# Are bare bow entries worth worrying about?



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

I closed my thread on the BOD of directors selection since we were beginning to go off track and it had run its course. However, the discussion started on the "distraction" of bare bow archers for USA Archery is worth having. Some of us have invested a lot of time trying to get this group some traction and representation. Yes, they will never win an olympic medal and no they are not the most accurate bows on the planet, but they may require the most cerebral archers to master. For me, bare bow archery marries the 20,000 year old heritage of archery with modern materials and techniques. I am a seasoned coach but only beginning to scratch the surface of bare bow archery, for example the impact of different strings, the effect of stabilization on the tune, serving effects, using your plunger button, arrow and arrow component effects on the system, etc. It is inspiring to see what accomplished archers like John Magera, John Demmer, Ben Rodgers, Ty Pelfry, Rick Stonebraker, Skip Trafford, et. al. can do bare bow.

Hollywood has certainly helped with the mystic and cool factor of bare bow archery. I don't have the numbers but anectdotally the vast majority of new students we see at least want to try bare bow archery, and for the most part this is how we start new students. The numbers are growing and I don't think it is just a Texas thing. At the recent Aggie invitational, our first big archery indoor event in Texas, we had 37 bare bow entries (out of 259). At 4H events bare bow archers are almost a third of the entries. I am extremely happy to see bare bow JOAD included in the upcoming indoor nationals, something I have worked on for almost 20 years.

So, is there enough bare bow archery for USA Archery to worry about or would they be better served to marginalize it as a fringe group, like crossbows, and focus on their core competency, olympic recurve and compound?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

We are seeing more barebow archers. I'm not sure what USAA has to lose by supporting that group. Ride the hot hand and exploit the movies. It is a relatively minor cost and really, who can predict the direction of the sport?


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

The more the merrier - I hope USAA keeps encouraging bare bow participation. 

Ironically, the movies set some kids up for disappointment - they come in the range for a first lesson and are a bit bummed when I quickly disabuse them of the notion that they will shoot while jumping off a 3foot high platform, or do a shoulder roll after shooting from a kneeling position. 

What is your observation of 'who sticks with it'? What discipline do you observe having the biggest active participation/retention rate (those that shoot/train on a regular basis) a year or two years in after taking up the sport?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry helps me make my point.

The swell in membership we are seeing can be directly linked to the popularity of archery in recent movies. USArchery admits this themselves and readily takes advantage of it. How many times have we been reminded who Jennifer Lawrence's "coach" was? 

And yet all of these characters, from Merida to Katniss - are shooting barebow. Barebow is what draws them in. The "hook" so to speak. It appeals to the idealistic, romantic and daring nature of young people, and even not-so young, who have always wanted to try archery but for some reason never have. They are less intimidated by a bare bow. If all they saw in those films were high-tech compound or Olympic recurve bows, I don't think they would be so willing to take the plunge into archery.

So the irony in all this is that there are so many still in the industry that cannot wait to take that barebow out of a new archer's hands and put a "real" bow (whether it be compound or Olympic recurve) in their hands. 

Why is this? Who does it benefit? The archer, or the coach/organization?

I'm surely a broken record on this and have said it before, but if a person comes to this sport because they were drawn in by the beauty and simplicity of the barebow, why not help them realize their potential with that bow? 

Many new archers switch out of frustration because they can't hit squat with a bare bow, and they see the great groups that are being shot with compounds and recurves. If only they had good instruction and someone who could help them understand the equipment, they wouldn't have this frustration and would be more likely to stick with barebow. 

I am 100% sure that a big reason we see coaches encourage them to switch is they just simply don't understand it, so they whisk their new student off to another discipline they are more well versed in. I get that. It's natural to want to teach what you understand. But again, who does that serve?

For those in the "industry," barebow is frustrating because there are fewer accessories to sell an archer. It's less profitable. So it's easy to see why the industry would want them to switch. But once again, who are we serving here?

If the idea is to instill a love for a lifetime sport and to promote competition, then it shouldn't matter which discipline an archer shoots. Those things can be accomplished with any of them.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Aggie invite registrants 2013-2015:
SMC 30 21 27
SMR 27 16 15
SMBB 2 6 12

TFAA SYWAT TOTAL ENTRIES 2013-2015:
AMFSLR 17 18 5
AMTRAD 16 18 9

In other words, at Aggie this year the seniors are nearly equal between the two and currently BB trad outnumbers FSLR in TFAA. And the trend line seems to be BB approaching Oly.

Anecdotally, a local range that produces strong Olympic shooters closed and the coach now teaches lessons out of a space at another range. That coach does not encourage barebow. He has basically one senior male recurver who is competing at the moment. Another range opened which is more generally supportive. She had 3 of the Aggie BB shooters, all new, and then one of the TFAA Trad shooters sometimes practices there (me) (also 2 Oly, but I digress). I am trying barebow this year though intending to bounce back and forth with Olympic probably long term. That is probably possible because I stopped taking lessons where barebow isn't even thought of (first range) and started up with John (actually to do Oly primarily).

So the numbers and my own experiment suggest to me that an attitude change will increase barebow shooting. If it is considered to be more of an option the option is more likely to be selected. For one thing, I didn't come in the door expecting sights, clickers, etc. For another thing, I know at my old place if I was having an equipment issue and tried to bring trad equipment for a day, I was shown the range bow rack to get something with a sight and clicker. I now feel no such pressure.

Is that increasing overall participation in USAA or just slicing the recurve contingent different? That would be the interesting question. But if BB numbers in and of themselves grow, we would be missing the trees for the forest trying to discern whether BB is actually increasing overall participation. The growing numbers need to be respected in and of themselves in terms of structuring competitions and what is included.

Outdoor nationals would be a different animal, with the distance set at 60, as with Oly at 70 or compound at 50, the herd is thinned and a particular subset is left. I'd compare what BB faces there to compound, where at those sort of distances it's dramatically different than where you started in terms of entries. 60 is pretty tough. But if the BB indoors numbers are going up recently, outdoors should probably be included in anticipation that over time people will progress and the fields will increase. If you get rid of it now you've tossed the baby with the bathwater.

I may very well be back doing Oly by March, or bouncing back and forth. So I'm not saying this cynically to keep that discipline around so I can shoot it. I just think in the bigger picture, at least down here, it looks like it is growing. [And when I did a FITA shoot in NE this fall, there were 4 senior BB and no senior recurve......only JOAD age group recurves.....]


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> So the irony in all this is that there are so many still in the industry that cannot wait to take that barebow out of a new archer's hands and put a "real" bow (whether it be compound or Olympic recurve) in their hands.
> 
> Why is this? Who does it benefit? The archer, or the coach/organization?
> 
> ...


It's not ironic actually. The coach should help an archer realize their potential regardless of what bow they shoot and help them find where their passion lies. As new archers how are they supposed to know that their first discipline is where their true passion lies? Do they love archery because they're shooting barebow or do they love archery because they love to shoot? Coaches can go under the surface and find what the archer truly wants, and guide them to the discipline most suitable for those goals.

In my case, I wanted to be a serious archer after trying archery for a month. A coach I met told me that the discipline I was shooting was not the way if I wanted to get serious and told me a better way to realize my potential. At first I thought it was self-serving, but now I understand why it's the opposite of that. I didn't switch from Barebow to Recurve because it was the 'easy way out' or because I was frustrated, I switched because I view it as the more challenging route. The coach didn't encourage me to switch to Recurve because he didn't understand barebow, that coach actually knows a lot about barebow and can shoot/teach it pretty well himself. Self-serving would be the furthest thing from this coach's actions, and taking easy street would be the furthest thing from my switch.

All in all not everything is the way it seems. Not every archer who switches from Barebow to Recurve wants better groups, not every coach encourages Recurve because they don't know Barebow.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Larry helps me make my point.
> 
> The swell in membership we are seeing can be directly linked to the popularity of archery in recent movies. USArchery admits this themselves and readily takes advantage of it. How many times have we been reminded who Jennifer Lawrence's "coach" was?
> 
> ...


Completely agree. Although I might redpen your statement to be "if the idea is to instill a love [actively pursued] for a lifetime sport and to promote [training for competition, and] competition". The question in my mind that I would love to see answered is: 300 people buy a bow - 100 barebow, 100 compound, 100 recurve (I mean, surely 100 recurve bows are sold in the USA each year ) - of those bow owners, how many of each group are actively frequently working to become better archers as the months and years go by? I would love to know the statistics on that. 

I'm VERY interested in ARCHERS (initially a state of mind) who are INTERESTED/MOTIVATED to become better archers through knowledge acquisition and physical application of that knowledge which over time is baked into better archery skills, regardless of their bow preference. But I'm only very marginally interested in the people who buy a bow, take a lesson, shoot it 3 or 4 times, and then stuff it in their closet next to the unused tennis racket, the unused baseball bat and glove, the unused ice skates, the unused shotgun with skeet inserts, and the foldup Slim Gym (unless that's under the bed) - they aren't archers, they're just people with a bow in the closet.

Just as a very obtuse comment that somehow seems to me a tiny bit remotely (but only remotely) on point: What I remember about A River Runs Through It is not how many fish they caught ("Hey, dude, how many'd ya git?"), but the beautiful artistry of Brad Pitt's mastery of the fly rod while casting on those rushing streams. It was his character's pursuit of the 'art' that arrested me. Likewise, I'm mostly interested to be around those who are pursuing the art of shooting, regardless of which bow type. So, of the zillions being touched by Hollywood, how many of those people are 'one and one' types and how many are destined to be 'lifelong pursuers' of the sport?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The question in my mind that I would love to see answered is: 300 people buy a bow - 100 barebow, 100 compound, 100 recurve (I mean, surely 100 recurve bows are sold in the USA each year ) - of those bow owners, how many of each group are actively frequently working to become better archers as the months and years go by? I would love to know the statistics on that.


It would be an interesting study alright.

I'd say that of the three main disciplines, those who stick with barebow and compound will greatly outnumber those who stick with recurve. And there are a lot of good reasons for this. 

There are also some pretty obvious reasons that many within USArchery steer new archers toward the recurve. Barebow does not serve the USOC master and probably never will. Compound serves the industry, and is showing potential to serve the USOC, so we see the love being extended to that discipline more and more. 

But barebow only serves the archer.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

iArch said:


> It's not ironic actually. The coach should help an archer realize their potential regardless of what bow they shoot and help them find where their passion lies. As new archers how are they supposed to know that their first discipline is where their true passion lies? Do they love archery because they're shooting barebow or do they love archery because they love to shoot? Coaches can go under the surface and find what the archer truly wants, and guide them to the discipline most suitable for those goals.
> 
> In my case, I wanted to be a serious archer after trying archery for a month. A coach I met told me that the discipline I was shooting was not the way if I wanted to get serious and told me a better way to realize my potential. At first I thought it was self-serving, but now I understand why it's the opposite of that. I didn't switch from Barebow to Recurve because it was the 'easy way out' or because I was frustrated, I switched because I view it as the more challenging route. The coach didn't encourage me to switch to Recurve because he didn't understand barebow, that coach actually knows a lot about barebow and can shoot/teach it pretty well himself. Self-serving would be the furthest thing from this coach's actions, and taking easy street would be the furthest thing from my switch.
> 
> All in all not everything is the way it seems. Not every archer who switches from Barebow to Recurve wants better groups, not every coach encourages Recurve because they don't know Barebow. Hasty judgement can be inaccurate.


Someone comes in the doors with vague ideas and interest but no direction. What does the coach do with that? I hear what you are saying but if I go to one coach in town unless I expressed specific wishes to do something else, I would be taught from the first day with a sighted recurve (and was). If I go to a different range, they might push a compound on me. Some others might suggest "a lesson of each." Even within people who ask for recurve, some people push sights and others don't. If you come in the door without much in the way of preconceptions, you don't know any better but some "programs" move you in a direction without the student making a choice. If the coach is more programmatic, by the time your head pops up and you are like hmmm, I'd like to try that too, months or years may have passed.

Whether the student picked/enjoys what they are doing or not may be a factor in burnout rate. Are they your goals or your coach's? If the deal is more programmatic and the student isn't really making their own choices, including what bow to shoot and what tournaments to go to, that's where I think you see more people quitting or going on hiatus. Surely you notice the attrition rates at some ranges, x, y, and z all not shooting competitively despite being dominant when they do?

"Could teach" versus "encourages" or "lets the student figure out their direction" are different things.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> A coach I met told me that the discipline I was shooting was not the way if I wanted to get serious


Pretty well says it all right there.


----------



## iArch (Apr 17, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> Pretty well says it all right there.


What does it say? :confused3:


----------



## sprinke (Jul 9, 2015)

Our JOAD coaches were disappointed to learn that at the California State JOAD Indoor Championships (to be held in January 2016) ... barebow is not offered, at all. There will be barebow at the adult state championships, but not the JOAD. This was sad news to a number of our young archers who shoot barebow ... if they want to go to state they will be competing against sighted archers, at the same target faces.


----------



## Chris1ny (Oct 23, 2006)

Barebow is the purest form of Traditional Archery. Which required true skills and ability to master. 

Those who refers Barebow as an "distraction", most likely don't have the skills and or ability needed, or they don't see any money making potential.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

The following points are JMHO and observations....

*Not everyone wants their bow littered with aids and accessories....some feel it detracts from the mystic surrounding the mastery of the bow.

* In Europe?...the ratio of single string archers as compared to compound archers is the polar opposite of what it is Stateside.

That is all.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

sprinke said:


> Our JOAD coaches were disappointed to learn that at the California State JOAD Indoor Championships (to be held in January 2016) ... barebow is not offered, at all. There will be barebow at the adult state championships, but not the JOAD. This was sad news to a number of our young archers who shoot barebow ... if they want to go to state they will be competing against sighted archers, at the same target faces.


My club does not have any Barebow archers nor any Basic Compound for that matter. I'm sorry your state does not offer those divisions. IMO, If it is a JOAD Shoot or club, ALL JOAD divisions should be included. Even if they cannot compete with a Genesis BC at Nationals.

However, I have added both divisions in my up coming tournaments as well as the State JOAD Championship.

Out of the 72 kids coming to our shoots, 3 of them are basic compound and 4 are Barebow. I do not see a huge influx of barebow shooters in our area even though some nearby clubs encourage the kids to join these divisions.

Unfortunately I think many of the barebow kids shy away from tournaments because of their lack of being able to keep their arrows on their own target. They sometimes catch flack from the compound shooters who's targets are adjacent to theirs.
I have found that in our area the barebow division is a way for parents to go cheap with their kids equipment. I do realize some barebows can be pricey, but if a parent can get their kid involved with a cheap sub $100 bow, that's what they do.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

sprinke said:


> Our JOAD coaches were disappointed to learn that at the California State JOAD Indoor Championships (to be held in January 2016) ... barebow is not offered, at all. There will be barebow at the adult state championships, but not the JOAD. This was sad news to a number of our young archers who shoot barebow ... if they want to go to state they will be competing against sighted archers, at the same target faces.


That's crazy.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Chris1ny said:


> Barebow is the purest form of Traditional Archery. Which required true skills and ability to master.
> 
> Those who refers Barebow as an "distraction", most likely don't have the skills and or ability needed, or they don't see any money making potential.


All disciplines require true skill and ability to master. I've shot traditional or barebow most of my life, and in my experience, there are many who want to argue that barebow requires something "extra" to master because they simply haven't attempted to master compound or Oly recurve. Anyone who has competed at the upper levels of any of the three disciplines will tell you they are all equally difficult to "master." So I reject the idea that barebow is any "harder" than compound or Oly. recurve. Only different. And it's this difference, or unfamiliarity, that presents a problem for many coaches and archery shop owners. 

However, I feel you are correct regarding the profitability. It is a well known thing in the archery industry that barebow, and esp. "traditional" bows are not nearly as profitable as compounds. So they are not offered or promoted as much for that reason.

People are sheep. We are all led around by those who are busy trying to make a buck off of us. That's just how it is in this day of advertising.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TomB said:


> I don't have the numbers but anectdotally the vast majority of new students we see at least want to try bare bow archery, and for the most part this is how we start new students.


This. When I joined USAA, the org seemed to almost infantilize barebow. It is that thing you teach on the way to the goal of shooting FITA recurve - a tool you abandon, like 3-under. Yet trad shooting is iconic archery, and shooting 3 under is a preferred technique of many barebow shooters.

Also, the swelling of the ranks of USAA membership to 20,000 members (who have little to no say over USAA operations and policies) is largely, AFIK, the result of the clever but manipulative rule change requiring all JOAD and AAP participants to be USAA members. It is not necessarily mark of the popularity of FITA Recurve over trad.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Chris1ny said:


> Barebow is the purest form of Traditional Archery. Which required true skills and ability to master.


I'm gonna have to call BS on this. There is no "pure" form of trad archery, nor is there any single tradition of archery, certainly not one that should be capitalized as a proper noun. Barebow is the name we give to a certain class of bow in various archery orgs, not some magically "pure" form of archery. I mean, come on, is BB more "pure" than British Longbow Society ELB class? More pure than kyūdō? Than Mongolian horsebow archery? All forms of archery require true skills.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

Warbow said:


> I'm gonna have to call BS on this. There is no "pure" form of trad archery, nor is there any single tradition of archery, certainly not one that should be capitalized as a proper noun. Barebow is the name we give to a certain class of bow in various archery orgs, not some magically "pure" form of archery. I mean, come on, is BB more "pure" than British Longbow Society ELB class? More pure than kyūdō? Than Mongolian horsebow archery? All forms of archery require true skills.


I agree with you Warbow.

It's think type of thinking that is a real turnoff to other archers.That somehow barebow is better, pure, more difficult or special than other types of archery. It's "Archery" people!!

Those of you that were in Alabama for Nationals, maybe you saw they way some of the proponents of barebow were acting. Yelling and being impatient while the little kids received their medals. Really in bad taste.
I try to tell people about all the different types of archery and let them choose the one that appeals to them.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Just to be clear...I never meant to infer that any venue or discipline requires any more skill or less ability than the other but only to point out the fact that it seems to me when spectators witness a BB archer nail targets at incredible distances?....it seems to take them by surprise as opposed to seeing much the same done with an all the bells and whistles style of bow....and that is "The Mystic" I meant to point out that seems to create quite the draw of the curious.

Edit: I might add that if someone were seeking to take offense at any commentary within this thread?...I might ask that you consider how BB enthusiasts might feel just reading the very title of it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

XForce Girl said:


> I agree with you Warbow.
> 
> It's think type of thinking that is a real turnoff to other archers.That somehow barebow is better, pure, more difficult or special than other types of archery. It's "Archery" people!!
> 
> ...


I think my reaction to Chris1ny's post is amplified by my experiences in the various traditional archery forums, which are often cliquish, be it a neo-trad clique, or a clique who's identity is all about pushing back on neo-trad. Both can be unwelcoming and judgmental. I like inclusivity in archery, and I think that the challenge in archery is based in your *expectations*, not in what gear you chose. In archery, we get to select what gear appeals to us, from the simplest stick and string primitive bows, through an international panoply of different archery traditions, ending in the most complex compound bows. So, when I see anyone opining about The One True Form of Archery, I know that A) it is no such thing and B) someone is being exclusive. And such things are not new, either. In the late 1800's, people were arguing over whether aiming with the point of the arrow was "true archery". Heck, even before that, the co-founder of the NAA, Maurice Thompson, wrote (paraphrasing) that only instinctive aiming was proper archery. I don't see anything good coming of such declarations, not then, not now.

I want to see a diversity of archery, so people can choose from a variety of options. And I think we all like to see the underdog win. Within competitive archery, WA recurve is the underdog to compound in terms of overall sales and competition prize money. So I want WA Recurve to succeed. But within USAA, trad is the underdog, and I want it to succeed, too.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think my reaction to Chris1ny's post is amplified by my experiences in the various traditional archery forums, which are often cliquish, be it a neo-trad clique, or a clique who's identity is all about pushing back on neo-trad. Both can be unwelcoming and judgmental.


very well put. There are cliques on both sides, both thinking they are better than the other and both positively exhausting. 

And like politics, once the trench has been dug, there never seems to be a ladder anywhere in sight.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

The big reason why the equipment manufacturers hate barebow is because people can still make very competitive bows themselves. Longbows and recurves used to be hand made and the archers used to be extremely good at shooting with them. All of our tournaments, event the long range ones, was shot with longbows and recurves long before the compound was a twinkle in the inventor's eye. A well made bow can be shot for many decades. Manufacturers don't make money just selling one piece of equipment, be the selling of many many pieces of equipment.

Since manufacturers are major sponsors to events and organizations they don't have much incentive to encourage the growth of barebow. I am not saying that manufacturers are intentionally trying to suppress barebow. But if they have no financial gain from barebows they won't bring up the topic or encourage barebows to be part of events. I am sure that if all the sponsors kept asking World Archery to bring barebow to be part of the world championships, they will eventually be accommodated. 

But as it is, who are the ones that champion barebows? It is we the barebow shooters.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

One of the biggest hurdles for developing barebow archers is the pure lack of people that can teach someone to aim with a barebow.

When John Demmer can shoot a 299 for an indoor sectional last year, and Dewayne Martin beating all the compound shooters with a barebow at Vegas last year, this clearly shows that barebow shooters can be extremely good at hitting the gold.

John Demmer made an attempt to get on the US Olympic team this year. He threw on a site and held his own against the most seasoned Olympic recurve shooters out there. Though he didn't make the first cut, he did demonstrate that excellence in shooting comes from the personal dedication to excellence in the sport and not the equipment.

Though most of us start with a simple longbow or recurve in our first archery class, the emphasis is more on form than being specific about teaching how to string walk, face walk, or gap. The precision tools to aiming. That is not taught to most new students to archery. The push is to get them into a bow that has a sight that can be clicked to get it on the center of the target.

And because barebow shooters are not taught how to shoot, they struggle, and this myth about how barebow shooters cant shoot continues to grow, and other people feel that they have to shorten target distances to accommodate us so we would feel better about ourselves because we might hit the shorter target.

I am convinced that barebow shooters can be extremely competitive and accurate.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Larry helps me make my point.
> 
> The swell in membership we are seeing can be directly linked to the popularity of archery in recent movies. USArchery admits this themselves and readily takes advantage of it. How many times have we been reminded who Jennifer Lawrence's "coach" was?
> 
> ...


I think a big issue is that there really isn't much info on competition bare bow out there. OR and CP there is so much that it is easier to learn. Unless you know one of the few successful bare bow archers, you don't have much access to knowledge on the discipline. Seriously do you know or have access to any info that provides a good tuning method for barebow for string walkers, as an example?

What about archery clinics for competition barebow?

You are right coaches are going to steer their students to what they know, and you are right that not a lot of coaches know much about competition barebow. Hard to teach something you don't know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

erose said:


> I think a big issue is that there really isn't much info on competition bare bow out there. OR and CP there is so much that it is easier to learn. Unless you know one of the few successful bare bow archers, you don't have much access to knowledge on the discipline. Seriously do you know or have access to any info that provides a good tuning method for barebow for string walkers, as an example?
> 
> What about archery clinics for competition barebow?
> 
> ...



Actually?...There's some extremely good coaches, clinics and resource information available if an archer is inspired enough to pursue acquiring BB skills.

Rod Jenkins is probably the most well known and has flown to every quadrant of this nation multiple times and even Australia offering his 2-Day Clinic to many.

He has also put out 4 volumes of the DVD series...."Masters Of The Bare Bow"

Joel Turner (aka "Clickerman") of "Ironmind Archery" has offered quite a bit of video-graphic tutelage as has Dr. Jay Kidwell (Professor of Psychology) with regards to his "Imagery" aiming technique.

Other note-able persons of interest on the skill sets involved are...

Jimmy Blackmon

Larry Yien

Lauren Van Cleve

Dana Chatoo

The McCains

Ben Rodgers

and quite a few others who have mastered the physical and mental aspects regarding mastery of the Bare Bow.

I find it a shame that it often times seems nearly a lost art always on the verge of extinction...but only in the U.S.

Take a boat across the pond?...and BB is more than alive and well and thriving which begs the question....


"Is it just us Americans that shy away from the comparatively immediate gratification that sightless archery DOESN'T offer?"

I'm in the final stages of dialing in the tune of my Gillo G1/F7 rig and am finding the BB discipline extremely rewarding in that while I haven't touched a thing since taking one turn off my limb bolts a week ago?...just last night I made the bold move of taking a whopping full 1/2 turn inward on my plunger and the arrows flying so true to center at all distances it's remarkable in that it truly does seem to being hitting where I'm looking and with absolute confidence and I'm not saying that to brag...I'm saying that because if I had sights?....I probably would've never put the same level of effort into tuning or seen such remarkably consistent flight or?...felt what it feels like when every ounce of every pound of draw weight is getting directly injected into the arrow from a bow that kicks neither left or right at the shot and yields group after group that is neither strung vertically or horizontally but nice tight round groupings......with no sights.

I attended Rod Jenkins Clinic in Venus, FL in May of 2012...I've also viewed every one of the (4) volumes of Masters of The Bare Bow and knowing what I now know?...if I were tasked to train Olympians?...

They'd be shooting their bows for quite sometime before I ever allowed them the luxury of mounting and using a sight.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

More numbers, Indoor Nationals 2015 (in which I was Oly):
Male senior BB 46 
Female senior BB 36

(FWIW, 3 years ago the numbers were 7 and 5 respectively, double digits the next year, now moving into the middle double digits, respectable)

These are obviously not senior compound or senior recurve numbers, but they are equivalent to some (though dwarfed by others) of the masters and JOAD age group divisions for compound and recurve, which are not under similar threat. Bears noting they are much more substantial than the "USA Trad" or crossbow categories, to bring it back to the OP and place this in some perspective.

Outdoor Nationals, there aren't a ton of people shooting barebow, yes, but again senior barebow is similar to the masters or bowmen type numbers in recurve. And if the indoor numbers are growing........

[And all this leaves out how there is this whole bunch of (often hunting oriented) archers who do NFAA and trad 3d but which USAA has not yet been able to entice.....a whole set of people I see when I do those sorts of events, who rarely cross over.....many of whom are quite good.....]

I anecdotally know of at least two solid BB shooters out to 50m already in the local winter series, who weren't even competing indoor at 20 before this fall. So to me at least some of what needs to happen is time given for the increase in indoor BB shooters to work its way out the distances, if so inclined. The indoor numbers to me are beyond debate that it should be a tournament class. Like I said, in Texas the Oly and barebow numbers are getting similar. I went up to New England and did a FITA tourney at Tangy's that had a few good BB shooters and empty recurve classes. On that basis alone it should be an option indoors. And to me if the USAA is wise the indoor classes that have sufficient numbers track over to outdoor nationals in some form (even if some end up at Demmer Center instead), so that people have one stop competitive shopping.

I get the tuning and high level skills arguments but to me basic archery form work and gapping can get you near 200 BB, so we're talking about separation from the crowd, how some people live in the gold while the rest of us have wider domains. I agree in the sense that the discipline begs for its own "Stickbow" or "Simple Art of Winning" with all the tricks. But basic barebow technique should be pretty much requisite for any coaching.......I mean, I was at first taught a corner mouth anchor, etc. even with a sight on there.......I think the issue is more respectability and encouragement of it as an equal discipline and less that people can't teach a cheek anchor. Now they might not be able to teach stringwalking but then we're wandering into men vs. boys equipment knowledge and technical separation that is true in Oly or Compound just the same.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

XForce Girl said:


> It's think type of thinking that is a real turnoff to other archers.That somehow barebow is better, pure, more difficult or special than other types of archery. It's "Archery" people!!


Ditto. And we don't help our case by referring to compound bows as having training wheels.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> And because barebow shooters are not taught how to shoot, they struggle, and this myth about how barebow shooters cant shoot continues to grow,


It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Disciplines with more accessories draw attention of gearheads, which draws the attention of manufacturers hoping to help them scratch that itch. Since gearheads are willing to spend money, they also draw the attention of coaches who hope to earn some of that business. And so barebow archers are left to learn on their own, or from instructors who give them half their attention and sometimes bad information, and they struggle, which makes it easier for the gearheads to point fingers and laugh, leaving only the most dedicated and stubborn individuals in the barebow ranks, which leads to even more opportunity for gearheads to point and laugh. 

It's truly amazing the difference it makes when barebow archers are treated with respect, provided the instruction, attention and opportunity they deserve. They have been afforded all these things here in Texas and a few other places, and it's no mistake that that is where many of the top barebow archers are from.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

XForce Girl said:


> I agree with you Warbow.
> 
> It's think type of thinking that is a real turnoff to other archers.That somehow barebow is better, pure, more difficult or special than other types of archery. It's "Archery" people!!
> 
> ...


I witnessed that. It was mainly one woman (not an archer, just a battle ax on a cane) who was spewing ill-natured harrumphing ... it was appalling. But certainly not indicative of barebowers in general.


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

Sheesh. I'm glad to see that we were lumped in with that negative person. Yikes. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

lksseven said:


> I witnessed that. It was mainly one woman (not an archer, just a battle ax on a cane) who was spewing ill-natured harrumphing ... it was appalling. But certainly not indicative of barebowers in general.


Wait, wait, you can get a *battle axe* on a cane? Ooh, I think I need one of those. I suppose it would have to travel in checked baggage though...


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Wait, wait, you can get a *battle axe* on a cane? Ooh, I think I need one of those. I suppose it would have to travel in checked baggage though...


Trust me, you don't want one of her - a few minutes with her and you'd be doing a Scottie! :dog1:


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

Washington recognizes Barebow (recurve) in all our "FITA" events (Indoor, Outdoor and Field) for all age groups.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Since manufacturers are major sponsors to events and organizations they don't have much incentive to encourage the growth of barebow.


In Europe manufacturers don't sponsor so much, I wonder if this is why European Barebow has grown so well? Last Euro WA3D, SRT was the main sponsor, I don't suppose they care which div shoots their targets as long as they're being shot.

Some manufacturers are sponsoring archers but they don't have any influence on the conditions of how the tourney run. It's good that you get big names throwing money at the pretigious tourneys but it cannot be good in the long run if they're somehow influencing the conditions of how a tourney run.


----------



## XForce Girl (Feb 14, 2008)

lksseven said:


> I witnessed that. It was mainly one woman (not an archer, just a battle ax on a cane) who was spewing ill-natured harrumphing ... it was appalling. But certainly not indicative of barebowers in general.


Yes, she probably wasn't a shooter, at least she didn't get on the podium.
It probably wasn't fair to lump her with the barebow shooters. 
But, she was obviously "with" them and the perception was not a positive one for her "team"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

XForce Girl said:


> Yes, she probably wasn't a shooter, at least she didn't get on the podium.
> It probably wasn't fair to lump her with the barebow shooters.
> But, she was obviously "with" them and the perception was not a positive one for her "team"


At least as much could be said for quite a few compounders and I mean archers and not just family or friends. So we really don't want to go there...

Let's just agree there was an obnoxious person at the awards and leave it at that.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

i hope everyone understands that I by saying that bare bow was a "distraction" was not my opinion. It was just the way it was put in the other thread. As Rick explained in even another thread the reality is that there are three customers of USA Archery, the USOC, the manufacturers/sponsors and the members. The lion's share of the revenue comes from the first two so those are the ones that get the most attention. Membership concerns and issues, like bare bow, JOAD, clout, collegiate and masters are distractions to satisfying the big two stakeholders. They do nothing to contribute to winning olympic medals or only marginally to selling archery equipment. This is a scarcity mentality that forces into viewing archery as a zero sum game. If we ever learned anything about archery is that it is not a zero sum game. My satisfaction with archery has nothing to do with anyone else satisfaction. John. Larry, Rick, et. al. beats me by 200 points and I shoot a personal best, I still had a good day.

Bare bow, specifically, does nothing to satisfy the USOC and as many have mentioned here on this thread, bare bow does little to help the manufacturers bottom line. Then why should USA Archery care? They should care as some have mentioned here, it is the largest growth segment of archery membership, again thanks much to Hollywood. They should care because it broadens the fan base for growing archery in general, regardless of bow type. They should care because a bare bow archer may one day decided to try an olympic recurve and make an olympic team. :wink: They should care because they should care, in other words they were elected by the members, not the USOC and not by the manufacturers.

In the final analysis I submit that the USOC and the manufacturers are looking to USA Archery board and executive leadership and staff to provide good, professional leadership with a top tier fiduciary management, something that has been lacking in the past and one that the stakeholders may never erase from their memory.

Real leadership in my opinion would recognize bare bow as a growth segment and ask "how do we help and make it grow even more"? The answer might include more accommodations, rather than (I am sorry to say this) foot dragging for participation at sanctioned tournaments (no cost to USA Archery). How about the coaching symposiums including coaching bare bow archery? (no real cost other than the lodging and travel of the presenter which would be offset by participants' fees). How about bare bow coaching clinics around the country (expenses offset by participation fees)? How about commisioning a bare bow manual of basics for JOAD coaches (costs to be offset by purchases or finding a benefactor to underwrite the project)? How about just caring because that was what you were elected and hired to do?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Is what we do about the manufacturers?...The many organizations?....

Or?....

"The Archers"?

One answer ends the debate....the other two provide a means of pride based endless bickering.

Until archery puts Archers first?....this is what we have.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Just to throw a little perspective in here... there are definitely clubs and coaches who champion the archer in the area that they need to be in, instead of the coach pushing a certain agenda for feathers in their cap or to sell more equipment. Our club is a good example of that. I think our placements at the recent Aggie shoot demonstrate the spread, and reflect the coaching.

R Senior, M - 1st
R Junior, F - 1st, 2nd
R Bowman, M - 1st
C Masters, M - 3rd
BB Senior, M - 3rd
BB Senior, F - 1st, 2nd
BB Cub, F - 1st

To give it a little more perspective, out of the 80+ archers on our rolls, almost half are barebow. Then roughly a quarter each of compound and Olympic recurve.

From another angle, a current outdoor series that we're running has 12xBB, 11xC, 9xR. Yes, barebow archers are our majority.

Here's the thing. Here at X10, I'm driving the bus. I'm not about pushing archers toward the Olympic pipeline, but recognizing their passions and helping them realize that. Yes, we have aspiring Olympians, and at least a few who have potential. Their training plans and coaching accommodate that. Many of our archers just want to have fun, so that's what they're encouraged to do. 

We have one good Olympic recurve shooter who has decided to go barebow because he knows it's unlikely that he'll make the Olympics. He's shorter than average, not a spring chicken, and thinking about starting a family. I actually used the example of "if John Magera can do it...", but quickly followed that up with the fact that he does have the advantage of having the wingspan of an albatross, sooooo... Lol. Sorry, John. Love ya. 

This particular archer is looking forward to not having to tote as much equipment, being able to invest more $$ in his riser and limbs, and just having fun with it. 

Yes, I believe barebow is making a statement and here to stay.


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

Incidentally, I brought Rod Jenkins to Houston a couple of years ago. At the time, it was mostly trad shooters at the clinic. Rod and I have chatted about doing it again. I think it will be a different audience next time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I actually used the example of "if John Magera can do it...", but quickly followed that up with the fact that he does have the advantage of having the wingspan of an albatross, sooooo... Lol. Sorry, John. Love ya.


 

I'm often amused by the fact that I have been used as both a good example, and a bad example, by different people, for having done the exact same thing. It all depends on where one stands in the sport/industry, I guess.

But sure. If I can do it, surely anyone else can, right?  

It may be helpful to those looking to my experience when considering their options/goals to know that I had nearly 30 years experience in archery before ever picking up an Olympic bow, 15 years of law enforcement training, 20 years of competitive athletic experience, could run 3 miles in under 22 minutes and made A's in every math and physics class I ever had, despite choosing a career in forestry and wildlife management. So, there is that.

Not trying to toot my horn, but rather put things in perspective the way I usually do for prospective and current students I work with. In other words, there was a lot more that went into making that Olympic team than just switching from barebow to Olympic recurve.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh, I left out the fact that I had already been shooting 60#+ traditional bows for over 15 years prior to "stepping down" to a lightweight (52#) Olympic rig. So, there was that too.  ha, ha.

My having gone from the traditional realm to barebow, then to the Olympics often takes on some mythical air when it's retold by others. As if it "just happened overnight." Well, like most "overnight successes" it was anything but overnight. Some understand that. Most don't.


----------



## Chris1ny (Oct 23, 2006)

Of couse barebow requires more abilities and skills to master. There is no sight on bow.

I shoot SPOT with my Pro Comp Elite and Elite Victory with 30" front stabilizers, 12" side stabilizer, 6x scope lens, peep with clarifier lens, and Stan SX3 release.

So does it take more skills to hit the "X" with my SPOT bows with all the latest technologies, or does it takes more skills to hit the "X" with my barebow fingers, no sights?

Today, I shot 160 arrows with the SPOT bow, and 160 arrows barebow. Take a guess which one hit more "X" today?

Modern archery technologies makes hitting the "X" much easier than barebow. That's the fact. To hit the "X" with barebow requires more skill, abilities, and practice.

Some people will never be good with barebow, not matter how much they practice. But can do exceptional well with modern compound bows with all the latest technical accessories.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Coaching is the #1 problem.

Failure to understand that a barebow isn't just an Olympic bow with the accessories removed is the #1 problem with coaches.

Grant


----------



## Ms.Speedmaster (Dec 10, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I'm often amused by the fact that I have been used as both a good example, and a bad example, by different people, for having done the exact same thing.


I knew I should have qualified that statement, but I was trying to keep my rambling to a minimum. Yeah, that's hard for me. :embara:

What I meant was that you had not been shooting Olympic style for *years* before you went. So, my student, technically having four years before the next trials had more than adequate time to train. But yeah, it's apples and oranges. Bad example. What was I thinking. :wink:

Another statement that I want to clarify, is where I said the the results at the Aggie shoot reflected the spread of disciplines and coaching. That was not meant to have a conceited air. It was meant to reflect the variety of coaching across the disciplines.

Grantmac - I believe you are correct. I think those same coaches are the ones who dislike barebow and discourage it. I have observed absolute animosity from coaches who believe that barebow is for beginners only and should not be taken seriously. Catch me on a certain day and I would be tempted to throw down the gauntlet and challenge one of those folks to a bb dual. :eyebrows:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Ms.Speedmaster said:


> I have observed absolute animosity from *"coaches who believe that barebow is for beginners only"* and should not be taken seriously.


I had to read *"THAT"* 3 times because I couldn't believe what I was reading the first two times! 

Some folks can handle titles...but most can't...but of all the titles folks manage to prefix themselves with?..."Coach"....seems to be the biggest offender of them all.

I'm glad I haven't run into anyone who owns the title of coach that thinks BB is for beginners only.

Funny thing I noticed here is...

The true difference at hand is "Sighted" or "Non-Sighted" archery...and while I've often times seen archers who regularly shoot Non-Sighted can pick up someone elses sighted bow and be hammering them in there within a few practice shots?...the same can not be said the other way around where if a archer who normally shoots sighted picks up a BB archers bow sans sights?

They give up shortly after figuring out how to get those points out of that wood target butt frame! 


oops...did i say that out loud? :embara::dog1:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Bill it may do your ego well to assign some sort of superiority to sightless shooting but my experience has been the polar opposite. Give me a disciplined target compound or recurve shooter and with very little coaching you can have them shooting far above the average sightless shooter. You give them a few adjustments to their technique and little else is needed.
Trying to instill the expectation of perfection into the unfocused mindset of the average sightless shooter is far harder.

Sandy McCain is a great example of what I speak. She dropped Olympic for NFAA Trad and with a few tweaks was beating the competition like a rented mule.

Then again I have yet to teach a completely raw beginner who couldn't keep their arrows on a 60cm at 18m after the first lesson. Whereas I've seen archers trying to shoot barebow "Olympic style" as taught by the local coach who struggle to hit the 40cm after a year or more. Not for lack of discipline or ability, just the wrong technique. Failure to adequately explain the correct techniques accounts for 99% of the apparent lack of ability when most people hand an accomplished sighted shooter an unsighted bow.

Grant


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Chris1ny said:


> Of couse barebow requires more abilities and skills to master. There is no sight on bow.
> 
> I shoot SPOT with my Pro Comp Elite and Elite Victory with 30" front stabilizers, 12" side stabilizer, 6x scope lens, peep with clarifier lens, and Stan SX3 release.
> 
> ...


By that logic trail, all recurve and compound world champions would be former barebow shooters who just wanted to pickup some extra bling and take candy from babies. Sorry, but physical geniuses don't work that way - the recipe that makes a world champion in one activity doesn't necessarily cross over ipso facto.

And the challenge in unlimited compound is not 'hitting the x' - that's far too low a bar to hurdle ... no, the thing that makes unlimited compound so difficult/challenging to master is 'not missing the x', which is a far higher bar to hurdle. Too much pressure for me - I'll stick to recurve, thank you very much.

To reach a high level of mastery of any of the disciplines is a superb achievement - chest thumping that 'my song is better than your song' seems like an unnecessary distraction from the magic and beauty of the music.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

As someone who has shot all three, two of them at a pretty high level and the third as well as most, I can tell you they are just different. Not better or worse. 

"Mastering" any of them requires the same amount of dedication and training. They are each held to different standards.

IMO, Compound and Barebow are mentally demanding, while recurve is physically demanding. That is why recurve is a young man/woman's game at the elite level. Statistics will show I am right about that. Compound can be shot at the elite level much longer, as can barebow.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

How is recurve physically demanding and different from Compound and Barebow. If there are three people standing side by side putting in the exact same hours day after day, in the same weather conditions, shooting the same number of arrows, holding the same mass bow, with the same draw weight, and each of them are shooting a barebow, compound, and recurve. And they are all three at the elite level.

I am trying to understand this, not criticize the statement. I don't shoot Olympic style recurve or compound more than a few shots here and there, so I don't have a basis to compare or speak from experience. But I would think (I could totally be wrong) that three archers shooting the three bows at the same level putting in the same amount of work, that from a physical (and mental) they would be essentially the same demand.


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

Having shot Oly for a little bit, it is more physically demanding from barebow. The clicker doesn't lie. You need to get through it all the time.
I think on barebow without clicker allows more room to cheat or not realizing you aren't putting in the same effort as arrow #1. Also you have to be more solid on aim while pulling through, rather than settling/resting against a wall or at an anchor point


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

For me, the people I shoot with always tease me about how long I hold may draw (barebow). They keep telling me that I am not a compound shooter. People with clickers tends to shoot a whole lot faster than I do. Maybe that is why I don't understand why Oly is tougher.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

granite14 said:


> I think on barebow without clicker allows more room to cheat


We normally get the cheat card throw in by the Trad police, didn't expect it from any others :wink:


Although the clicker isn't allowed in competition doesn't mean we can't/won't use one for training. 

Because of my face shape when at anchor I'm able to get the string resting on my eyebrow, I use it as a virtual clicker by pressure/feel, not quite as good as the real clicker but it's been pretty effective for me over the years, even when I shot Longbow.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

grantmac said:


> Bill it may do your ego well to assign some sort of superiority to sightless shooting but my experience has been the polar opposite. Give me a disciplined target compound or recurve shooter and with very little coaching you can have them shooting far above the average sightless shooter. You give them a few adjustments to their technique and little else is needed.
> Trying to instill the expectation of perfection into the unfocused mindset of the average sightless shooter is far harder.
> 
> Sandy McCain is a great example of what I speak. She dropped Olympic for NFAA Trad and with a few tweaks was beating the competition like a rented mule.
> ...


I don't agree...I'm an accomplished sighted compound archer and for me?....the tax that's levied against my brain to establish and maintain an aiming system for the one that's not there exacts quite the fee.

I also feel that citing Sandy's transition is an extremely cherry picked example that isn't a true representation of such.

Anymore than would be me citing John Demmers going from BB too Olympic trials.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

JINKSTER said:


> I don't agree...I'm an accomplished sighted compound archer and for me?....the tax that's levied against my brain to establish and maintain an aiming system for the one that's not there exacts quite the fee.
> 
> I also feel that citing Sandy's transition is an extremely cherry picked example that isn't a true representation of such.
> 
> ]Anymore than would be me citing John Demmers going from BB too Olympic trials.


I guess Limbwalker and Rick Stonebraker would be other examples.

While John Demmer accounted very well for himself at the Trials (finishing 69th out of 144) and is a class act, I wouldn't consider that his performance rises to the example of the above three mentioned Olys-turned-Bares.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

lksseven said:


> While John Demmer accounted very well for himself at the Trials (finishing 69th out of 144) and is a class act, I wouldn't consider that his performance rises to the example of the above three mentioned Olys-turned-Bares.


But if we take into consideration the time span in which Mr Demmers achieved such a feat?....

I believe it's definitely worth honorable mention.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> How is recurve physically demanding and different from Compound and Barebow. If there are three people standing side by side putting in the exact same hours day after day, in the same weather conditions, shooting the same number of arrows, holding the same mass bow, with the same draw weight, and each of them are shooting a barebow, compound, and recurve. And they are all three at the elite level.
> 
> I am trying to understand this, not criticize the statement. I don't shoot Olympic style recurve or compound more than a few shots here and there, so I don't have a basis to compare or speak from experience. But I would think (I could totally be wrong) that three archers shooting the three bows at the same level putting in the same amount of work, that from a physical (and mental) they would be essentially the same demand.


It's almost impossible to explain to someone who hasn't attempted to be truly competitive with an Olympic bow at long distances, in the wind, so I won't even try. This is just one of those "take my word for it" things I guess.

I have a student who despite being a young "junior" finished 2nd to me at this year's Outdoor Nationals in men's senior barebow (ahead of Demmer in the matchplay) and medaled in the team event at the last world field championships (barebow). 

He immediately switched to Olympic recurve right after that event, because he wanted to compete at the Olympic trials (that weren't the trials) event. Despite dropping him in weight a few lbs., the switch to the heavier overall bow, sight and clicker at 70 meters in the wind kicked his rear. Just the clicker alone kicked his butt, but then the rest finished him off. And he's a big kid. Real big. He would be the perfect one to speak to this. I asked him the other day how he would compare the two, and he said it's like a 3:1 ratio. So shooting 100 arrows with an Olympic recurve is in his opinion, the equivalent to 300 with barebow. I would put it closer to 4:1 myself.

Sure, you can "fling arrows" with an Olympic bow and not have it tax you physically as much, but I'm talking about comparing both at the upper levels. 

There is a reason most Olympic recurve archers are thin as rails while most compound and barebow archers are not.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Yep....I gotta admit....I forgot all about that "Pulling Through The Clicker" crap. 

And now that I've been reminded?... :laugh:

So besides having hard sights ya'll have a concentration robbing draw check to deal with as well.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Mr. Roboto said:


> How is recurve physically demanding and different from Compound and Barebow. If there are three people standing side by side putting in the exact same hours day after day, in the same weather conditions, shooting the same number of arrows, holding the same mass bow, with the same draw weight, and each of them are shooting a barebow, compound, and recurve. And they are all three at the elite level.
> 
> I am trying to understand this, not criticize the statement. I don't shoot Olympic style recurve or compound more than a few shots here and there, so I don't have a basis to compare or speak from experience. But I would think (I could totally be wrong) that three archers shooting the three bows at the same level putting in the same amount of work, that from a physical (and mental) they would be essentially the same demand.


I have been doing Oly and was planning on doing most of the USATs and Trials this past season. Got sick over the summer (only really got to Arizona) and basically had to put the bow down for a few months. Came back weak. Was frustrated. Would have to abandon practice sessions feeling ill and weak. Eventually started backyard shooting from cabin fever. Remembered a conversation with John about how Oly was the most physically demanding. I had had an idea of trying barebow but it was low priority, no offense to everyone. I had done some one-off tourneys barebow, including one this year that was fun. So I knew I enjoyed it but just didn't see when I'd have the dedicated time period to give it effort while doing Oly justice.

In puzzling through a way to get me back in as I started to feel better, I basically decided, why not now? I am sure people on the outside could think based on my coach selection and timing I'm bandwagonning, but in terms of your question, it struck me as a way back in where I could build strength without having to fight a clicker and all that mess. So I went ahead and made the experiment period now. So it's nothing but barebow for the indoor season.

And, even though I was on the shelf a while this summer, over the past few months I've built up to shooting 2# more than I was Oly, and can see where I can probably do more (but am in no big rush). I sit there some nights shooting 10 arrow ends for an hour plus easy (when you used to struggle through a few dozen arrows and are now made fun of as the Danish archer equivalent, you can tell things have changed). I don't know how the math works out on John's equivalence scale -- maybe weaker still than before -- but I'm finally feeling better, getting the arrow count up, and putting more pressure on myself to do form right. I am pretty mediocre at this but learning and pushing, and for me it's a welcome way back into archery.

So I'd say that the no clicker value of it alone is worth considering. I've gotten where I kind of appreciate each one for its separate virtues. I like that you can shoot a bow 70 or more with a sight and hit dead middle (sometimes) like you meant it, maybe even a few times an end. I also like the stripped down thing, and appreciate the physical ease right now. And the form will filter back and forth between the two if you do both.

I don't feel like there have to be two different boxes and in perhaps a hint of arrogance I now almost wonder about Oly people who've never (or not much) tried it. It's like you never just stopped in the process of putting all that gear on and tried it normal? I don't know how you could be "serious" about recurve and not have learned how to do it that way also. Surely if you can run hurdles you can also do a basic sprint down the track.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> So besides having hard sights ya'll have a concentration robbing draw check to deal with as well.


Actually, just the opposite is true. The clicker allows you to shoot in the subconscious, which is much easier on the mind than either barebow or compound.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Actually, just the opposite is true. The clicker allows you to shoot in the subconscious, which is much easier on the mind than either barebow or compound.


Good stuff limbwalker...thanks! :thumbs_up 

I tried one for about a month and I guess I just never did it right....but I don't think I'm alone in that as I often times read where others prefer certain limb cores and profiles to help facilitate them pulling through the clicker smoothly.

Glad I opted for the G1....maybe someday I'll get to take a stab at what shooting an Oly rig is all about.

I'm in no rush though...from what I'm reading it doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun "to me"...and not sure I'd appreciate shooting at that level of intensity.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

grantmac said:


> Coaching is the #1 problem.
> 
> Failure to understand that a barebow isn't just an Olympic bow with the accessories removed is the #1 problem with coaches.
> 
> Grant


That and expectations to be shooting scores like guys that have been at it for years in a couple weeks........the old instant gratification thing just does not go hand in hand with barebow, you have to work at this discipline.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

centershot said:


> That and expectations to be shooting scores like guys that have been at it for years in a couple weeks........the old instant gratification thing just does not go hand in hand with barebow, you have to work at this discipline.


Which discipline doesn't require 'working at it' ?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Yup. The thread has become another my style is better than yours. And they go on forever........... Because nobody is right or wrong. Stop it already.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Yup. The thread has become another my style is better than yours. And they go on forever........... Because nobody is right or wrong. Stop it already.


There's a little of that, but there is some useful stuff here too. 

Barebow is such an enigma to most that any conversation about it is going to take some strange turns.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> Good stuff limbwalker...thanks! :thumbs_up
> 
> I tried one for about a month and I guess I just never did it right....but I don't think I'm alone in that as I often times read where others prefer certain limb cores and profiles to help facilitate them pulling through the clicker smoothly.
> 
> ...


People shoot barebow if they want to have fun.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Thanks, John.

Its like I said before, I don't have a reference point since I don't even try to compete or practice with a recurve or compound. I just watch others when I am practicing. Since I can't feel what they are going through, it just looks like they are expending the same amount of energy that I am. Appearances can be very deceiving. That is why I asked the question.

When I ran track in high school, I could run the 220, 440, and 880 (I am aging myself with those specific distances). I found that the 220 and the 880 to be relatively easy. And yet the 440 was a brutal killer for me. Though running is running (shooting is shooting) there are always little things that make one class a bit more difficult when compared to other classes. No different than archery right?

Again, thanks John


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> People shoot barebow if they want to have fun.


Don't you mean Longbow :wink:


Actually I'm enjoying Barebow, the guys I've shot Barebow with up until now have been a blast and we laughed and joked right up until the last arrow. The last IFAA worlds I shot Longbow it got a little too serious and tense and sucked the fun right out of it, that's when I decided I needed a change.


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> People shoot barebow if they want to have fun.


I am having a blast shooting barebow. Plus I like the look on guys face that is shooting a compound next to me when he realizes that I don't have a sight on my bow, yet I can hit the yellow most of the time. :wink: Then their head almost explodes when I start talking about gapping compared to string walking and face walking.


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

Barebow is so cool, because it exposes many people to another form of shooting recurves other than instinctive or Olympic rigs. Last year I got paired up with Henry Bass at an indoor 3D archery shoot. For those who don't know he was in the Vegas Shootoff last year and finished 5th. The guy could literally hit a dime sized dot at 50 yards at will. Blew me away. During the shoot he didn't say a word other than Wow a few times when I put my arrow next to his in the 10 ring with my String Walking Rig. Made me feel real good.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> People shoot barebow if they want to have fun.


Yep and Thanks for that limbwalker! 

I also couldn't agree more with Steve Morley and Utah...I'm the father of three grown daughters and a lifelong military/nasa/aerospace machinist...I'm often times shooting to take a small vacation from the petty problems of life, decompress and get closer too the inner peace of God.

My hybrid Thunder Child Longbow, My DAS Elite w/ custom amberboo limbs and more recently?...this G1/F7 BB help me do just that. 

My biggest problem when I get home from work?.....is which one to shoot.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Yup. The thread has become another my style is better than yours. And they go on forever........... Because nobody is right or wrong. Stop it already.


Who every said my style is better than yours? (generic you and me)

Barebow is one of many forms of archery. Though I shoot barebow, I 100% support Recurve and Compound, and even Longbow. I want them all to grow, and that we all have a great time in our sport. I even love to see what Lars Anderson does.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Who every said my style is better than yours? (generic you and me)
> 
> Barebow is one of many forms of archery. Though I shoot barebow, I 100% support Recurve and Compound, and even Longbow. I want them all to grow, and that we all have a great time in our sport. I even love to see what Lars Anderson does.


Yup. Some people need to realize that it's ALL archery and that it's all legitimate. When a person looks down on one discipline or another, that's when the elitist label starts to stick. And I've seen it go both directions, sadly. 

It's pretty clear to me that World Archery member organizations should be recognizing three main disciplines - Compound, Oly. Recurve, and Barebow - in all of their events. Not just field archery. I wonder how long it's going to take before we see barebow offered at the world indoor championships. It will happen eventually. Just a matter of time. Outdoors will take longer, but this barebow thing is really gaining some traction.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Yup. Some people need to realize that it's ALL archery and that it's all legitimate. When a person looks down on one discipline or another, that's when the elitist label starts to stick. And I've seen it go both directions, sadly.
> 
> It's pretty clear to me that World Archery member organizations should be recognizing three main disciplines - Compound, Oly. Recurve, and Barebow - in all of their events. Not just field archery. I wonder how long it's going to take before we see barebow offered at the world indoor championships. It will happen eventually. Just a matter of time. Outdoors will take longer, but this barebow thing is really gaining some traction.


limbwalker...I agree with all of the above and very well put....unfortunately?....I think the problem runs much deeper than just these seemingly jaded folks who act out as elitist because....

As I read through the "FITA COACHES BAREBOW MODULE"?....

The wording constantly infers that....

"The Barebow discipline is nothing more than a good place for novices and beginners to start."

And it doesn't state it just once and is written as though the person who wrote it has some sort of hard feelings towards the BB venue and heavily demerit and downplay BB much like the title of this very thread does. 

So?...the way I see it?....if somebody pi $$ed in the soup before the ingredients were ever added?...

Can we really blame the dinners for putting up a fuss? LOL!!!


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> .
> As I read through the "FITA COACHES BAREBOW MODULE"?....
> 
> The wording constantly infers that....
> ...


I started this thread with tongue firmly planted in cheek since in a previous thread bare bow was referred to as a "distraction". Yea, that hit a nerve and the reason I started the discussion. It is not a distraction but a vital segment not only of USA Archery, but of world archery. I think John sums up my feeling pretty well here:


"It's pretty clear to me that World Archery member organizations should be recognizing three main disciplines - Compound, Oly. Recurve, and Barebow - in all of their events. Not just field archery. I wonder how long it's going to take before we see barebow offered at the world indoor championships. It will happen eventually. Just a matter of time. Outdoors will take longer, but this barebow thing is really gaining some traction."


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

TomB said:


> I started this thread with tongue firmly planted in cheek since in a previous thread bare bow was referred to as a "distraction". Yea, that hit a nerve and the reason I started the discussion. It is not a distraction but a vital segment not only of USA Archery, but of world archery. I think John sums up my feeling pretty well here:
> 
> 
> "It's pretty clear to me that World Archery member organizations should be recognizing three main disciplines - Compound, Oly. Recurve, and Barebow - in all of their events. Not just field archery. I wonder how long it's going to take before we see barebow offered at the world indoor championships. It will happen eventually. Just a matter of time. Outdoors will take longer, but this barebow thing is really gaining some traction."


Thank you Tom....as you can tell I'm new 'roud these parts so I don't even know enough yet to tell joking from serious....heck....I even had to brush up on my google spanish to find out what the heck "F.I.T A." stood for and I got an answer....*"Federation Internationale de Tir a l'Arc"*....but then I needed a translation! LOL!

But I still stand by my opinion that the wording of the *"FITA COACHES BAREBOW MODULE"* read in an awfully disparaging way to me and read as though the author felt BB only good as "Familiarization For Beginners/Novices" until such time they move on too bigger and better things?...and I think that's one heck of a low viewpoint of BB to be teaching anyone who's about to stitch the title of "Coach" on their shirts. 

But?...Maybe something was lost in the translation there as well. :laugh:

anyways....thanks for the thread title explanation!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

FITA is French, not Spanish.

That is a beginner manual, there are (or were) more advanced training manuals produced by a few member countries organizations which cover barebow (field in particular) much more thoroughly.

Grant


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

grantmac said:


> FITA is French, not Spanish.
> 
> That is a beginner manual, there are (or were) more advanced training manuals produced by a few member countries organizations which cover barebow (field in particular) much more thoroughly.
> 
> Grant


French with a Spanish accent? :laugh:


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I struggle with replying about barebow due to the sensitivity of some of you, but felt it important for others to see an overall view instead of just a rose colored picture. Barebow was the only class in the early years of NFAA. Clifford Necessary was the first guy I read about who was an incredible champion. He was mainly a face walker. For those of you who are not versed in the barebow world, there is instinctive, gap, face and string walking in that order. The instinctive shooters thought it was sacrilegious to gap, face or string walk. It was not "pure" barebow according to their standards. And when a sight was first used, it created a tremendous riff between the two divisions. I would say at least as bad as the original riff between the finger shooters and "hook" shooters. Anyway, Frank Gandy was the first to use string walking with perfection and almost beat the sight shooters at the NFAA Nationals in 1967. I was there. My mom won the women's barebow national title and my brother Danny won the Junior barebow division beating out Pat (my other brother) who took second place. For those of you who know Chuck Trafford, he was in the same division as my brothers. My mom and brothers were face walkers. They used a split finger and 3-under "walking" up and down the face to get the aim of the point on the target. The string walker was far more accurate and most eventually went this system. I grew up in a house full of barebow shooters, so I probably understand the game far better than most. I chose a sight because that was what I liked. No other reason. It was more my style. Did I shoot better than the family barebow'ers? No. They were really good. I was about as low on the totem pole as could be in my early years. 

Now, back to barebow for growth. I still believe that most of you think that barebow would be bigger and better if there was an effort by USAA to promote it. Why should they? They didn't promote Compounds when they first came in. They offered a place due to FITA or WA regulations and they do the same with barebow. Why is it that barebow archers feel they are "entitled" to a bigger effort than any of the other two groups? You as a lover of barebow should do the promoting and as it grows, then the USAA will provide more options for you. The more barebow archers there are who register in an event, the more divisions and places that will be given. It is so hard for any organization to offer all of these divisions if only one person shows up. The barebow archers who showed up in Alabama was nice. However, they were a total of 26 barebow archers in 4 divisions Masters, Seniors, Male, Female. I think there were 10 in one division. This is nice and it should be respected. However, do it again next year and again the following year. If the divisions grow, then I am with you and would like to see more divisions and support. But offering lots of divisions and having one or two archers in your division really doesn't do you any justice unless you want bragging rights. That doens't make since, sense you keep talking about the purity of it. Go and shoot and help make it grow. The Master's recurve division had 32 archers. That has been growing for the past several years and now USAA is wanting a think tank to offer some kind of support for the Masters. I would hazard to guess that the barebow group will get the same treatment if you grow. That is your responsibility. Look at the NASP program. An incredibly large group of archers shooting barebow and with a Genesis bow only. There are millions of these kids in the US but there is nothing for them in USAA or very little. What you are suggesting is that USAA should develop and encourage these kids to come over to their organization. I believe there should be a simple division but nothing more. Then if it grows, you put more effort into it. You cannot keep chasing your tail thinking you will get everyone. The USAA was charged with developing WA champions for Recurve Freestyle (Olympic), then compound then barebow. This can change when WA changes. If and when the compound gets into the Olympics then there will be more funding from the USOC and maybe even the bow manufacturers, thus more support for the compound group. The cost of taking care of sending archers to the World Target, World Indoor, World Field, Olympics, Pan Am, World Cups and other international events is far more than the USAA can afford to financially support with just a membership of 20,000. There is not enough money to do everything. However, since many of you lovers of barebow want to grow barebow archery, then grow it. Quit expecting someone else to get it going. That responsibility is on you. Get it to a level that others take notice, then you will see more support. This has nothing to do with them or us. It has everything to do with archery and how to grow the sport. Texas appears to be the biggest if not the only major force for barebow with a smattering of individuals throughout the country. Grow it in Texas to a point that it starts spreading to other states. That's all you have to do. 

Now, about the amount of effort it takes to be good at all three disciplines. The compound is the easiest to shoot a higher score. However, when you get to that higher score it gets harder and harder to be one of the best. The amount of mental and physical that is required is no different than the other 2 disciplines. The learning curve is just different is all. The accuracy that is required is far greater than the other 2 disciplines, thus the growth at the end is much smaller but harder to achieve. The barebow archer is on the other end of the spectrum. The learning curve is incredibly huge in the beginning and the effort to become competitive is greater. However, when you want to win at the elite level in barebow, just go to Sweden and take note. Those guys are by far the best there ever was and still are. The Olympic Style recurve is in the middle of the two other groups. The learning curve is great, but not as great as the barebow. The physical demands on both of the recurve and barebow is large in the beginning and in order to be the best, the physical training is a must. The compound archer doesn't need as much physical in the beginning but as they develop, it will be needed. Essentially, anyone who becomes a champion, whether they be compound, freestyle or barebow deserve our respect. 

For the love of archery,
Rick


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Thank you, Rick. That was beautifully put. A lot of us are working on the growth end, not just in Texas, but we could use more. (And hurray for Texas.) For those of you whose state tournaments don't offer barebow, do a little respectful requesting/agitating, so the barebow archers in your state "have a place." (Thank you, Washington state.) At the state level, or your club level, is where it starts -- that's the farm team for nationals. Take the instructor/coach certification classes and start teaching barebow. USA Archery's addition of the barebow category to the JOAD and adult achievement program and JOAD nationals is having a big effect on participation here in Portland. World Archery doesn't even offer barebow archers a place in the indoors and outdoors target championships. We (and Europe) need to advocate for this, big-time.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Another great post by Rick.

I would take a minor issue, though. Growth is an iterative process. It is entirely reasonable to ask the national org to provide opportunities for BB at OTC - the build it and they will come approach. And such and approach is fully compatible and complimentary with grass roots efforts to grow the sport of BB. Otherwise we get what has happened in the past, the self-fulfilling prophesy where the org places barriers to a group of people participating, and then uses the lack of those people participating as proof there is no interest.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Another great post by Rick.
> 
> I would take a minor issue, though. Growth is an iterative process. It is entirely reasonable to ask the national org to provide opportunities for BB at OTC - the build it and they will come approach. And such and approach is fully compatible and complimentary with grass roots efforts to grow the sport of BB. Otherwise we get what has happened in the past, the self-fulfilling prophesy where the org places barriers to a group of people participating, and then uses the lack of those people participating as proof there is no interest.


I agree with Warsaw's point, too, which isn't actually so minor! And Rick, when you say: "I still believe that most of you think that barebow would be bigger and better if there was an effort by USAA to promote it. Why should they?" I think they should because there are thousands of traditional and barebow archers out there who are not engaged in the tournaments or the instruction programs. (How many Samick Sages are sold in this country in a year?? How many self-taught archers who wreck their shoulders?) Traditional and barebow has a lot of allure for a big segment of the potential archers out there, and it's less expensive to get into. Reaching out to them seems like a good way for a national organization to promote the sport. Learning barebow is a great foundation for the other bow styles, isn't it, as well as being a great end in itself? Plus it is closer to the roots of the sport and is worth keeping around and promoting just for that. As longbow is as well.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Oops, Warbow, are you Polish? Sorry for the typo. Everybody needs an editor!



Laurie Borealis said:


> I agree with Warsaw's point, too, which isn't actually so minor! And Rick, when you say: "I still believe that most of you think that barebow would be bigger and better if there was an effort by USAA to promote it. Why should they?" I think they should because there are thousands of traditional and barebow archers out there who are not engaged in the tournaments or the instruction programs. (How many Samick Sages are sold in this country in a year?? How many self-taught archers who wreck their shoulders?) Traditional and barebow has a lot of allure for a big segment of the potential archers out there, and it's less expensive to get into. Reaching out to them seems like a good way for a national organization to promote the sport. Learning barebow is a great foundation for the other bow styles, isn't it, as well as being a great end in itself? Plus it is closer to the roots of the sport and is worth keeping around and promoting just for that. As longbow is as well.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Warbow said:


> Another great post by Rick.
> 
> I would take a minor issue, though. Growth is an iterative process. It is entirely reasonable to ask the national org to provide opportunities for BB at OTC - the build it and they will come approach. And such and approach is fully compatible and complimentary with grass roots efforts to grow the sport of BB. Otherwise we get what has happened in the past, the self-fulfilling prophesy where the org places barriers to a group of people participating, and then uses the lack of those people participating as proof there is no interest.


Warsaw, Although I fully understand how this can work by getting both parties to work together and I think USAA is doing that, but they are also looking at their overall goals of the WA and USOC. Let's keep this in mind, USAA has agreed to be the representative for the United States to WA and the Olympic movement. This does not mean they are only looking at Olympic archery. They are also looking at the other disciplines but there are only so many resources that can be used. Now about the past. This organization has my complete confidence due to their past efforts. I know that some do not like Denise and how she is running the organization, but since I have the fortunate opportunity to see over 20 plus leaders of this organization and their affect on the organization, she is by far one of the best we have had in years. Just her reaching out to the Masters group shows that she does care, but it takes effort on both sides. The Masters really will never be an Olympic sport and it really is more for those who just love to shoot or still shoot. The growth is there and she wants to see if USAA can help them. This new task force will help guide USAA on what they want if it is within reason. I personally would feel a bit out of place at the OTC's thinking that since I am a Master (or barebow if you will), I could be taking a spot from a young deserving archer who just might end up in the Olympics winning a Gold Medal for us. I would rather support them than take a part away from them. However, since I have been there and done that, I may not be of a similar cut than those who have never been there.

Don't forget that USAA is just one organization out of 140+ countries that are a part of WA. We can work with other countries to grow the barebow side, but it will take an effort from volunteers to make it happen. USAA, as has been explained over and over just does not have the funding to do it. Someone should get in contact with the Swedish Federation and find out what they do and how they got there. They are the best example of barebow achievement in WA.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Great post Rick.

I completely agree with you on this.

If the numbers are not there to support a class at a tournament, then that class has to be dropped. It takes a lot of time, money, and resources to have a particular class in any kind of a tournament. I spent years fighting with this for other, non archery, tournaments. And a lot of people have hated me when I closed certain events due to lack of participation.

One of the things that really irked me a couple years ago about the USAA was when they formally announced that they were dropping barebow from the US Outdoor nationals, they said it was because WA didn't support it. That is when I finally decided to get off my butt and become a loud vocal supporter of Barebow.

Now if USAA would have said it was because the numbers didn't support having the class, then I would have agreed with that decision. I might have not liked it, but if the numbers are not there, then one can not support it. I can totally respect that decision. But then the hypocrisy of the decision became apparent because they still planned to keep barebow in the Indoor Nationals. WA does not support barebow in world indoor championships.

I am totally excited that USAA has brought Barebow back to the Outdoor Target Nationals, and that we had a good turnout, and I really hope to see the numbers grow year after year.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> I struggle with replying about barebow due to the sensitivity of some of you, but felt it important for others to see an overall view instead of just a rose colored picture. Barebow was the only class in the early years of NFAA. Clifford Necessary was the first guy I read about who was an incredible champion. He was mainly a face walker. For those of you who are not versed in the barebow world, there is instinctive, gap, face and string walking in that order. The instinctive shooters thought it was sacrilegious to gap, face or string walk. It was not "pure" barebow according to their standards. And when a sight was first used, it created a tremendous riff between the two divisions. I would say at least as bad as the original riff between the finger shooters and "hook" shooters. Anyway, Frank Gandy was the first to use string walking with perfection and almost beat the sight shooters at the NFAA Nationals in 1967. I was there. My mom won the women's barebow national title and my brother Danny won the Junior barebow division beating out Pat (my other brother) who took second place. For those of you who know Chuck Trafford, he was in the same division as my brothers. My mom and brothers were face walkers. They used a split finger and 3-under "walking" up and down the face to get the aim of the point on the target. The string walker was far more accurate and most eventually went this system. I grew up in a house full of barebow shooters, so I probably understand the game far better than most. I chose a sight because that was what I liked. No other reason. It was more my style. Did I shoot better than the family barebow'ers? No. They were really good. I was about as low on the totem pole as could be in my early years.
> 
> Now, back to barebow for growth. I still believe that most of you think that barebow would be bigger and better if there was an effort by USAA to promote it. Why should they? They didn't promote Compounds when they first came in. They offered a place due to FITA or WA regulations and they do the same with barebow. Why is it that barebow archers feel they are "entitled" to a bigger effort than any of the other two groups? You as a lover of barebow should do the promoting and as it grows, then the USAA will provide more options for you. The more barebow archers there are who register in an event, the more divisions and places that will be given. It is so hard for any organization to offer all of these divisions if only one person shows up. The barebow archers who showed up in Alabama was nice. However, they were a total of 26 barebow archers in 4 divisions Masters, Seniors, Male, Female. I think there were 10 in one division. This is nice and it should be respected. However, do it again next year and again the following year. If the divisions grow, then I am with you and would like to see more divisions and support. But offering lots of divisions and having one or two archers in your division really doesn't do you any justice unless you want bragging rights. That doens't make since, sense you keep talking about the purity of it. Go and shoot and help make it grow. The Master's recurve division had 32 archers. That has been growing for the past several years and now USAA is wanting a think tank to offer some kind of support for the Masters. I would hazard to guess that the barebow group will get the same treatment if you grow. That is your responsibility. Look at the NASP program. An incredibly large group of archers shooting barebow and with a Genesis bow only. There are millions of these kids in the US but there is nothing for them in USAA or very little. What you are suggesting is that USAA should develop and encourage these kids to come over to their organization. I believe there should be a simple division but nothing more. Then if it grows, you put more effort into it. You cannot keep chasing your tail thinking you will get everyone. The USAA was charged with developing WA champions for Recurve Freestyle (Olympic), then compound then barebow. This can change when WA changes. If and when the compound gets into the Olympics then there will be more funding from the USOC and maybe even the bow manufacturers, thus more support for the compound group. The cost of taking care of sending archers to the World Target, World Indoor, World Field, Olympics, Pan Am, World Cups and other international events is far more than the USAA can afford to financially support with just a membership of 20,000. There is not enough money to do everything. However, since many of you lovers of barebow want to grow barebow archery, then grow it. Quit expecting someone else to get it going. That responsibility is on you. Get it to a level that others take notice, then you will see more support. This has nothing to do with them or us. It has everything to do with archery and how to grow the sport. Texas appears to be the biggest if not the only major force for barebow with a smattering of individuals throughout the country. Grow it in Texas to a point that it starts spreading to other states. That's all you have to do.
> 
> ...


Rick, several things come to mind while reading your post. I think you have misconstrued what the barebow crowd has been saying and it may simply be a case of semantics. I don' think we are asking USA archery to promote barebow, rather to include barebow. You stated the organization didn't promote the compound class when it came in, rather it made a place for it, and that is what the barebow class is asking for. If the class doesn't grow and flourish, then that is on us. Secondly, you are the second poster in the last year to backhandedly insult the USA barebow archers, John Magera being the first, by insinuating that we should go to Sweden for training. Now, I have only been to the last 2 World Championships, but I would like to point out to you and John that in 2012, American Alan Eagleton Won the individual silver medal along with a Gold in the team event. In 2014, the USA placed all three barebow archers in the top 16 shootoffs and two in the final 8 along with another Gold medal in the Team event. If I am not mistaken, that is 3 gold medals for the USA team out of the last 4 World Championships and the barebow archers have been outstanding in all three of those Victories. You would be better served keeping your biases to yourself. Just for the record, all three barebow men in 2012 were from California, in 2014, 2 were from California and one was from Pennsylvania. Please tell me how that translates into Texas being the hotbed of barebow archery. We may be excluded from top level tournaments by by the biases of top level USA archery officers, but I will be damned if I will stand by and be insulted by out of touch policy makers. I would like to have you and others stand behind and support our group but I think we will make our mark even if you don't.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> Rick, several things come to mind while reading your post. I think you have misconstrued what the barebow crowd has been saying and it may simply be a case of semantics. I don' think we are asking USA archery to promote barebow, rather to include barebow. You stated the organization didn't promote the compound class when it came in, rather it made a place for it, and that is what the barebow class is asking for. If the class doesn't grow and flourish, then that is on us. Secondly, you are the second poster in the last year to backhandedly insult the USA barebow archers, John Magera being the first, by insinuating that we should go to Sweden for training. Now, I have only been to the last 2 World Championships, but I would like to point out to you and John that in 2012, American Alan Eagleton Won the individual silver medal along with a Gold in the team event. In 2014, the USA placed all three barebow archers in the top 16 shootoffs and two in the final 8 along with another Gold medal in the Team event. If I am not mistaken, that is 3 gold medals for the USA team out of the last 4 World Championships and the barebow archers have been outstanding in all three of those Victories. *You would be better served keeping your biases to yourself.* Just for the record, all three barebow men in 2012 were from California, in 2014, 2 were from California and one was from Pennsylvania. Please tell me how that translates into Texas being the hotbed of barebow archery. We may be excluded from top level tournaments by by the biases of top level USA archery officers, but I will be damned if I will stand by and be insulted by out of touch policy makers. I would like to have you and others stand behind and support our group but I think we will make our mark even if you don't.


Some valid sounding points in there, itbeso, but I think we might all be better served if we don't make this discussion personal. One of the things I like about the FITA forum over many of the trad forums, is that it is generally pretty civil in here - something that is up to all of us, including me, who likes to argue a point as much as the next guy (ok, maybe more than the next guy, but maybe not more than the guy after that  )


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I've already done my bit on the numbers, which I think are sufficient. They are bigger than the USA Trad numbers and senior is equivalent to age group recurve divisions. No one is saying we can't have O-50 recurve or the youngest age groups because of their numbers.

Indoors really should be beyond debate. And once they have respectable indoor numbers it should be in outdoors also to give those shooters a full track, an indoor and outdoor meet. Some commitment to it independent of the registrations. Failing that, a small but reasonable class minimum. Same story for some local tournament. It should be included because the national numbers are good enough and it's earned the seal of approval, but failing that, minimum entries. Like I said earlier, when I did a tournament in New England this fall, they had 0 senior recurve and 4 senior BB. All else fails, let the numbers of entries -- not predetermined conclusions -- say whether a class goes. In that NE case, the class that didn't take would probably surprise some people......

Should be male, female, and mixed teams BB outdoors, no age groups, and in the case of mixed, everyone, to encourage people entering nationals and being on teams. I actually think the class minimums are counterproductive because you have to have one eye on whether your division would take, which means that you have the circularity problem of people who would enter and increase numbers waiting on the numbers to get there to commit.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Well for a second there I was really digging Rick's post and thanks BTW for posting all that great information Rick! :thumbs_up 

Cause it took me down memory lane when you mentioned "Frank Gandy"...as I had the honor and privilege of shooting a few rounds with Mr Gandy back in the day at Treasure Coast Archers in Stuart, Florida....late 80s early 90s...as I recall he showed up mostly for the Dillard "Buck" Bucklin Memorial 3D shoots.

Many of our older charter members back then we're BB Men....some of whom begrudgingly swapped out their beloved recurves for compound but always for the same reasons....old worn out shoulders yet wanted to remain in the game as long as possible....in the end?...Buck was shooting a Bear Tamer lane Compound with pretty much nothing on it while he wore a heavily beaded and beautifully tooled custom leather quiver.

I once ate moose back strap provided by Bucks wife at a monthly club officers meeting and Buck took that moose with that Tamer lane while on a hunt guided by his friend....

"Fred Bear"

Thanks for the memories Rick!


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

itbeso, Your anger is misplaced. You feel that 3 or 4 US guys might be the best there is. I know for a fact that there are 50+ barebow Swedish archers who can go toe-to-toe with your maybe 3 or 4 guys. The depth that Sweden has and even Italy are quite impressive. However, we all have our opinions and I base mine on the knowledge I have acquired over the years. So, when I state that Sweden has the best, I am very comfortable in saying such. It is no slight, just a knowledgable fact. Thinking I am biased is your choice. Texas is the most vocal and have made the biggest effort to grow barebow. That doesn't mean they have the best, they just have a lot more than any other state.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Also, I think if we look at the location information on the indoor nationals entries -- and cross-reference it by outdoors, which isn't as obvious -- it doesn't support the "Texas" dismissal. Friend of mine who was the sole Texas BB person indoor senior female switched to OR in part because it was a one person class at TAMU. But it turned out to be 30+ total nationally. So, "Texas?" Not exactly. Coaches might notice if Arizona or California dominated recurve one year, but if the class numbers "take" and are generally regionally scattered/proportional, we wouldn't say, "well, it's not a good class, California won everything...." just because that's how it worked out one year.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Azzurri said:


> Also, I think if we look at the location information on the indoor nationals entries -- and cross-reference it by outdoors, which isn't as obvious -- it doesn't support the "Texas" dismissal. Friend of mine who was the sole Texas BB person indoor senior female switched to OR in part because it was a one person class at TAMU. But it turned out to be 30+ total nationally. So, "Texas?" Not exactly. Coaches might notice if Arizona or California dominated recurve one year, but if the class numbers "take" and are generally regionally scattered/proportional, we wouldn't say, "well, it's not a good class, California won everything...." just because that's how it worked out one year.


One year? Over the last 20 years maybe. Burns, Applegate, Pelfrey, Eagleton, etc. Texas? It pays to be informed before posting.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> itbeso, Your anger is misplaced. You feel that 3 or 4 US guys might be the best there is. I know for a fact that there are 50+ barebow Swedish archers who can go toe-to-toe with your maybe 3 or 4 guys. The depth that Sweden has and even Italy are quite impressive. However, we all have our opinions and I base mine on the knowledge I have acquired over the years. So, when I state that Sweden has the best, I am very comfortable in saying such. It is no slight, just a knowledgable fact. Thinking I am biased is your choice. Texas is the most vocal and have made the biggest effort to grow barebow. That doesn't mean they have the best, they just have a lot more than any other state.


Rick, my anger was not misplaced at all as there was no anger in my post. You remind me of the liberal crowd who, when confronted by facts and opposing opinions, resort to name calling and painting negative pictures of their opponents.. You are entitled to your biased opinion but I think the barebow crowd is more resistant to slights and insults than the Oly crowd, who seem to easily forgive you of all your rhetoric. Meanwhile, we will continue to improve our lot and trying to make our mark on the world and, speaking only for myself, without taking any trips to Sweden for lessons.:angel::angel:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Warbow said:


> Some valid sounding points in there, itbeso, but I think we might all be better served if we don't make this discussion personal. One of the things I like about the FITA forum over many of the trad forums, is that it is generally pretty civil in here - something that is up to all of us, including me, who likes to argue a point as much as the next guy (ok, maybe more than the next guy, but maybe not more than the guy after that  )


Warbow, I know you are from California and despite all of Californias efforts to make everything a feel good moment, the reality is, that discussions are personal and that is just the way it is. Show me where I wasn't civil. Was it because I disagreed with someone you think is infallible? Was it because I called out someone who backhandedly insulted a whole class of archers? Was it because I stood up for my fellow competitors? Or was it just because?


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I wonder what state the top women Barebow shooters come from


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> I wonder what state the top women Barebow shooters come from


Why, Texas, of course. Oh, wait a minute. LOL


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> I wonder what state the top women Barebow shooters come from


Maybe we could book a charter flight to Sweden for lessons for all our barebow shooters.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

One of the big challenges to Barebow is the incentive for individuals to invest huge sums of personal money and time to excel at the sport.

With Recurve there is the Olympic dream that is an extremely enticing lure. People will invest a fortune and their lives to pursue the Olympic dream. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The top US shooters get to represent the US in world championships. That is also very enticing. Being a top shooter, there are sponsorship opportunities that help with pursuing those dreams. One of the greatest treats that WA championships has is that archers have to earn the right to be there to represent their country. USAA selects who gets to go and archers have to earn the privilege to for USAA to select them.

With compounds, there is the potential that it will be an Olympic event within the next 10 years. But like with Recurve, there is also the same prestige of representing the US at WA world championships. Again, earned positions. Also, there is a lot of money potential from prize earnings and professional income. Because of this, there is also a lot of people willing to invest huge sums of money and time to excellence to compete.

What about Barebow? What is the incentive for an individual to spend huge sums of money to compete across the country, devote their lives to excelling in the sport? There is no future for Olympics, WA doesn't recognize them for Indoor and Outdoor target events. Only for Field events. Those who earn the right to represent the US for the World Field championships have to fund themselves to go - no free ride. And I, would in a heart beat go into debt to be a member of that team. But that is just one event every 2 years. USAA dropped the ball big time for the world 3D this year. Money potential for barebow? Outside of Vegas, there really isn't anything.

Now, if World Archery allowed Barebow to compete in all of the target world championships that occur every year, there will be a lot more willing to invest the time and money excel at the discipline of Barebow.

For the USAA FITA Field championships, just look at the relative percentage of barebow shooters to the compound and recurve shooters? Now can one imagine if WA allowed barebow to compete at the Target championships? All of a sudden there will be a boat load of more barebow shooters at the indoors and outdoors.

I am not saying that USAA has to foot the bill for barebow shooters to compete internationally. I understand that their budgets are tight. But what I would like to see is that the USAA push WA really hard to allow barebow shooters to compete at the various world class events.

I am glad that USAA has allowed barebow to be part of the indoor/outdoor national target championships. But it costs a lot of money to go and compete. Usually it is just for opportunities to compete against other fellow barebow shooters and to make new friends.

Now all we need to do is get the NFAA to adopt a rule set for barebow-recurve that is compliant with WA barebow. They did for Olympic Recurve and Compound. They just have to come around for barebow. But that is a whole different story.

Pete


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

itbeso said:


> Warbow, I know you are from California and despite all of Californias efforts to make everything a feel good moment, the reality is, that discussions are personal and that is just the way it is. Show me where I wasn't civil. Was it because I disagreed with someone you think is infallible? Was it because I called out someone who backhandedly insulted a whole class of archers? Was it because I stood up for my fellow competitors? Or was it just because?


You wrote this, itbeso:



itbeso said:


> I think the barebow crowd is more resistant to slights and insults than the Oly crowd


I don't think you are living up to your own claim of barebow shooters being resistant to slights and insults, rather you seem to be demonstrating the opposite, perceiving insults were there are none. At times I think you are looking for a fight rather than a discussion, which I find annoying because I think you do have some good points that get lost in the abrasiveness.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> One of the big challenges to Barebow is the incentive for individuals to invest huge sums of personal money and time to excel at the sport.
> 
> With Recurve there is the Olympic dream that is an extremely enticing lure. People will invest a fortune and their lives to pursue the Olympic dream. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The top US shooters get to represent the US in world championships. That is also very enticing. Being a top shooter, there are sponsorship opportunities that help with pursuing those dreams. One of the greatest treats that WA championships has is that archers have to earn the right to be there to represent their country. USAA selects who gets to go and archers have to earn the privilege to for USAA to select them.
> 
> ...


Pete, why do you have to interject thoughtfulness, sound reasoning, and good commentary into these discussions?:darkbeer:


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Ben, thanks for torching my thread. Enough.


----------

