. The people that followed online had no idea, as did the spectators in the stands, what was going on. Who cares if someone had 2 pt on the board. Did they shoot a 59 or a 49 to get that. It just is kinda boring to watch.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Putting aside the need to keep the IOC happy does anyone believe that the set or 12 arrow OR system picks the best archer more consistently than the double FITA?

and I do note that if we were still using the double FITA I doubt we would have had any gold or silver individual medalists after Darrell


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2010)

Jake Kaminski said:


> ZAL you a re correct on the world scale, here in the US that is not the case.
> 
> 
> b.mcnice Yes i train slightly different shooting sets against the other RA's instead of 12 arrow passes.
> ...



Now with a straight face explain this to the non archery spectator, and honestly tell me they won't come away thinking archery is a joke

They have a great elimination system now with the fita field, or even the old grand fita just tweaked a bit


----------



## 2fingers (Feb 2, 2006)

I would like to see it go to a 5 set match for the last 8 shooters and shoot fewer flighting arrows.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim C said:


> Putting aside the need to keep the IOC happy does anyone believe that the set or 12 arrow OR system picks the best archer more consistently than the double FITA?
> 
> and I do note that if we were still using the double FITA I doubt we would have had any gold or silver individual medalists after Darrell


Very true Jim. The answer is that we wouldn't. Perhaps Rick, but after that - none. 

Look, choosing the best archer can be a double edged sword folks. I think we all want to see the best group of archers rise to the top, but who wants to see the same 3 or 5 archers win everything event after event. That's not productive to our sport IMO. We need to have room for upsets. Double FITA's give us no room for upsets. Besides, it's far too boring.

I've never understood the logic in simply changing distances and target sizes. I mean, what the heck? We're still shooting the exact same arrows from the exact same bow in the exact same way. What does it prove because you just moved the targets? I've never understood that.

There is no "perfect" format because every individual watching and competing in the event is looking for something different. 

John


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Tennis doesn't seem to be hurt with Federer basically in the "medal rounds" of every major tournament for the last 6 years. He and Nadal have won more majors in the last 5 years than the rest of the world combined. No one seemed too bummed that Mike Phelps won every event he entered in 2008. The more T D F's Lance won, the more people tended to watch.

And if the 288 arrow event was the test, maybe people would work to winning that. But I agree, Park would have won every women's event most likely for a several year period

but I prefer legitimate champions rather than changing things to keep them from winning all the time


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Fair enough. 

I've made my proposal. 

John.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

If you go back to when FITA switched from the double FITA to the Grand FITA and then Grand FITA to 18/12 arrow elimination round matches you would get similar complaints and similar arguments. It appears human nature hates change. It did not seem to bother Jenny, Brady, Logan or Jamie at the AZ Cup. They were consistent which is what is required to win on such minimum quantity of arrows. 

As for those who want to send letters to FITA, the US is one of over 100 countries who voted for or against these new rounds. I am not saying it is right or wrong. All I am saying is that you can either complain about this new round or accept it and learn to win using it. 

Since I experienced the conversion of going from a double FITA to the Grand FITA and then having to learn how to compete using the elimination round, I can say that you either accept it or lose complaining about it. Darrell and I were masters of the four-day double FITA and we trained and competed in that format for over 25 years. To change from 288 arrows to just 36 arrows was a very frustrating experience for us. We even used similar scenario's that Jake and Dave used by stating if you combined the 4 Grand FITA rounds (which equaled a FITA), usually the high shooter did not win. Learning to readjust your attitude is not easy, however it is necessary if you want to win. 

Personally I like the set matches. I just wish they would add more arrows to the round. The more arrows shot the better the chances the best archer will rise to the top.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Huntmaster said:


> I bet those things get one heck of a drift from the wind


Heh. I see it now.

Face off at 90 meters. Each archer cocooned in a plexiglas box of sorts.

Hit the right spot on the plexiglas, and you get this American Gladiator type steam purge.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> Tennis doesn't seem to be hurt with Federer basically in the "medal rounds" of every major tournament for the last 6 years. He and Nadal have won more majors in the last 5 years than the rest of the world combined. No one seemed too bummed that Mike Phelps won every event he entered in 2008. The more T D F's Lance won, the more people tended to watch.
> 
> And if the 288 arrow event was the test, maybe people would work to winning that. But I agree, Park would have won every women's event most likely for a several year period
> 
> but I prefer legitimate champions rather than changing things to keep them from winning all the time


One of the reasons, I expect, that people can enjoy watching the same tennis player will over and over is that they get to watch exciting game play every year. I don't know if that applies to archery. The more perfect the archers, the more 10's, the more the game looks the same over and over again. I assume that the set system is deliberately designed to encourage "upsets", to make the winner of the match more uncertain and, theoretically, exciting to watch. But that only works if the audience can tell what is going on as it is happening. With John's proposed system there would be less chance of upsets, but at least I'd be able to tell what is going on for sure.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Heh. I see it now.
> 
> Face off at 90 meters. Each archer cocooned in a plexiglas box of sorts.
> 
> Hit the right spot on the plexiglas, and you get this American Gladiator type steam purge.


Hit or miss knock down targets trigger a trap door release when you get all six


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> .. I think we all want to see the best group of archers rise to the top, but who wants to see the same 3 or 5 archers win everything event after event. That's not productive to our sport IMO. .......


You know, this is exactly one of the reasons of the change... If you look into FITA papers, you will find that they have (finally) discovered the need to have (again) top level archers that can be used as "image" for our sport, while the 12 arrows elimination OR was not helping in this. 
A lot of people still do not understand that the new formula, combined with giving 2 byes to the top 8 in qualification at world championships is aimed to grant to hav ethe strongest in the finals and to make the names of those in the finals more consistent to those in the top of the qualification round. 
The set system is going surely to help in this direction, just eliminating the effects of those very few bad arrows that usually bring a top shooter to loose against a much lower ranked one. 
The counter effect of this new system seems to be a situation were the OR, without the help of tV, bg screen and automatic scoring, becomes even less understandable to occasional public and even more boring to amateur archers. Not to mention the fact that reading the new machplay charts results does not give any idea anymore about the reality of the competition.
Last weekend in Italy we have had 2 OR with the new formula in different places, one close to Milano, and some purely amateurs archers from my club have participated to this one. Their comment is about a slower an much more boring competion, with no one understanding exactly what was going on until someone was called as winner on the podium. But, usually amateur archers get eliminated in the first one or two matches, and then simply go home wihtout waiting for the final results, and this situation is not changed at all. Everything gets boring only if you want stay there until the end... 
Again, OR even in the new format is NOT designed for amateur archers, but for top level TV covered (finals of the) competions, and in this regard proably the new formula will serve better than the old one.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

all of thiese interesting discussions about the format will not make archery more or less popular among the general population....

generally speaking, the sport iself will only be popular when more people are actually participating in it...

that challenge will have to be left to the leaders and sports organizations held reponsible for the development and promotion of the sport from the ground up...

these are the ones who should do what needs to be done..

we can and should all do our part to help promote and develop the sport but in the long run it is the powers that be that will be held accountable for any success....or failure..


----------



## Turfa (Oct 4, 2009)

I may be mis-interpreting how the set system works, but is it really any different to tennis, matchplay golf or even the World Series baseball ? These are all major sports events where you can have the most individual points (or runs, or the least shots for the golf example) but still lose the overall game.

Most people seem happy to agree that the World Series champions are the best baseball team, even if they were outscored if you add the individual game scores together........


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> One of the reasons, I expect, that people can enjoy watching the same tennis player will over and over is that they get to watch exciting game play every year. I don't know if that applies to archery. The more perfect the archers, the more 10's, the more the game looks the same over and over again. I assume that the set system is deliberately designed to encourage "upsets", to make the winner of the match more uncertain and, theoretically, exciting to watch. But that only works if the audience can tell what is going on as it is happening. With John's proposed system there would be less chance of upsets, but at least I'd be able to tell what is going on for sure.


Good point


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Turfa said:


> I may be mis-interpreting how the set system works, but is it really any different to tennis, matchplay golf or even the World Series baseball ? These are all major sports events where you can have the most individual points (or runs, or the least shots for the golf example) but still lose the overall game.
> 
> Most people seem happy to agree that the World Series champions are the best baseball team, even if they were outscored if you add the individual game scores together........


Yes it's different! Tennis set matches can go on for hours! Baseball has a set number of innings that is contested over hours! Golf takes hours to contest. Those athletes have given it their last bit of energy and ability, and one comes out on top. How long do archery matches last? - 4 minutes each. You can't even begin to compare the two. If you want to do match play tennis or baseball style, shoot 3 - 72 arrow ranking rounds, each as a set. That would be a much more equivelent comparison.


----------



## b.mcnice (Mar 24, 2008)

*help*

I'm trying to explain the set system rules to a friend and can't find a link explaining the new rules. Can someone post a link to the set system rules for me please?


----------



## azarcher300 (May 1, 2006)

*Set System*

The new World Record for a 12 arrow shoot off is now 4.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

azarcher300 said:


> the new world record for a 12 arrow shoot off is now 4.


:icon_1_lol:


----------



## CT MastersCF (Mar 14, 2009)

*automatic scoring*

Had a long discussion this afternoon with a long-time JOAD coach at our state indoor about the set system and the whole issue of keeping the spectators interested and informed as a tournament progresses. Some of this applies to both the ranking round and OR (whatever its format) and some to the OR only.

Vittorio mentioned automatic scoring, as did I in an earlier post in this thread. I have no clear idea how this might be accomplished but my technical background tells me that it is technically feasible, but I have no idea at what cost. Let's assume that it can be done at a reasonable cost.

Vittorio .. you have a better sense of the pulse in the archery world than I do ... do you know of a system in existence now that works?

Using professional golf as an analogy, one of the things that makes being at professional tournament interesting is being able to watch particular players and groups and still be informed as to 1) their standing relative to par (individual scoreboards carried around the course with each group) and 2) the relative placing of the top golfers as the round progresses on the overall leader board(s). Without knowing how the group you are watching is doing, as well as everyone else, even golf loses some of it's luster.

My reference in my earlier post to the results seen in our high school pool .. immediate times and placings ... brought about another suggestion: that interest would be maintained during a match if the individual arrow scores, total scores, and relative placings were displayed in real time.

Imagine this situation, with one archer per target: beneath each target there is an electronic scoreboard that displayes the arrow value for, say, 15 seconds after impact. At the conclusion of the end the end score is displayed until the arrows are pulled, then the cumulative score is displayed, and once all cumulative scores are displayed, the relative placing is also shown. These scores remain displayed until the archers return to the line. At that point the scoreboard goes blank to minimize distraction.

Spectators, and any archers who wish to know competitors scores, are kept updated as the round progresses. A separate leader-board (out of the line-of-sight on the shooting line) keeps the spectators informed while archers are actually shooting.

To be sure, I'm not sure how this coud be handled when there are multiple archers per target, but there are always obstacles and issues to overcome when sorting out something new.

When we get to the OR, I like John's format: top 32 reduced to 16, then 8, etc. In our discussion this afternoon I mentioned Bob's concern about having to break ties to settle on the top 32 and so on. That is a concern well-worth taking into account. The reply was straightforward: why not do what golf does ... the cut is typically the top 72 plus ties. Why not let the ties at the "cut" score keep shooting? We might end up with an additional round or two once the field is down to 8 or 4, but so what?

I can imagine an OR with automatic scoring that keeps the spectators in the loop in real-time. I have to admit the watching archery can be a lot like watching paint dry, expecially for the non-archer. And sometimes when it's over, you still don't know if paint IS dry. With the scoring system that I described, I would expect the interest to remain keen. A spectator can watch his or her favorite archer or archers, or take in the entire competition by keeping up with the overall field. Watching lead changes, dropped arrows, consecutive 10's, total scores, record score pace, or personal bests, or all of those would be much more interesting than what we have now.

Even the set system would benefit from immediate feedback, much like a tennis match. Yes, a tennis match might take hours, and there can be lots of exciting rallies that raise the interest until the point is won. And a point is seldom won on a single shot (an ace) That is interesting once in a while, for no other reason that it is a relative rarity, and we ooh and aah at the player who can do that. Nonetheless, a tennis match can be lost by the player scoring the most points.

I'm not defending the set system. I think it too short. (That's why I like John's suggestion better.) A tennis match (male, anyway) typically goes at least three sets. Even if it is won 6-0, 6-0, and 6-0, there were at least 72 points played. Twelve arrows or even eighteen is still too short in my mind.

My two cents ... thanks to all for a great discussion here.

Ray


----------



## Aragorn (Oct 27, 2005)

I am in favour of Set System, being the living proof that the "old" system makes luck win!
I won one tournament putting behind me 2 World Champions and one European Champion... The 3 of them did a whole lot of points more than me in the qualification rounds...
While I was in the National Team, during the training camps, it happened lots of times that I could win against archers that were a lor better than me in qualification (1340+ against 1270+), and also in other real tournaments where I was still on podium defeating archers whose qualification was better than mine.
Let's talk about set system now...
In the 6 arrow sets, the winner has to win 2 sets to go on...
If the "lowest ranked" looses the 1st set 60-0, than the highest ranked needs only 1 more victory in the 2 remaining sets... that is he need to shoot better than his opponent for 1 set out of 2: if he doesn't, it's not a matter of luck of the opponent, but of unluck of the supposed-to-win-archer! And in this case, the opponent did demonstrate he shoots better for 1 set and at least was equal level in the second as the higher ranked! He sort of deserves the right to go on 
But turn it into the opposite...
The highest ranked archer makes a mistake and the firs set is won by the lowest ranked... the situation doesn't change for him: he still has 2 sets to win! In the old system, it was almost impossible for him to recover (this is basically how I won those tournaments against people touher than me).

Talking about the "running" of the competition, my personal opinion is that the "elimination rounds" should go on with the old system up to the point when the OC decided to start with single matches, if possible with alternate shooting.
As a spotter on the field, I really had the impression that the set system was more "he still has a chance" untill the end of the game... making watchers more participating in the match than before.
On the other end, the set system during the elimination made very hard to understand what was going on, mainly because archers forgot to update their flipcards on the final set...
The scoring needs to be adjusted... it has been said it is like tennis, but tennis is made out of games AND sets, not just sets! I think the best would be coupling the info of the set points with the actual score of the set... or simply drop the set points and do like tennis...
So it was, for Bronze Compound Male
Willet-Hernandez: 30-25; 30-27; 30-28
that everybody can understand and gives a hint on the strength of the competition instead of:
Willet-Hernandez: 6-0

Obviously, flipboards need to be upgraded, maybe putting them on the 20m line instead of 70m line


----------



## Aragorn (Oct 27, 2005)

About how to display and do automatic scoring...
A "grid" on each target is almost impossible to achieve (should be exactly centered on the paper target, with all the tollerances and so on...), but if each target has a spotter than this is feasible. You'll need tons of expensive equipment though: electronic displays (could be old monitors though...) a video distribution system and so on...
In Las Vegas there were monitors all over the biggest Hall that were displaying live results while archers were coming back from the target. In Arizona the scoring system was the same (ianseo, freely available from www.ianseo.net), but sadly there was no videos available.
As usual, it is only a matter of budget: a system like bowling can be done: a TV camera per target on the archers, a camera per target above the target, a video system per target, a monitor for each target... so every target has its own output and the ranking after each arrow shot (obviously recalculated after each other archer shoots is arrow...)... all this is feasable... but a dream :d


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

I organised a tournament yesterday with new set system. All went smooth, and I have no doubt that it was the best archer that day who was on the top, even though in finals they had to shoot 1 arrow shootoff.

Takes a bit more time to organize finals, but otherwise I think everyone waved quite happily goodbye to the old system.


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

Well, I have been kind of glossing over this thread the past few days, but, I have something to share along these lines.

Yesterday in our JOAD classes we tried the hit/miss set system matches. There were about 5 kids there (the rest were at multiple tournaments) that did a round-robin style event. We started out on the scaled down hit/miss targets Beastmaster made (we were shooting 18m). Some of the younger kids were having trouble hitting it, so we later went to a Vegas face. The older compound shooters (myself and another guy) had to shoot the outer 10 for a hit, and the younger kids had to hit the yellow. 

Honestly, I am not a fan of it. There was one shoot off with a recurve shooter against her younger cousin who shoots compound. The recurve archer is by far a better shot, with the younger one much more inconsistent. However, they were tied up until the last set. The compound shooter hit the yellow just as many times, but the shots that were not in were WAY out (they would count for misses with regular scoring). Despite all her erratic shots, she managed to tie the more adept archer. I don't see how this proves who is the better shot. I thought that the point of these shoot offs is to show who is better, and this clearly does not do that.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Thanks for posting this. I was wondering how well the hit/miss targets would do in the classes. I was (naturally) with the kids out at the state JOAD championships, which included my own kid, so I had to go... 

Now, I think the example of the recurve shooter and her cousin is an extreme example...pitting a more advanced recurve shooter with an inexperienced compound shooter with average equipment.

However, it does prove an extreme point - someone with some sort of skill set handicap of sorts can hang in the set system.

What I want to do next is to try it out with some of the higher end kids in the competition team. Say, use you and James combined with Spencer and Gabriel.

That would be a good example - pitting two Silver level JOAD Olympians (James and yourself) against yellow/red pin level JOAD shooters. 

-Steve



Sighting In said:


> Well, I have been kind of glossing over this thread the past few days, but, I have something to share along these lines.
> 
> Yesterday in our JOAD classes we tried the hit/miss set system matches. There were about 5 kids there (the rest were at multiple tournaments) that did a round-robin style event. We started out on the scaled down hit/miss targets Beastmaster made (we were shooting 18m). Some of the younger kids were having trouble hitting it, so we later went to a Vegas face. The older compound shooters (myself and another guy) had to shoot the outer 10 for a hit, and the younger kids had to hit the yellow.
> 
> Honestly, I am not a fan of it. There was one shoot off with a recurve shooter against her younger cousin who shoots compound. The recurve archer is by far a better shot, with the younger one much more inconsistent. However, they were tied up until the last set. The compound shooter hit the yellow just as many times, but the shots that were not in were WAY out (they would count for misses with regular scoring). Despite all her erratic shots, she managed to tie the more adept archer. I don't see how this proves who is the better shot. I thought that the point of these shoot offs is to show who is better, and this clearly does not do that.


----------



## Aragorn (Oct 27, 2005)

Well... the Hit Miss system tries to sort out the more precise archer, that is the one that most consistently HITS a definite target. Once you miss it, it has no importance if you miss it by microns or by meters! Think about landing on a carrier: if you miss it you're in deep trouble, no matter if you miss it by 1 meter or if you miss it because you didn't find her!
Think about the inner ten for compounds: one can do 540 putting ALL arrows in the outer 10 but without touching the inner ten, and be ranked behind one that makes 19 eights, because he did 19 10-9-8 and one 10-9-9... (all nines as true nines, obviously... maybe the shaft in the red but touching that yellow circle) who is the more consistent and precise? The one that put 60 arrows in a 5 cm circle or the one that put only 19 arrows in a 3cm circle and 41 out of a 8 cm circle?


----------



## andy1996 (Feb 15, 2004)

Scott.Barrett said:


> So here is my understanding of what I've read so far....
> 
> In my first set, I shoot 5 10's in a row and then have a bad shot and hit a 6 for a total of 56. My opponent shoots a 57 and gets the two points.
> 
> ...


If you want to see a really good example imagine if I shoot 6 arrows in the dirt and my opponent shoots a 60--he would only be up 2-0 on me! Archery is a precision game and if you shoot a 0 it should be game over --but not anymore! You get a 2nd chance in set play.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

andy1996 said:


> If you want to see a really good example imagine if I shoot 6 arrows in the dirt and my opponent shoots a 60--he would only be up 2-0 on me! Archery is a precision game and if you shoot a 0 it should be game over --but not anymore! You get a 2nd chance in set play.


As a counterpoint - if you shot 6 arrows in the dirt, and you were down 2-zip, the odds of you coming back are drastically against you anyways. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Scott.Barrett said:


> So here is my understanding of what I've read so far....
> 
> In my first set, I shoot 5 10's in a row and then have a bad shot and hit a 6 for a total of 56. My opponent shoots a 57 and gets the two points.
> 
> ...


IMO...that sucks! The only way that would become even slightly appealing to me is if they increased the number of arrows per set.

Ray :wink:


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Yes, I agree that this does seem like a problem.
> 
> However, is this any different than a competitor shooting a good score and losing a match, even though many poorer scores advanced? I see this ALL the time and have never agreed with it.
> 
> ...


Broadly I like this idea but it doesn't solve the basic problem - the head to head approach. You inevitably skew results with this approach. All proposed solutions, including yours, are attempts to patch over the inequities of the head to head. So elimination rounds down to the last 8 or 4 (and because you don't waste so much time with the individual match approach you can increase the number of arrows in the initial eliminations. The last 8/4 then shoot simultaneously for the medals with sufficient arrows so that an archer can recover from the "bad arrow". Fairer competition and better for spectators - like watching the triple bogey golfer coming back to win, if they are good enough.

Take Sidney: medals Gold:Fairweather, Silver: Wunderle, Bronze: Van Alten.
On performance Van Alten (IMO) deserved the silver but he never even had a chance to compete for it.

Set system is an attempt to supply a "fix" to a badly structured competition - No way unfortunately to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.


----------



## Aragorn (Oct 27, 2005)

Scott, I agree the old rules were more for "lucky" people than these ones. In your example, though, why should your opponent shoot 57 2 times and only 52 in one end?
How many real examples of shooting bad arrows on both sides by mistake do we have? This is no luck anymore, but unluck!
What if you were the one shooting 57 in the first place and your opponent shooting a 56 and in the second end you shoot a 56 against a 60...
You are now tie... what will you do: shoot 6 arrows in the dirt because you don't like the new rules? Try to catch the match shooting a 60? When you're on the shooting line, you are the one to decide: it's up to you!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

In looking at the set system, I think a mindset change is in order. 

Instead of looking at things as a complete match, archers need to look at things on a set by set basis. 

I'll use baseball as an example and a mythical World Series matchup between the Seattle Otters and the New England Whales. 

Game 1 - Seattle wins 8-0
Game 2 - Seattle wins 4-0
Game 3 - New England wins 1-0
Game 4 - New England wins 4-3
Game 5 - Seattle wins 15-8
Game 6 - New England wins 3-1
Game 7 - New England wins 1-0 in extra innings. 

Seattle outscores New England 31 to 9 over a 7 game series. Who's the better team? The team who won more games, regardless of runs scored. New England won more games. 

The same thing can be said for the set system in archery. Each set is a game unto itself. Win more games, win the match and you advance. Win more games than all of your opponents and you get the shelf hardware to show off. 

Does it buck tradition? Sure. But I'm sure basketball purists got ticked when the dribble was allowed, or football purists got angry when the forward pass was allowed. And let's not forget the tracker/tracer puck in hockey so that lazy people could track the puck. 

Frankly, the goal is still the same - get the stick in the middle of the target, and do so more times and better than your opponent. The scoring is slightly different. 

I will also use a slightly divergent but similarly applicable anecdote. If you have the will to win, you'll win it. Adapt, and overcome. Adapt and win. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

Beastmaster said:


> In looking at the set system, I think a mindset change is in order.
> 
> If you have the will to win, you'll win it. Adapt, and overcome. Adapt and win.
> 
> ...



Gee, now why does that sound familiar ?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Shinigami3 said:


> Gee, now why does that sound familiar ?


Frankly, you and everyone else (including myself) knows deep down that a winner will do what it takes to get atop the podium.

I fully believe that it's the change in the system that is the greatest issue. When people get put outside their comfort zone, many will complain. Some will excel. Few will win.

-Steve


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> In looking at the set system, I think a mindset change is in order.
> 
> Instead of looking at things as a complete match, archers need to look at things on a set by set basis.
> 
> ...


again, I point out that you have just outlined between 25 to 30 hours of game play. How does that compare to a match play archery round?


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

Huntmaster, 

I just hope for the sake of the extremely shallow talent pool among US women recurves that your negative attitude about this isn't affecting your kid, too. She's one of the few who has talent.

We get it, you don't like the change. Maybe you should try to get over it. Because it isn't going away soon.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Just to throw in a curve ball here - it doesn't matter much whether archders like the new system or not, it's what we are going to have to contend with.

FITA introduced this firstly, to differentiate compound from recurve (there are surely better ways of doing this) and secondly and probably most importantly, to make it easier for spectators to understand what was going on and thereby increase the size of the viewing audience.

The real questions, therefore, ought to be *"How well is this format going to be received by the ordinary public and will it increase the spectator pool?" *

In its present form, and this is purely a personal opinion, I think it will bomb out badly, and if it does, what next will FITA do???


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Sorry, but what's between my daughter and I is private. nuf said.

I've stated my arguements to include a quote from FITA clearly stating this was not becasue of finding a better archer, but strictly for the specators view(which it fails in my oppinion). That's an insult to me and every archer. It's the game that has been delt the archery community, so the game goes on. If everyone just follows along like good little sheep, then the game will stay the same till someone decides to change it again. I personally don't take life that way. 

anywho, I'm done on this thread.


----------



## bow slayer (Apr 2, 2007)

personally, I'm not a huge fan of the new system. I think the idea of a hit/miss is decent, but my 2 biggest concerns are:
1. Why is it so much more difficult to explain and understand than the regular O.R when the very purpose of the set system was to make archery more spectator friendly and easier to understand? I honestly am not sure how they could really make it much easier to understand, but I do know that the set system is a step in the wrong direction if its comprehendibility they want.
and 2. why is it at 50 meters? when this new system was first announced, I remember quite clearly reading on the FITA webpage about how it was the goal of fita for the new matchplay to show the 'precision and downright accuracy of the compound' as opposed to the traditional style of a recurve. So, any educated person would probably wonder, "if the compound is so accurate in comparison to the recurve, why do the recurves shoot 20 meters further?" To me, it would have made infinitely more sense to do regular 12 arrow matchplay at 90m or even go with the Hit/Miss set system at 90m on a target the size of the '10' ring on the 122 face for Sr. and Jr. compound shooters and 70 or even 80m for cadet shooters. recurve would stay as is. 

as many of the world's top archers (that i've spoken with anyway) hate the system, I would not be surprised if this system only lasted a few years, but for now, all of us compound shooters should get out there and practice at 50 meters. :wink:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Shinigami3 said:


> Huntmaster,
> 
> I just hope for the sake of the extremely shallow talent pool among US women recurves that your negative attitude about this isn't affecting your kid, too. She's one of the few who has talent.
> 
> We get it, you don't like the change. Maybe you should try to get over it. Because it isn't going away soon.


maybe you ought to post who you are so the rest of us know if you have any clue what you are talking about. :thumbs_do


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

I think that the general principle that a positive attitude matters in sport needs no credentials to substantiate, especially for someone professing to be a coach.

I am sure more than a few coaches know what I'm on about with this and I will thank you to stay on the message.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Shinigami3 said:


> I think that the general principle that a positive attitude matters in sport needs no credentials to substantiate, especially for someone professing to be a coach.
> 
> I am sure more than a few coaches know what I'm on about with this and I will thank you to stay on the message.


LOL, you are a troll hiding behind a blank profile who calls himself an archery maven and doesn't have the guts to reveal himself. You insulted John Magera in the past, you insult Scott and you have the nerve to spew this crap?


----------



## kid386 (Mar 3, 2009)

the set system is definitely interesting, I've shot it at Easton Cup and West Region and it definitely gives the little guy a chance. I just hope that the rules were better known to everyone especially since I've personally been screwed over by the set system since no one knew the shoot off rules and i have a friend who was screwed over too since again the rules were not well known to everyone on the field.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

bow slayer said:


> personally, I'm not a huge fan of the new system. I think the idea of a hit/miss is decent, but my 2 biggest concerns are:
> 1. Why is it so much more difficult to explain and understand than the regular O.R when the very purpose of the set system was to make archery more spectator friendly and easier to understand? I honestly am not sure how they could really make it much easier to understand, but I do know that the set system is a step in the wrong direction if its comprehendibility they want.
> and 2. why is it at 50 meters? when this new system was first announced, I remember quite clearly reading on the FITA webpage about how it was the goal of fita for the new matchplay to show the 'precision and downright accuracy of the compound' as opposed to the traditional style of a recurve. So, any educated person would probably wonder, "if the compound is so accurate in comparison to the recurve, why do the recurves shoot 20 meters further?" To me, it would have made infinitely more sense to do regular 12 arrow matchplay at 90m or even go with the Hit/Miss set system at 90m on a target the size of the '10' ring on the 122 face for Sr. and Jr. compound shooters and 70 or even 80m for cadet shooters. recurve would stay as is.
> 
> as many of the world's top archers (that i've spoken with anyway) hate the system, I would not be surprised if this system only lasted a few years, but for now, all of us compound shooters should get out there and practice at 50 meters. :wink:


Why is it at 50 meters? I don't know and I can't explain why.

However, doing some quickie Excel stuff renders an interesting correlation.

We know that the 50m hit/miss "hit" section is 10cm in diameter. That equates to:

- 2cm at 10 meters. This is exactly the same size as an inner 10 ring on a 40cm face.

- 3.6cm at 18 meters. This is slightly smaller than the outer 10 ring for a 40cm target face. Per FITA 8.2.1.3, the 40cm outer 10 is supposed to be 4cm +/- 1mm

- 12cm at 60 meters. This is slightly smaller than the outer 10 ring for a 122cm target face at 60 meters, which is 12.2cm +/- 1mm per FITA 7.2.1.3

And, when you do the proportional sizing, you get this at 70 meters: 14cm at 70 meters. This makes the 50m hit/miss yellow zone actually bigger (in proportion) than the outer 10 ring of a 122cm target at the same distance of 70 meters. 

If you look at proportional sizing and equate it to existing target faces currently used now, this makes things as clear as mud. 

Anyhow, I'm just giving everyone more stuff to ponder. And, if you really want to practice this, go do this at 10 meters with a 2cm yellow dot. You'll have far more fun and you can do this in your front or back yard, and I know you can cram 3 Easton 3-49 A/C/C's into that space. 

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Briefly hijacking my own thread here, I'm going to diverge away for a few minor things.

1) Shinigami's been to the 2010 Arizona Cup. I don't know if it was as an archer, support staff to an archer or archery team, or as a parent.

2) The nickname may very well be an alter. Little hints here and there show that Shinigami's been around various archers enough to know their performance.

3) I realize that some people don't want to reveal who they are. In order to provide some level of credibility, it would be best to know who's posting. It's not necessary, but it's nice to have that credibility to show.

Anyhow, back to the normal topic....which is on the next post.

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Whereas I've actually tried the 2cm yellow dot, it's an exercise that is rather hard on components and the target bale.

So, I'm still pretty much sticking with the 18m scaled version for most of my practice with this target.

I realize that a) I have free access to 50m distances and beyond and b) I can get the target rather cheap via the shop I work for, a scaled target is far nicer when you can do practice either indoors in a more relaxed setting and as the heat of the summer increases, it's in an air conditioned place.

With that being said, here's a copy of the PDF file for the 18 meter scaled version of the 50 meter hit/miss target.

Before anyone starts cramming this part down my throat - yes, I know the blue is the wrong shade. For whatever reason, Paint Shop Pro X2 doesn't like reproducing the Pantone blue shade that FITA specifies. I don't know why.

If anyone wants the original JPEG that I created to create this PDF file, please email me on the address listed in the PDF file's annotation on the lower right of the page.

I have been able to successfully cram in 6 A/C/C 3-49's into the yellow with minimal to no damage to arrow components. Please use small diameter arrows. My 3-49's are 9/32nds in diameter. Anything smaller will work as well.

Regards,
Steve


----------



## leon22200 (Jun 20, 2007)

Beastmaster said:


> Why is it at 50 meters? I don't know and I can't explain why.
> 
> However, doing some quickie Excel stuff renders an interesting correlation.
> 
> ...


Well: a main purpose of the 50m is that being closer, it is more interesting for spectators and media. 

The fact of sizes: yes the 10cm are - at the moment - slightly bigger than the 70m 10,... but any arrow out of the 10cm dot is counting as 0.

I have a bet running with Reo: he told me that he will not miss one arrow in the season during tournaments. Look forward to it ;-)
The point is: a Hit is that what spectators and TV want to see, and also the archers. The Miss will be the exception. If the exception occurs, we have a looser ;-)


----------



## JovenPadaguan (Dec 6, 2004)

As I posted one year and ago here ( http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=775975 ), I think the set system is good for good archers, and I don't understand why a lot of them complain so much about it, because I've read several times their complaints telling that with the old system they can't shoot a bad arrow because an inferior shooter can win them, but now, if it happens, they are going to loose only one set, not the whole match!

But, of course, it's not perfect, because in the set system, if somebody shoots a miss, he could still win the match! And, other negative point is that you spend much more time and there are more waiting times in the new system.

We'll see how it's al about in the coming years...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Andreas, you know my opinion, the hit/miss target is like shooting to balloons.. Boys like when they explode... but if no one hits them, after a while the game becomes boring, and also if someone hits them too fast, the game is no more interesting. 
Hit and miss targets practical effect on public is strictly related to the quality of the archers shooting to them. If size and level of archers are well matched, then it is spectacular, but if the matching is less then perfect, becomes ridiculous. 
At world University Championship were the Hit and Miss 24 cm target is used at 70 mt in the team round, Korean archers are having hits only while opponents generally have misses only, and the final results is, as told, ridiculous. No one that has participated to that game has told good words about it... at all.
At world cup finals level, I bet the situation wil be close to what Reo is expecting, so people watching something like hit/hit hit/hit hit/hit hit/hit hit/hit hit/hit and so on until you get to a too long expected miss from someone that will decide the match or, worse, you wil get to measure arrow closest to the center in a shoot off. 
At lower level situation will be a little more cahotic as of the set system, with toatlly unpredictable results. 

You know, I suggested to use my "cockerel" triple faces instead, to cope with different archer's levels competing each other, but you don't like them :wink:


----------



## leon22200 (Jun 20, 2007)

Vittorio, you are right.. the right sizes for the different levels must be found.

You are not right on the shoot-off rule... nobody will measure closest arrows... at the end, if it is still a draw situation, the higher ranked archer in the qualifier will win (Copound Match Round). This helps also to redefine the value of the qualification round! I expect lot's of draw situation... so we will have archers trying to place as much in front as possible!


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

leon22200 said:


> Vittorio, you are right.. the right sizes for the different levels must be found.
> 
> You are not right on the shoot-off rule... nobody will measure closest arrows... at the end, if it is still a draw situation, the higher ranked archer in the qualifier will win (Copound Match Round). This helps also to redefine the value of the qualification round! I expect lot's of draw situation... so we will have archers trying to place as much in front as possible!


Ok, I admit I missed this point, no shoot off in case of a tie? Then how do you solve the ties in match AND qualification? In my evaluation you will have at world championship up to 5 or 6 archers with the same exact score for each point of ranking... What if the have a match toghether and have a tie? How you can avoid tie break shots in this case?


----------



## leon22200 (Jun 20, 2007)

There is a shoot off, but the final arrow of it won't be measured... the highest ranked archer - in case of a final tie - will win the match, not the closest to the center!! 
So if the 8th of the qualification and the 1st meet in the 1/4 final, and they are tied till the last arrow and than in the shoot off, the 1st will win the match.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

leon22200 said:


> There is a shoot off, but the final arrow of it won't be measured... the highest ranked archer - in case of a final tie - will win the match, not the closest to the center!!
> So if the 8th of the qualification and the 1st meet in the 1/4 final, and they are tied till the last arrow and than in the shoot off, the 1st will win the match.


It does not work if the two archers are ranked in the qualification round with the same score, and only got a different position in the grid by a draw... Should that mean that you give a win in a match or even the Gold Medal based on a draw in the qualification round? 
Suppose the top 4 are all at 710 in qualification and ranked 1 to 4 by a draw... and they will meet again in the medal finals... How do you solve the tie breaks then?


----------



## leon22200 (Jun 20, 2007)

Xes and 10s.
Everything is better than to measure the distance to the center on one arrow! This is my opinion. I would love to have the same rule for Recurve as well!


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

leon22200 said:


> Xes and 10s.
> Everything is better than to measure the distance to the center on one arrow! This is my opinion. I would love to have the same rule for Recurve as well!


You can not exclude that two compound archers competing in a match might be having same score and number of 10 and X in qualify. Then ? 

I agree that measuring the distance of the arrow from center is an unfair method, considering that not all arrows can grant the same impact point even if shot perfectly (and even more unfair in indoor when comparing arows of different size). But the entire new set system is based on this, and in any case you should have a way to solve the ties...


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*Measure to the center*

I may be wrong, but the suspense and tension while they measure the last arrow would be exciting. Everyone would be waiting for the judges to measure. George would be working on building up the tension and the outcome with his commentary and then finally the ultimate measurement decision where the judge points to one target or the other. Maybe even an announcement as to the distance from the arrow to the center for both archers to show how little difference there was. Instead of one being just closer than the other, "How much closer"? Can you hear GT on the microphone? "Dave Cousins 3 centimeters from the Center and Pat Coughlan 3.5 cemtimeters from the center! Dave wins by 1/2 a Centimeter!!!!! Crowd would be saying how close it was. Geez! Half a Centimeter and Pat would have won! How close can you get!!!!!

I'm in agreement with Vittorio. I have to believe that measuring is the best way. Besides, whats a little more time for TV. At least with the old system you could figure on about 12 or 13 minutes for a match. With sets it could be 9 to 18 or minutes. If you are trying to plan for commercial breaks in your live TV I would assume it would be near impossible to figure out. I am certainly no TV expert but my common sense tells me it would probably be a lot more difficult for TV people. I have to assume that FITA has this all worked out with live TV already so I am probably all wet with my theory.


----------



## Aragorn (Oct 27, 2005)

Vittorio said:


> It does not work if the two archers are ranked in the qualification round with the same score, and only got a different position in the grid by a draw... Should that mean that you give a win in a match or even the Gold Medal based on a draw in the qualification round?


YES! This is exactly what the rule means, but after 3 shootoffs.



Fita Rule Book 2 said:


> 7.6.5.2.4 For the Compound Match Round
> · A single arrow (for teams 1 per team member) shoot-off for score (maximum of 3 shoot-offs);
> · If still tied after 3 shoot-offs the highest ranked athlete (team) wins.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Sorry, but the rules talk about highest ranked. The archers are ranked by a draw to make the grid, but in the qualification round they retain the SAME position, so there is no "highest ranked" archer in this situation. 

*FITA 7.6.5.1
For ties occouring in all rounds, except for those ties as set down below (article 7.6.5.2):
- Individual and teams
--- Greatest number of 10's (including inner 10's)
--- Gretest number of X's (inner 10's)
After this, archers still tied wil be declared equal; but for the position in the match play chart a coin toss will decide the position of those declared equal.*

By the way, is out of any sport concept to assign medals or a match by a coin toss. Even soccer has no more such a crazy rule, and I think none in FITA ever had the intention to see a World Champion title assigned by a coin toss casully done one or two days BEFORE the match. 

Suggest to Andreas to rise the case to the FITA C&R committee, as clearly this point is important and still open in the new FITA book. By the way, the Hit and Miss Compound Match is at experimental stage and everything has to be still finalized. But, really I think that at the end that face will need a small cross printed in the middle...


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Vittorio said:


> By the way, the Hit and Miss Compound Match is at experimental stage and everything has to be still finalized. But, really I think that at the end that face will need a small cross printed in the middle...


The final hit/miss target does have a cross in the middle. I do admit that my 18m indoor variant in the PDF file has it so small it's nonexistent when it got shrunk down. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Well, one more try with the new set system, and I'm still to the oppinion that it has failed to do what it was intended to do. I see there were again a few upsets, but we have no idea how they played out, other than who won.

I again found myself sitting on the sidelines wondering how everyone right in front of me was doing. The binocs had been packed up, so I was left watching from under the canopies, and I couldn't tell a thing. My biggest hint was when the archers were standing in front of the targets doing more paperwork than should be that someone must have wrapped the shoot up. And as before, now that the results are posted I still have no idea of what transpired during the matches. I guess the specators just don't need to know.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Huntmaster said:


> Well, one more try with the new set system, and I'm still to the oppinion that it has failed to do what it was intended to do. I see there were again a few upsets, but we have no idea how they played out, other than who won.
> 
> I again found myself sitting on the sidelines wondering how everyone right in front of me was doing. The binocs had been packed up, so I was left watching from under the canopies, and I couldn't tell a thing. My biggest hint was when the archers were standing in front of the targets doing more paperwork than should be that someone must have wrapped the shoot up. And as before, now that the results are posted I still have no idea of what transpired during the matches. I guess the specators just don't need to know.


So I understand where you're coming from, I will use a baseball reference with regards to scoring.

In baseball, you get two scores. One's a Line Score, which is depicted this way:

Game 1

Saturday, October 27, 2001 at Bank One Ballpark in Phoenix, Arizona
Team 1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	R	H	E
New York	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	3	2
Arizona	1	0	4	4	0	0	0	0	X	9	10	0


WP: Curt Schilling (1–0) LP: Mike Mussina (0–1) 
HRs: ARI – Craig Counsell (1), Luis Gonzalez (1)

You get an inning by inning rundown of what went on, but no detail.

The next part is a box score plus a inning summary. 

Arizona Diamondbacks 9, New York Yankees 1
Day
World Series Game 1 Played on Saturday, October 27, 2001 (N) at Bank One Ballpark
NY A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 1 3 2
ARI N 1 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 x - 9 10 0
BATTING
New York Yankees AB R H RBI BB SO PO A
Knoblauch lf 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stanton p 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Jeter ss 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Justice rf,lf 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
Spencer ph 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Williams cf 4 0 1 1 0 2 2 0
Martinez 1b 3 0 0 0 1 0 7 2
Posada c 3 0 1 0 1 1 11 1
Soriano 2b 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Brosius 3b 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
Mussina p 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Choate p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Wilson ph 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hitchcock p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O'Neill ph,rf 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 30 1 3 1 2 9 24 8
FIELDING - 
E: Justice (1), Brosius (1).
BATTING - 
2B: Williams (1,off Schilling); Brosius (1,off Schilling).
HBP: Jeter (1,by Schilling).
Team LOB: 5.
Arizona Diamondbacks AB R H RBI BB SO PO A
Womack ss 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 4
Counsell 2b 4 1 1 1 0 2 2 2
Gonzalez lf 5 2 2 2 0 2 1 0
Sanders rf 3 2 2 0 1 0 0 0
Finley cf 4 2 1 1 0 1 6 0
Williams 3b 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
Grace 1b 3 0 1 2 1 0 8 0
Miller c 4 0 2 1 0 1 9 0
Schilling p 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Bell ph 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Morgan p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Swindell p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 34 9 10 8 2 11 27 6
BATTING - 
2B: Miller (1,off Mussina); Gonzalez (1,off Choate); Grace (1,off Choate).
HR: Counsell (1,1st inning off Mussina 0 on 1 out); Gonzalez (1,3rd inning
off Mussina 1 on 1 out).
SH: Counsell (1,off Mussina).
SF: Williams (1,off Mussina).
HBP: Womack (1,by Mussina).
IBB: Grace (1,by Mussina); Sanders (1,by Choate).
Team LOB: 6.
PITCHING
New York Yankees IP H R ER BB SO HR BFP
Mussina L(0-1) 3 6 5 3 1 4 2 18
Choate 1 3 4 1 1 1 0 8
Hitchcock 3 1  0 0 0 6 0 10
Stanton 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Totals 8 10 9 4 2 11 2 39
HBP: Mussina (1,Womack).
IBB: Mussina (1,Grace); Choate (1,Sanders).
Arizona Diamondbacks IP H R ER BB SO HR BFP
Schilling W(1-0) 7 3 1 1 1 8 0 26
Morgan 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Swindell 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 4
Totals 9 3 1 1 2 9 0 33
HBP: Schilling (1,Jeter).
Umpires: HP - Steve Rippley, 1B - Mark Hirschbeck, 2B - Dale Scott, 3B - Ed Rapuano, 
LF - Jim Joyce, RF - Dana DeMuth
Time of Game: 2:44 Attendance: 49646
Starting Lineups:

New York Yankees Arizona Diamondbacks 
1. Knoblauch lf Womack ss
2. Jeter ss Counsell 2b
3. Justice rf Gonzalez lf
4. Williams cf Sanders rf
5. Martinez 1b Finley cf
6. Posada c Williams 3b
7. Soriano 2b Grace 1b
8. Brosius 3b Miller c
9. Mussina p Schilling p

YANKEES 1ST: World Series Game 1; Knoblauch popped to
second; Jeter was hit by a pitch; Justice struck out; Williams
doubled to left [Jeter scored]; Martinez grounded out (shortstop
to first); 1 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 0.

DIAMONDBACKS 1ST: Womack struck out (catcher to first); Counsell
homered; Gonzalez struck out; Sanders singled; Finley grounded
out (first unassisted); 1 R, 2 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Yankees 1,
Diamondbacks 1.

YANKEES 2ND: Posada struck out; Soriano flied to center; Brosius
doubled to center; Mussina struck out; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. 
Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 1.

DIAMONDBACKS 2ND: Williams struck out; Grace lined to second;
Miller singled to left; Schilling struck out; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1
LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 1.

YANKEES 3RD: Knoblauch popped to first in foul territory; Jeter
grounded out (shortstop to first); Justice was called out on
strikes; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 1.

DIAMONDBACKS 3RD: Womack was hit by a pitch; Counsell out on a
sacrifice bunt (first to pitcher) [Womack to second]; Gonzalez
homered [Womack scored]; Sanders singled to center; Finley
reached on an error by Justice [Sanders to third, Finley to
second]; Williams hit a sacrifice fly to center [Sanders scored
(unearned), Finley to third]; Grace was walked intentionally;
Miller doubled to left [Finley scored (unearned), Grace to
third]; Schilling grounded out (shortstop to first); 4 R (2 ER),
3 H, 1 E, 2 LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 5.

YANKEES 4TH: Williams was called out on strikes; Martinez flied
to left; Posada singled to center; Soriano struck out; 0 R, 1 H,
0 E, 1 LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 5.

DIAMONDBACKS 4TH: CHOATE REPLACED MUSSINA (PITCHING); On a bunt
Womack popped to catcher in foul territory; Counsell struck out;
Gonzalez doubled to left; Sanders was walked intentionally;
Finley singled to right [Gonzalez scored, Sanders to third];
Williams reached on an error by Brosius [Sanders scored
(unearned), Finley to third, Williams to second]; Grace doubled
to center [Finley scored (unearned), Williams scored
(unearned)]; off the base of the wall; Miller grounded
out (pitcher to first); 4 R (1 ER), 3 H, 1 E, 1 LOB. Yankees 1,
Diamondbacks 9.

YANKEES 5TH: Brosius flied to center; WILSON BATTED FOR CHOATE;
Wilson grounded out (second to first); great diving stop by
Counsell; Knoblauch grounded out (shortstop to first); 0 R,
0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 9.

DIAMONDBACKS 5TH: HITCHCOCK REPLACED WILSON (PITCHING);
Schilling struck out; Womack grounded out (third to first);
barehanded grab by Brosius; Counsell struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0
E, 0 LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 9.

YANKEES 6TH: Jeter grounded out (first unassisted); broken
bat; Justice struck out; Williams grounded out (second to
first); 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 9.

DIAMONDBACKS 6TH: Gonzalez struck out; Sanders grounded out
(shortstop to first); Finley struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. 
Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 9.

YANKEES 7TH: Martinez flied to center; Posada walked; Soriano
flied to center; Brosius struck out; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. 
Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 9.

DIAMONDBACKS 7TH: Williams singled to center; Grace lined to
right; Miller struck out; BELL BATTED FOR SCHILLING; Bell was
called out on strikes; 0 R, 1 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. Yankees 1,
Diamondbacks 9.

YANKEES 8TH: O'NEILL BATTED FOR HITCHCOCK; MORGAN REPLACED BELL
(PITCHING); O'Neill popped to shortstop; Knoblauch grounded out
(shortstop to first); Jeter flied to center; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 0
LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 9.

DIAMONDBACKS 8TH: JUSTICE CHANGED POSITIONS (PLAYING LF);
O'NEILL STAYED IN GAME (PLAYING RF); STANTON REPLACED KNOBLAUCH
(PITCHING); Womack flied to center; Counsell grounded out
(second to first); Gonzalez grounded out (first to pitcher); 0
R, 0 H, 0 E, 0 LOB. Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 9.

YANKEES 9TH: SWINDELL REPLACED MORGAN (PITCHING); SPENCER BATTED
FOR JUSTICE; Spencer popped to second; Williams struck out;
Martinez walked; Posada flied to center; 0 R, 0 H, 0 E, 1 LOB. 
Yankees 1, Diamondbacks 9.

Final Totals R H E LOB
Yankees 1 3 2 5
Diamondbacks 9 10 0 6

I'm gathering that you want a Box Score plus summary equivalent for the set system.

-Steve


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Got to shoot the OR round at Texas and it was fun....got knocked out by Ben Cleland in the first round, but in the tremendous winds of Texas, he shot a 118 to my 111. Saw a lot of great matches and it was enjoyable. The Easton electronic scoring system was very nice as well.

The only issue I see with this system is the Per Arrow Average system. In bad conditions, the longer you go in the matches, the worse your average can get. After only 12 arrows and a first round knock out, I have a 9.250. I would be surprised if any of the winners broke 9 at all!

Shouldn't you get some type of bonus points for actually winning?

SB


----------



## Archery Ang (Apr 24, 2006)

I think my main issue with the Set system is that it took FOREVER to finish. By the time the gold medal matches were done, I didn't care who won because I was SO ready to leave. We left before awards. I told my husband, "Let's go. I can read about who won online." 

As an archer, I am a bit undecided on whether it will be better than the original OR system. As a spectator, I do not think it helps with understanding what's going on or makes it more exciting.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

You certainly should get extra credit for wins, but be careful not to confuse what FITA is doing- sets- with what USAA is doing- this arrow average thing has nothing to do with FITA or the new round outside of the rankings in the USA.

The same problem with the USAA rankings was there with the old system too- you could actually drop in ranking while winning in bad weather (like we had in TX at the end of the second distance)


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Archery Ang said:


> I think my main issue with the Set system is that it took FOREVER to finish. By the time the gold medal matches were done, I didn't care who won because I was SO ready to leave. We left before awards. I told my husband, "Let's go. I can read about who won online."
> 
> As an archer, I am a bit undecided on whether it will be better than the original OR system. As a spectator, I do not think it helps with understanding what's going on or makes it more exciting.


I think the conditions contributed to the time issues....I thought it was well run by the TAMU people!

I was out in the 1/32 round, but Diane Watson and I drove from Florida....she won the bronze medal match, so we were there to the end!

Worse part for me was losing 3 EZ-Up Tents this weekend!


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Shinigami3 said:


> You certainly should get extra credit for wins, but be careful not to confuse what FITA is doing- sets- with what USAA is doing- this arrow average thing has nothing to do with FITA or the new round outside of the rankings in the USA.
> 
> The same problem with the USAA rankings was there with the old system too- you could actually drop in ranking while winning in bad weather (like we had in TX at the end of the second distance)


That's true....our rolling ranking systems is going to need a complete overhaul! If it stays the same, I can see people skipping the tournaments that tend to have unfavorable conditions....


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Scott.Barrett said:


> That's true....our rolling ranking systems is going to need a complete overhaul! If it stays the same, I can see people skipping the tournaments that tend to have unfavorable conditions....


The rolling rankings were not helped by this tournament at all. I guess it's fortunate that your rolling rankings were not actually hurt by the shoot, because the best 3 are used out of how ever many you have.......now, if you only had 3, and last year's good finish was replaced by this one, then yes, you get hurt compared to the person who had a "backup" score or two. Miranda wasn't helped by the wind in her rolling rankings. She definitely shot better than her arrow average showed, which would have boosted her RR in better conditions.

As for the tournament, that's probably for a different thread. I just wish they hadn't broken it up so much on Sunday. I think even the crew had a hard time keeping up with who was where and when........and the person who ordered the weather should have to walk the plank


----------



## Archery Ang (Apr 24, 2006)

I agree, the TAMU folks did a wonderful job. Not saying it was their fault it took a long time, just that it took a long time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Archery Ang, not only does it take far too long but I noticed that few of the top archers even bothered to show up and receive their awards Sat. afternoon for the ranking round placements. That's pretty sad when our best archers won't even be bothered to show up for their awards. Maybe those awards could have been held until the final shootoff the next day, I don't know, but it was pretty dissapointing to be sitting there clapping for some of our nation's best archers only to wonder where they were.

These events are pure hell for spectators to attend. Pure hell. My poor wife and kids didn't even try to keep up with what was going on during the day, and they knew many of the archers who were shooting. They just grabbed whatever shade they could and read their books or played on their gameboys. The one event they came to see (team round) was equally dissapointing because they had no way to know who was winning the match. So much for making the drive up to support the team.

Basically, there is nothing exciting to see - for anyone of any age. Anyone who tries to keep up will be terribly dissapointed if they aren't a math major with a $700 spotting scope at their disposal.

I cannot tell you how frustrated I am with the spectator opportunities (or lack thereof) at these events. It's positively miserable and we should serioulsy do something about it. 

This is no comment on the event organizers for any of these events - I've been there and I know what it's like to simply follow the format and provide the correct scorecards, scoreboards, target sizes, distances, etc. Rather mind-numbing for sure. It's the format we use combined with the distances we shoot at that make it almost impossible for the average spectator to know what on earth is going on. At least in golf, a spectator can usually follow the ball and see where it lands. Heck, in that sport, they can sit all around the target (the green) and watch the balls land, then see their favorite golfers try to make the putt. In real time, something they can actually SEE happen. We can't provide any of that, but somehow we should.

Over and over again, I see fewer than two dozen interested spectators on hand to watch the top archers in the U.S. shoot off for the gold medal. Everyone else has lost interest long since, and gone home. If anyone at all is there to watch, they are almost always other archers (who haven't packed up to leave yet), coaches, parents or event staff.

We have to figure out a way to make this more interesting, less time consuming, and easier to follow. Or our favorite sport will continue to go the way of the Dodo.

John.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

Not sure that's any different than with the old system. Only events I thought were "interesting" (for a spectator) were the "World Cup" type ones like Ogden Youth Worlds last year where they had a commentary the whole time. Also music. USAA needs to get a volunteer to do that for these too.


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

I believe someone doing live commentary would be an excellant idea.Especially at the Nationals. The fact that the top archers could not take the time to come and pick up their awards is troubling.I know that it is a long day,,,but those ceremonies are very much a part of the event.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Archery Ang, not only does it take far too long but I noticed that few of the top archers even bothered to show up and receive their awards Sat. afternoon for the ranking round placements. That's pretty sad when our best archers won't even be bothered to show up for their awards. Maybe those awards could have been held until the final shootoff the next day, I don't know, but it was pretty dissapointing to be sitting there clapping for some of our nation's best archers only to wonder where they were.
> 
> These events are pure hell for spectators to attend. Pure hell. My poor wife and kids didn't even try to keep up with what was going on during the day, and they knew many of the archers who were shooting. They just grabbed whatever shade they could and read their books or played on their gameboys. The one event they came to see (team round) was equally dissapointing because they had no way to know who was winning the match. So much for making the drive up to support the team.
> 
> ...



I agree John....

Maybe the 50m shootoff will make it easier for them to see....I wasn't a big fan of the men being on one side and the women on the other....found I had to move back and forth alot to see who was doing what....

Although it wasn't updating as good as Saturday ( probably my fault, I was one of the archers put on a wrong target:embara the online scoring was awesome! No need to see the leader board if you have a smart phone....

I know a lot of people left because of being beaten by the wind and the long walk to the cars...The technical issues caused a lot of people to have to get out quickly to catch planes as well...

Sorry I missed meeting you there! You were shooting right in front of me and I just didn't put the last name together with you....maybe next time!


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Paula said:


> I believe someone doing live commentary would be an excellant idea.Especially at the Nationals. The fact that the top archers could not take the time to come and pick up their awards is troubling.I know that it is a long day,,,but those ceremonies are very much a part of the event.


I'd like to have some commentary being done as well. Other ideas I would have would probably add too much cost to the tournament....

A few people had mentioned to me that they thought the awards for qualifying should have happened first thing Sunday morning when everyone was there, not at the end of a very long day....


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

OK, I'm taking it directly to the NAA then, since I have JOAD here.

Obviously we could request to revert back to the old system, but considering that FITA will still be on the set system, that would probably not be a good idea for the country. My best guess right now is to just try to make the system function.

How do we make the tournaments run smoother, faster, and more watchable? Remember, we need to try to work within the set system until FITA can be convinced to change.

First off, scores have to be visible for the spectators. That will be my first request. How should it be done since it is per end? Remember, economics.

Secondly, if we have to break the shooting up because everyone is on line at the same time, then we need to either run men first, then ladies (like SI cup and several others did in the past), or complete one discipline before starting the other. Also, sort of like this shoot, competitors work down to the first target (in AZ they moved around). That seemed to streamline the archers moving around.

If this thread does not turn into a fixit thread, I'll start a new one specifically for the purpose.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Huntmaster said:


> OK, I'm taking it directly to the NAA then, since I have JOAD here.
> 
> Obviously we could request to revert back to the old system, but considering that FITA will still be on the set system, that would probably not be a good idea for the country. My best guess right now is to just try to make the system function.
> 
> ...


I would like to see the Hit/miss implemented for the sets then. Easier to quickly tell who is moving forward and easier for fans to see what is happening. Some type of automatic scoring/scoreboard would be nice, but we are talking money there....

I would like to see one discipline and then another, just because I am interested in seeing all parts of the sport. Overall, I was happy with how it turned out and how it was organized. Just a few tweaks would really help...like having an equipment shuttle since parking was so far away!


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Scott.Barrett said:


> I would like to see the Hit/miss implemented for the sets then. Easier to quickly tell who is moving forward and easier for fans to see what is happening. Some type of automatic scoring/scoreboard would be nice, but we are talking money there....
> 
> I would like to see one discipline and then another, just because I am interested in seeing all parts of the sport. Overall, I was happy with how it turned out and how it was organized. Just a few tweaks would really help...like having an equipment shuttle since parking was so far away!


The hit / miss won't work here. This is for kids, so we need the whole target for some. As John pointed out, too many balloons popped by the top kids makes a sour day for those not at the top. Besides, we still need spotting scopes to see the action at the other end. Perhaps work the scoring boards a the targets differently?

Electronic scoring is not possible. We're talking about a tournament at the end of June, and with any luck, what works can be brought to US Nationals.

So if the matches can't be run at once, seperate compounds and recurves, not men and women? That's understandable and doable.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Huntmaster said:


> The hit / miss won't work here. This is for kids, so we need the whole target for some. As John pointed out, too many balloons popped by the top kids makes a sour day for those not at the top. Besides, we still need spotting scopes to see the action at the other end. Perhaps work the scoring boards a the targets differently?
> 
> Electronic scoring is not possible. We're talking about a tournament at the end of June, and with any luck, what works can be brought to US Nationals.
> 
> So if the matches can't be run at once, seperate compounds and recurves, not men and women? That's understandable and doable.


I understand....

I thought that the score boards at the targets were nice because you could easily see who was ahead on the target. It was confusing when each person had their own target....too hard to tell who was shooting against who! I think a similar system, perhaps with name cards for who is shooting on a target would be nice. With the name cards, as it whittles down, you can still look and see who is in it....


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

Honestly, run it all together, it saves the organizer time. Once things reach the medal matches, go individual mode. Generally it's done that way at USIAC, with bronze matches first, compound follows recurve, then the gold matches.

For score, just the flip cards. Font 50something would be visible from 70 meters, have the archers do it themselves, and voila. They've done it at outdoor nationals before and worked smoothly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

flip card scoring at the targets or back at the shooting line would REALLY be helpful. we did this in Turkey at the Turkish Grand Prix during the team rounds and it was easy for the spectators to follow along. For the set system, a simple single number slid into a holder at the target would suffice. The number could be changed after each end. You could even mount the holder on the target stand somehow. Maybe at the top corners? That would help immensely.

The hit/miss wouldn't be a problem if you had a white foam target with red balloons fitted inside the holes. You could see that from 100 yards away easily - the archer with the fewest red circles left on their bale would be winning... Simple enough.

As far as running the whole thing at the same time, my proposal to simply cut the qualifying field in half each round until you reach the semi-finals would be really, really easy for the entire crowd to follow and you could run the whole line at the same time without having to keep track of so many individual matches. And can you imagine the suspense while all the archers waited for the qualifying score or "cut line" to be announced? Talk about getting a group reaction! 

I mean really, when there are 16 or (worse) 32 individual head-to-head matches going on, how many does anyone really think a spectator will try to follow? You just can't follow more than one or two at a time. Much better to just shoot the head to head for the quarter or semi-finals on. No more than 8 archers total. Beyond that, it's pointless to try and keep track.

John.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Paula said:


> I believe someone doing live commentary would be an excellant idea.Especially at the Nationals. The fact that the top archers could not take the time to come and pick up their awards is troubling.I know that it is a long day,,,but those ceremonies are very much a part of the event.


Live commentary was done at the Arizona Cup for the medal round sets.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> (snip)
> 
> The hit/miss wouldn't be a problem if you had a white foam target with red balloons fitted inside the holes. You could see that from 100 yards away easily - the archer with the fewest red circles left on their bale would be winning... Simple enough.
> (snip)


John,

Do you envision something like a Whitetail target that's been partially cored out so that it's still able to stop an arrow but allows a balloon to reside in the hole? Or a double Whitetail where one stops it, the other one's a balloon holder?

-Steve


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2010)

choosing a champion by shooting balloons, have we really sunk that low


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Sorry, but this is the wrong direction. I'll do my best to help fix what I am able. Most of it is out of my hands, but I'll try.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

I'm sure FITA has the good sense not to turn this into a carny act with popping balloons. 

Leave the balloons, steel deer, flaming arrows, foam apples and other assorted crap for children and lame TV shows.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> John,
> 
> Do you envision something like a Whitetail target that's been partially cored out so that it's still able to stop an arrow but allows a balloon to reside in the hole? Or a double Whitetail where one stops it, the other one's a balloon holder?
> 
> -Steve


Yes, that's one type of hit/miss shoot off target that I think would actually work. It's what I thought of when trying to come up with a target that would clearly show hits without sacrificing valuable arrows. The targets they use for Ski-archery (disks they knock off of a rail) look like they would tear up a lot of arrows, and if we're going to do this at any distance in the wind, the best archers will still want to use the best arrows.

And thanks for all the sarcastic (and pointless) comments. It seems that some cannot see beyond their own noses. If you had shot as many demonstrations at 70 meters for audiences as I have, you may see the logic here. I believe FITA tried to come up with something similar for a hit/miss target with flexible disks fitted inside foam cores. Why flexible disks are okay, but somehow simple balloons are not, makes no sense. 

Shawn and Shin, I suggest you try to come up with a better solution than spend your time criticizing others. Have either of you ever shot a demo at 70 meters in front of hundreds of people? If you had, you would instantly see just how much sense this makes. Balloons are the only thing I can think of that can be 1) fitted inside a cylinder of a precise dimension, 2) provide clear visual feedback, 3) provide clear audible feedback, 4) leave no doubt as to whether the shot was a hit or a miss (no measuring closest to center here, thank you ...  )and 5) readily available and cheap anywhere in the world
John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Of course, for those of you that are satisfied with the literally dozens of people who show up to watch an event now, by all means feel free to keep doing what you're doing. The spectators think it's just swell... 

John.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I dont recall what the end result of the use of this hit and miss target matt was.
http://www.texasarchery.org/Documents/Werner/hom.htm


----------



## leon22200 (Jun 20, 2007)

It is a fact that without information (scoreboard) the system does not work...
Inexpensive and great solution: 
http://shop.archery.org/en/produit.php?idIndex=2&idContent=43

And for sure a commentary is helpful! I did it last WE at a Hit Miss Compound tournament and the spectators (eliminated archers) had fun! A volunteer will do it easily at a local tournament... there is only one GT out there, but he his over the top ;-)

For a better understanding: maybe it helps to focus on one or two matches, which could be shown with webcams on a livestream, visible on laptops or as app on a phone.... :shade:


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Beiter Hit and Miss targets have been tested for several years now. They are again OK for medium level archers shooting indoor 18 mt, but at top level there is no hope someone will miss them, even the smallest one, with recurve. No way to use them for compound, of course. And, liners are stil possible, with arrow hitting just the side of the yellow plastic and moving it in just a bit without geenrating the expected sound. Mr. Beiter has experimented with larger sizes and longer distancies, too , without finding a proper technical soulution. But the concept of this target was same as Hit Miss plus balloon sound.
Then, in December 2003 in Arthens FITA Council and FITA target Archery Committe ( I was there as FITA TAC at that time) had a demonstration of a similar system at 50 mt. Yellow cylinders suspended on the center at 50 mt, supposed to give a "pop" sound when arrows were hittingt them. I don't remember who was the inventor, but the system/proposal was surely coming from the Netherland like the present one. Unfortunately, local archers used for the testing were of low level, hitting gold at 50 very few times, and the sound from the hit was not loud enough, so the result of the testing was to make FITA Council and TAC to abandon the idea of and miss at all... 
But, time flows, people changes or forgets ...

Yes John, the balloon in the targets are one of the solutions tested in the past and were bringing to a more sophisticated solutions like the Beiter one or the one tested in 2003 at 50 mt, both simply not working as expected. 
Then we are now back to the basics of the beginning, with a paper face and no sound. Story ever repeats.


----------



## leon22200 (Jun 20, 2007)

The Beiter Hit Miss System is still alive :shade:
The BUTC Final is held every year on those targets and people likes it. Probably we will see them around in the near future.
But it is definitely not the target we will see in FITA events.
There are many options to show our results... we will see which will work out better....


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Basically, there is nothing exciting to see - for anyone of any age. Anyone who tries to keep up will be terribly dissapointed if they aren't a math major with a $700 spotting scope at their disposal.


I agree with your sentiments, and think you have lots of good points. I did enjoy using my $120 scope to watch matches I was interested in and had a knot in my chest of excitement as I watched the arrows dump into targets in head-to-head matches. I was engaged till the last arrow.

Of course, I was so keyed up/nervous during the first tournament my daughter and wife both shot in I threw up...so I might be the exception rather than the rule.


-Andrew


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Andrew, we have to remember though that we're experienced tournament spectators with family that is participating in the event. We already have that demographic, no matter what format is used. So long as they show up to shoot, we show up to watch, even if we don't always know the score.

The individual I'd be most concerned about is the spectator that has an interest in the sport, but little experience. Offering them a good show will surely encourage more participation. Right now, they tend to leave bored and confused, trying to think of something more interesting or exciting to do with their time...

John.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> The individual I'd be most concerned about is the spectator that has an interest in the sport, but little experience. Offering them a good show will surely encourage more participation. Right now, they tend to leave bored and confused, trying to think of something more interesting or exciting to do with their time...
> 
> John.


This is a complicated issue, as I expect you agree. I do think balloons could be viable--but anybody who has worked with them can tell you, they do sometimes pop on their own, so they may not have the reliability one needs in high stakes tournaments, though I'm not dismissing the idea of using them. And I think they would take more time to reset targets than other types of knock down or breakable targets.

As to spectators. Is archery for the spectators or the participants. Are we athletes or performers? Whom should the rules favor? Football has some very complicated rules that make the sport indecipherable to someone not familiar with the game--yet it is wildly successful as a spectator sport. By comparison, archery is child's play--even the set system. So I don't think complexity is the issue. But I do have so say that the comments about how the head to heads are indecipherable to the audience as they are being shot seem to have a lot of merit, but I don't think that is complexity per se.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

There is something elegantly simple about colored paper with some lines on it. It is easy to get hold of target faces and have a modest event. 
But, I would love an affordable, reliable, hit or miss target device that gives immediate feedback to everyone. What a great and fun challenge to come up with ideas, solutions and prototypes.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

I don't understand still why the Ski Archery style of knock down discs can't be used for this hit and miss system.

Ski Archery seems to have it working well and if it can work for them why not for all compounders?

If you don't have something like this type of target the chances of gaining spectator approval will be non-existant.

Does spectator approval matter? You betcha! This is what the Olymics is all about - like it or not. We archers still haven't adjusted our thinking along these lines. If anyone thinks the current hit/miss set system is going to win spectator popularity, then he/she is in for a rude awakening. If this is the means to introduce compounds into the Olympics then I fear FITA has already ensured that it will fail.

It is utterly pointless asking archers what they think of the system. The only way to test such a system is to get an audience of around 100 people who have absolutely no knowledge of archery and try it out in front of them. They'll soon let you know how good it is at pulling a crowd.

Try to remember that this change is all about making the sport spectator friendly. In its present form it's doomed already.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Corsair said:


> I don't understand still why the Ski Archery style of knock down discs can't be used for this hit and miss system.
> Ski Archery seems to have it working well and if it can work for them why not for all compounders?...


Do you have a picture to a ski archery target we can look at? How does it work? How reliable is it? What does it do to an arrow? How well does it communicate? What do they cost?


----------



## sundevilmike (Mar 27, 2007)

What about some sort of clay disc similar to the ones used in trap/skeet? They are very cheap and shatter very easily (#8 shot will turn them to dust granted you are talking about a many small pellets at a high velocity compared to one arrow) but an arrow has much more mass and even a recurve would easily break through a clay pigeon at the further distances. It seems if they made the discs thinner and stood them on end they would be easily shattered by the steel tip without damaging the arrow.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Andrew, we have to remember though that we're experienced tournament spectators with family that is participating in the event. We already have that demographic, no matter what format is used. So long as they show up to shoot, we show up to watch, even if we don't always know the score.
> 
> The individual I'd be most concerned about is the spectator that has an interest in the sport, but little experience. Offering them a good show will surely encourage more participation. Right now, they tend to leave bored and confused, trying to think of something more interesting or exciting to do with their time...
> 
> John.


I totally agree with you John.

-Andrew


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

sundevilmike said:


> What about some sort of clay disc similar to the ones used in trap/skeet? They are very cheap and shatter very easily (#8 shot will turn them to dust granted you are talking about a many small pellets at a high velocity compared to one arrow) but an arrow has much more mass and even a recurve would easily break through a clay pigeon at the further distances. It seems if they made the discs thinner and stood them on end they would be easily shattered by the steel tip without damaging the arrow.


 Like This?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIgH72EHnM4


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> And thanks for all the sarcastic (and pointless) comments. It seems that some cannot see beyond their own noses. If you had shot as many demonstrations at 70 meters for audiences as I have, you may see the logic here. I believe FITA tried to come up with something similar for a hit/miss target with flexible disks fitted inside foam cores. Why flexible disks are okay, but somehow simple balloons are not, makes no sense.
> 
> Shawn and Shin, I suggest you try to come up with a better solution than spend your time criticizing others. Have either of you ever shot a demo at 70 meters in front of hundreds of people? If you had, you would instantly see just how much sense this makes. Balloons are the only thing I can think of that can be 1) fitted inside a cylinder of a precise dimension, 2) provide clear visual feedback, 3) provide clear audible feedback, 4) leave no doubt as to whether the shot was a hit or a miss (no measuring closest to center here, thank you ...  )and 5) readily available and cheap anywhere in the world
> John.




Well John as amatter of fact I have many times over the years with both recurve and compound, and with any demonstration people want to see stuff blow up and some sort of visual experience for the short time they are present, where this fails miserably is its longevity to retain interest, breaking a balloon is nice at distance to see a few times but to retain interest it will become boring very fast. I have proposed different systems that focus on the archer first since they will be there no matter what happens in the Oylmpics. I think the best of whats out there is the elimination rounds for the fita field, infact this was the same proposal that I gave to Jim Easton many years ago with a few changes, my original proposal had you keep your score rolling over to the next round and did away with target limits so you could walk up and see a 40cm target unmarked out 50+m during the elimination rounds

. My target proposal had something similar with a standard eliination round also rolling your score and cutting the field half each time to the final 4 then elimination rounds but using a standard 122cm target but only to the 6 ring and 2 other smaller targets to the left and right that score higher for the same rings but losing rings per size reduction, this sets up a risk reward system that can be shot either with a 12 arrow match or a total score system of 120 that could mimic darts to a degree, if the smallest target was 20-10-5 for 3 rings an archer could force a risky shot on their opponent to win based on a 12 arrow round or fewest arrows to reach 120.

With both systems the archers are primary, the target round actually brings tactics to archery and measures both the degree of hit and also the degree of miss as well

John there is a few of us here that have been around the block a time or two and are more than qualified to comment here, my first archery demo was at an Olympic expo in 76 shooting barebow with my trusty Shakespeare and yes breaking balloons filled with powder


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I don't understand still why the Ski Archery style of knock down discs can't be used for this hit and miss system.


Because the world's best archers don't want to shoot their $40 arrows at a knock-down disk. That's how I see it. Which is why I suggest the cylinder cutouts filled with brightly colored balloons. 

But for some morons here, as soon as you suggest balloons, it becomes some kind of carnival event. Go figure. Show me another cheap, readily available target that provides good visual and audible feedback and can be fitted into a precise holder without the risk of damaging an expensive arrow and I'm all ears.

Sure, just shooting balloons over and over again gets boring. But what I'm suggesting is a shooting tree where two archers would face off in a timed event and the first one to hit all their targets wins. Talk about pressure as they watch AND HEAR each of their competitor's targets fall... And suspense for the audience who can finally keep track of what's going on - WITHOUT binoculars or a scope!

Sean, I'm glad you've been around the block. We need folks who are able to think outside the box and are willing to focus a little more on the spectator than themselves. Right now, we're serving ourselves. I don't think that's the answer. There has to be some kind of compromise or undiscovered solution that will serve both the archers and the audience. 

Right now, I see rounds that don't do either. And in fact, they frustrate both. Archers want a true champion without the luck factor, and audiences want some action and real time results. Got to be a solution to this mess somewhere.

John.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Serious Fun

I can't find a great deal of info re the SKi Archery targets. You tube has a video on this at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=109CXkIDUcI
There are four spots on the video where the targets are shown and you will find these at the following time spots on the video:
1 min 21 secs, 1 min 35 secs, 1 min 56 secs and 2 min 7 secs.

The FITA rules address issues such as composition of the discs, backstops etc.

Compared to electronic targets used in shooting events this type of target set would be relatively cheap and personally I don't see an issue with shooting good arrows at them, in view of what the FITA rules say.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Corsair said:


> Serious Fun
> 
> I can't find a great deal of info re the SKi Archery targets. You tube has a video on this at:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=109CXkIDUcI
> ...


Thank you, I am out of breath just watching them go.
From 2010 FITA Rule Book 5, Appendix A
"...2.2.1.1.2 Drop-down Targets.
•The drop-down targets are made up of fold-away elements made of material that does not cause any damage to the arrows.
•The working mechanics must be made in such a way that they cannot be damaged by the hit of the arrows.
•They must have a reset system that can be operated from the shooting line.
•Any part of the target or its support likely to damage an arrow will be covered. The protective devices must be made of material that prevents the penetration and breaking of the arrows.
•The entire target frame, except the drop-down faces, must be white..."


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Because the world's best archers don't want to shoot their $40 arrows at a knock-down disk. That's how I see it. Which is why I suggest the cylinder cutouts filled with brightly colored balloons.
> 
> But for some morons here, as soon as you suggest balloons, it becomes some kind of carnival event. Go figure. Show me another cheap, readily available target that provides good visual and audible feedback and can be fitted into a precise holder without the risk of damaging an expensive arrow and I'm all ears.
> 
> ...


That is the main problem, I think archery is for archers, from what I have seen over the years is that all the high tec and round changes where for the spectators which have brought nothing to the table and for some reason we continue to want to change the rounds at the expense of the archers for the spectators that bring nothing. We need a round that is easily understood and shows a linier direction to a win without haveing to be explained in detail, something you see at a canival or novelty shoot isn't something most archers would consider championship material, we have spent the last 20 years bending over backwards for the "spectator" I think its time to think about the archers you know the ones that actually pay to play this game


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Again, why all of the sudden do we bring in the phrases "carnival" or "novelty shoot?" If it's the balloons that bother you, then find another solution. 

Oh yea, they tried. Disks I think. But guess what? They didn't get the job done.

Why search for a more sophisticated solution when a simple one will do?

I agree that you can go in two directions here. 1) for the archers, or 2) for the audience. 

Just hoping that someone will find route 3, that's all.

And Sean, billions of people show up or watch to see a ball get kicked into a net or shot into a basket or carried over a line, or struck by a raquet. Millions even tune in to see rocks slide on ice. So for a moment, try and suspend disbelief and consider that it just... might... work.... 

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Serious Fun said:


> Thank you, I am out of breath just watching them go.
> From 2010 FITA Rule Book 5, Appendix A
> "...2.2.1.1.2 Drop-down Targets.
> •The drop-down targets are made up of fold-away elements made of material that does not cause any damage to the arrows.
> ...


Sorry, but I'm still not shooting my Nano Pro's at them. Ain't gonna happen.

I've seen the arrow after it strikes the knock down target. I don't believe that nothing happens to them. And that's if you can even recover them all.

John.


----------



## Shinigami3 (Oct 7, 2009)

Sean McKenty said:


> something you see at a canival or novelty shoot isn't something most archers would consider championship material


We certainly agree on that point!

Balloons are fine for a few shots in a demonstration for a crowd that knows nothing about the sport, and children are delighted when they break balloons- as are many adults who, again, know nothing or little about it but want that "reward fix" for their efforts.

But carnival games and lowbrow demonstrations don't maintain much interest for long. 

There isn't one single serious shooting sport that uses this kind of gimmick in serious competition.

One thing's for sure, if balloons DO become the standard, I think I know who can supply the required hot air... the latest addition to my "ignore list".


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Wow. We just can't see past our own preconcieved notions and stereotypes, can we?

Look, balloons are simply one tool or device that could be fitted inside precisely measured cores or cylinders within a target butt. Ones that would 1) provide visual feedback, 2) provide audible feedback 3) be readily available, 4) low cost, and 5) do no harm to any competitor's arrow. 

Surely someone as sophisticated and intelligent as the great Shin can come up with a better solution? Because it doesn't take too many brain cells to criticize others. 

I'm all ears. Really.

In fact, I'm somewhat encouraged that I even have the attention of Sean and Shin. That must mean I'm on to something... LOL! 

ha, ha.

John.


----------



## FITA Freak (May 4, 2009)

ive recently started hanging clay targets over the gold for our joad students after we finish scoring very fun hmmmm


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

> That is the main problem, I think archery is for archers, from what I have seen over the years is that all the high tec and round changes where for the spectators which have brought nothing to the table and for some reason we continue to want to change the rounds at the expense of the archers for the spectators that bring nothing. We need a round that is easily understood and shows a linier direction to a win without haveing to be explained in detail, something you see at a canival or novelty shoot isn't something most archers would consider championship material, we have spent the last 20 years bending over backwards for the "spectator" I think its time to think about the archers you know the ones that actually pay to play this game


I concur completely with all that you have written. However FITA has decided that the hit miss system will be the format used to introduce compounds into the Olympics. I imagine this will be done as a demo sport first (that's a pure guess from me) and if it doesn't meet the IOCs expectations then it will be dumped and compounds will not be in the Olympics for the foreseeable future, if ever. Therefore however this system is set up it better be easily understood by, and be exciting for the spectators, otherwise it won't have an iceblock's chance in hell of getting in.

FITA and the IOC don't care what the archers think of this system. The only things that matter in this particular case is will it attract and keep an audience and does it have TV appeal. This is the price apparently that has to be paid these days to get a sport into the Olympics.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Sean McKenty said:


> That is the main problem, I think archery is for archers, from what I have seen over the years is that all the high tec and round changes where for the spectators which have brought nothing to the table and for some reason we continue to want to change the rounds at the expense of the archers for the spectators that bring nothing. We need a round that is easily understood and shows a linear direction to a win without having to be explained in detail, something you see at a carnival or novelty shoot isn't something most archers would consider championship material, *we have spent the last 20 years bending over backwards for the "spectator" I think its time to think about the archers you know the ones that actually pay to play this game*


+1. The bolding is mine for emphasis. In these types of threads I usually post something like this:



TER said:


> FITA keeps messing with the format to accommodate TV and spectators at the expense of the archers. And they still don't love us. So we wring our hands some more trying to figure out why they don't love us. What for? In the unlikely event archery gets bigger, by pandering to the masses, it will change, and I bet it won't be in good ways. Many of the great characteristics of archery are rooted in the fact that it is a small sport.


If we are going to shoot at something that reacts, I'm with the guys who suggest doing something with claybirds. A foam buttress could have a recess cut into it that the claybird fits into. That might be fun, I guess.

But I really think pursuing spectators and getting more popular has been bad for archers and hasn't even gained any spectators anyway. Maybe the spectators smell FITA's desire for more fans and money and are turned off by it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I guess it's human nature to look at issues like this as an "either-or" situation. 

I prefer to search for a solution that would satisfy both the archers and the audience... I'm sure it's out there, but it may seem odd to both parties initially.

One thing I do know for sure is that most people hate change.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> If we are going to shoot at something that reacts, I'm with the guys who suggest doing something with claybirds. A foam buttress could have a recess cut into it that the claybird fits into. That might be fun, I guess.


Maybe that would work. For the snotty naysayers, I would ask why clay birds are okay but balloons are not... I really don't care what the final answer is so long as it gets the job done. Balloons would provide audible feedback that may be missing with clay birds however, and a balloon will completely dissapear in the void as opposed to breaking into pieces that may remain in the target. I'd like to find something that is clearly viewable as hit or missed from as much as 100 yards away - without binoculars. And I'm still not sure I'd want to shoot my Nano Pro's at clay birds vs. balloons. 

Look, done correctly, an easily visible target fitted inside a foam buttress could indeed provide some very easy to follow, exciting head to head action. ESPN did some similar things with their "Great Outdoor Games" archery competition in the past. Made for TV and easy to follow, it pitted one archer against another in a head to head shootout. Now, theirs was indeed more of a carnival "shooting gallery" atmosphere that put a premium on time. I don't think we need that so much. We could still have a TV and spectator friendly head to head match target that is both precise and professional, I think.

John.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2010)

Have done the clay birds many times but you can still hit and not break them,with other spectator sports you can 1- see what is happening all the way to the finish-archery-no. 2- The other sports have an eliment of stratigy-archery-no. The target round I proposed does infact bring statigy into play and this is where we can play to the spectators interest because the archer can force their opponent into risky play.

Think of it like this

Qualifing round a standard Fita/70m round with 128 archers
cut field in half to 64
this allows for pure score and eliminates the hackers so to speak

place the new elimination target up like I proposed in my last post, now the lower shooter will have to be and can play catch up to the next round by shooting for the higher scoring much smaller target rings
cut the field by half each time and maybe even post a projected cut like golf, this will let the archers close to the cut score that they may be forced into risky shots to make it to the next level, this is where the higher scoring archers in the begining have to be aware they may lose placings by playing it safe with the larger target.
keep cutting to the final 4

The seeding is done by the final scores. This is where the game could be altered to a high score of 12 arrows or first score to 120. I kinda like the going out at 120 since it mimics darts which most non archers understand without intense explaination. This also brings in the comemtator into play with the spectators as well telling them that archer A needs a 15 to force archer B onto a smaller target to win. Either system will do the trick and still give the archers a scoring target that measures both degree of hit and miss

it also addresses the issue of the wanting to give the lesser archers a chance to make up for a bad shot but also not penilze the better archer for being better


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Much of the angst being generated by this issue is really based on whether we want archery and in particular compounds in the Olympics. Every time I suggest that it would probably be better for our sport if we said stuff the Olympics, I get drowned by those who want to be in the Games and have a chance at a medal.

I don't have a problem with this either but there is this catch. If we still want archery and compounds in the O;ympics then we have no choice but to abide by the demands made by IOC and therefore FITA in regards to what and how it is shot.

However there is no use trying to introduce compounds into the Olympics if the first attempt turns out to be a major flop.:sad:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Much of the angst being generated by this issue is really based on whether we want archery and in particular compounds in the Olympics.


Not in my eyes. That is a seperate issue to me.

I've been involved in target archery at every conceiveable level for the past 7 years. I have yet to see the spectators outnumber the archers at all but one event - the Olympics. And the few spectators I have seen were literally bored to death or confused or both. 

To me, that's sad because archery can and should be as exciting to watch as it is to do.

John.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

We had a modest archery expo at the AZ Game and Fish Outdoor Expo where the 10K visitor had one stop shopping to see all sorts of outdoor and shooting sports. There was a lot to do. Off round vehicle demos, learn to shoot booths, fishing tanks, wildlife conservation/management, outdoor foundation, vendors and shooting demos. The AZ FITA folks, both compound and recurve were demonstrating shooting at 70 meters. 

A few visitors wandered. They were astonstonished that the archers were hitting the gold at 77 yards after watching folks with rifles and scopes leaning on the bench rest shooting at targets at 100 yards. We set up a scope so spectators could see where the archers were hitting.

I am lazy, as a tournament organizer, I don’t what to have to set up spotting scopes so spectators can watch the action. 

I would like to have it more like diving. I can’t see exactly what is going on and don’t know degrees of difficult points, but the TV folks have trained me look for a vertical entry and limited splash. I would like to see the arrows “splash” in the middle of the target. I can actually wait for the arrow values to be called. But I would like to have an idea if the shot hit red or gold. 

Have the “mood ring” manufactures come up with a pressure sensitive thin film material that changes color when you touch then changes back after a few seconds? Something that can be applied onto a target face and non carcinogenic.


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2010)

I don't really care if compounds are or are not in the Olympic, they have thrived without it even with all the carrot dangling that Fita does to keep compounds in their perspective National bodies and recurves seem to struggle just to keep any sort of interest inspite of being in the Olympics. Is Darts or Soccer in the Olympics? does it hurt them not being there, the tineline between the shot and the arrow hitting the target is our failing point when it comes to spectators but it is the main part of our game.

if we introduce legitimate stratagy and still keep a scoring system that is easy to understand and has directionality to a finish/win the stage will be set for spectators later IMO we have spent the last 20 years putting the cart before the horse


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

> Not in my eyes. That is a seperate issue to me.


John

They ought to be separate issues but unfortunately they aren't in reality.

The IOC is examining all sports to see which ones they can drop and which ones they can bring in, which are likely to attract greater viewing audiences, 'cos the whole bloody thing is about money nowadays.

I understand that archery is one of the sports that is under scrutiny. I don't have a problem with the current recurve system, which seems to me to be as exciting as any archery match is likely to be and the viewers are well catered for with large TV screens and the centre ten camera. I'm hoping that this isn't dropped from the Olympics.

The crunch is with the attempt to introduce compounds into the Olympics and the type of competition that is going to be used to effect this. What I am saying is simply this: if the chosen method proves too boring or too difficult for the average non-archer to understand, then it is unlikely to attract a viewing audience and therefore unlikely to be chosen as an Olympic sport and this ought to be exercising FITA's and all of our minds at present because I for one don't think the current hit/miss system is going to do the job the way it is currently designed.

It's a pity that bow manufacturers can't come up with a hybrid bow which combines recurve and compound into a type of bow that would replace current recurves and compounds. Then there might not be an issue anymore with bow types and all attention would be on the competition itself.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Corsair, 

I guess you're barking up the wrong tree - in a sense. I agree that compounds should be allowed in the Oly. games, but only if barebow gets in too. Because barebow archery was an Olympic sport long before sights, clickers, stabilizers, carbon arrows.... OR wheels 

John.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Corsair,
> 
> I guess you're barking up the wrong tree - in a sense. I agree that compounds should be allowed in the Oly. games, but only if barebow gets in too. Because barebow archery was an Olympic sport long before sights, clickers, stabilizers, carbon arrows.... OR wheels
> 
> John.


I think barebow has the stronger case over compound.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

John and Warbow

I think you are missing an essential point here. FITA, based on pressure from the USA (I believe) has put up a case (or is putting one up) to the IOC to have the compound bow included in the Olympic Games. Apparently FITA had to produce a match that showed a clear difference between the Recurve and the Compound and hence this hit/miss thing that has been proposed and is currently being instituted.

You are both correct in saying that the barebow has a greater claim to being in the Olympics as it was the bow used in the first Olympics of the modern era. However that is not being proposed to IOC by FITA and I doubt if it ever will be.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Corsair said:


> John and Warbow
> 
> I think you are missing an essential point here. FITA, based on pressure from the USA (I believe) has put up a case (or is putting one up) to the IOC to have the compound bow included in the Olympic Games. Apparently FITA had to produce a match that showed a clear difference between the Recurve and the Compound and hence this hit/miss thing that has been proposed and is currently being instituted.
> 
> You are both correct in saying that the barebow has a greater claim to being in the Olympics as it was the bow used in the first Olympics of the modern era. However that is not being proposed to IOC by FITA and I doubt if it ever will be.


You are taking me too literally. I realize that cash and politics are involved in deciding which sports to include in the olympics. My comments about barebow are strictly about what I think is inline with Olympic spirit, not a claim as to what the IOC/FITA/USA Archery would think.


----------

