# Are Compound Competitors Slackers?



## gemini2281 (Oct 13, 2008)

BigPete said:


> you put a compound in somebody's hand and they will shoot the middle of the target within an hour or two."


If only this were true...


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

Oh My.


----------



## rgauvin (Feb 20, 2007)

I believe you misunderstand what the writer is trying to say.

what they wrote: "Compound bows are considered easier to shoot and used mostly by intermediate archers."
What i think they meant: Compound bows are easier to shoot and if you have 2 equally skilled shooter (one shooting recurve, and the other shooting compound) the compound shooter will shoot higher scores and appear to be of a higher skill.

what they wrote: "[Recurve bows are] a simpler bow, but a more advanced style." 
What I think they meant: recurve bows are a simpler bow but are harder to shoot and are less forgiving to form flaws.

what they wrote: "That's why compounds are so popular. you put a compound in somebody's hand and they will shoot the middle of the target within an hour or two."
What It hink they meant: a new shooter can pick up a compound and stand a decent chance at what they are aiming at fairly quickly, while a recurve will take alot more practice and coaching.

The wording int he article sucked, but I am not surprised. Media typically embelish and don't get quite everything right.


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*Slackers*

Give me a break. At 70 and 90 meters in a 10 mile an hour crosswind,
its all hard.:mg: Don't let someone blow smoke up your butt.


----------



## Hollywood (Oct 24, 2002)

I do hope that the quotation marks in the piece are mis-used and that those are not the ACTUAL words that came out of his mouth. Regardless of what was *meant*, if those were the actual words said.....Oy.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

BigPete said:


> Comments that appeared in the local newspaper in Dubuque, Iowa during the World Indoor Trials by tournament director Scott Leek:
> 
> "Compound bows are considered easier to shoot and used mostly by intermediate archers."
> 
> ...


You ought to see what some compound hunters have to say about crossbow hunters


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*I Bet*

:teeth: Dare i say that reporter has never shot any kind of a bow. 
So he or she may need to do more research.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Hollywood said:


> I do hope that the quotation marks in the piece are mis-used and that those are not the ACTUAL words that came out of his mouth. Regardless of what was *meant*, if those were the actual words said.....Oy.


Years ago a local paper did a big story on one of my students-a compound archer who had made that "All Olympian" team that the NAA used to select from each region based on placements at National, Regional and state NAA and JOAD tournaments.

I stated that Matt was shooting a compound bow mainly but he also trained with a RECURVE Bow. I mentioned that our club president-Darrell Pace-was widely respected as one of-in not the-greatest RECURVE archers ever.

Well when the story came out in the paper the reporter called the compound bow a "compounded bow" and an Olympic bow a "CURVED BACK BOW"

yep-you takes your chances when dealing with the press that thinks sports involve only the stuff seen on main stream TV on Saturday or Sunday afternoons.


----------



## Jason22 (Aug 16, 2008)

Recurve = apple
Compound = orange

Both have much in common, but many differences... and opinions on all sides. 

Compound competitors certainly aren't slackers any more than a pistol or rifle shooter is a slacker. Slackers stay home or go to the bar instead of challenging and improving themselves by having hobbies and goals.

The end.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

BigPete said:


> Comments that appeared in the local newspaper in Dubuque, Iowa during the World Indoor Trials by tournament director Scott Leek:
> 
> "Compound bows are considered easier to shoot and used mostly by intermediate archers."
> 
> ...


I call BS . . . Sure . . maybe you can get someone up and shooting quickly with a compound but if they don't learn to shoot properly with proper form they will quickly decline into bad habits . . . and regardless will never be on the podium anywhere.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

I seriously doubt a recurve shooter could produce much better results with a compound.
There was one guy I shot with at a FITA 2x70 tournament this summer and as I recall he's like 300 shooter (out of 360) in recurve. His compound score at that tournament was like in 310 range... In both cases below average....


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Mr. October said:


> I call BS . . . Sure . . maybe you can get someone up and shooting quickly with a compound but if they don't learn to shoot properly with proper form they will quickly decline into bad habits . . . and regardless will never be on the podium anywhere.



Its alot like what happened in pistol shooting. Back in the old days, with iron sights-only a few people could really play at the high levels. The guys with really good eyes. Those with the really good eyes and good form had nothing to worry about from us with equal form but bad eyes (I flunked the FBI application when the interviewing officer asked to see my glasses). For us with bad eyes, competing in pistol shooting was really tough. For guys with great eyes, the pool of people who could beat them was small.

Along came red dot sights. No longer did you have to line up the front post with the rear sight, center it perfectly on the target, focus on the front post without losing the alignment. Suddenly, a lot more people could play the game and make "Master" or so forth

Did that make the sport harder? Easier? Depends. It sure made it easier to shoot an "el Presidente clean in 7 seconds flat or a very high "2700" score. It made it much easier for guys with bad eyes but good form to compete against the eagle eyes. It made it alot harder for someone to coast along at the top of the heap just because they had a physical talent most of us did not. It created alot more chances for others to beat you.

Lets go to compounds. Some people-me included-are never going to have Darrell Pace's release. I have noted before that people who tend to get to the top of the recurve heap (and continue to train hard) tend to stay there along time. Their physical talent and being able to master that difficult skill allows them a long tenure on the podium (I remember a great article by Denise Parker disputing the claim that archery is 90% mental etc: she noted that perhaps it is for those with the talent to master the physical requirements but for most people, physical issues are difficult to overcome).

The compound takes away some of that "talent" based requirements. More people can play with a release, a peep and a scope. This means to be the king of the hill you have to have an iron will, a mental edge and you cannot rest on the fact that you can keep ahead of hard training rivals because of physical talent. Sometimes getting that mental attitude is far tougher than anything physical. of course, if you don't have certain physical skills you are sunk in some sports. You cannot train yourself to run a 9.8 second 100M unless you are blessed with some very very rare talent. Same with having a 49" vertical jump or the hand speed to catch flies as was the case with Sugar Ray Robinson.

So-IMHO you cannot really say one is "harder" than the other. It is like saying who is smarter, a very good public speaker or a brilliant chessmaster who can hardly talk. Hard can mean different things.


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

Yup, piece of cake. I practice 1-2 hours a day and would not even hold a candle to ANY pro or semi pro shooter....it is SOOOO easy.


----------



## Jack NZ (Apr 7, 2006)

Yes,compound shooters are looking for the "easy" way.


----------



## archeryisme (May 22, 2006)

*?*



BigPete said:


> Comments that appeared in the local newspaper in Dubuque, Iowa during the World Indoor Trials by tournament director Scott Leek:
> "Compound bows are considered easier to shoot and used mostly by intermediate archers."
> 
> "[Recurve bows are] a simpler bow, but a more advanced style."
> ...


Maybe I read this wrong but I took it as the Tournament Director Scott Leek made these comments and not the reporter. ????????


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

So what's wrong with those comments? It's true. Everyone picks up a compound first because its cool and they can shoot in the middle the first day.

Those quotes say nothing about the releative difficulty of making the compound team vs. the recurve team or anything derogatory about compound shooting.

Scott has shot 300 Vegas rounds with a compound and his daughter is becoming one of the best recurve shooters in the country. He gets it perfectly.

Everyone knows that to be one of the best at compound you need to shoot 300 28x games regularly. To do the same with a recurve requires 295 15x games regularly.

Which is easier? I'll suggest that both are about the same. That's why the indoor FITA game is so comparrible. I've shot 580's with both and know that it takes equal dedication to achieve your best at either. One just has a much higher bar and much higher level of participation.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## redneckarcher29 (Oct 13, 2005)

BigPete said:


> Comments that appeared in the local newspaper in Dubuque, Iowa during the World Indoor Trials by tournament director Scott Leek:
> 
> "Compound bows are considered easier to shoot and used mostly by intermediate archers."
> 
> ...


Yup were slackers...Thats why we practice everyday or so just like the recurves...cause were slackers:sad:
I don't think so


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

c3hammer said:


> So what's wrong with those comments? It's true. Everyone picks up a compound first because its cool and they can shoot in the middle the first day.
> 
> Those quotes say nothing about the releative difficulty of making the compound team vs. the recurve team or anything derogatory about compound shooting.
> 
> ...


Thanks C3

The rest of you want to be a pack of wolves, bring it on.


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

So.....if EVERYONE can shoot in the middle the first day....did YOU shoot a 5 spot 300 60X round, or a 300 30x vegas round, the very first time?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

wis_archer said:


> So.....if EVERYONE can shoot in the middle the first day....did YOU shoot a 5 spot 300 60X round, or a 300 30x vegas round, the very first time?


Did I say I did? Did I EVER mention that anyone did? NO. What I said is what I said. She may have not got the quote quite right, but it's close enough to be right. 

What you've got your head all in an uproar about is that it's not easy to put them in the middle.....what's middle to you? 7 ring and in is great for most shooting on their first day.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Read what I said and ONLY what I said.

Edit: Perhaps one thing got left out of the quote.....it was either by the reporter, or our original poster, was that the context of this conversation took place over which style was more popular...at least in the US. - I stand by my comments.


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

I was directing that at C3Hammer


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

Never mind. I misread. I thought he was implying perfect scores with a compound in the first half hour.


----------



## jhunt414 (Aug 17, 2007)

Yep, we're all intermediate shooters who could kick a recurves ass any day of the week, so I guess that makes all the recurvers beginers. Isn't the goal to hit what you're aiming at? If you really want to be traditional then get rid of your sight and clicker and carbon arrows or man up and hit what you're aiming at. Compounds have lenses, cams, more power, releases, and peeps to be acurate, the goal is acuracy. The only limitation is that you must shoot free hand. I'll say it right now, recurvers are stupid, unless they shoot traditional recurve. Free advice, best way to improve scores, don't shoot a recurve.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

jhunt414 said:


> Yep, we're all intermediate shooters who could kick a recurves ass any day of the week, so I guess that makes all the recurvers beginers. Isn't the goal to hit what you're aiming at? If you really want to be traditional then get rid of your sight and clicker and carbon arrows or man up and hit what you're aiming at. Compounds have lenses, cams, more power, releases, and peeps to be acurate, the goal is acuracy. The only limitation is that you must shoot free hand. I'll say it right now, recurvers are stupid, unless they shoot traditional recurve. Free advice, best way to improve scores, don't shoot a recurve.


I will have to get my buddy John Rost (1984 olympic games rifle team) to weigh in on this. Just exactly who are you? I don't recall seeing you here before


----------



## Wilde (May 21, 2002)

Horsefeathers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If anyone thinks any of these "Compound Shooters" are "Intermediate" they ""Do Not Know What He/She is Talking About":mg:

The only recurve archer to average 118+ was Brady(118.14). Vic who was second was at 116.21, using the larger 10 to "equalize" the two. Jimmy B was 10th with a score of 587 and a 117.8 average. 

If anyone could be called "intermediate" it would have to be the word smith(writer) who does not know what he/she is talking about. Not good enough to participate(anywhere) only to write unknowingly about the subject of "Archery" compound or recurve.

Sorry for my rant - but calling anyone on a World Class level in any sport intermediate can :mg: Nuff Said

Congratulations to all the competitors as well as all the team members.

Dee Wilde


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jhunt414 said:


> I'll say it right now, recurvers are stupid, unless they shoot traditional recurve. Free advice, best way to improve scores, don't shoot a recurve.


While I realize that you are trolling, you are failing to recognize that archery is a sport. It is about picking out a challenge that is to your liking and pursuing it--and all archery is about doing something the hard way. If I want "perfect" scores I could just walk up to the target and poke holes in it. But that wouldn't be a sport or a challenge, instead we pick a harder way to do that, depending on our tastes. So, there is no "stupid" to any class of archery, since they are all challenging if you have high standards.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

jhunt414 said:


> Yep, we're all intermediate shooters who could kick a recurves ass any day of the week, so I guess that makes all the recurvers beginers. Isn't the goal to hit what you're aiming at? If you really want to be traditional then get rid of your sight and clicker and carbon arrows or man up and hit what you're aiming at. Compounds have lenses, cams, more power, releases, and peeps to be acurate, the goal is acuracy. The only limitation is that you must shoot free hand. I'll say it right now, recurvers are stupid, unless they shoot traditional recurve. Free advice, best way to improve scores, don't shoot a recurve.


Sheesh. Who peed in your cheerios?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Wilde said:


> Horsefeathers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> If anyone thinks any of these "Compound Shooters" are "Intermediate" they ""Do Not Know What He/She is Talking About":mg:
> 
> ...


Again Dee, the conversation was over what is more popular.....not about this tournament - other than perhaps she wondered why there were more of "those bows with the wheels on them" You guys are anything but intermediate.........blood thirsty perhaps, but intermediate no.

Or perhaps I should have told her the recurves are just harder to find in the local shops.... would that be more correct? 

I'm sure we all know how well "just because" goes over with reporters


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Sheesh. Who peed in your cheerios?


I think he's just pulling our leg-he's a good kid, met him at JOAD nationals. He beat one of my students who was having all kinds of equipment issues (My boy wasn't going to beat him anyway)


----------



## jhunt414 (Aug 17, 2007)

Jim C said:


> I will have to get my buddy John Rost (1984 olympic games rifle team) to weigh in on this. Just exactly who are you? I don't recall seeing you here before


My name is Joey Hunt III from Maine, 2008 Junior Outdoor World Champion. If you look at the Help Send Team Maine To Turkey thread I am the tall one in that picture. Yes I shoot a Martin and beat all of them Hoyts. In Maine everyone shoots compounds because everyone shoots compounds and everyone wants to be super acurate. In Turkey Team Maine brought home more medals than the entire US Team and probably more golds than any other country. Just from Maine. Maine's compound shooters will conquer the world. Whaaaaahaaaaahaaahaaaaaahaaaahaaahaaahaaaha


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

jhunt414 said:


> My name is Joey Hunt III from Maine, 2008 Junior Outdoor World Champion. If you look at the Help Send Team Maine To Turkey thread I am the tall one in that picture. Yes I shoot a Martin and beat all of them Hoyts. In Maine everyone shoots compounds because everyone shoots compounds and everyone wants to be super acurate. In Turkey Team Maine brought home more medals than the entire US Team and probably more golds than any other country. Just from Maine. Maine's compound shooters will conquer the world. Whaaaaahaaaaahaaahaaaaaahaaaahaaahaaahaaaha


I know who you are-I was just messing with you. You shot against one of my kids at OC in the first round-Brent Hankins (btw he was world xbow champion in 07). You are a good shot and a good kid. Good for Maine-you are probably too young to remember this but at one time Charlie Pierson's little range in Ohio used to hold shoots that had 3 or 4 of the top 10 archers in the world-back in the days when recurves were the only real game and the All Ohio Team was basically the all-world team (Rick McKinney was in Muncie Indiana) but Doug Brothers, Rick Bednar, Rod Baston and Pace were all Ohio archers and that those guys were the backbone of the US Team for a decade.


----------



## scriv (Jan 31, 2008)

I, uh, shoot recurves and longbows........because I like to. Is that ok? Do I need therapy?


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

jhunt414 said:


> My name is Joey Hunt III from Maine, 2008 Junior Outdoor World Champion.


Too bad you didn't win a little humility along with your medal.

Dave


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dave T said:


> Too bad you didn't win a little humility along with your medal.
> 
> Dave


message boards can be deceptive. Based on what I observed at JOAD Nationals, he's a good kid.


----------



## 6cuda6 (Nov 10, 2008)

I think the reason most people shoot compound is do to cost!!! You can get way more bow [i'm not talking garden variety] for your $$$ when buying compound over recurve....ie: riser = 300 used verse compound =300, which gets you shooting ???

Personal i shoot compound because it like the sound but my next venture will be a recurve...have to get a real job first though....:embara:


----------



## Wilde (May 21, 2002)

Huntmaster said:


> Again Dee, the conversation was over what is more popular.....not about this tournament - other than perhaps she wondered why there were more of "those bows with the wheels on them" You guys are anything but intermediate.........blood thirsty perhaps, but intermediate no.
> 
> Or perhaps I should have told her the recurves are just harder to find in the local shops.... would that be more correct?
> 
> I'm sure we all know how well "just because" goes over with reporters


If you want the real truth, compounds provide more opportunity to win MORE money for more people rather than just a limited few. The level of competition drives it all. If recurve archers played for the same money, our Olympic program would not be in such a place as it is. I am not saying anything bad about our Olympic archers just that the quantity of high quality competitors has diminished.

We have several compounders right now making more money in 1 year than I did for several years as #1 totaled. 

I have been beaten by everyone over the years and none of them or any of my competitors at any tournament is "intermediate". One might have that title as a beginner but it is wrong to "Profile" any athlete. JMHO.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

The absolute refusal to retract such illinformed/bigoted comments is astounding. The comments were wrong in any context. They are an insult to every competitor at that event who shot a compound bow, and the lack of respect for compound participants is apparent.


----------



## jhunt414 (Aug 17, 2007)

I was there and reaqd the article and I am very tired of all of the boo hoo recurveres who think that they are better. I am also tired of NAA really pushing recurves. I found this intermediate **** to be the bottom of the barrel. Shoot whatever you want, I don't care just don't get jealous because compounds shoot higher scores.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

jhunt414 said:


> I was there and reaqd the article and I am very tired of all of the boo hoo recurveres who think that they are better. I am also tired of NAA really pushing recurves. I found this intermediate **** to be the bottom of the barrel. Shoot whatever you want, I don't care just don't get jealous because compounds shoot higher scores.


Yea, JimC. He's a real nice young man.

Dave


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Wasn't the intent of the invention of the compound to be easier to shoot? Technically speaking of course.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Matt Z said:


> Wasn't the intent of the invention of the compound to be easier to shoot? Technically speaking of course.


Of course and it is easier to shoot a certain degree of accuracy. However, since you have to be more accurate to win, to win is generally as tough.

For hunting accuracy or "objective" accuracy compounds are "easier". The subjective accuracy-beating all the other guys in the field is just as tough-maybe tougher in a way. You can win a world class fita shoot with a couple bad shots in recurve. Maybe even a miss in a 144 arrow fita. compound? nope


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dave T said:


> Yea, JimC. He's a real nice young man.
> 
> Dave


Hmm...perhaps he's nicer in person. His internet persona is a more than a tad brash--and I know brash.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Slackers? Not the ones I know. They are hard core competitors that work as hard, if not harder than the recurvers.

I would have to say that some of the top women compounders are probably the toughest, hardest working, most independant archers I know. I spent some time in Turkey with them, and man was I impressed. They basically didn't need anyone to do anything for them, and walked away with the gold... 

If that's slacking, we need more of that. 

John.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

It looks like not may of you on this thread can read so well. Why don't you go back and read my comments. If you still think I'm calling anyone at the torunament intermediate or slackers, then you need to re-take your english classes and stop trying to read between the lines. When a news paper add is published, it's not published to the archery community, it is being read by the general public, 80% of whom would ask if a bow was what the indians used.

Talk about an insult. Which of you is trying to put words into my mouth? I speak for myself and my sport with passion. I've been on the compound side, and only those at the level who were at the tournament could easily whip my ass, so I know what it takes. My daughter has been on *both* sides of the court, so I know the other side takes as well......even so, the article wasn't about you or me or her. It was about describing styles of archery to the general public so as to hopefully interest them into joining at what ever level they may be at.

I spoke my words, and again, I stand by them. Like it or not. You want to run a tournament, then you can tell the media what ever you like. I can tell you that this tournament has gotten more media attention than any other one I've been to. The city of Dubuque was truely glad to have us, and proud to hold such a prestegious tournament, and I was glad to put it on. I will even gladly run the next one, even with all the crying about the media attention (which confuses me even more).

If you want to bark some more, then go ahead. I've explained my position, and my words stand the way I intended them to be taken. If you think it was an insult to you, then you need to grow up........the article about you. It was about bringing more people into the sport and showing them that our sport has may facets.


----------



## brgarcher (Jul 8, 2002)

before Joey puts his other foot in his mouth... :wink:

I think that the tournament director was a bit overwhelmed at the time of the interview... with people pouring in to register for the tournament, seeking target assignments, and the other million and one questions that the director is normally faced with... not to mention that the interview was done through a video camera since the reporter forgot her pen and paper... :doh:

What, I believe, he was trying to say about compounds is that the average compounder is an intermediate archer. Who can argue that point? The average compounder is not your Reo Wilde, Dave Cousins, or even Joey Hunt III Ruler of the Archery Universe (and I heard he's from Maine) :wink:

To back that up, I've seen statistics posted on here about how many compound hunters there are in the US vs competitive target archers... and I'm pretty sure we're outnumbered handily. Would you call that "average" hunter out there who's idea of accuracy is a pie-plate at 20 yards anything but "intermediate?" The fact is, that's what the majority of compounders are. So while I can absolutely see how a comment at a Trial event for a World Championship could be upsetting to some, it does give the first time reader an honest look into compound archery as whole. An appropriate second sentence following the director's quote should have read something like; "but there's nothing intermediate about the way these guys shoot," or "that said, this is the trials for the world championships, and there are no intermediates here."

The only part about his statement about recurve bows that makes sense to me is that they are simpler... mechanically speaking.

I think we can all agree that the remarks were inappropriate for a major archery event, but let's not allow that to take away from how well the tournament was run! :cheers:


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Xs24-7 said:


> The absolute refusal to retract such illinformed/bigoted comments is astounding. The comments were wrong in any context. They are an insult to every competitor at that event who shot a compound bow, and the lack of respect for compound participants is apparent.



Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

brgarcher said:


> before Joey puts his other foot in his mouth... :wink:
> 
> I think that the tournament director was a bit overwhelmed at the time of the interview... with people pouring in to register for the tournament, seeking target assignments, and the other million and one questions that the director is normally faced with... not to mention that the interview was done through a video camera since the reporter forgot her pen and paper... :doh:
> 
> ...


inapropriate for a major event? The entire article was about the nations best archers in the nation coming to dubuque. 

As for the recurve not being a simpler bow, think about that a second.....no mechanical leverage, no peep sight, no cables......that's kind of the idea of simpler?

and shakes, bite me :elf_moon:


----------



## FrayAdjacent (Oct 20, 2008)

"Compound bows are considered easier to shoot and used mostly by intermediate archers."


My interpretation: Consider EVERYONE in the US that shoots compound bows. Not just competitors. Not just the people that showed up to the event in question. EVERYONE.

Many of those are hunters who do not invest the time and training to reach a very high level of accuracy. They just want to be able to shoot a deer/pig/turkey at 30 yards or so. Thus they get to what we would consider an 'intermediate' skill level and don't seek to go further. 

Thus, of ALL the people in the US that shoot compounds, I'd posit most fit in to the 'intermediate' level of skill. 

Recurve for hunting, while it does happen, is more rare. When we think about recurve archery, we'll generally think of competitive target shooting, in which people don't just want to be able to hit bambi at 30 yards, they focus on scores, and work to get to as high a level as they can.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I wish this thread would play itself out. Does anyone think that to get to the top of either the compound world or the recurve world is easy? Top competitors in each class are talented, driven people and elite athletes. 
Of course some may think it entertaining to inflame either compound shooters, or recurve shooters.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Are compound shooters slackers?

That's like asking..."Can white men jump"?

Some are and some aren't. Just as I've seen with trad bows...some people are and some aren't.

Anyone who can hold their own and compete at a high level is by no means a slacker...whether they are using a recurve or a compound.

Is the compound easier to shoot...generally speaking...Yes...but that doesn't automatically or even remotely make an archer a slacker for using one, IMO.

Ray


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

midwayarcherywi said:


> I wish this thread would play itself out. Does anyone think that to get to the top of either the compound world or the recurve world is easy? Top competitors in each class are talented, driven people and elite athletes.


Competing against top people is always challenging, no matter what the sport or the equipment, as you note.

Compound is easier, though, in making smaller groups and in making groups good enough for hunting with less practice than recurves require. That is just a fact . Competition is another thing entirely.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

I'm just happy to be considered intermediate. I consider that a huge concession from the recurve crowd.   

Try not to beat up on the poor soul too much. Sometimes it is tough speaking to the media like that.


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

I haven't posted on this forum for quite awhile, but it looks like most are still ailing of the thin skin disease. Who cares what the reporter wrote, why does it matter. Why do our egos need stroked so badly? Why do you shoot a bow competitively anyway? Is it for your own personal enjoyment or do you require the glory, praise, and approval of others? If it's the latter, better quit now.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

*Talking to the media,*

To offer another perspective, my dad was a reporter and writer but mostly a newspaper editor for 40 years, from him I understand that,

An editor’s mandate is to direct your reporters to gather news that fits the format of the media you work for that your readers can read and understand. 

Reporters are trained to ask the 5Ws, who-what-when-where-why-how etc, and seek an interesting angle and then to compose the basic story. The editor corrects it and fits it to size. Reporters are generalists at first, often without an in-depth knowledge of the subjects they are writing about. The general public, on the most part won’t have an in-depth knowledge of the subject either. So interesting, basic, simple language and straight forward statements are used a lot to tell the story. Most daily papers are written to an audience with senior high-school reading skills, and community weekly papers, with more children in their readership, are a bit lower. So to capture reader interest you need simple language and original quotations from the scene and an angle.

And controversy over quotations in a story is common. You can’t print statements that everyone likes. That’s why quoted opinions and observations are interesting to read. If you want to eliminate that then like corporations, or sports teams and public authorities commonly do, train your folks on what to say to the media, give them a policy. That’s not realistic here though I don’t think.

But I think it helps, you may too, to consider the following guidelines when talking to the media about archery.

From the FCA webpage, a lot of good points. 

How to contact the media by AJ Smith/Millar - Sep 2008
http://www.fca.ca/Clubhouse/Howtocontactthemedia.htm

Media Tips for Archery Clubs - Why Archery is suited to media coverage by AJ Smith/Millar - Sep 2008
http://www.fca.ca/Clubhouse/meidatips.htm


----------



## jhunt414 (Aug 17, 2007)

The bow you shoot doesn't make an archer intermediate. It is the level of involvement. I shoot a compound and try at it a lot. When I shoot my traditional recurve I don't put in the time or effort as needed to become really good. That is why I shoot intermediate with my recurve. You can't compare a recurve archer to a compound archer and say that one is a better archer. That would be like comparing a drag racer with a nascar driver and saying one is better. I will say that everyone at that tournament was top level and none were intermediate so the article discussing the tournament shouldn't be mentioning intermediates or what bow they shoot. I don't mean to be rash but this isn't the first time I have heard things like this and it would benefit all archers for it to stop. Rivalry is ok, but throwing the "I" word especially at a world event is not. And no I don't eat cheerios, I'm a raisin bran guy.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

jhunt414 said:


> You can't compare a recurve archer to a compound archer and say that one is a better archer. That would be like comparing a drag racer with a nascar driver and saying one is better. I will say that everyone at that tournament was top level and none were intermediate so the article discussing the tournament shouldn't be mentioning intermediates or what bow they shoot. I don't mean to be rash but this isn't the first time I have heard things like this and it would benefit all archers for it to stop. Rivalry is ok, but throwing the "I" word especially at a world event is not. And no I don't eat cheerios, I'm a raisin bran guy.


What?????? Did you even read the article? Who ever said anything about the archers there? I've been trying to point that out for two pages now, but apparently I'm the only one here that can read.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Jim C said:


> Its alot like what happened in pistol shooting. Back in the old days, with iron sights-only a few people could really play at the high levels. The guys with really good eyes. Those with the really good eyes and good form had nothing to worry about from us with equal form but bad eyes (I flunked the FBI application when the interviewing officer asked to see my glasses). For us with bad eyes, competing in pistol shooting was really tough. For guys with great eyes, the pool of people who could beat them was small.
> 
> Along came red dot sights. No longer did you have to line up the front post with the rear sight, center it perfectly on the target, focus on the front post without losing the alignment. Suddenly, a lot more people could play the game and make "Master" or so forth
> 
> ...


Jim . . I understand what you are saying, but my point is you can't just turn someone loose with a compound, sights, peep sight and trigger release and expect to see them on the podium in a couple weeks. Unless they master the physical skills of properly and repetitively shooting with proper form . . . they are quickly on the road to target panic and frustration.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Huntmaster said:


> Did I say I did? Did I EVER mention that anyone did? NO. What I said is what I said. She may have not got the quote quite right, but it's close enough to be right.
> 
> What you've got your head all in an uproar about is that it's not easy to put them in the middle.....what's middle to you? 7 ring and in is great for most shooting on their first day.
> 
> ...


The part I don't "get" is that "compounds are mostly used by intermediate archers". I'd hardly call people like Dave Cousins and Reo Wilde intermediate archers.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Mr. October said:


> The part I don't "get" is that "compounds are mostly used by intermediate archers". I'd hardly call people like Dave Cousins and Reo Wilde intermediate archers.



How many times does he have to say it? He wasn't talking about those people. Is anyone reading his posts on this thread or just feeding off the first mis-understanding and throwing gas on the fire?

Dave


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

Huntmaster said:


> It was about describing styles of archery to the general public so as to hopefully interest them into joining at what ever level they may be at.
> 
> I spoke my words, and again, I stand by them. Like it or not. You want to run a tournament, then you can tell the media what ever you like. I can tell you that this tournament has gotten more media attention than any other one I've been to. The city of Dubuque was truely glad to have us, and proud to hold such a prestegious tournament, and I was glad to put it on. I will even gladly run the next one, even with all the crying about the media attention (which confuses me even more).
> 
> If you want to bark some more, then go ahead. I've explained my position, and my words stand the way I intended them to be taken. If you think it was an insult to you, then you need to grow up........the article about you. It was about bringing more people into the sport and showing them that our sport has may facets.





Dave T said:


> How many times does he have to say it? He wasn't talking about those people. Is anyone reading his posts on this thread or just feeding off the first mis-understanding and throwing gas on the fire?
> 
> Dave


But he is factually incorrect, and has yet to acknowledge that. It is not a misunderstanding that he has said that he stands by his comments, which where wrong and prejedicial in any context. He claims to have been explaining the difference between bows to the media, explaining to the public about our sport. 
I dont see how comments that make it seam as though the compound archers on the line were in a somehow lesser class were needed. To imply that most compounds were intermediate would imply that those at the top of that class were the best of the mediocre. That is absolutly unfair and rediculous.
His comments that a recurve bow is "simpler, yet a more advanced style"...how so. How is a top level recurve a more advanced style than a top level compound....or allowing that although he was at a world team event he wasnt talking about top level archers...how is the "style" of a lesser recurve archer more advanced than the style of a lesser compound archer?
I do commend him for doing his part and running what sounds like a great event. Everyone has commented that the event was one of the best they have attended.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I think alot of us are also answering BigPete's question at the title of this thread.

"Are Compound Competitors Slackers?"

There is more to some of our comments and opinions besides the article itself.

Ray


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Palmer, great to see you post buddy...

And you're exactly correct. Spot on...

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Mr. October said:


> Jim . . I understand what you are saying, but my point is you can't just turn someone loose with a compound, sights, peep sight and trigger release and expect to see them on the podium in a couple weeks. Unless they master the physical skills of properly and repetitively shooting with proper form . . . they are quickly on the road to target panic and frustration.


Just as a new pistol shooter with all the gadgets isn't going to beat Barnhart, Leatham or Jarrett. What it does allow is for this newbie-in 5-6 years of constant practice-to compete with anyone when before, if he didn't have great eyes he would never be able to


----------



## jhunt414 (Aug 17, 2007)

I will get to the point, recurves have less bells and whistle's and are simpler bows. Although no where near as simple to tune. All fingers shooters form is more complex than a release shooter's. That adresses the simplisticness part. "compound bows a shot mostly by intermediate shooters". All bows you could say are shot mostly by intermediate shooter because the definition of intermediate I would say is the middle standard deviation which represents 66% of a group. so both recurves and compound and all things are done by mostly intermediates because intermediates are the middle of the pack. I strongly disagree with the wording. I also know that what I just wrote about intermediates probably wasn't the meaning of saying that compounds are shot mostly by intermediates. Oh, no compounds aren't slackers. One standard deviation below the mean of groups with equal oportunity to suceed is where the slackers preside no matter what you're doing, archery or pingpong.
I do wonder what people would say if this was in the other forums.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Jim C said:


> Just as a new pistol shooter with all the gadgets isn't going to beat Barnhart, Leatham or Jarrett. What it does allow is for this newbie-in 5-6 years of constant practice-to compete with anyone when before, if he didn't have great eyes he would never be able to


Nope. The only way someone can compete with "anyone" with 5-6 years of practice is if they learn to shoot PROPERLY to start with. 99% of archery/hunting shops out there aren't teaching anyone how to shoot properly. They are selling them a compound with pin sights and turning them loose with a poor fitting bow and a trigger wrist-strap release. For all except a few fortunate people they are doomed to failure. But then most only want to shoot at deer anyway. 

To "compete with anyone" with a compound takes as much dedication, training, and hard work as any other activity or sport out there.


----------



## JDT_Dad (Nov 5, 2008)

Mr. October said:


> 99% of archery/hunting shops out there aren't teaching anyone how to shoot properly. They are selling them a compound with pin sights and turning them loose with a poor fitting bow and a trigger wrist-strap release. For all except a few fortunate people they are doomed to failure. But then most only want to shoot at deer anyway.


If I am a reporter, and I Mr. October makes those statements to me, then I might conclude that the average compound shooter is a slacker! Mr. October just made the same point Huntmaster was trying to make. The vast majority of compound shooters are hunters, not target shooters, and many are fitted with equipment just as Mr. October describes, so while they might be able to hit a deer size target, they just haven't put in the effort in terms of training and equipment selection/setup it takes to be a top compound competitor.

By definition, anybody who takes the time and effort to train to be a top compound shooter isn't "average" and certainly is not a slacker!

Now before I start hearing from all you deer hunters, I'm not saying you guys are all slackers! Only some of you. :mg: Be honest, you know who you are!

Since I've dealt with the press before, I'll take Huntmaster at his word when he says he wasn't referring to the compound shooters at the tournament when he made those comments.

Dave G.


----------



## JeffS (Sep 15, 2003)

*What have we learned?*

This thread has run it's course... it's time to recap what we have learned.

1) Scott Leek is a compound shooter that ran a terrific tournament and understands the work and dedication it takes for both Recurve and Compound shooters to get to the National and World Level.

2) Event/Tournament Directors shouldn't be talking to the media because they are way too busy and usually what they say is not what they meant. I believe we all understand what Scott meant.. and unfortunately, the way it was said/written lends people to mis-interpret the quotes. I agree 100% that most compound shooters are intermediate shooters (if that)...and none of those intermediate shooters were present at this tournament. In the context of what the reporter was writing about (ie.. the World Trials).. it leads people to think that the compound shooters at the World Trials were intermediate level shooters. This is obviously not the interpretation that Scott wanted from his comments.

3) Jerry Hunt III, 2008 Junior World Champion of everything known to man, and let's not forget he is from Maine... has a very narrow minded view of archery and will not make many friends if he keeps up that attitude. I'm hoping that he is just messing around. Someone with as much talent as he declares he has.... and a good attitude can make a big impact in the sport. (yes... i know it is Joey... i'm just trying to show that with a bad attitude... many people including myself will not give a crap who you are).


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Mr. October said:


> Nope. The only way someone can compete with "anyone" with 5-6 years of practice is if they learn to shoot PROPERLY to start with. 99% of archery/hunting shops out there aren't teaching anyone how to shoot properly. They are selling them a compound with pin sights and turning them loose with a poor fitting bow and a trigger wrist-strap release. For all except a few fortunate people they are doomed to failure. But then most only want to shoot at deer anyway.
> 
> To "compete with anyone" with a compound takes as much dedication, training, and hard work as any other activity or sport out there.


I think that is what I have been saying all along; We have to understand that it is much easier to achieve hunting level accuracy with a compound vs a recurve. To achieve VEGAS, NFAA or FITA championship winning scores with a compound takes a very high level of dedication-equivalent to a recurve 

As to comparisons with other sports-depends. Mental training and discipline-absolutely. Committment and sacrifice? Clearly. Painful conditioning compared to say bike racing, cross country skiing, squash or real wrestling? Nope.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*My observations...*

As a JOAd/STP coach, local club member & local torunament archer her is what I observe.

1--Most archers are compound archers because that is what they are initially exposed to. They want into the local shop either because they want to shoot or want to bow hunt and they see 99% compounds, trigger releases and hunting sights.

They end up buying theyr first set-up and shooting. Some shoot a little, Some shoot more and some find that thy really like shooting and shoot a lot.

Some simply go hunting with their compound. Some do a little 3D shooting to get ready for hunting. Some do a bit more 3D shooting because they enjoy shooting competition.

(This is by the way where the NFAA went wrong 30 years ago...for a later comment)

Very few end up shooting and getting exposed to tournament (paper target) shooting. even fewer make the transition to Unlimited compound shooting.

2--At the local club there is a mix of all of the above with a slight increase in those who love to shoot and so shoot practice on paper. They may shoot some indoor or outdoor target events, but most will do so only at the local club events. A few will venture outside of the club events. A rare case will pick a tournament compound and work to become competitive.

3--JOAD/STP Archery who enter the sport from this door do so with a desire to shoot. Sometimes it is because of someone they know. Sometimes it is because they shot as a youth years earlier. Strangly for me I see a large number of adult women who all say that shooting is something they always wanted to do but could not see themselves going to the local sportsmans club. (fodder for another discussion)

In my class we teach using a recurve. Hence most students being exposed to the recurve tend to pick up the recurve. I do have one older gentleman wo shoot compound release. The students are exposed to him as well but they still pick up the recurve. The recurve shooters seem to be the same when it comes to tournaments as the local coumpounders.

Regards,

Tom


----------



## SidneyArcher (Sep 23, 2008)

Most of this thread is MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. Why are people so quick to judge when I am fairly sure that most of us where not even at the interview. What ego! The director was not quoted saying that compound shooters are mostly intermediate so why the fuss over that one little word. The article I read was about the Olympic shooters who attended, and the director's comments where only a poorly reported look into archery styles not that paticular event. Also without being there we have no idea what kind of question where asked to promp his answers.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

SidneyArcher said:


> Most of this thread is MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. Why are people so quick to judge when I am fairly sure that most of us where not even at the interview. What ego! The director was not quoted saying that compound shooters are mostly intermediate so why the fuss over that one little word. The article I read was about the Olympic shooters who attended, and the director's comments where only a poorly reported look into archery styles not that paticular event. Also without being there we have no idea what kind of question where asked to promp his answers.


Good point-at one point in my life I was often on TV or radio as a spokesperson/lobbyist for pro gun issues. I was amazed at how many times reporters would misrepresent what I said or the papers would misquote me. I figured it was due to anti-gun bias in the press. While that bias is clear to me, I later found that in non-controversial subjects-the same mistakes would be made. It comes from people not having a clue about a subject reporting on the subject


----------



## SidneyArcher (Sep 23, 2008)

Jim C said:


> Good point-at one point in my life I was often on TV or radio as a spokesperson/lobbyist for pro gun issues. I was amazed at how many times reporters would misrepresent what I said or the papers would misquote me. I figured it was due to anti-gun bias in the press. While that bias is clear to me, I later found that in non-controversial subjects-the same mistakes would be made. It comes from people not having a clue about a subject reporting on the subject




You said it! The media goes unchecked so often, I believe they hear and write whatever they want. What WE all need to be focusing on is the fact that the "archery team" (both recurve and compound) scored some all round good publicity.

Tournament Archery will never be seen, from the outside, as anything other than a backyard sport unless we all promote it in some form of unity. Non of this compound against recurve, FITA/NAA against IBO, ect, ect. Archers Unite.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Jim C said:


> Good point-at one point in my life I was often on TV or radio as a spokesperson/lobbyist for pro gun issues. I was amazed at how many times reporters would misrepresent what I said or the papers would misquote me. I figured it was due to anti-gun bias in the press. While that bias is clear to me, I later found that in non-controversial subjects-the same mistakes would be made. It comes from people not having a clue about a subject reporting on the subject


I can back JimC on this one. When I was a detective I was interviewed by the press on three major cases (I usually got the Lieutenant to talk to them - lol). In all three reported stories they either mis-construed what I said or simply flat out miss quoted me. The press is no more reliable than the internet.

Dave


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

SidneyArcher said:


> You said it! The media goes unchecked so often, I believe they hear and write whatever they want. What WE all need to be focusing on is the fact that the "archery team" (both recurve and compound) scored some all round good publicity.
> 
> Tournament Archery will never be seen, from the outside, as anything other than a backyard sport unless we all promote it in some form of unity. Non of this compound against recurve, FITA/NAA against IBO, ect, ect. Archers Unite.


I'd have to agree with this about the media. At least in this case it was only an informative article. It is even worse when they take something on as an agenda item but know NOTHING about what they are reporting. 

A little O/T but back during the Clinton administration I can remember an evening news report regaring "the gun show loophole". They supposedly sent a reporter to a gun show. He reported that (this is my favorite) "At the show you could buy all the armor piercing, hollow-point .380 ACP ammo that you wanted".  

I mean if these guys would just learn a LITTLE about something before they report it . . . especially if it is something they are choosing to attack.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

I sure am glad I have never been misquoted by the media!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Rick McKinney said:


> I sure am glad I have never been misquoted by the media!


I figure a shy retiring type like you would avoid them like the plague


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

*And, further to my earlier post and recent replys...*

Yes the media can get it wrong, so help them, prepare a press release or fact sheet, offer to help them with corrections over the phone before they print...if it's on camera prepare your folks ahead of time...remember the reporter is a generalist not an expert, after you his/her next story might be bank heist or opening of a hospital wing...they'll never be experts on all subjects...are you? 


and remember all press on archery has a benifit to the sport...we can mould it or complain about it...you choose.


----------



## arch3r8oy (Jan 13, 2009)

*what!!!*

look i shoot a compound and a little recurve and no matter how you shoot or what you shoot i beleive thatyou are not a SLACKER!!:mg:


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

As near as I can tell the guy a lot of you are attacking (Scott Leek) never used the word "slacker". The guy who started the thread is the one who came up with that description. Maybe for page 3 we could start attacking him...just to keep the interest up.

Dave (with tongue firmly planted in cheek)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Good idea Dave! It is the middle of winter yet... ha, ha.

I've been dealing with the press both personally and professionally for almost 20 years. They seldom get anything correct. If you are lucky enough to get a good reporter (and 90% of them are newbies just getting started...) you may be able to explain things to them. But in most cases they just say what they want anyway, or screw up perfectly clear facts and figures...

You gotta remember, in most cases it's not exactly the "critical thinkers" that go into that line of work... Its usually the homecoming queen or frat boy that couldn't make up their mind what they wanted to be when they grew up - so they figured they were still pretty enough to be in front of a camera. 

Hate to sound so jaded, but that really is the way it is. So very few are journalists these days - that really even care about what they're reporting.

Throw in a "fringe" sport like target archery, and you can bet the lowest reporter on the totem pole is going to show up with a microphone and cameraman. They don't send the anchorman or woman out on those assignments... 

John.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Good idea Dave! It is the middle of winter yet... ha, ha.
> 
> I've been dealing with the press both personally and professionally for almost 20 years. They seldom get anything correct. If you are lucky enough to get a good reporter (and 90% of them are newbies just getting started...) you may be able to explain things to them. But in most cases they just say what they want anyway, or screw up perfectly clear facts and figures...
> 
> ...


When we had JOAD nationals-that featured world champions such as Brady E, Erika A, etc I contacted most of the local press. In one case I was told that they couldn't spare a reporter because there was a local dogshow that merited more coverage!!. We got a few to show up and two sentences on the sports page-less coverage than some bass tournament 4 states away.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i just saw a feature on the history channel on the evolution of weapons which may be a bit relevant to this thread....in every case starting from the spear..then the bow...then the crossbow...then the rifle.....in every case the next weapon "became easier to become effective with and with less skill required".....of course this was in the context of a war or for hunting......


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

John…you are right. As you know, Olympians had to fill out a complete life history of themselves to make it easier for the media (the form, by the way, was developed by the media for the media). And what happens when you get interviewed? They ask the same questions you filled out! There were times I just wanted to scream at them and tell them to read the freaking form we had to spend hours on to help them. At the end, I filled out the form stating everything was on file in the NAA office to see if they would comment on it. They didn’t. A lot of times, I look at them as just simpletons whom you have to spend a little time with. It comes with the responsibility you take on as you grow in your sport. 

I remember one time when NBC came and we spent about 10 hours together filming and trying to get all the information they wanted before the games. Then I took them to my “ego” room which had all of my trophies, medals, ribbons, citations, etc. I had four walls of my life’s work and the camera man looked at them and told his boss there was nothing worth filming in there! I was thinking how I could get them all in one line so I could just use one arrow on them….:mg:

However, I gave a speech at the IOC’s 100th Anniversary in Paris in 1996 about how the media and athletes had to learn to get along. We need them in order to promote our sport. So it is important for all to figure out how to use each other. For those of you expecting them to write the article on a local or even major event that you are hosting, why don’t you or someone who is good at this write up the piece yourself and submit it to the paper. If you have done your work fairly well they will trust what you say and it will be accepted. Especially as a filler… You may not get front page, but you will get a fairly accurate piece and it will eventually lead to bigger pieces allowed by your group. We used to submit all “important” scores immediately after the event so it would be in the next morning’s sports results page. Don’t expect them to do their job!  However, use them if you can.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Rick McKinney said:


> John…you are right. As you know, Olympians had to fill out a complete life history of themselves to make it easier for the media (the form, by the way, was developed by the media for the media). And what happens when you get interviewed? They ask the same questions you filled out! There were times I just wanted to scream at them and tell them to read the freaking form we had to spend hours on to help them. At the end, I filled out the form stating everything was on file in the NAA office to see if they would comment on it. They didn’t. A lot of times, I look at them as just simpletons whom you have to spend a little time with. It comes with the responsibility you take on as you grow in your sport.
> 
> I remember one time when NBC came and we spent about 10 hours together filming and trying to get all the information they wanted before the games. Then I took them to my “ego” room which had all of my trophies, medals, ribbons, citations, etc. I had four walls of my life’s work and the camera man looked at them and told his boss there was nothing worth filming in there! I was thinking how I could get them all in one line so I could just use one arrow on them….:mg:
> 
> However, I gave a speech at the IOC’s 100th Anniversary in Paris in 1996 about how the media and athletes had to learn to get along. We need them in order to promote our sport. So it is important for all to figure out how to use each other. For those of you expecting them to write the article on a local or even major event that you are hosting, why don’t you or someone who is good at this write up the piece yourself and submit it to the paper. If you have done your work fairly well they will trust what you say and it will be accepted. Especially as a filler… You may not get front page, but you will get a fairly accurate piece and it will eventually lead to bigger pieces allowed by your group. We used to submit all “important” scores immediately after the event so it would be in the next morning’s sports results page. Don’t expect them to do their job!  However, use them if you can.


Great story LOL and great advice!

Ray


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Rick McKinney said:


> John…you are right. As you know, Olympians had to fill out a complete life history of themselves to make it easier for the media (the form, by the way, was developed by the media for the media). And what happens when you get interviewed? They ask the same questions you filled out! There were times I just wanted to scream at them and tell them to read the freaking form we had to spend hours on to help them. At the end, I filled out the form stating everything was on file in the NAA office to see if they would comment on it. They didn’t. A lot of times, I look at them as just simpletons whom you have to spend a little time with. It comes with the responsibility you take on as you grow in your sport.
> 
> I remember one time when NBC came and we spent about 10 hours together filming and trying to get all the information they wanted before the games. Then I took them to my “ego” room which had all of my trophies, medals, ribbons, citations, etc. I had four walls of my life’s work and the camera man looked at them and told his boss there was nothing worth filming in there! I was thinking how I could get them all in one line so I could just use one arrow on them….:mg:
> 
> However, I gave a speech at the IOC’s 100th Anniversary in Paris in 1996 about how the media and athletes had to learn to get along. We need them in order to promote our sport. So it is important for all to figure out how to use each other. For those of you expecting them to write the article on a local or even major event that you are hosting, why don’t you or someone who is good at this write up the piece yourself and submit it to the paper. If you have done your work fairly well they will trust what you say and it will be accepted. Especially as a filler… You may not get front page, but you will get a fairly accurate piece and it will eventually lead to bigger pieces allowed by your group. We used to submit all “important” scores immediately after the event so it would be in the next morning’s sports results page. Don’t expect them to do their job!  However, use them if you can.


 I started writing news reports and sending them to our local papers about our archery events and they often reprinted them word for word. Beats having some reporter calling an Olympic Recurve bow a "curve back bow"


----------



## jhunt414 (Aug 17, 2007)

JeffS said:


> 3) Jerry Hunt III, 2008 Junior World Champion of everything known to man, and let's not forget he is from Maine... has a very narrow minded view of archery and will not make many friends if he keeps up that attitude. I'm hoping that he is just messing around. Someone with as much talent as he declares he has.... and a good attitude can make a big impact in the sport. (yes... i know it is Joey... i'm just trying to show that with a bad attitude... many people including myself will not give a crap who you are).


As far as any of this goes you shouldn't give a crap who I am, I am simply a person with an opinion. My background is irrelevant. The only reason I said what my name is is because Jim asked who I was and what I'm doing here. I am obviously not the only person here with my opinion. I do think you guys are a little jealous of my wicked flashy avatar and signature. My mind is open to your opinions and hopefully you all's is open to mine. All of my friends agree with me on this issue and feel that these things should not be said. More people need to speek their mind and adress things that are not right. Like Ted Nugent. Sort of. I am curious as to what Scott Leek said to the reporter compared to what was put in the paper. This is the only way to settle any of this. Jess, oh I mean Jeff, Sorry.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Babies!
Yes, compounders are slackers….so are the recurve archers…so are a bunch of others out there, but there are also a bunch of compounders and recurves who are really hard workers and my hat is off to them. For those of you who are thin skinned, well I have only one thing to say to you…you’re just a bunch of babies! 

I cannot for the life of me think that one part of archery is better than the other part. Archery has so much to offer to all disciplines and yet there are still a bunch of babies crying because it doesn’t all cater to them in particular. 

Let’s see, 3D archery caters to those who shoot compound, release and who can judge distances or the hunting mentality. Good for them. And thanks for allowing other disciplines to play along and enjoy themselves. Great program!

NFAA caters to compound and releases and you shoot a lot of field archery and indoor events. Good for them! And thanks for allowing other disciplines to play along and enjoy themselves. Another great program!

NAA/USArchery caters to Olympic style finger shooters. Good for them! And thanks for allowing other disciplines to play along and enjoy themselves. Another great program!

These are just three of the bigger ones that virtually allow all disciplines of some form or other to participate. So get over yourselves and respect all. 

Folks there are plenty of programs out there that you need to explore and find which one you like. Don’t try forcing your shooting down the throats of others! That’s just downright mean! Each of you have a passion for what you do and when you see someone shooting another discipline realize that that person loves to shoot his or her way just as much as you like to shoot your way. It’s not always about YOU!

So quit being such babies and respect all forms of shooting so we can figure out ways to grow this sport and not tear it down. We have enough anti-archers doing that. We don’t need any help from you! Babies….


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

*Confused*

I am a little confused, aren't we all archers. I thought we all pushed ourselves to shoot our absolute best with the equipment we enjoy shooting. I look at the records for my class and push to beat those, push to beat my last score by development of my skills in learning my equipment and my shooting techniques. Comparing scores among recurve,longbow, crossbow, compound, is just something that is counter productive to us all. Personally I enjoy shooting, period.


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

jhunt414 said:


> I'll say it right now, recurvers are stupid


I guess the question is do you really mean this or are you just trying to piss off people?


----------



## Archerone (Mar 30, 2006)

I have to agree with Rick. There are slackers in both recurve and compound. I am a slacker because of lack of personal drive to do better. If there are more compound slackers that is because it is faster, easier and cheaper to get your hands on one than a target recurve. Plus it is easier to hold at full draw even when you are out of shape. To me that just means that more compound shooters are just out there to try to have fun. They can go to a shoot and complete it. Nothing stops the natural creation of bad habits from this. 
Try to pick up your target recurve after not shooting for six months and see what happens to your form if you go right to a shoot. You will do alright for a while then the strain will kick in. Hard to have fun that way...unless you are a Traditional shooter.
I found that comparing compound shooters and recurve shooters is a waste of time. Each are equally protective of their style because they ARE different from each other.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick, you would like my mom. She invented "tough love" at least 35 years ago... 

And of course you're right. It's all archery, and it's all good. Find your niche and go kick butt. That's what I say...

John.


----------



## CRAPSHOOTER (Nov 26, 2008)

jhunt414 said:


> Yep, we're all intermediate shooters who could kick a recurves ass any day of the week, so I guess that makes all the recurvers beginers. Isn't the goal to hit what you're aiming at? If you really want to be traditional then get rid of your sight and clicker and carbon arrows or man up and hit what you're aiming at. Compounds have lenses, cams, more power, releases, and peeps to be acurate, the goal is acuracy. The only limitation is that you must shoot free hand. I'll say it right now, recurvers are stupid, unless they shoot traditional recurve. Free advice, best way to improve scores, don't shoot a recurve.


Have you ever stoped to wonder why compound is not allowed in the olympics?Ummm hmmmm, maybe because its considerd a machine?? And on the whole subject about maning up, wile why dont YOU man up an get a bow without thos lil training wheels huh.........

ps. park seung-hyun the 1405 FITA WORLD RECORD HOLDER would spank you like a red headed step child any day of any week buddy


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

CRAPSHOOTER said:


> Have you ever stoped to wonder why compound is not allowed in the olympics?Ummm hmmmm, maybe because its considerd a machine?? And on the whole subject about maning up, wile why dont YOU man up an get a bow without thos lil training wheels huh.........
> 
> ps. park seung-hyun the 1405 FITA WORLD RECORD HOLDER would spank you like a red headed step child any day of any week buddy


Maybe she would-maybe she wouldn't with a compound but I will give our young world champion credit-he posts his full name-we all know who he is. If you are going to get in his face as you have done, have the stones to let us know who you are. If you aren't man enough to do that, well, we will draw our own conclusions


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

CRAPSHOOTER said:


> Have you ever stoped to wonder why compound is not allowed in the olympics?Ummm hmmmm, maybe because its considerd a machine??


Minor point of disagreement. Any bow is a machine... And its not like they don't have pistol, skeet, or the like. Compound isn't allowed in the Olympics for various reasons, but one of them sure isn't "compound is a machine, recurve isn't."

And Joey? You're a nice enough kid. Try to act like it. There's a way to be argumentative without being abrasive.


----------



## igorts (Apr 18, 2007)

a few times i overheart a comment from recurve teacher standing next to me that compound shooters are cheaters, anyone can do it in a center in a few hours, piece of cake with sights.
once he repeated it with 6-7 students aroung, i handed him my bow and challenge if he could hit paper at 20.
He could not move ( yes, move) the string. ukey:
I don't hear that "cheating" anymore...
it's all archery, with respect to any style.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

I can totally relate. I was in the locker room at school last week, giving myself my regularly scheduled injection of steroids, and would you believe it, this swimmer comes over and says "Dude, you're a cheater. Scumbag!" Of course, I argued with him- its not illegal, just if I'm competing, and all that. Besides, its a skill in itself.

So this goes on for a couple weeks, till finally I offer him a syringe, and say "Fine, try for yourself, let's see what you can do."

And would you believe it? Cheeky b#*[email protected] could't find his own vein!


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

My Dad had to deal with the press quite a bit, and I followed his advice and ran the few times it was close to me. The odds of getting the story wrong or being misquoted far outweighed the good it may have done if the information was presented correctly. Sad to say, but truth seems to be a thing of the past, with the media anyways, whether it be CNN or the local newspaper. It's all about image and perception now.


----------



## palmer (Sep 23, 2003)

Would anybody be offended if I said that anyone who drives an automatic is a "cheater"? My point is why does it matter to everyone?

I shoot compounds, longbows, recurves, and selfbows. It has offended selfbow shooters on occasion that I shoot compounds too. To really piss them off, I'll shoot carbon arrows off a selfbow. Oh the travesty. The point is that I don't shoot any bow for anybody else, just me.

I don't care what people would write or say about me or the bow I shoot or how easy it is. I don't care and neither should any of you. We need "thick skin" pills.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

> I'll shoot carbon arrows off a selfbow


That has to really set them gut pluckers off eh?  I love it!!!


----------



## SidneyArcher (Sep 23, 2008)

palmer said:


> Would anybody be offended if I said that anyone who drives an automatic is a "cheater"? My point is why does it matter to everyone?
> 
> I shoot compounds, longbows, recurves, and selfbows. It has offended selfbow shooters on occasion that I shoot compounds too. To really piss them off, I'll shoot carbon arrows off a selfbow. Oh the travesty. The point is that I don't shoot any bow for anybody else, just me.
> 
> I don't care what people would write or say about me or the bow I shoot or how easy it is. I don't care and neither should any of you. We need "thick skin" pills.



Couldn't have said it better myslf.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Time for me to chime in, since this thread is all about quotes from me that have been twisted by some twisted individuals 

The media didn't get it wrong, and in fact did quite well if you ask me. The quotes by me were totally separate from other information about the tournament or archers......like a side note, and it was specifically about the different styles of bows. There was nothing wrong with what I said, nor what the paper wrote. Only those egotistical enough to think I was talking about them in person could possibly misconstrue what I said into what this thread is titled

Archery is a sport that needs publicity, and this caliber of archers all coming to one location is impressive to quite a few people (even if watching isn't the most exciting thing). The city of Dubuque was thrilled to have the nations best archers in their town. They'll be keeping an eye on the results, and find out that they not only had Olympic archers there, but by the names on the team, I'm putting my money on some world champions in other classes as well. (the mens compound team sure looks intimidating for one). I have no doubt that some won't like what others say. Like the old saying goes, you can please some people some of the time, but not all of them all the time. There was no "bashing" in the article, and it was all good for our sport. I'm not staying away, and I'm looking for a way to do more.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

The Swami said:


> That has to really set them gut pluckers off eh?  I love it!!!


Also, mention that wood is carbon based.


----------



## The Swami (Jan 16, 2008)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> Also, mention that wood is carbon based.


They might not get it. 

I like all bows. I have no time for elitists.


----------



## jhunt414 (Aug 17, 2007)

Landed in AZ said:


> I guess the question is do you really mean this or are you just trying to piss off people?


That was my question too, was it really meant that compounds are made up of mostly intermediate archers or were they just trying to piss off people?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

jhunt414 said:


> That was my question too, was it really meant that compounds are made up of mostly intermediate archers or were they just trying to piss off people?


No, compounds are made up mostly of aluminum and fiberglass. :noidea:

Yes, most archers are compound shooters, and most are intermediate or even beginner. Truth. :thumbs_up

I hope you're not asking if I intended to dig at anyone by my comments. I'm trusting you mean the one who started this thread (and others probably).


----------



## igorts (Apr 18, 2007)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> I can totally relate. I was in the locker room at school last week, giving myself my regularly scheduled injection of steroids, and would you believe it, this swimmer comes over and says "Dude, you're a cheater. Scumbag!" Of course, I argued with him- its not illegal, just if I'm competing, and all that. Besides, its a skill in itself.
> 
> So this goes on for a couple weeks, till finally I offer him a syringe, and say "Fine, try for yourself, let's see what you can do."
> 
> And would you believe it? Cheeky b#*[email protected] could't find his own vein!


Steroids are illegal, exercising is not, so that analogy won't stand..
plus there are different distances to compete.


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

jhunt414 said:


> That was my question too, was it really meant that compounds are made up of mostly intermediate archers or were they just trying to piss off people?


I think it has been made pretty clear that what Scott said is what he meant and it did not relate to you at all or anyone else shooting compound at the tournament. I mean seriously, at your level, do you consider everyone that shoots a compound at YOUR level? At Dave Cousins, or Reo, Dee and Logan's level?

So I still want you to answer the question...Do you actually mean that "ALL, including, Brady, Vic, Butch, Rick, Darrell, Jenny, Amanda, Khutuna, etc...Are ALL stupid?


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

jhunt414 said:


> That was my question too, was it really meant that compounds are made up of mostly intermediate archers or were they just trying to piss off people?


I think it has been made pretty clear that what Scott said is what he meant and it did not relate to you at all or anyone else shooting compound at the tournament. I mean seriously, at your level, do you consider everyone that shoots a compound at YOUR level? At Dave Cousins, or Reo, Dee and Logan's level?

So I still want you to answer the question...Do you actually mean that "ALL, including, Brady, Vic, Butch, Rick, Darrell, Jenny, Amanda, Khutuna, etc...Are ALL stupid?


----------

