# NFAA Barebow rules



## barking mad (Oct 17, 2006)

Yes, the bubble is legal, as long as it is placed below the arrow.


----------



## Jimmy Sweden (Oct 24, 2005)

Pretty much stuff allowed on a BARE bow...


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Define "bare" then?????


----------



## barking mad (Oct 17, 2006)

Jimmy Sweden said:


> Pretty much stuff allowed on a BARE bow...


And even stringwalking is allowed. What blasphemy.. :smile:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Just don't confuse NFAA Barebow with NFAA Traditional. They are completely different divisions.

Why NFAA doesn't get in line with World Archery, I don't know, but they could at least adopt both the IFAA barebow divisions as a start. 

John


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

How do people use a draw check or clicker in barebow?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Under the arrow


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

I see that in the rules but I can't figure out how it could be mounted.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'd have to check, but you could probably use a limb-mounted clicker as well (the kind with the string that ties to the bowstring). The clicker just can't be in your line of sight above the arrow rest, that's all. Otherwise, guys would paint their clicker rods for sight marks.

John


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Why can't all the federations agree on standard classes to save the actual archers stress time and money trying to fit their equipment into the different requirements. Think of the archers for once.


----------



## MAT (May 27, 2003)

Are compounds also allowed in BB, and if so how many actually compete? 

I'm confused as well, what's the difference between BB, competative bowhunter and traditional? I'd like to shoot a class that doesn't allow compounds or string walking. Do all classes allow elevated rests?


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

http://www.nfaa-archery.org/field/styles.cfm

Barebow is almost exclusively compounds in the U.S., but recurves are allowed. Alan Eagleton came in third in barebow at the Vegas shoot this past weekend, shooting a recurve.

Elevated rests are allowed except in the new longbow division, which isn't listed in that link yet.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Just don't confuse NFAA Barebow with NFAA Traditional. They are completely different divisions.
> 
> *Why NFAA doesn't get in line with World Archery, *I don't know, but they could at least adopt both the IFAA barebow divisions as a start.
> 
> John


If everyone had the same rules having different orgs would be, in large part, redundant. However, I think it is ridiculous that NFAA doesn't fully support IFAA rules. When I first took up archery I once thought it would be cool to take up IFAA longbow until I found out just how little the NFAA cares about it as a class.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It is ridiculous that NFAA doesn't offer the same divisions as their parent organization - IFAA. But it's no differen't than USArchery ignoring barebow the way they have for so long. I don't know if it's a willful ignorance thing, or if the manufacturers have persuaded them to ignore the most profit-starved segment of our sport... 

Nobody can spend a weekend at Vegas or the ATA show without at least admitting what a role business profits play in the rules of our sport.

Anyone want to bother getting a ruling on upper limb graphics?  LOL.

John


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Last week the NFAA changed a rule for trad shooters, to allow up to a 12" stabilizer. And now (starting in June) seniors start at 50 years of age - same as IFAA, I think.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I wrote the petition to allow a 12" stabilizer in the trad recurve in NFAA. I think it passed by two votes my goal is to mirror IFAA and Fita for recurve. As I have said before you dont eat an elephant in one bite. If you guys dont like what NFAA is doing with your division get proactive and write petitions send them to your State directors. You dont have to be a Director to write a petition but you do to vote. Most of the state directors vote without your input. we can change the rules if all get on the train.

Gary


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> It is ridiculous that NFAA doesn't offer the same divisions as their parent organization - IFAA. But it's no differen't than USArchery ignoring barebow the way they have for so long. I don't know if it's a willful ignorance thing, or if the manufacturers have persuaded them to ignore the most profit-starved segment of our sport...
> 
> Nobody can spend a weekend at Vegas or the ATA show without at least admitting what a role business profits play in the rules of our sport.
> 
> ...


You're just trying to outlaw Hoyt limbs.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh, you got me... 

Only I was going after W&W. 

But seriously, we had some discussion in Vegas about when the rule was relaxed, or re-interpreted to allow graphics on the inside of the upper limb. You may recall that in years past, no manufacturer had any graphics on the inside of the upper limb. I was told this was due to the FITA rule that prohibited markings that could be used as alignment aids. So (as gt would probably say) I checked the rules and what do you know? They specifically state now that there is no rule against trademarks on the inside of the upper limb. So, I should have just checked there first (which I would have done, had I remembered to bring my laptop to Vegas!).

As for the IFAA/WA differences in barebow, those who actually shoot both understand what I'm talking about, and how frustrating it can be trying to go back and forth between the two while still being competitive. Those who aren't all that competitive in both, usually don't notice these subtle differences, and then wonder what the big deal is. So, there's that.

John


----------



## Jimmy Sweden (Oct 24, 2005)

Sorry I did not mean to start a heated debate here, and about bare, well i don't say that WA barebow is any better in that regard but the rule is kind of simple and allows for fewer things on the bow... at least more of a bare bow divison then.

But who knows might slap on stabs and come join you guys for the fun in Vegas next year


----------



## c-lo (Jan 8, 2012)

2413gary said:


> I wrote the petition to allow a 12" stabilizer in the trad recurve in NFAA. I think it passed by two votes my goal is to mirror IFAA and Fita for recurve. As I have said before you dont eat an elephant in one bite. If you guys dont like what NFAA is doing with your division get proactive and write petitions send them to your State directors. You dont have to be a Director to write a petition but you do to vote. Most of the state directors vote without your input. we can change the rules if all get on the train.
> 
> Gary


Gary, Thanks for stepping up and making it happen. If a 12 inch stab is allowed, I would assume that any sort of counterbalance is allowed as well. Is that right?

Thanks, C


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That is the next question to answer, and it already came up in Vegas last week.

I like the fita / World Archery rule. If it can fit through a 12.2 cm ring (the 10 ring of a 122 cm target) it is legal. The NFAA rules always leave too much room for interpretation, it seems.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> That is the next question to answer, and it already came up in Vegas last week.
> 
> I like the fita / World Archery rule. If it can fit through a 12.2 cm ring (the 10 ring of a 122 cm target) it is legal.


The ring makes me think of this:









Good thing you don't have to levitate the bow to pass the ring over it


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

So, is it in fact a passed "new" rule. You can use a 12" stabilizer in the Traditional class?? If so will it be allowed in this years Nationals?
Art


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

John are you talking NFAA or IFAA regarding a clicker up above?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Art,

The rule takes effect in June, so I've been told, so nothing will change for this year's Nationals event in Louisville.

The reference to a clicker was for the barebow division (which includes compounds) not the traditional division we would be shooting in with our recurves.

John


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

C-lo just a stabilizer will be allowed up to 12" long no counter balance. the next thing I will do is get a RIC on weights in the riser. like all of the factory barebow weights I would hope they would be legal. but don't bet on it yet.
Gary


c-lo said:


> Gary, Thanks for stepping up and making it happen. If a 12 inch stab is allowed, I would assume that any sort of counterbalance is allowed as well. Is that right?
> 
> Thanks, C


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

2413gary said:


> C-lo just a stabilizer will be allowed up to 12" long no counter balance.


At what point does a counterbalance become a stabilizer?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> the next thing I will do is get a RIC on weights in the riser.


That would be nice to see.



> like all of the factory barebow weights I would hope they would be legal.


I don't know how many folks have wondered about the "factory" weights in barebow-specific risers, but I for one asked and received an answer from NFAA staff that wasn't exactly forged in iron. It was more of a "we think so..." kind of answer. 

NFAA really needs to simplify things. Again - fita (World Archery) took care of this a LONG time ago by simply using the 12.2 cm ring rule. NFAA could have easily put a stop to the nonsense and questions by just adopting an already existing, well known and well understood (not to mention highly effective) international barebow rule. But I'm afraid now the 12" stabilizer just adds to the confusion and takes us further from a common sense rule on barebow weights. 

I mean, if a 12" stabilizer is okay, then why not a backweight? Does the rule say the stabilizer can only be mounted in the hole under the grip on the front of the bow? What difference should it make? What about the upper and lower "stabilizer" holes? What if a person wanted to mount one rear-facing stabilizer? 

Again, it only muddied the waters even more IMO.

I see no logical reason additional weights on the riser should not be allowed if a 12" stabilizer is allowed. Once again, NFAA just creates more confusion in the "traditional" division...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I wrote the petition to allow a 12" stabilizer in the trad recurve in NFAA. I think it passed by two votes my goal is to mirror IFAA and Fita for recurve.


Gary, I don't mean to sound critical of your efforts - I certainly admire your proactive approach - but some clarification is in order. By "mirror IFAA and fita for recurve," what do you mean specifically? 

Also, when you wrote the petition, were you specific about the location of the 12" stabilizer?


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Arcus said:


> At what point does a counterbalance become a stabilizer?


I should clarify my question. I'm thinking of an external counterbalance. Are you referring to just internal counterbalances?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

This really shouldn't be so difficult:

FITA Barebow (a.k.a. the international competitive standard  )

22.3. For the Barebow Division the following items are permitted:
22.3.1. A bow of any type provided it complies with the common meaning of the word bow as used in target
archery, that is, an instrument consisting of a handle (grip), riser (no shoot-through type) and two
flexible limbs each ending in a tip with a string nock. The bow is braced for use by a single string
attached directly between the two string nocks, and in operation is held in one hand by its handle (grip)
while the fingers of the other hand draw and release the string.
The bow as described above shall be bare except for the arrow rest and free from protrusions, sights or
sight marks, marks or blemishes or laminated pieces (within the bow window area) which could be of
use in aiming. The unbraced bow complete with permitted accessories shall be capable of passing
through a hole or ring with a 12.2cm inside diameter +/-0.5mm.
22.3.1.1. Multi-coloured bow risers, and trademarks located on the inside of the upper and lower limb or
on the riser are permitted. However if the area within the sight window is coloured in such a way
that it could be used for aiming, then it must be taped over.
22.3.1.2. Risers including a brace are permitted provided the brace does not consistently touch the
athlete’s hand or wrist.
22.3.2. A bow string of any number of strands.
22.3.2.1. Which may be of different colours and of the material chosen for the purpose. It may have a centre
serving to accommodate the drawing fingers, a nocking point to which may be added serving(s) to
fit the arrow nock as necessary, and, to locate this point, one or two nock locators may be
positioned. At each end of the bowstring there is a loop which is placed in the string nocks of the
bow when braced. No lip or nose mark is permitted. The serving on the string shall not end within
the athlete’s vision at full draw. The bowstring shall not in any way assist aiming through the use
of a peephole, marking, or any other means.
22.3.3. An arrow rest, which can be adjustable.
22.3.3.1. A moveable pressure button, pressure point or arrow plate may all be used on the bow provided
they do not offer any additional aid in aiming. The pressure point may not be placed any further
back than 2cm (inside) from the throat of the handle (pivot point of the bow).
22.3.4. No draw check device may be used.
22.3.5. Face and string walking are permitted.
22.3.6. No stabilisers are permitted.
22.3.6.1. Torque flight compensators fitted as part of the bow are permitted provided that they do not have
stabilisers.
22.3.6.2. Weight(s) may be added to the lower part of the riser. All weights, regardless of shape, shall
mount directly to the riser without rods, extensions, angular mounting connections or
shock-absorbing devices.


----------



## MAT (May 27, 2003)

I think I need a law degree to figure out a class to compete in. If barebow is mostly compounds then why do so many of you compete in it? What are the bowhunter classes, which they say are for heavier bows but don't have a min draw weight? That statement makes no sense.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

There is a HUGE difference between FITA Barebow and IFAA Barebow Recurve. It seems to me if the NFAA was going to use one or the other, it would be IFAA not FITA.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

MAT, 

It's actually very simple.

NFAA Barebow: Recurves and compounds, string walking, face walking, long stabilizers, clickers.

NFAA Bowhunter: Recurves and compounds, no string walking or face walking, 12" stabilizer, no clickers.

NFAA Traditional: Recurves only (longbows too, if you want), no string walking or face walking, no stabilizers (yet), no clickers.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

John dont worry you cant hurt my feelings unless you talk about how bad I shot at Vegas LOL. mirror is not the best word but my end game is to be able to shoot Fita NFAA and IFAA without having to make radical changes to my bow. So with the new stabilizer rule NFAA trad and IFAA bowhunter recurve are about the same. If I shoot Fita I just shorten the stabilizer. we most likely will never get all three organizations the same. the next petition for nfaa would be to allow stringwalking in the Trad recurve. this would will be a BIG fight. to many recurve guys think the stringwalking is an advantage I don't. I think the clicker is where the advantage is. the aiming is just a process. but we are all different. 
Gary


limbwalker said:


> Gary, I don't mean to sound critical of your efforts - I certainly admire your proactive approach - but some clarification is in order. By "mirror IFAA and fita for recurve," what do you mean specifically?
> 
> Also, when you wrote the petition, were you specific about the location of the 12" stabilizer?


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

:thumbs_up


J. Wesbrock said:


> MAT,
> 
> It's actually very simple.
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but my end game is to be able to shoot Fita NFAA and IFAA without having to make radical changes to my bow.


But how about radical changes to your shooting technique? I can change my bow easy enough. I can't change my shooting technique so quickly and easily.

Case in point - when I shoot against barebow archers under fita/WA rules, I am shooting against string/face walkers. When I shoot against NFAA Traditional shooters, I can't string or face walk. 

For the life of me, being able to add a stabilizer but not string walk is one of the most idiotic rules in archery. People in this country need to get over the hunker and squat cave man mentality associated with the make-believe "traditional" form of archery. String walking has been used in archery for hundreds, if not thousands of years. But yet we can use a 12" stabilizer? Give me a break.

John


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

until we get the stringwalking passed we are just going to have to teach you how to shoot a gap in the window:wink:


limbwalker said:


> But how about radical changes to your shooting technique? I can change my bow easy enough. I can't change my shooting technique so quickly and easily.
> 
> Case in point - when I shoot against barebow archers under fita/WA rules, I am shooting against string/face walkers. When I shoot against NFAA Traditional shooters, I can't string or face walk.
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

UGH! Yea, yea. I know. But for apes like me with 32.5" draw lengths, my gap is HUGE. It really presents an unfair advantage to guys who naturally have a very small gap at 18 meters - especially those who can shoot point on at that distance. Even with 2315 arrows, 200 grain points full length, I'm still below the paper at 18M. Seriously.

Stringwalking is the great equalizer. It ensures that EVERYONE gets to aim at the bullseye, not just those who are the right dimensions for that particular distance. And the idea that no stringwalking or facewalking keeps folks from "aiming" is ludicrous. 

Put all the rules you want on the equipment, but let me shoot it how I want. That's the only way to level the playing field.

John


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

IMO the only pure archery tournament anymore is the NASP. EVERYONE shoots the same equipment and you win or loose on ability alone -- not equipment or gamesmanship.

After this discussion (and others) is it any wonder why so many elect not to participate. I think Matt said you need a law degree to "play" -- I agree.

FWIW

Arne


----------



## tori_mish (Jan 13, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> UGH! Yea, yea. I know. But for apes like me with 32.5" draw lengths, my gap is HUGE. It really presents an unfair advantage to guys who naturally have a very small gap at 18 meters - especially those who can shoot point on at that distance. Even with 2315 arrows, 200 grain points full length, I'm still below the paper at 18M. Seriously.
> 
> Stringwalking is the great equalizer. It ensures that EVERYONE gets to aim at the bullseye, not just those who are the right dimensions for that particular distance. And the idea that no stringwalking or facewalking keeps folks from "aiming" is ludicrous.
> 
> ...


Same debate here; String/Face walking is looked down upon in one of our two national archery organizations - the Australian Bowhunters Association. You can only gap shoot in ABA barebow recurve, to string-walk would put you in the freestyle-limited recurve category (with Oly recurve rigs). 

Unfortunately, the ABA only took half the IFAA ruleset as applies to barebow recurves. In IFAA you can shoot either 'Bowhunter Recurve' (fixed anchor point, index finger on nock - gap shooting) or 'Barebow Recurve' - (stringwalking/face walking is allowed, but you can also have a draw check device and no limitation on stabilizers ?!?!).

I'd also like to see the bare-bow recurve class standardized across IFAA and FITA. The FITA definition is the most workable, and I actually shot a lot of bowhunter recurve with the FITA barebow equipment rules. Regarding aiming styles, it doesn't bother me so much - I think excellent gap shooting can match it with string-walking. As long as the equipment types are standardized, shoot the bow how you like!


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> UGH!  Yea, yea. I know. But for apes like me with 32.5" draw lengths, my gap is HUGE. It really presents an unfair advantage to guys who naturally have a very small gap at 18 meters - especially those who can shoot point on at that distance. Even with 2315 arrows, 200 grain points full length, I'm still below the paper at 18M. Seriously.
> 
> Stringwalking is the great equalizer. It ensures that EVERYONE gets to aim at the bullseye, not just those who are the right dimensions for that particular distance. And the idea that no stringwalking or facewalking keeps folks from "aiming" is ludicrous.
> 
> ...


John, you're on to something....Archery indoors is one of the few sports where a shorter guy like me actually has a potential advantage in the barebow recurve class over guys like you. 

If your thoughts on equalizing the sport are sound then ...I'd like to put the same idea up to the paddling and rowing sports where guys like you have that long stroke advantage over guys like me. I'm gonna suggest shorter paddles and oars for any one over 6'1". And in basketball there needs to be two nets on each end of the court...one, 1 foot higher for guys like you and one 1 foot lower for guys like me. Logical eh?:wink:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Art, again, let's put the restrictions on the equipment, not how it's used. That's all I'm saying. 

Trying to regulate how someone aims is just stupid. Makes about as much sense as trying to legislate morals.

John


----------



## c-lo (Jan 8, 2012)

2413gary said:


> C-lo just a stabilizer will be allowed up to 12" long no counter balance. the next thing I will do is get a RIC on weights in the riser. like all of the factory barebow weights I would hope they would be legal. but don't bet on it yet.
> Gary


I am assuming that you can put weight on the end of a 12 inch stab or use a 10 and add weight to not exceed the 12 inches. The advantage of being able to do that is far greater than a using a counterbalance so if they accept the 12 inch stab you would think that both external weights like a short Spigarelli weight in the lower stab bushing and internal riser bushings should automatically be accepted.


----------



## tori_mish (Jan 13, 2013)

c-lo said:


> I am assuming that you can put weight on the end of a 12 inch stab or use a 10 and add weight to not exceed the 12 inches. The advantage of being able to do that is far greater than a using a counterbalance so if they accept the 12 inch stab you would think that both external weights like a short Spigarelli weight in the lower stab bushing and internal riser bushings should automatically be accepted.


Yep, you can do that. I shot at the IFAA WFAC last year in bowhunter recurve, and it's definitely legal to add weights to the short stabilizer. All the shorties come with a default weight anyway; just take that off and pop on some extras if you need - just don't exceed the 12 inch specification.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Is this a stabilizer or a counterbalance?


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Those would be weights NOT a stabilizer! on a FITA barebow...and of course, NFAA BAREBOW is many things! go to www.nfaa-archery.org, and look at the bow divisions! It's massive. COme to Louisville, and you will see all different kinds of bare bows, from compound to recurve (FITA recurve "bare bow" is considered "Traditional"!). If you read the descriptions you'll understand better what they want from each bow group!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

NFAA pretty much guaranteed I won't be shooting in their so-called "traditional" division anymore with this rule change.

12" stabilizer, but no string walking or face walking? Exactly what are they trying to protect? String walking and face walking are WAYYYY more "traditional" (if you must use that word) than a 12" stabilizer. 

What a cluster.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

lizard said:


> Those would be weights NOT a stabilizer! on a FITA barebow...and of course, NFAA BAREBOW is many things! go to www.nfaa-archery.org, and look at the bow divisions! It's massive. COme to Louisville, and you will see all different kinds of bare bows, from compound to recurve (FITA recurve "bare bow" is considered "Traditional"!). If you read the descriptions you'll understand better what they want from each bow group!


I have read the descriptions, and you are illustrating the point I'm trying to make about the new NFAA Trad rule allowing a stabilizer up to 12 inches. If the new rule deletes the prohibition on counterbalances, then I stand corrected. Referring to my photo above, if the counterbalance prohibition is still there, then my question is still "At what length does a counterbalance become a stabilizer?"


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

what division in NFAA will you shoot?


limbwalker said:


> NFAA pretty much guaranteed I won't be shooting in their so-called "traditional" division anymore with this rule change.
> 
> 12" stabilizer, but no string walking or face walking? Exactly what are they trying to protect? String walking and face walking are WAYYYY more "traditional" (if you must use that word) than a 12" stabilizer.
> 
> What a cluster.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm sure the counter ballance portion will not be removed your little short weight is legal as long as you don't have anything else. but if you have a stabilizer and the the weight some where else not legal


Arcus said:


> I have read the descriptions, and you are illustrating the point I'm trying to make about the new NFAA Trad rule allowing a stabilizer up to 12 inches. If the new rule deletes the prohibition on counterbalances, then I stand corrected. Referring to my photo above, if the counterbalance prohibition is still there, then my question is still "At what length does a counterbalance become a stabilizer?"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I will either shoot Olympic recurve, or just wait for the next USArchery/TSAA event to roll along. 

I love the NFAA. Always have. Louisville (NFAA Indoor Nationals) was the first national-level archery event I ever shot. But the one rule in the "traditional" division that needed to be changed, still hasn't been changed, and another reason to NOT shoot that division has now come along. 

Since you wrote the petition, can you explain why a 12" stabilizer is traditional, but stringwalking or facewalking is not? I don't get it at all.

John


----------



## AdAstraAirow (Aug 22, 2011)

Here is a 12" Vendetta stabilizer I really enjoy using. It meets the letter of the rule as it sticks straight forward, and no part of the stabiler or weight is greather than 12" from the riser, but somehow I do not think it would not be allowed. 

I too agree that the addtional of the 12" stabilzer is a meaningless rule addition, and certainly will not increase participation. The NFAA needs to accept the FITA definition of what a Barebow is, and then let it be shot with fingers whichever way the archer chooses.

Mark


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

String walking should probably be allowed I didn't think a multiple rule change at once would pass there wil be a bunch that don't like the rule change. If it were up to me I would combine Bowhunter and Barebow then in the trad recurve just no sight and no clicker shoot what you bring and I don't care how you aim. And if some of us are week and need to string walk ok LOL the top shooters will always shine no mater how they aim
Gary


limbwalker said:


> I will either shoot Olympic recurve, or just wait for the next USArchery/TSAA event to roll along.
> 
> I love the NFAA. Always have. Louisville (NFAA Indoor Nationals) was the first national-level archery event I ever shot. But the one rule in the "traditional" division that needed to be changed, still hasn't been changed, and another reason to NOT shoot that division has now come along.
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

It's comments like "weak and need to string walk" that pretty well sum it up. Someday, the NFAA will get serious or die.

John


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Gary,

Thanks for your hard work.


----------



## barebowguy (Feb 1, 2009)

2413gary said:


> C-lo just a stabilizer will be allowed up to 12" long no counter balance. the next thing I will do is get a RIC on weights in the riser. like all of the factory barebow weights I would hope they would be legal. but don't bet on it yet.
> Gary


I really hope they don't Change the rule on internal weights that would be crazy


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Internal weights are not a problem I was told this by Tom just looked up in the NFAA 
A stabilizer a device extending away from the archer (back of the bow)
A counter balance A device extending parallel to or toward the archer ( face of the bow )


So a stabilizer sticks out the back of the bow and counter balance sticks in your face internal weights don't do either.
I will go to court with ya the rule always has been in NFAA if it doesn't say you can't then you can. Kind of like our quivers. Hope this helps clear up a few things
Gary


----------



## barebowguy (Feb 1, 2009)

Thanks Gary 
I really don't care what the rules are, I change my bow and style constantly to match different organizations. Just let me know what the rules are and let me play the game.
Alan


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

2413gary said:


> Internal weights are not a problem I was told this by Tom just looked up in the NFAA
> A stabilizer a device extending away from the archer (back of the bow)
> A counter balance A device extending parallel to or toward the archer ( face of the bow )
> 
> ...


Ok so now I am confused. We can now shoot up to a 12" stabilizer (sticks out the back of the bow) or not? Is the weight on the bow up above legal? If so this will allow those who have a regular Oly style recurve to shoot similar to the barebow specific risers i.e. Spig 650 or Bernardini Nilo.

Please be clear. Sorry I'm dense. Thanks
Art


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Art for nfaa after June 1 you can have a stabilizer up to 12" long in the trad recurve division yes the photo above will be legal


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

2413gary said:


> I wrote the petition to allow a 12" stabilizer in the trad recurve in NFAA. I think it passed by two votes my goal is to mirror IFAA and Fita for recurve. As I have said before you dont eat an elephant in one bite. If you guys dont like what NFAA is doing with your division get proactive and write petitions send them to your State directors. You dont have to be a Director to write a petition but you do to vote. Most of the state directors vote without your input. we can change the rules if all get on the train.
> 
> Gary


In NFAA trad division, where is the 12" of stabilizer measured from? The rules say "back of the bow" but when I consult the bylaws diagram for how to measure ("bowhunter," but that has the same language), it looks like you actually measure from the front. I bought a target side rod I intend to use for the purpose that is a couple inches shorter than 12" by itself front of riser but would be nervously on the button if I had to measure to the back of the riser. Maybe "back of the bow" has a technical meaning I am missing. Tournament season starts soon so I was making sure I have the right thing.

I also got a bow weight to use for USAA BB, and I plan on using my Olympic setup if I do any NFAA BB. But the concern was about whether I'd done the trad stab right.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

The "back" of the bow is the side furthest away from you. The belly of the bow is the side facing you. Confusing? Perhaps, but it goes back to when bows were wooden longbows with some type of "backing" on the limbs (a layer such as rawhide, bamboo or another wood lamination that kept the limbs from breaking under tension).

For NFAA, the stabilizer is measured from where it attaches to the bow, coupler included.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

J. Wesbrock said:


> The "back" of the bow is the side furthest away from you. The belly of the bow is the side facing you. Confusing? Perhaps, but it goes back to when bows were wooden longbows with some type of "backing" on the limbs (a layer such as rawhide, bamboo or another wood lamination that kept the limbs from breaking under tension).
> 
> For NFAA, the stabilizer is measured from where it attaches to the bow, coupler included.


I've always thought of it as being like the way we are built. We bend away from our back towards our belly.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

My understanding is similar to Warbow with a bit more background..

It's the way we are built but more along the lines of physical structure. The back (our spine) does not compress (I know it does but 2500 years ago they didn't understand this) where our stomach/belly does. This allows the body to bend better towards the belly.

When they built bows, they learned that strengthening the back structure of the bow either by cutting the staves so that the sap wood would be the back, or by adding sinew, skin or some material to keep the back from stretching, made the bows even stronger. Thus our current terminology. Back of the bow is the non compressing side of the bow. Face of the bow compresses and allows the bow to bend.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

If you set your bow up to be WA Barebow legal, it will be NFAA barebow legal.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> If you set your bow up to be WA Barebow legal, it will be NFAA barebow legal.


Not necessarily. In WA you are allowed any number of weights (little stabilizers ) below the grip so long as the bow passes through a 12.2 cm ring. In NFAA you are allowed only one stabilizer up to 12". When I shoot WA Barebow I have two separate 12-ounce weights on my riser, one in each stabilizer hole. That is not legal for NFAA Traditional.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> any number of weights (little stabilizers )


Nice.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

The rules only says you can have 1 stabilizer that can not exceed 12 inches in length as measured from the back of the bow. There is no mention about any other weights being allowed or not allowed.

The only difference between WA Barebow and NFAA Trad in regards to the specifications of the bow is a Metric vs English measurement conversion. NFAA has a 12 INCH limit and WA Barebow has a 12 CENTIMETER limit. Inch - Centimeter? Whats the big deal? who needs units converted right. Well, maybe the Mars Climate Orbiter could have used a little more oversight on some units conversion.

Funny how both have the same number but different units. 

If I was king, I would strike rules #2, 7, and 8 from the NFAA Trad class because they are technique rules, not equipment rules. With this change there will be a significant shift towards uniformity between the WA Barebow and NFAA Trad. Note how I am not striking rule #11 - the "12" units conversion rule. There is no point in trying to take that away from the NFAA people. Those who like it will use it and those that don't wont, and there are those that have no problem switching between the two. But if a NFAA Trad person wants to shoot in a WA Barebow event, they just need to know that the bow must fit inside a 12 cm ring. Striking rules 2, 7, and 8 means that what ever technique the archer develops to shoot their bow, they don't have to change it when switching between NFAA and WA events.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Pete,

It says you can have one stabilizer, not multiple stabilizers. WA lets you screw as many as you want into the bow so long and they're below the grip and the bow fits through that ring. In NFAA you only get one, and it can be no longer than 12". Internal weights like the ones for the Spigarelli Club and BB are allowed in NFAA Traditional because they do not protrude from the riser. External weights are considered stabilizers, which is why using any of them was never allowed prior to the 12" stabilizer addition last year.

If you showed up at an NFAA shoot and shot in the Traditional class with multiple short stabilizers (WA Barebow) odds are no one would say anything. Personally, I don't think they offer any advantage over something like a Bee Stinger with a 17-ounce dish. But if you got protested you'd lose.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

A lot of interpreting going on here.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Pete,
> 
> It says you can have one stabilizer, not multiple stabilizers. WA lets you screw as many as you want into the bow so long and they're below the grip and the bow fits through that ring. In NFAA you only get one, and it can be no longer than 12". Internal weights like the ones for the Spigarelli Club and BB are allowed in NFAA Traditional because they do not protrude from the riser. External weights are considered stabilizers, which is why using any of them was never allowed prior to the 12" stabilizer addition last year.
> 
> If you showed up at an NFAA shoot and shot in the Traditional class with multiple short stabilizers (WA Barebow) odds are no one would say anything. Personally, I don't think they offer any advantage over something like a Bee Stinger with a 17-ounce dish. But if you got protested you'd lose.


Doesn't world archery spefifically prohibit stabilizers, but allow weights in BB? Stabilizer vs weight almost seems a distinction without a difference given the 12.2cm ring rule, but it is still a distinction.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Doesn't world archery spefifically prohibit stabilizers, but allow weights in BB? Stabilizer vs weight almost seems a distinction without a difference given the 12.2cm ring rule, but it is still a distinction.


Semantics really. :wink:


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

It all depends on what one defines as mass vs stabilizer.

If someone bought a hoyt bow and filled all the machined holes with aluminum, it that a stabilizer or is that just increasing the mass of the bow? What is the difference between that and custom ordering a bow that had no holes machined into it? The mass will be the same, and the inertial properties will be the same.

What happens when hoyt says No to any custom work and you broke out your own mill and added side panes to achieve the same thing that the manufacturer refused to do? Are the side plates a stabilizer?

Look at the spigarelli revolution, look at all those bolt on weights disguised as being part of the bow design. A clever way of adding weights right? Is that bow NFAA Trad legal?

With the Gillo bow, is that cover plate a stabilizer or a weight? or does the weights added inside the cover count as more that 1 stabilizer. 

If someone took a large billet of aluminum and machined it in such a way that it has a solid protrusion pointing 16" forward of the grip and had a threaded insert at the end of it. Is that protrusion a stabilizer? or is the 12" stabilizer that gets screwed into the front of the protrusion the stabilizer.

The purpose of a stabilizer is to increase the inertial properties of the bow without having to make the bow too heavy. Adding weight inside of under the grip will increase the inertia about the horizontal plane passing through the grip (axis parallel to the shooting line) but it has very little influence of the torsional inertia properties (vertical axis parallel to the limbs). This is where the torquing comes in. Having something stick way out front of the bow (i.e. the 12 inch stab) increases that inertial property without having to add as much weight.

It is crazy - too many lawyers looking for technicalities.

The rules should be simple, and WA rules are simple. Do what ever you want as long as it fits inside the ring.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> It all depends on what one defines as mass vs stabilizer.


The NFAA already did on page 27 of the 2014-2015 Constitution and Bylaws.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Semantics really. :wink:


Largely true at the 12.2cm ring length, but rules are _made_ of semantics :embara:


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Largely true at the 12.2cm ring length, but rules are _made_ of semantics :embara:


Very true. :thumbs_up


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> It all depends on what one defines as mass vs stabilizer....
> 
> The rules should be simple, and *WA rules are simple. Do what ever you want as long as it fits inside the ring.*


Not so much.

*FITA Book 4
Field & 3D Archery Rules
*


> 22.3. For the Barebow Division the following items are permitted:
> 22.3.1. A bow of any type provided it complies with the common meaning of the word bow as used in target archery, that is, an instrument consisting of a handle (grip), riser (no shoot-through type) and two flexible limbs each ending in a tip with a string nock. The bow is braced for use by a single string attached directly between the two string nocks, and in operation is held in one hand by its handle (grip) while the fingers of the other hand draw and release the string.
> The bow as described above shall be bare except for the arrow rest and free from protrusions, sights or sight marks, marks or blemishes or laminated pieces (within the bow window area) which could be of use in aiming.* The unbraced bow complete with permitted accessories shall be capable of passing through a hole or ring with a 12.2cm inside diameter* +/-0.5mm.
> ...
> ...


I think it would behoove folks to actually cite the rules when opining on their minutiae.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Yeah, and the NFAA has this definition (page 27) "Stabilizer – A device extending away from the archer (back of the bow)" 

So does this mean that 24" V-Bars going out the side or front of the riser is legal?

Its just crazy. 

That is why I like 22.3.1 and 22.3.6.2 rules - you can do "almost" anything you want as long as it fits inside the ring.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Some day in going you make a wood riser with a 10" long bushing then screw the 12" stab into it and shoot it at NFAA Nationals just to prove a point.

Grant


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Pete You know it's not legal and then you say you can do ALMOST anything. So what is almost mean So what are torque flight compensators and can they have weight ? where do they go above the grip or below or both ? no mater who writes the rules someone will always have questions


Mr. Roboto said:


> Yeah, and the NFAA has this definition (page 27) "Stabilizer – A device extending away from the archer (back of the bow)"
> 
> So does this mean that 24" V-Bars going out the side or front of the riser is legal?
> 
> ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

2413gary said:


> Pete You know it's not legal and then you say you can do ALMOST anything. So what is almost mean So what are torque flight compensators and can they have weight ? where do they go above the grip or below or both ? no mater who writes the rules someone will always have questions


I've noticed a lot fewer questions being asked at WA/USArchery barebow events.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

If you guys spent more time practicing and less time whining over ( plain to me) rules, maybe there wouldn't be a 68 year old has been kicking your butts. I think we all know the rules and their intent, from each organization. Why continue to hash over a dead horse. Act like you comprehend things, act like you've been there before. We numerically have a good, strong core of recurve barebow archers in this country for the first time in forever. Practice those skills instead of harping over rules.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

All I said originally is if you set up your bow to be WA barebow legal, it would be NFAA barebow legal. And then all the nuances of the rules started to come out 

It is good that we know these subtle little differences. It makes for some great "conversation"


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Mr. Roboto said:


> All I said originally is if you set up your bow to be WA barebow legal, it would be NFAA barebow legal. And then all the nuances of the rules started to come out
> 
> It is good that we know these subtle little differences. It makes for some great "conversation"


The thing is, Pete. If we go to a tournament with a set up not within the rules, there will always be someone there who will let us know.:teeth:


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Yeah, I would just rather just enjoy shooting and doing my best, then getting hung up on the equipment the other shooters are using. A year ago I was at a safari shoot and I was paired up with a couple ladies that string walked the whole shoot. To me, I didn't care. I waited until the end of the shoot to ask them if they knew the difference between NFAA trad (which they were shooting under) and WA Barebow which they were shooting. They didn't know there was any difference. They thought that NFAA Barebow was a compound class, so they shot the Trad. So I explain the difference after the event, and they went home with the awards they won. I wasn't going to nit pick about the string walking with the officials. They beat me, and I still had a great time shooting with them.

The way I look at it, NFAA Trad and WA Barebow are very close. For most shooters there really isn't any difference, we still have to trust our gaps/crawls, and execute the shot properly. It's the top shooters that can begin to take advantage of the unique rule differences between Trad and Barebow.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Mr. Roboto said:


> The way I look at it, NFAA Trad and WA Barebow are very close. For most shooters there really isn't any difference, we still have to trust our gaps/crawls, and execute the shot properly. It's the top shooters that can begin to take advantage of the unique rule differences between Trad and Barebow.


Actually, Pete, even relatively new archers can get a big boost in score from stringwalking if they have to shoot both short and long distances, as on a field course. It makes a big difference on the birdies to be able to aim at the center rather than way underneath. Even on an indoor range, I've taught it to beginners so they can shoot well at 10 yards without having to deal with a big gap. They can pick it up quickly.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Actually, Pete, even relatively new archers can get a big boost in score from stringwalking


So, why not just allow it then? Is this a style competition, or a competition to see who can hit closest to the center with a given bow. 

Do we need to ask Reo to stand up straight and stop leaning back too?

Rules should be for equipment, not how it's used. If someone figures out a better way to shoot than everyone else, they deserve to win.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Yep, this issue isn't going away. I think I'll start another thread to get an update out there about where the effort stands to get the NFAA to add a barebow recurve category that allows string walking.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

Could we eliminate all this, how you gap, whether you are at full draw to gap added weight or even length of stab, if a Trad/BB archer shot in BHFS or any FS class. Then, it would be cool to work hard and try to get a podium position and take your recuve up to receive your award. That selfie taking Racoon would......


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

equilibrium said:


> Could we eliminate all this, how you gap, whether you are at full draw to gap added weight or even length of stab, if a Trad/BB archer shot in BHFS or any FS class. Then, it would be cool to work hard and try to get a podium position and take your recuve up to receive your award. That selfie taking Racoon would......


Equilibrium, yes, there are a couple of phenomenal barebow shooters who could maybe podium when competing against compounds and sights. I wonder if people realize how hard that is. We are trying to grow barebow tournament shooting, and pitting barebow shooters against compounds isn't that friendly to the vast majority of us barebow archers. It's kind of like asking someone on cross-country racing skis to compete in a giant slalom against modern downhill skis.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Laurie Borealis said:


> Equilibrium, yes, there are a couple of phenomenal barebow shooters who could maybe podium when competing against compounds and sights. I wonder if people realize how hard that is. We are trying to grow barebow tournament shooting, and pitting barebow shooters against compounds isn't that friendly to the vast majority of us barebow archers. It's kind of like asking someone on cross-country racing skis to compete in a giant slalom against modern downhill skis.


Good point Laurie. On the other hand, there has been a sharp decline in the number of compound barebow archers and a sharp increase in the recurve barebow class. Maybe, just maybe, we could slowly make converts of those remaining few. Nah. There are always going to be those few who prefer winning against no competition to being 2nd or 3rd against the best competition available. Makes me want to pick up my compound and practice for a few weeks, then go shut down the Nationals in that class. Darrington? Hmmmm.:smile:


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Laurie Borealis said:


> Equilibrium, yes, there are a couple of phenomenal barebow shooters who could maybe podium when competing against compounds and sights. I wonder if people realize how hard that is. We are trying to grow barebow tournament shooting, and pitting barebow shooters against compounds isn't that friendly to the vast majority of us barebow archers. It's kind of like asking someone on cross-country racing skis to compete in a giant slalom against modern downhill skis.


Dewayne Martin won the barebow class at Vegas this year with a recurve against all the compounds - first time that ever happened.

John Demmer shot a 299 in his indoor sectional - not many Olympic style shooters can do that.

Allan Eagleton shot a 1451 with a trad bow and the NFAA Outdoor nationals. When looking at the 16 NFAA barebow shooters, that was the 6th highest score.

Yeah, there are a handful of phenomenal barebow/trad shooters out there. And that is great for this sport because that proves that non-sighted recurves can shoot well, very well. It raises that bar. Higher bars attract people and challenges the existing people. This is some really exciting times.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Makes me want to pick up my compound and practice for a few weeks, then go shut down the Nationals in that class. Darrington? Hmmmm.


I'd love to see that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Dewayne Martin won the barebow class at Vegas this year with a recurve against all the compounds - first time that ever happened.
> 
> John Demmer shot a 299 in his indoor sectional - not many Olympic style shooters can do that.
> 
> ...


Indeed it is. I want to see how many barebow archers can break 300 at 60 meters at Outdoor Nationals in Decatur next year. So far, only two have, but I know there are 6-8 who can.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Dewayne Martin won the barebow class at Vegas this year with a recurve against all the compounds - first time that ever happened.
> 
> John Demmer shot a 299 in his indoor sectional - not many Olympic style shooters can do that.
> 
> ...


Absolutely! A golden age of BB. The excitement is generating lots of new shooters here in Oregon. Nationwide, we can build on this momentum and, this is my dream, we can join BB archers internationally to pressure World Archery to add barebow to all its championships. Here we are, promoting WA barebow rules, and World Archery doesn't even allow barebow into its indoor championships -- that's crazy!


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Laurie,

Quick question. World Archery has four championships, indoor, outdoor, 3D and field, right? Two of those, 3D and field are only shot every other year, if I'm not mistaken. I know Barebow is allowed at 3D and field, but is it allowed at the outdoor championship too?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

No.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Limbwalker knows his stuff. And his promotion of barebow at the US Target Nationals, and the turnout we have there, could really help us if/when we try to get bb added to WA outdoor target. Which is part of the reason I was hesitant to back 60 meters as the barebow distance in the U.S., thinking that in the long run, at the world level, maybe 50 meters would draw greater participation, and greater participation is critical to this effort. I am unsure about this though, and would love to hear from some European barebow shooters about what distance they shoot if they have outdoor target tournaments that have barebow. I did notice that the World Master Games in New Zealand in 2017 has added barebow, I believe for the first time, to its archery events, and for the outdoor target event the barebow distance is 60 meters, with WA rules. You do not need to qualify for this event, and the lower age limit is pretty low for an oldster event, 30something maybe? Google it and check it out. I'm hoping to go to that one.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Laurie,
> 
> Quick question. World Archery has four championships, indoor, outdoor, 3D and field, right? Two of those, 3D and field are only shot every other year, if I'm not mistaken. I know Barebow is allowed at 3D and field, but is it allowed at the outdoor championship too?



PS: Correct, four WA championships and two of them, which are held every other year, allow BB. The U.S. did not send anyone to WA 3D this year, which is something else we should lobby USAA on, to hold some kind of qualifying event or nominating procedure to send a team, even if it's just based on the scores in the field nationals. The video from Italy this year is beautiful! Lots and lots of BB shooters, including wood bows.


----------



## equilibrium (Oct 31, 2006)

itbeso said:


> If you guys spent more time practicing and less time whining over ( plain to me) rules, maybe there wouldn't be a 68 year old has been kicking your butts. I think we all know the rules and their intent, from each organization. Why continue to hash over a dead horse. Act like you comprehend things, act like you've been there before. We numerically have a good, strong core of recurve barebow archers in this country for the first time in forever. Practice those skills instead of harping over rules.


Sounds like a grumpy ol' man...I want to be one.
I'm gonna do what he said, and 68...I would have guessed 90 something myself. I saw you at Redding walking past the Bigfoot target and thought, "they walk among us". 
It will be fun when we finally meet, I think.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Laurie Borealis said:


> PS: Correct, four WA championships and two of them, which are held every other year, allow BB. The U.S. did not send anyone to WA 3D this year, which is something else we should lobby USAA on, to hold some kind of qualifying event or nominating procedure to send a team, even if it's just based on the scores in the field nationals. The video from Italy this year is beautiful! Lots and lots of BB shooters, including wood bows.


That would be awesome! 3D archery was started and legitimized in this country. It would be great to see us finally send a team.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

equilibrium said:


> Sounds like a grumpy ol' man...I want to be one.
> I'm gonna do what he said, and 68...I would have guessed 90 something myself. I saw you at Redding walking past the Bigfoot target and thought, "they walk among us".
> It will be fun when we finally meet, I think.


Patrick, you get the award for funniest post of the year. LOL (I hope Ben is chuckling, too.)


----------



## Demmer (Dec 1, 2012)

J. Wesbrock said:


> That would be awesome! 3D archery was started and legitimized in this country. It would be great to see us finally send a team.


Are you finally starting to grasp the whole concept of getting a class unified? Would make this a lot easier to really blow up what we could achieve in barebow.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Demmer said:


> Are you finally starting to grasp the whole concept of getting a class unified? Would make this a lot easier to really blow up what we could achieve in barebow.


I'm thinking it would be nice to finally see the American arm of WA send archers to their 3D championship.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

equilibrium said:


> Sounds like a grumpy ol' man...I want to be one.
> I'm gonna do what he said, and 68...I would have guessed 90 something myself. I saw you at Redding walking past the Bigfoot target and thought, "they walk among us".
> It will be fun when we finally meet, I think.


:thumbs_up


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seems pretty obvious what we need to align NFAA trad (12 inch stab) with WA Barbow (weight must pass through 12.2 cm ring) - a floppy 12 inch stabilizer. The flaccid extension rod lets it pass through the 12.2 cm ring, but you still get to have the full 12" length. Think of it as being a bit like one of those swing bar stabilizers. Problem solved.*





*Problem not actually solved.

OK, so while I do post this in jest (swing bars are real, though) I do wonder if there is a reasonable technical compromise that could bring some folks together.


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Seems pretty obvious what we need to align NFAA trad (12 inch stab) with WA Barbow (weight must pass through 12.2 cm ring) - a floppy 12 inch stabilizer. The flaccid extension rod lets it pass through the 12.2 cm ring, but you still get to have the full 12" length. Think of it as being a bit like one of those swing bar stabilizers. Problem solved.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This thread is getting funnier all the time! A flaccid Doinker!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

J. Wesbrock said:


> I'm thinking it would be nice to finally see the American arm of WA send archers to their 3D championship.


I thought IBO already had a 3D championship.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

IBO doesn't have a barebow class though but I'm sure I read somewhere that iBO and WA were linked at one point.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Bigjono said:


> IBO doesn't have a barebow class though but I'm sure I read somewhere that iBO and WA were linked at one point.


WA3D started as a joint effort between FITA and the IBO back in 2002. I've heard different reasons why the partnership fell through, but nothing I'd care to repeat because I don't know for sure.

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/off...ting/4003-ibo-announces-fita-association.html


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

J. Wesbrock said:


> WA3D started as a joint effort between FITA and the IBO back in 2002. I've heard different reasons why the partnership fell through, but nothing I'd care to repeat because I don't know for sure.
> 
> http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/off...ting/4003-ibo-announces-fita-association.html


Woah, I feel a bit clueless. The Press release cited in the link is signed:



> Jim Easton, President
> FITA
> Avenue de Cour 135
> Lausanne, 1007
> Switzerland


I had no idea that Jim Easton was president of FITA back then. 

I'm a bit surprised to hear about this collaboration given Vittorio's comments about how FITA feels there should only be one NGB for archery per country - even the USCA, if I understand it right, operated under authority delegated by the NAA dba USAA. So giving IBO implied or express NGB status in the US seems surprising.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

USAA is in bed with the USOC/IOC and their interest is in promoting the olympics and the 70m round in world championships. Their shoots are focused on the olympic round. Their shoots are attended by a lot of people that spend a boat load of money to participate in that have dreams of making the olympics. There is nothing wrong with that. As long as we understand their objectives are.

Now look at the NFAA, they run all sorts of nationals shoots in many different formation. Most states run as state shoots the various NFAA formats. Most clubs runs NFAA style events. The NFAA is extremely inclusive. They let everyone participate. And because they want everyone to have a good time, they have allowed the creation of a boat load of different styles so that everyone can be a winner. Like the last place team in modern soccer - everyone gets an award.

Anyways - we should be having the NFAA select the team for the world field and 3D events. The problem is that the NFAA has some many different variants of classes, they have a hard time to be compliant with WA events. Thus it will be hard for them to send a team that the shooters don't shoot the exact style of equipment or tournament. Thus they really need to have a recurve, compound and barebow compliant class with WA, and then we can let them select the teams.

Here is a crazy idea - Change the NFAA Outdoor Nationals to include a FITA field round. As it is right now, we shoot 2 Field and 2 Hunter rounds and 1 Animal round. Why not replace one Hunter/Field round with a marked and unmarked FITA round. This way there will be more opportunities for us shooters to get skilled in the FITA round, and gives the NFAA organization some credibility to selecting a world FITA field team. Did Bruce Cull recently get an award from FITA for all the work he does in promoting archery? lets leverage that momentum.

But first he have got to have a set of rules that are compliant. We as archers want this compliance to happen. We just need to agree on the path, and push all of our state reps that way. I am doing my part in Washington with our state rep.


----------

