# World Championships - Korea Team USA



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Good luck TEAM!!!!! TEN....TEN....TEN....TEN....TEN....TEN!!!!!!!


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

Go team!


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I wish we had a killer USA chant. I heard from 2009 Solheim Cup coverage that the USA women’s golf team chant was “USA, All the Way, All the Way, USA, USA, All the Way” (and so on)


----------



## red_elan10 (Apr 23, 2008)

Thank you Julie and Mel! Sorry I can't be there to cheer Butch and the team on in person - will be keeping my fingers crossed and following the updates from home...have a safe trip!

Teresa


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

red_elan10 said:


> Thank you Julie and Mel! Sorry I can't be there to cheer Butch and the team on in person - will be keeping my fingers crossed and following the updates from home...have a safe trip!
> 
> Teresa


Someone has to keep a lid on all those rowdy Halls Arrows JOADS!!:wink:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I'd also note that our National Field Crossbow Team is getting ready to go to Portugal. The Plypchuks-well known in recurve and compound target circles-are part of the US team. CJO member Brent Hankins is part of that team-whether there will be a junior division (where he is defending WC) is up in the air-if not he will be part of the US senior men's team.


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

Serious Fun said:


> I wish we had a killer USA chant. I heard from 2009 Solheim Cup coverage that the USA women’s golf team chant was “USA, All the Way, All the Way, USA, USA, All the Way” (and so on)


ra ra re kick their knee's.... ra ra ras kick their 


:wink:


----------



## lcv (Sep 7, 2004)

*Rah! Rah! USA*

Go get em USA!!!!! Kick Butt and take names!!!


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

ScarletArrows said:


> ra ra re kick their knee's.... ra ra ras kick their *OTHER KNEE*
> 
> 
> :wink:




The best of luck to ALL of our archers! GO USA!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*Korea and Portugal*

Go USA! 
To those going to Korea, best wishes, awesome shooting!
To our Brent Hankins, GO BRENT defend your title!


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

Who all is going to Korea? (from the USA)


----------



## red_elan10 (Apr 23, 2008)

Women's Recurve: Kristen Braun, Jennifer Nichols, Khatuna Lorig
Men's Recurve: Butch Johnson, Brady Ellison, Vic Wunderle
Women's Compound: Diane Watson, Kendal Nicely, Erika Anschutz
Men's Compound: Reo Wilde, Dave Cousins, Braden Gellenthein

Good luck to everyone!


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

we are able to send only a self funded men's compound team and 2 male recurvers.....would also like to wish all our archers--earl benjamin yap, kit cojuangco, karl achacoso, marvin agustin, and 13 year old elijah bismarck who i believe will be the youngest competitor in the men's recurve.....may they all shoot their personal bests!!...and the medals will come.....


----------



## Brent Gandy (Aug 26, 2002)

Good luck USA!!


----------



## H Sahi (Aug 21, 2007)

gig'em 99 said:


> Who all is going to Korea? (from the USA)


And coaches are Kisik and Bob Romero, those two I know. Not sure of other ones but someone told me that Sheri Rhodes may be one of them.


----------



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

H Sahi said:


> And coaches are Kisik and Bob Romero, those two I know. Not sure of other ones but someone told me that Sheri Rhodes may be one of them.


Yes, Sheri Rhodes is team leader.
Linda Beck is also going as a coach.


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

We are here! Yeah. All archers, except for Braden (flight delay due to weather, I think- He will be here tonight) and staff are here and accounted for. Everyone's equipment made it, a first since I've been going on the trips. Everyone was pretty tired. We got to the hotel about 10:30-11:00 and into our rooms by 11:30. Everyone has the morning off, we're heading to the field about 2 pm for practice. It's 6:30 am now. Still tired, but hungry, so going down to breakfast. We took the requisite airport pictures and arrival pictures of everyone looking their best. I'll work on getting them posted after breakfast. More later,


----------



## H Sahi (Aug 21, 2007)

Steven Cornell said:


> Yes, Sheri Rhodes is team leader.
> Linda Beck is also going as a coach.


So, who gets to Twitter?


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

There are some pics and updates on our website. I don't know who or how often they will be twittering. I will if I can under archerymom. No promises, i have internet on my phone. I'm not going to think about the bill, well maybe a little. If there is wifi at the field I'll twitter away on the ipod touch. Will post more after practice.

Breakfast was good. Very nice buffet, lots of choices, no one will go hungry.

More later,


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

More pics of today's practice on our site. Brady was interviewed by UBC/SBS. We saw the interview on TV. Brady was the only thing we understood, the rest was in Korean. Most of the news stations have had something about the Championships on them. Sure wish we could get the coverage they get here. Oh well. Weather was ok except for a downpour. Glad I sat this one out. Practice is first thing in the morning. Braden has arrived at the airport, hopefully all his stuff has too. Then Team USA will be complete. Everyon seems pretty relaxed so far, hopefully that will hold as time goes on.
More Later,


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

azarcherymom said:


> More pics of today's practice on our site. Brady was interviewed by UBC/SBS. We saw the interview on TV. Brady was the only thing we understood, the rest was in Korean. Most of the news stations have had something about the Championships on them. Sure wish we could get the coverage they get here. Oh well. Weather was ok except for a downpour. Glad I sat this one out. Practice is first thing in the morning. Braden has arrived at the airport, hopefully all his stuff has too. Then Team USA will be complete. Everyon seems pretty relaxed so far, hopefully that will hold as time goes on.
> More Later,


 I dont recognize the thick clear liquid and dots of liquid spashing everywhere.


----------



## sundevilarchery (May 27, 2005)

Serious Fun said:


> I dont recognize the thick clear liquid and dots of liquid spashing everywhere.


LOL... sure you do Bob. That's that stuff that falls from the sky at every major archery event... this year at least.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

> I dont recognize the thick clear liquid and dots of liquid spashing everywhere.


Sounds like a selective memory problem  as I seem to recall shooting an AZ Cup several years ago that had some problems with that same thick, clear splashing liquid cutting the qualifier round a little short. :tongue:

>>------>


----------



## lightbeer (Jan 1, 2009)

:usa2:


----------



## Jim Pruitte (May 27, 2002)

Good luck to all this week.  I know Samantha would have loved to been there, but she had to prioritize. :wink:

Go USA!!


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

CHPro said:


> Sounds like a selective memory problem  as I seem to recall shooting an AZ Cup several years ago that had some problems with that same thick, clear splashing liquid cutting the qualifier round a little short. :tongue:
> 
> >>------>


Since that stuff only happens once every hundered years, we now have 99 years of clear skys at the AZ Cup, right?


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

Morning practice is over. Everyone kind of scattered to do their own lunch. I need to skip a few meals or I'm gonna weigh a jillion pounds. There is some pretty yummy food here. Some of the archers will shoot again this afternoon. There is also a cultural event that some will be going to tonight. Everyone is working out the kinks and stuff, very relaxed and loads of laughter during practices. This is a really good group of archers, good dynamics, I hope they carry it the competition field. Brady removed Erika's shoe from her backpack, for safe keeping, of course without telling her. Then they put a different color shoelace on it. We had everyone looking for it, and plans to go shoe shopping. Then at the end of practice it miraculously appeared, both shoes had matching laces, all was well. It provided much entertainment during the morning practice. Kept everyone loose and relaxed. We've got more pictures to download and post, which I will do after dinner tonight. The Korean TV people interviewed Cousins yesterday and he I got the end of it on TV last night, They had talked to Brady the day before. That was kind of cool. They both did a good job. Time for afternoon practice, we'll post more later.

Julie


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

Finally finished blog and photo update on our website. Too tired to add witty captions for the pics, will do at some point tomorrow. 

'night

Julie


----------



## c3hammer (Sep 20, 2002)

Great stuff Julie!!! Thanks for the posts and pics. Tell everyone I said good luck 

Pete


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

great pics!...makes u feel almost as if ur there...even saw one of our national team members watching dave cousins shooting brady's recurve!!....


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

I was not at competition field today. Will be there tomorrow. Will twitter updates. Will download pics from Opening ceremonies soon.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

azarcherymom said:


> ...Opening ceremonies...


Teams marching in four at a time. How well did that work? Looks very efficient since the archer often complain about the the long length of the opening ceremony and being away from chairs and water (and shade in the day time)


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

Go Recurve Women. Starting in 5 minutes.

10-10-10-10

:wav::wav::wav:


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

Here's the link to the scoring page...I hadn't seen it posted yet, but I probably just missed it.

Good job US Recurve Women in the Qualification Round!!!

http://www.archery.org/content.asp?id=4186&me_id=2583

Way to go Jenny Nichols (1339!) Gig'em Aggies!:thumbs_up

Go get'em men!


----------



## josh_X_wny (Oct 18, 2006)

Is Cousins shooting the AM, or the ProElite?


----------



## AggieX10 (Mar 29, 2004)

The Alpha Max. Almost became the first to shoot a 1400 with it (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

Wondering how conditions were for the compound qualifications?

Nice shooting Reo, Dave, and Braden. There hasn't been too much of a presence on the World Cup circuit this year from the USA, good to see the compound guys go over there and have such a good qualifying score.

Nice shooting Jenny! I'm very excited to watch the live results of the men's recurve team tonight!


----------



## RED69 (Jan 2, 2004)

Alphamax 35! He normally shoots an Ultraelite with 3500 limbs.


----------



## josh_X_wny (Oct 18, 2006)

Thanks, that pretty impressive, probably see a bunch of them at the next fita shoot now. For some reason I thought he was shooting a Pro with 3500's.

Any reason for the change? Just to prove it can be done?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Big congrat's to my buddy Jen-nay  on a good fita ranking score. She is one tough cookie. 10th place in the team rank is tough, but not impossible. Sets you up good in the brackets...

Go USA! Good luck to the men.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Some ridiculously good scores by the recurve men! 1380's! Yikes! And that 90 meter score is unbelieveable to me. Higher than our U.S. record for 70M!

Of the top 50 men, only one shot below 1300 (if I read that right). The bar has been significantly raised worldwide. Looks like the internationally competitive men's recurver needs to be in the 1330-1340 class nowdays. 1300 ain't going to get it anymore... 

Of course, now we wait for the matchplay crap-shoot  Where we all know anything can and often does happen. 

Good luck to Butch, Brady and Vic. Wishing you guys all the best.

John.


----------



## AggieX10 (Mar 29, 2004)

Right on John. That beats the best I've ever posted in a tourny at 90, and almost beats my best FITA. Scary good!!

Looking forward to the matches starting this evening!


----------



## AggieX10 (Mar 29, 2004)

On the AM... I know that he has his UltraElite over there with the 3500's. I'll be looking to see if shoots old reliable in the elimination round or if he'll stick with the AM.


----------



## pineapple3d (Oct 23, 2002)

Serious Fun said:


> Teams marching in four at a time. How well did that work? Looks very efficient since the archer often complain about the the long length of the opening ceremony and being away from chairs and water (and shade in the day time)


Bob,

Four at a time was great! We would have been there all night if the went one at a time.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

pineapple3d said:


> Bob,
> 
> Four at a time was great! We would have been there all night if the went one at a time.


Thanks for commenting. Do teams march in at World Cups and would it make sense to do the same at World Cup events?


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

Wow that is tough, Erika shoots a 58 & 60 only to lose to a 119.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Some ridiculously good scores by the recurve men! 1380's! Yikes! And that 90 meter score is unbelieveable to me. Higher than our U.S. record for 70M!
> 
> Of the top 50 men, only one shot below 1300 (if I read that right). The bar has been significantly raised worldwide. Looks like the internationally competitive men's recurver needs to be in the 1330-1340 class nowdays. 1300 ain't going to get it anymore...


Before the last end at 90 mt, OH was 289 and IM was 279. IM shot 59 scoring 338 one point more of previous WR. OH shot much lower its average previous score of 57+, shooting 53 only, but total was WR at 342!

I agree, when an Iranian can shoot 1331 being 24th, it means the bar is much highter now... 1300 is in intermediate beginners score nowdays...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Vittorio, what do you suppose has made the difference? More countries involved than before? Certainly the equipment hasn't really improved that much in the 13 years since Atlanta.

John.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Vittorio, what do you suppose has made the difference? More countries involved than before? Certainly the equipment hasn't really improved that much in the 13 years since Atlanta.
> 
> John.


This is the real question, and the center of the debates here in these days.
There are several factors contributing to the growth, in my opinion, and materials are NOT influencing it too much, as you mention.
1) Better knowledge of tuning priciples and arrows selection
2) Better level of coaching
3) More money available to top level archery in more countries. 

Point 1 has been the first to develop. For instance, bare shft selection at 70 mt was probably used by Michele's only in 1996. Today, even the boys from San Marino do select their arrow sets bare at 70. And there are probably only 3 archers in the entire 200+ bunch here that don't use V-bar+etender set up for the bow. They were many up to 10 years ago. 
Point 2 went after, but effects took around 4 years to show up. I have asked to the Iranian shooting 1331 how long their (Korean) coaches (one man and one lady, of course) have been with them and answer has been 4 -5 years already. 
Point 3 has been finally the glue to make things working. A 1.5 Million Euro budget can make better archers than a 400K one, and GBR is the example. 
To these, Koreans are also adding a 4th one:
4) More top level archers selected to a much more highter level than before. 

Point 4 is out of reach outside Korea, point 1 and 2 are strictly related to point 3. But if you have 3 (=good budget) then you should stay close to the top and try to develop 4).
If you don't have 3), you will only have to hope luck and play a limited part of the game. But if you have 3) and you are going down, it only means you are using your budget in a bad way. 

Easy !:wink::zip:


----------



## Paul Williams (Jun 18, 2006)

*compound women upsets*

#32 Threesyadin INA takes out #1 Ochoa MEX ouch ouch ouch, quadruple ouch

#49 Crisanto MEX takes out #16 Nicely USA we know who is hot today.
#49 Crisanto MEX takes out #17 Fabre FRA bring em’ on baby.
#49 Crisanto MEX takes out #32 Threesyadin INA take that !! and she takes over the #1 seed position. oohh yea!!

#41 Reppe SWE takes out #24 Hunt GBR always good to see.

#37 Salvi ITA takes out #28 Flores VEN cool.

#76 Dessoy BEL takes out #53 Honda JPN didn’t see that one coming.

#21 Cotzee RSA takes out #12 Bouffard CAN never under estimate the ranks below you.

#21 Cotzee RSA takes out #5 Seok KOR another hot one on the way, takes over the #5 seed position.

#77 Solbakken NOR takes out #52 Acquesta BRA oops.

#36 Ochoa MEX takes out #29 Balzhanova RUS well, they were pretty close in ranking anyways

#68 McGregor NZL takes out #4 Wiehe GER smash em’ honey

#46 Agudo ESP takes out #19 Van Caspel NED uh oh, didn’t see that one coming at all
#46 Agudo ESP takes out #14 Willems BEL ouch

#78 Makkonen FIN takes out #51 Hansdah IND emmm emmm so sweet

#75 Hyde AUS takes out #54 Prieels BEL mmm mmm mmm good

#43 Halimianavval IRI takes out #27 Haji IRI good thing this isn’t sword fighting !!

#70 Volle FRA takes out #59 Andersen NOR viva la’france

#27 Babinina LTU takes out #6 Buden CRO oh my gosh OMG

#39 Guedez VEN takes out #26 Korobeynikova RUS audios ruski

#74 Ho SIN takes out #55 Bosch VEN austa la’ vista’ baby

#10 Wallace CAN takes out #7 Kwon KOR sianora woo hoo


most notable “take out” 
*#68 McGregor NZL takes out #4 Wiehe GER smash em’ honey*
gotta be this one, WOW #68 dusts away #4.
Exciting for McGregor and NZL.
Embarrassing for Wiehe and GER.


Best run on a “hot streak”
*#49 Crisanto MEX takes out #16 Nicely USA we know who is hot today.
#49 Crisanto MEX takes out #17 Fabre FRA bring em’ on baby.
#49 Crisanto MEX takes out #32 Threesyadin INA take that !! and she takes over #1 seed position !!  oooohhh yea !!!!
viva la’ me’hico’ ola’ ola’ ola’*


final thoughts?
you had better be on top of your game during the matches.
never under estimate the power of lower ranked archers.
just because you didn't qualify #1,2, or 3 doesn't mean you don't have a chance to win the whole thing!!!

Cheers,
Paul


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

Paul Williams said:


> final thoughts?
> you had better be on top of your game during the matches.
> never under estimate the power of lower ranked archers.
> just because you didn't qualify #1,2, or 3 doesn't mean you don't have a chance to win the whole thing!!!
> ...


I have heard it said here many times that the OR is a waste since it does not show who the best archers are. 12 arrows can never show who the best archer is. Well I kinda think the best archers adapt to the game. The name of the game is Olympic/World Championship Gold. The only way to get it is to win your OR matches. Yes it is very hard when you lose and you shot better then every other winner who advances. That is a tough pill to swallow. But it is the name of the game. Looks like now, it will best of three "sets" at the 6 arrow ends so at least 18 arrows and best of five "sets" at 3 arrow ends so at least 15 arrows. It still is not a perfect system, I have never claimed it to be. But it really upsets me, when someone gets beat and you hear them repeatedly saying..."I don't think 12 arrows shows the best archer." No you are right there...it shows the winner or the Gold medal or the winner of the Bronze medal. That's the name of the game. Just my two cents worth.


----------



## Paul Williams (Jun 18, 2006)

*Compound Men Upsets*

#48 Srither IND takes out #17 Brassuer FRA

#49 Munoz BRA takes out #16 Malm SWE

#73 De La Torre ESP takes out #56 Koumertas GRE
#73 De La Torre ESP takes out #9 Teasdale NZL

#88 Cesar BRA takes out #41 Seywert LUX
#88 Cesar BRA takes out #24 Tataryn CAN

#104 Cheung HKG takes out #25 Deloche FRA

#72 Smordal NOR takes out #57 Hamzeh IRI

#101 Setijawan INA takes out #28 Khlyschenko RUS
#101 Setijawan INA takes out #37 Sigauskas LTU

#44 Pizarro PUR takes out #21 Roziz BRA

#53 Carlsson SWE takes out #12 Dos Santos BRA

#77 Polman NED takes out #52 Wallace AUS
#77 Polman NED takes out #13 Jarvenpaa FIN

#93 Khuraijam IND takes out #36 Cillers RSA

#62 Mazzi ITA takes out #3 Jimenez ESA
#62 Mazzi ITA takes out #35 Boe NOR

#78 Kiss HUN takes out #51 Forbes GBR
#78 Kiss HUN takes out #14 Damsbo DEN

#86 Johannessen DEN takes out #43 Hernandez ESA

#22 Grimwood GBR takes out #11 Elzinga NED

#27 Busby GBR takes out #6 Gellenthien USA

#70 Parenteau CAN takes out #59 Catalan ESP

*#42 Hernandez ESA takes out #23 Jamie MEX
#42 Hernandez ESA takes out #10 Coghlan AUS
#42 Hernandez ESA takes out #7 Sitar SLO*

#50 Ramirez MEX takes out #15 Karsenty ISR

#98 Gregec CRO takes out #31 Laube GER

*#63 Scriba GER takes out #2 Cousins USA*

#34 Duo ESP takes out #18 Pagni ITA


most notable "take out"
*#63 Scriba GER takes out #2 Cousins USA*
gotta be this one, WOW #63 knocks off #2.
Exciting for Scriba GER.
Embarrassing for Cousins USA.
darn, i was betting on Dave to WIN !!!
Reo is still in though, he is my next pick to WIN !!


Best run on a “hot streak”
*#42 Hernandez ESA takes out #23 Jamie MEX
#42 Hernandez ESA takes out #10 Coghlan AUS
#42 Hernandez ESA takes out #7 Sitar SLO*
take that !! and he takes over #10 seed position !!
and then promtly loses it to Duo ESP. gotta love it. 
it's crazy out there, i tell ya, it's crazy!!!


final thoughts? same as last post !
you had better be on top of your game during the matches.
never under estimate the power of lower ranked archers.
they are very motivated to win and are throwing everything they have on the field, leaving nothing out there.
just because you didn't qualify #1,2, or 3 doesn't mean you don't have a chance to win the whole thing!!!

just look at the semi finals bracket: on the right you have top seeds #1 and #5, while on the left you have #22 and #34.

as the mantre goes "anything can happen in match play"

Cheers,
Paul


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

The stupid idea to reduce number of arrows from 18 down to 12 in the first phases of the OR has shown in the last years what it was... Simply a stupid idea, even more stupid if you consider that it was already applied at the beginning of the OR in 92 and 93, then changed to 18 arrows as results were too much unpredictable ... just to make it to 12 arrows again 12 years after and now then cancel the entire concept of direct elimination after other 5 years. 17 years to understand that OR wasn't something really working at any level, media included. 
This will be the last world championship with the direct elimination in OR. For Europe, we still have to face it for sure another time for the European indoor champs in March (indoor... what will happen to indoor?), for the rest of the world next week will be the last one, hopefully forever, of a formula that has never been fully accepted by the world of archery.
Hopefully, team round will follow same evolution by the next FITA Congress...

By now, let's enjoy for one day more another bunch of unpredictable results....


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

Vittorio said:


> The stupid idea to reduce number of arrows from 18 down to 12 in the first phases of the OR has shown in the last years what it was... Simply a stupid idea, even more stupid if you consider that it was already applied at the beginning of the OR in 92 and 93, then changed to 18 arrows as results were too much unpredictable ... just to make it to 12 arrows again 12 years after and now then cancel the entire concept of direct elimination after other 5 years. 17 years to understand that OR wasn't something really working at any level, media included.
> This will be the last world championship with the direct elimination in OR. For Europe, we still have to face it for sure another time for the European indoor champs in March (indoor... what will happen to indoor?), for the rest of the world next week will be the last one, hopefully forever, of a formula that has never been fully accepted by the world of archery.
> Hopefully, team round will follow same evolution by the next FITA Congress...
> 
> By now, let's enjoy for one day more another bunch of unpredictable results....


Do you believe this change will solve those issues? I am betting not, but will lessen the impact somewhat.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

In total agreement with Vittorio.

I've said for years now that the highest 1/2 scores from each round should advance until the medal rounds, then have the head-to-head matches. That would ensure that the best, most consistent, shooters advance. Why is this so hard! We used to have a format like that, before matchplay.

If we must endure 12 arrow matchplay, then why single elimination? 

As I said earlier, total crap-shoot. And the results confirm that. 

John.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> In total agreement with Vittorio.
> 
> I've said for years now that the highest 1/2 scores from each round should advance until the medal rounds, then have the head-to-head matches. That would ensure that the best, most consistent, shooters advance. Why is this so hard! We used to have a format like that, before matchplay.
> 
> ...




Yep I say bring back the Grand Fita with some small changes and then you will see who the best really is.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

Sean McKenty said:


> Yep I say bring back the Grand Fita with some small changes and then you will see who the best really is.


I disagree! 

The OR round as it is right now gives everyone a chance to win, not just the elite few.

All you have to do is be better than your opponent for ten minutes / twelve arrows.

You don't have to be better than everyone else, just better than your opponent, ten minutes at a time, and you'll advance, to do it allover again!.:wink:


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

monty53 said:


> I disagree!
> 
> The OR round as it is right now gives everyone a chance to win, not just the elite few.
> 
> ...


OK now say that again and again until you actually feel it makes sence.....

gives others a chance to win.....OMG why don't we do something original and crown the best archer.. ever wonder why the elite are elite. I boggles my mind why people insist on dumbing down a champonship to that of a crap shoot.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

Is not a crap shoot.

Besides skills, mind and emotional control are what it takes to win. Some great shooters choke under pressure and hate the OR round. Some rise to the occasion and excel under that pressure.

The one day full FITA round is so long that endurance and physical fitness are required to do well for its entirety. Because of that, it allows for a shooter who messed up one or two ends to do well.

The OR round does not afford you that luxury, you mess one shot, you're out. 

The OR requires skills and mind set. 
The best archer is the one with the Gold, not the best shooter.


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

*OR Format*

I think Monty53 has a point. You don't deserve to be the best if you can not beat a single player even though you can beat a hundred in the qualifying round. Tennis is exciting even though there is a chance that the world's nr 1 can be eliminated in 1st round by a newbie. 

If every games result will be predictable, there will be no excitement at all. Even Tiger Woods can be beaten at times by a nobody in the PGA but it makes the next tournament more exciting because there is that element of unpredictability. Every golf player paired with Tiger are no longer intimidated by his mere presence because if a lowly Korean can beat him, then everybody in the PGA can do the same. That's excitement.

Take note, the odds in the OR is greatly in favor of the best archer by being paired wit the weakest archer. If he can't beat the weakest archer, then I can not call him the best of the best... sorry for that but to be the real champ, you should be able to show your best in a pressure game, just like the "old west" where the best gun shooter has to prove it in a duel. Qualifying round do not have the pressure that the OR can give the players hence, it is not the best measurement of a great archer. At least in other sport, such as tennis, you will have to prove your best from player to player... from round 1 to the championship round. QR in archery is not like that but the OR is something similar to tennis.

For the Players who scored low in the QR, the reason he is still participating in the OR is because he is given the chance to win his match - player by player, even though the odds is very slim (being paired with the best is no joke). But the hope keeps him alive and excited. Otherwise, he can already pack his bag after the QR if there is no hope of winning at all. That's the beauty of the OR.

Anyway, the winner in the QR has been given his due recognition by being acknowledge by his peers to be the "best" archer in a "low" pressure event. He can only be the "best of the best" though if he can remain consistent with the pressure of the OR.

12 arrows versus 18 arrows? What's the difference? If the archer beat the other archer in 12 arrows, he probably can beat him again in the next 6 arrows. We are just playing with the odds here. If the result will not be the same to our expectation, we will be asking for 24 arrows.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

on another note our 13-year old archer who is only about 5' shot 1168 in the ranking round...and he wasn't last either!!...i hope he wins at least a match!!


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Shooting against everybody and nobody *144 arrows* is not a true competition. IMHO a "competition" is something someone does directly against somebody. Leave the shoot-offs alone, whatever format they may be...


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

monty53 said:


> Is not a crap shoot.
> 
> Besides skills, mind and emotional control are what it takes to win. Some great shooters choke under pressure and hate the OR round. Some rise to the occasion and excel under that pressure.
> 
> ...


The OR round as it is now in no way shape or form produces the best archer, why do you think they did away with the 18 arrow matches to start, simply to give the lesser archer a chance to claim they are the best when infact they are not. 

The qualification round is pretty much meaningless with only 12 arrow matches and now that being dumbed down to 3 arrow sets


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

Dado said:


> Shooting against everybody and nobody *144 arrows* is not a true competition. IMHO a "competition" is something someone does directly against somebody. Leave the shoot-offs alone, whatever format they may be...


I am sure that Recurve archer that shot a 1386 would love to know it wasn't a compition he was in, that guy did something to everyone with a vengence he hammered them all, those that couldn;t take the heat or endurance or have the mental toughness just gave up in hopes of getting lucky in a 12 arrow match


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

A 118 doesn't advance but a 108 in the same round does. Must be saying something about the OR.


Terry


----------



## Paul Williams (Jun 18, 2006)

*Match Play*

well, i must say Monty53 and Artvid have good points.

single elimination
who is the best?

wrestling tournament
hockey tournament
basketball tournament
baseball tournament
high school football playoffs
nfl playoffs (were talking da' Super Bowl Champion here!!)
of course if the SB Champ didn't have the best regular season record
then he "just got lucky", but those guys are a little big for us archers 
to walk up and tell them something like that !! now, aren't they. hahaha
you big chicken!!!!
tennis
softball tournaments
curling
bowling
....
....
....
come on, now, the list is rather large of acceptable match play tournaments.

no one can argue against the best qualifying archer winning the OR is definately the best archer on the field, and he/she has proven it in low pressure and high pressure shooting.

Artvid is right, if you can perform well under pressure; that is to be rewarded.

another point, go look at the ranking score of most of the archers that are upsetting higher ranked archers; there ranking is usually at 1275 or better. any tournament archer knows that if your shooting 1275 and better, you are VERY capable of laying down a 110...114 at any moment. we've all done it. even sub 1250 archers get some really great 12 arrows scores every now and then.

given enough skill to shoot 1275+ and a good head for high pressure matches could equal a very good archer !!!!

cheers,
Paul Williams
"SGT Williams"

"now drop and give me 100 !!!"


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

You cannot look at the OR’s as a single event. The OR’s are made up of many separate events. The #1 ranked archer may win their first match with a 109. The #2 ranked archer may win their match with a 118. That does not mean because the #2 archer scored a 118 against their opponent makes them better than #1, it just means that they score 118 against that archer in that match. They then move on to a new and different match. Scores in an OR round only indicate who won that particular match. Would you say that if the #1 ranked archer somehow won all of their matches with a score of 109 and the #2 archer won their all of their matches with a score of 118 and in the final the #1 archer wins by a score of 109, the #2 archer should be the winner because they scored 118 in every match except for the one that counted? The Archer who is can get up mentally for each match and win, no matter what score he wins by, should be the champion. The FITA qualifier is no different than pool play in other sports.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

funny how most of the criticisms i have read or hear about the OR are from those who have shot a high ranking round and lost in an early OR match at one time or another....or they have some kind of interest on those who have done so..
......sorry guys but the ranking round is NOT the whole tournament....as the saying goes "it ain't over till it's over!"
......all true champions will learn to live with it....go and practice for the OR and move forward!!!


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

*Mens Recurve about to start*

Go USA, Go USA

Sending the 10 chant your way....

:wav::wav::wav::wav:


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i can also understand the frustrations of those who have critcized the current OR format...after all they or their protegees have just spent a lot of "blood, sweat and tears" in a 144 arrow round only to be eliminated in a 12 arrow rd that last a maximum of maybe 15 mins!!
....perhaps the answer could be to have shorter ranking rounds(72 arrows max?) and/or just award medals for the ranking rounds(totals and per distance) in addition to the over-all winner....there could also be a FITA round only tournament(double or single) with no OR involved...
....these practices have all been done before in lesser events...why not do it for the big ones too like the WAC....the olympics though is another matter...PS... i fear that if something is not done the FITA round as we know it now might go the way of the dodo..


----------



## lorteti (Apr 14, 2008)

Some of you guys are really missing the point. The problem with the OR is too risky, one wrong move or the wind is too strong, you will end up losing the whole tournament. And we are talking about a less than 10 minute match, usually with 1 or 2 point different.
Look at snooker championship, they know the problem. One small mistake will let the opponent finishing the match. That is why they have to play more than 15 matches between 2 opponents.
I think the new 3 arrow set system is a better option, a kind like tennis format.
ps: Do you remember why FITA introduce the OR, if not more than 90% of the medals goes to Korean archers.

jx


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

all top level competitions have risks....as the saying goes--"if you can't stand the heat...stay out of the kitchen!"......

i also would like to compare the OR to a sprinter and the ranking round to the longer distance runners--ie--400m and above...the present archery format wants the winner to be both.....PS..as of now only the koreans have a realistic chance of doing this...


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

the problem is that you are comparing other sports that involve stradgy, burst of power and space needed to host the event. Archery has none of those issues, there is no stradigy, needed burst of power or limited space as is in the 100m or marathon. With them taking 128 archers over 12 arrows is a crap shoot, thats why they did it, they wanted to some how give the much lesser archer that couldn't handle the mental toughness in the qualification to get another chance when they don't deserve it

Take the top 8/16 at the most do double eliminations send everyone else home, come back when you can hit the ten


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> A 118 doesn't advance but a 108 in the same round does. Must be saying something about the OR.


This is the part that bothers me. Again, what would be wrong with cutting the field in half each round until the final 4? That makes the most sense to me - nobody could complain that the 4 best archers were not in the finals then.

I understand what folks are saying about the different format and different mental skillset that it demands. I'm okay with that and I think the head-to-head format is a good start. However, as EVERYONE should know - we went from 18 to 12 arrows to make things ever MORE unpredictable than they were. What exactly is the point of that? I think it's bad for the sport. 

John.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

the last 4 in the men's recurve now ongoing in korea are the 3 koreans and the current olympic gold medalist...now that's the cream rising to the top!!
.....in the women's side we have 2 koreans(#1 and #3) and the # 20 and #23....all are 1315+ shooters....and the other korean(#2) only lost by 1 in the quarters... not bad either...
.....in the long run those who can find a way to best handle BOTH the ranking round and OR pressure will prevail....that's how champions are made...PS...those who can handle only the former will always be the also runs...JMHO..


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

The point is though, it isnt always about who handles the pressure best...Erica Anshutz shot a 118 and lost...other archers shot lower scores and won...are you saying that someone who wins a match 114-108 handles the pressure better than someone who looses 118-119...that defies any logic...but in archery today, the better archer, in spite of shooting the better score still goes home...and a lower archer advances and finishes ahead..not becuase they shot better, but because they had a better draw...that is what the issue is...


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

*OR format*

I have seen, observed, read and participated in some archery tournaments and somehow, In almost all cases, one of the top 4 in the qR will eventually find themselves in the final matches and win the Championship round. It is always extremely tough, if not almost impossible, to see the bottom 25% in the qR becoming the champion. They may get lucky in the first match but sustaining it for 8 consecutive match wins will have the odds equivalent to almost impossible.

If the nr 2 gets eliminated early, the chances are very high that the nr 1, 3 or 4 in the qR will eventually emerge as the winner. For a guy in the bottom winning all 8 matches in a row, he deserve to be crowned the Champion.

I still believe that whoever will be tough enough to win 8 matches in a row under pressure deserve the GOLD. It doesn't matter what's the score of winning. If Federer took 5 sets to win his first round match but only took him 3 sets to nail the championship trophy doesn't mean his 1st round opponent is better than his championship opponent. What is important is winning in every matches leading to the championship round.

100m dash, which takes years of preparation, is won or lost in less than 10 seconds.. so what's wrong with winning or losing in 15 mins for archery?

Just my thoughts...


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Sean McKenty said:


> ....Take the top 8/16 at the most do double eliminations send everyone else home, come back when you can hit the ten


I totally agree, and best competition format for participants, spectators and media too is already existing and is the one used at World Games (Field Archery) since their birth. Qualification round (on or two days) and then the top 4 go straight to the finals. That's all, simple and clean, and works very well as anyone being in Taiwan in July could judge. 
Why this simple concept can't be applied to Target and Indoor shooting too still remains a mistery to me.
All nations have spent a lot of money to be here in Ulsan to play a complicated elimination just to reach a point were the top 4 are made by 1/2/4 of the qualifiction round + Nbr 11 defeting Nbr3 by one point in a 12 arrow match. What can be wrong in taking 1/2/3/4 of the FITA round and sending them to the finals? Where is the technical difference in content? Is it worth the tens of thousand Usd spent by all participants to stay here one day more?


----------



## Nicely (Jun 13, 2002)

Double elimination?

Put some teeth in the qualification round, if virtually everyone qualifies now, make it so qualifying is not so easy. Set numbers such as if there are 80 archers start with a 1/32 or better a 1/16 round. This would save time needed to run a double elimination system.

The idea of dumbing down the system to give more a chance is not a good one. Make the archer get better. Heck lets make the matches 1 arrow.

Not a good comparison football, baseball,etc. it would be like a pool of teams playing a full game to get seeded then playing an inning or sudden death format to eliminate.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

artvid said:


> 100m dash, which takes years of preparation, is won or lost in less than 10 seconds.. so what's wrong with winning or losing in 15 mins for archery?
> 
> Just my thoughts...


Not even really true for even for 100 yard sprint.
Other than archery no sport uses a H2H (that I can think of) unless the sport makes this format inevitable - and even then a pool structure is often used to make for a "fairer" competition. The 100/20o etc.s yard sprinter has to go through heats, quarter/semi finals as appropriate where weaker competitors are eliminated (with fasted non qualifiers going forward as well). The finalists are the usually 8 competitors who over a number of events have proved themselves the best which, in the 100 yard sprint case, is in fact a better system then having a single event with 50 competitors.

Head to head system for archery is stupid. Tinkering with a stupid format to try to create a less stupid format is equally stupid. An elimination system not only introduces the concept of the best competitors being most likely to do well but also makes for a more interesting competition for spectators.

Fita's introduction of H2H format has to have been a political decision (IOC, Manufacturer pressure, whoever) and being so is not going to change.

Came last in the keyboard race


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

*H to H*

Head to head format is not limited to archery. Tennis (Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, etc.) uses a head to head format. The only difference is that they have world ranking to seed their players. Billiards also uses the H to H format, so is badminton, combat shooting, table tennis, amateur boxing, wrestling and other amateur combative sports, and many other individual sports. 

Archery needs the qualifying round in order to seed the players in the absence of world ranking or any other reliable seeding methodology, more so with new players participating in every tournaments. 

Except for some sports where they draw the parings, most are seeded in accordance with accepted form of ranking. The use of draw lots is even more stupid since the best player may be paired with the second best player in the first round but they are being used in combative sports even in the olympics.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

The OR round was not implemented for the benefit of the archers. It was implemented for the benefit of the audience. 

Full FITA rounds were too long and boring to watch. The leaders took off and everyone else played catch-up which rarely ever happened. 
Only the families of the competitors would sit through a full FITA round. 

Time to bring in more spectators. 

The OR round made it SHORT and a little more exiting to watch. 
It brought the field back to "O" and everyone had a chance. 
It is not perfect but it allows for the unpredictable, which adds excitement.


----------



## archerymom2 (Mar 28, 2008)

artvid said:


> Head to head format is not limited to archery. Tennis (Wimbledon, US Open, French Open, etc.) uses a head to head format. The only difference is that they have world ranking to seed their players. Billiards also uses the H to H format, so is badminton, combat shooting, table tennis, amateur boxing, wrestling and other amateur combative sports, and many other individual sports.


But the difference is that with all of these sports, you NEED to have a single other competitor for the competition to work! You can't perform alone -- the competition IS how you respond to the other person. 

Archery is more similar to swimming, running, gymnastics, golf, downhill skiing, or ice skating --- you are your own competitor, competing for a score without direct interference from the other archers. None of these sports work on a 1-on-1 elimination competition. Having 1-on-1 eliminations is necessary with the above sports, but relatively artificial in archery.


----------



## CT MastersCF (Mar 14, 2009)

*Yes...I agree ... the OR as currently formatted is a stupid way to choose a champion*

In another thread a couple of months ago I commented on this issue. (repeated below) The comments posted here in this thread have only solidified my opinion on this.

********************************************************
Part of the prior post:

As ar as the format of the OR, I'm not sure what the answer is. There are a number of conflicting interests here: 1) desire for a competition that will produce a champion that is representative of the excellence require of such; 2) the desire of the national and international governing bodies to promote the sport to the extent that they do that at the same time they produce Olympic medals; 3) the short attention span of the non-archery public. BUT we do, as a sports-watching public, have good TV coverage for golf tournaments and tennis matches. Golf takes about 280 shots for the typical 4-round tournament. Tennis (for men anyway) takes a minimum of 72 points won for a 5-set match. Why do we limit ourselves to a 12-arrow match? Is it that we need to get through 7 rounds in some short period of time? I understand that more people relate directly to golf and tennis than do those who relate directly to archery, so we do have that to overcome. NASP in particular is furthering that.

What if the FITA ranking round was shortened to 24 arrows at each distance, which could be comfortably shot in one day and the OR was changed to a 24 arrow match shot in double elimination format that would be shot over two days? That would keep the ranking round interesting (multiple distances) and it would not be marathon, and would keep more people alive in the OR as it progressed. One mistake in a 12-arrow match would not wipe out one's chances early. The cream will still rise to the top.
*********************************************************

A previous post in this thread mentioned tennis. I think my statement above about tennis was too conservative. In a men's tennis match three sets are required. Rarely is a match won 6-0, 6-0, and 6-0. Most are on the order of 6-3, 6-3 6-3, or something like that. In this example it takes 108 contested points, not including those games that go to duece.

This is reasonable head-to-head competition.

Now I don't advocate 100+ arrows to decide a match, but from the comments in this thread, I think it's very clear that a 12-arrow match is, as described, a crap-shoot. Maybe 18 or 24 arrows is better, but I'm not convinced that even 18 arrows is enough, even though I suggested 12-arrow double-eliminations in my previous post. However, a double-elimination format, as long as it might be, is a better deal in terms of selecting the best archer. Restricting the field size in the OR may be the answer to that. 

There have been a few comments comparing the various tournaments (basketball, football for instance) that have one-and-done formats. I think the critical aspect however is the length of each head-to-head game. To take that argument to its logical conclusion then we should decide basketball games by giving each player on the team ONE free throw. Or pick the best free-throw shooter (or 3-point shooter, etc.) from each teamfor a 3-shot match. It would be shorter and the team that handles the pressure better will win ... most of the time. Or let's shorten a football game to something like the college tie-breaker: each team starts from the 25-year line and after each team gets an offensive series we declare a winner if one team is ahead. Think of the pressure !!

I agree that a champion should be able to handle pressure, but the pressure should come at the end of a match (or game) where both parties have had ample opportunity to demonstrate their skill, talent, desire, and mental toughness. Twelve arrows does not demonstrate that.


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

*element of luck*

If she lost to a 119, then the one who scored the 119 deserve to advance. The reason why she probably scored 118 was because her opponent was shooting extremely well and she tried to do the same. If we examine her previous win, for example, she could probably have also won with a score of 110 against a 109.

Funny but you should not remove the element of luck in a competitive sport. That one lucky punch in boxing can be the lucky one arrow in archery. Even golf needs luck to beat the Tiger. The number 10 in the qR could have won the qR had he probably not been unlucky with his one worst end. Many other sports are won and lost by some squirt of luck or bad luck. But that's where the excitement comes in. Michael Phelps won by split second by one lucky move of his arms which his opponent could not accept even now. Basketball championship can be won with the 3-pt play with just 1 second to go. We can go on and on and on... and archery should not be an exception..





Xs24-7 said:


> The point is though, it isnt always about who handles the pressure best...Erica Anshutz shot a 118 and lost...other archers shot lower scores and won...are you saying that someone who wins a match 114-108 handles the pressure better than someone who looses 118-119...that defies any logic...but in archery today, the better archer, in spite of shooting the better score still goes home...and a lower archer advances and finishes ahead..not becuase they shot better, but because they had a better draw...that is what the issue is...


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i think that all our arguments/discussions have their valid points....the fact remains, however, that the OR is the tournament system being used at present...this is known to all competitors beforehand...if they do not like it they are not being forced to join...if they join they have to accept it and try their best to prepare for it...

i seriously doubt if all the discussions here will convince the powers that be to change it...those who are in position to influence the decision to make changes should be doing it...

personally i like the present system as it makes the sport more exciting for the audience to watch and that can only contribute to the growth and popularity of our sport...ESPN has been known to make their own "ESPN RULES" when they were trying to grow the sport of billiards for television...i personally interviewed our world class players many of whom were and are world champions about this and they said that even if they did not always agree to these rules they still participated and accepted the rules and tried their best to adapt..

the players/athletes will always try to influence formats to those which they like or have some kind of an advantage...as part of our national olympic committee i have seen these attempted in many sports such as bowling, archery, billiards, basketball, golf,etc....in many cases these attempts have been voted down but certain cases have also been approved if the committee felt it would benefit the majority...

bottom line is the present rules are what they are... true champions will always learn to adapt and win....


----------



## lorteti (Apr 14, 2008)

CT MastersCF said:


> This is reasonable head-to-head competition.


'Reasonable' that's the keyword, 12 arrow OR is definitely not.

jx


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

another thought on this please... i believe that artvid is correct in saying that the rankng round is only for the purposes of seeding...in many big tournaments ALL participants get to shoot at least one match anyway...

if this format remains some archers may be tempted to to deliberately "tamper" with their shooting to get a better seeding-ie-face perceptibly weaker opponents in the early rounds...

what then???...at least in the head to head matches you can be reasonably sure everybody will really be trying to win...


----------



## CT MastersCF (Mar 14, 2009)

artvid said:


> Head to head format is not limited to archery. ... Billiards also uses the H to H format ...


Billiards used a double-elimination format at one time. I can't speak to the current format because tournaments have gone mostly to 9-ball ... for TV nonetheless. Pocket billiards used to use the straight-pool game almost exclusively. Once it got to TV-land, the audience doesn't have the attention span to stay on board. Sound familiar?

For those who aren't familiar: straight pool (sometimes called 14 an 1) leaves one ball and the cue-ball on the table, reracks the other 14 balls and keeps going. If the player is skillfull enough he or she tries to leave the last ball in such a position that on pocketing that ball after reracking the other 14, the cue-ball then breaks the rack and the player keeps going until a shot is missed.

In 1967 the US Open Pocket Billiards Championship was held in St Louis in the Jefferson Hotel Ballroom. It was a double-elimination tournament. Luther Lassiter had come from the winner's bracket and Jimmie Caras came from the loser's bracket. Caras had to win two matches; Lassiter had to win only one.

Caras won both games to 150, for his first chamionship since 1948. 

You can read the story in the Sports Illustrated archive: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1080050/index.htm ("Grandma Shot Out the Lights" .. it was the 1st US Open that included a women's division)

I was there with one of my best friends ... two 18-year-olds who dressed in coat-and-tie and who bought $5 tickets to sit in the balcony above the ballroom. When 7:30 rolled around and the table-side seats were not filled, the announcer said that in order to start the match on time, the table-side captain's chairs could be taken by "anyone upstairs" who wished to come down. Rick and I were on the grand staircase before the announcer finished the sentence. We sat at the end of the table, front row. I still have the ticket autographed by the ever-gracious Luther Lassiter after the match.

Without the double-elimination format Jimmie Caras would have long been out of the tournament.


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

archerymom2 said:


> Archery is more similar to swimming, running, gymnastics, *golf* (_emphasis added_), downhill skiing, or ice skating --- you are your own competitor, competing for a score without direct interference from the other archers. None of these sports work on a 1-on-1 elimination competition. Having 1-on-1 eliminations is necessary with the above sports, but relatively artificial in archery.


Actually, golf has match play in a few tournaments. For much of its history head to head competitions were common in tournaments. Now, its the novelty; not sure why.


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

This is nice in words buy hardly inspiring to the other players. if the top 30 archers of the Koreans will be allowed to participate in any world archery tournament, we will have the funny spectacle where all the contesting top 16players are Koreans. Again, who would like to see them compete except the the Koreans? Most of the top archers in the world are lucky to be in the top 10 since the Koreans are limited to send only 1 team of 2 players. So I can say that especially in recurve women, the top 10 world players are not actually the top 10. Probably also applicable to the US compound men.

So if we are talking about the best 10 players in the world, Only the Koreans are probably deserving while the rest are not because they have not competed with all the possible great archers.

So, why are we then crying out loud for being beaten by a weaker opponent in the OR when winning the event will not actually make us the best archer in the world but just damn lucky that only 3 Koreans were allowed to compete. This probably holds true also with the compound men dominated by the US.










Vittorio said:


> I totally agree, and best competition format for participants, spectators and media too is already existing and is the one used at World Games (Field Archery) since their birth. Qualification round (on or two days) and then the top 4 go straight to the finals. That's all, simple and clean, and works very well as anyone being in Taiwan in July could judge.
> Why this simple concept can't be applied to Target and Indoor shooting too still remains a mistery to me.
> All nations have spent a lot of money to be here in Ulsan to play a complicated elimination just to reach a point were the top 4 are made by 1/2/4 of the qualifiction round + Nbr 11 defeting Nbr3 by one point in a 12 arrow match. What can be wrong in taking 1/2/3/4 of the FITA round and sending them to the finals? Where is the technical difference in content? Is it worth the tens of thousand Usd spent by all participants to stay here one day more?


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i totally agree with artvid.....the korean recurve archers are unbeatable in the fita round format at present.....and their compound archers are catching up too!


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

monty53 said:


> The OR round was not implemented for the benefit of the archers. It was implemented for the benefit of the audience.
> 
> Full FITA rounds were too long and boring to watch. The leaders took off and everyone else played catch-up which rarely ever happened.
> Only the families of the competitors would sit through a full FITA round.
> ...




Exactly, screw the archers for this so called TV coverage that never comes,spectator will never come on mass because they can't see what is happening not because of some lame brained OR system, now put them at 50m were there isn't any hope of seeing arrows fly.

Why on earth should we be allow lesser archers who can't handle the pressure of shooting arrows in the ten an oppertunity to shoot eliminations just for a lucky seed


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

Swimming and running may not use head to head format but they use head to many format. They are pitted against 6 to 7 other players and the top swimmers or runners in every heat, or based on time, advances to the next round. Even in these event, each players are also being influenced by the other players. If the particular heat are composed of fast swimmers or runners, the time normally done by each competitor are faster. World records are broken normally when the competition among the athletes are too close.

In archery, I tend to believe that in a head to head confrontation, somehow, the performance of the other archer can influence the other. If you will notice, most winning margin in a head to head are 1 to 3 points. Even the best archer in qR can sometimes get away with a 108 against a 107 of the weakest archer.

The match play in Golf is a classic example of one player's nerve being influenced by the other even though they seem to be playing their own game.




archerymom2 said:


> But the difference is that with all of these sports, you NEED to have a single other competitor for the competition to work! You can't perform alone -- the competition IS how you respond to the other person.
> 
> Archery is more similar to swimming, running, gymnastics, golf, downhill skiing, or ice skating --- you are your own competitor, competing for a score without direct interference from the other archers. None of these sports work on a 1-on-1 elimination competition. Having 1-on-1 eliminations is necessary with the above sports, but relatively artificial in archery.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

artvid said:


> if the top 30 archers of the Koreans will be allowed to participate in any world archery tournament, we will have the funny spectacle where all the contesting top 16players are Koreans.
> 
> So if we are talking about the best 10 players in the world, Only the Koreans are probably deserving.
> 
> just damn lucky that only 3 Koreans were allowed to compete. .


Exactly!...........:wink:


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

The same reason why they allow the 120th rank tennis player in the world to compete in the Wimbledon or the unknown Korean (who happens to beat the worlld's nr 1) to participate in PGA Golf US Open. If you think the unseeded Korean don't deserve to win the US Open because he is not even seeded in the PGA, then tell my why the 120th archer in the qR don't deserve a chance.




Sean McKenty said:


> Why on earth should we be allow lesser archers who can't handle the pressure of shooting arrows in the ten an oppertunity to shoot eliminations just for a lucky seed


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

A point that seems to be being missed is that seeding/ranking for H2H competitions is necessary to try to reduce the lottery nature of the H2H system. If you don't use a H2H system you do not need any form of seeding/ranking.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2009)

artvid said:


> The same reason why they allow the 120th rank tennis player in the world to compete in the Wimbledon or the unknown Korean (who happens to beat the worlld's nr 1) to participate in PGA Golf US Open. If you think the unseeded Korean don't deserve to win the US Open because he is not even seeded in the PGA, then tell my why the 120th archer in the qR don't deserve a chance.



I cannot understand why you insist on using sports that have stradigy, power bursts etc against a sport that doesn't and call them similar?????????

archery has no stradigy or power bursts, the number of entries is limited by Fita because of space needed and time to run the event, if we had an international ranking system were only the top 64 went and they turned out to be all Korean then so be it you want to be the best then shoot better instead of trying to lower the system to that of a crap shoot.

Yuo insist on Wimbilton or PGA then lets have the archery matches last as long


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

...and I also can not understand why you can't see the similarity of archery with other sports. I have used many other sports to compare with archery (please read my other posts) like running, swimming, golf, combative sports, badminton, billiard, tennis, basketball, and a lot more. Even in combat shooting where I have been participating in the past, there is such a thing as "man versus man" portion which is similar to head to head format. 

If I may ask you, what particular sport can you compare with archery then? 




Sean McKenty said:


> I cannot understand why you insist on using sports that have stradigy, power bursts etc against a sport that doesn't and call them similar?????????


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

artvid said:


> ...running, swimming, golf, combative sports, badminton, billiard, tennis, basketball, and a lot more. Even in combat shooting where I have been participating in the past, there is such a thing as "man versus man" portion which is similar to head to head format.


Swimming...do they simply run a bunch of single elimination 50m laps with an athlete removed each lap...no..they run a series of heats with the fastest swimmers in each heat advancing...they do this to protect the field from one off flash in the pan performances. 
golf....surely you cant compare 18 holes of match play golf with a cumulative total of 65-70+ strokes to 12 arrows of archery...and even in golf they use a 36 hole final at major match play events...
Tennis...they use sets..with matches lasting hours...the tennis equivalent to archery match play would be one game...
basketball...again...the games last hours...the finals are a 7 game series...they dont decide the champion based on 7 free throws...
billiards....they dont decide the winner of a match off one rack...they play several....

In fact, the sports you quote show how several other progressive, successful sports have recognized the need to have a format that allows for the cream to rise. Yoru posts shows the total lack of understandin of how other sports work, and you are just quoting BS you observe watchign the 5 minutes sportcast...you dont see the days of qualifying that take place in virtually every other individiual sport in order to determien who shoots the finals..in archery we shoot 144 meangless arrows and then dont cut...shoot a series of matches where one lucky end/dfraw can knockout a lifetimes worth of hardwork and practise.....if FITA had continued down this path, they would see more archers doign as Chris White did this year and stay home, as its not worth their time, personal expense, etc.


----------



## monte_arrow (Aug 30, 2006)

:clap::clap::clap:


Xs24-7 said:


> Swimming...do they simply run a bunch of single elimination 50m laps with an athlete removed each lap...no..they run a series of heats with the fastest swimmers in each heat advancing...they do this to protect the field from one off flash in the pan performances.
> golf....surely you cant compare 18 holes of match play golf with a cumulative total of 65-70+ strokes to 12 arrows of archery...and even in golf they use a 36 hole final at major match play events...
> Tennis...they use sets..with matches lasting hours...the tennis equivalent to archery match play would be one game...
> basketball...again...the games last hours...the finals are a 7 game series...they dont decide the champion based on 7 free throws...
> ...


*EXCELLENT POINT! * :clap:[

I read this thread, and decided to say what I think&feel about the issue. Pretty much has been said here, on the drawbacks of the current FITA competition formats. I am no expert in media & TV coverage & sport marketing issues - but from the common sense and logic point of view, the "12 arrow match play" *has absoulutely no sense at all.*

Let me make a (hyphotetic) comparison:
- imagine we run a marathon race of 50 km! And the resulting ranking is: 1.st...., 2.nd,...,3.rd, ....64.th,...,128.th or 1280th, whatsoever. Then someone says: _Ok, folks, forget about that, now we will run 100m and the best one wins! Go for it, you might get lucky!!!!_

- imagine a tenis match where we play for 3 or 4 hours, tons of points, breaks, tiebrakes, etc - and then someone says - ok, guys, the best on in the next 12 points will win it !!! Sure, why not!??!?? THE ONE UNDER PRESSURE, WILL BE THE BETTER ONE, BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE WHO HAS SOMETHING TO LOOSE (in such a ridicuolous situation!) !

- look at pistol/rifle shooting?? look at many sports? (with repetitive nature and accuracy involved) - NOTHNING can be decided based on 12 points/shots/whatsoever! 

Make another example: in a elite race, a racer (let it be a car, or an 100m athlete) achieves a world record - but he doesn't win the event! WHAT!???  How is something like that possible in a sport where the RESULT IS MEASURABLE!???  

If you ask me: Mr. OH from Korea should have been awarded a Gold medal after his briliant score of 1386, and other guys addressed that they should traing more, become better, and one day shoot a higher score! (RATHER THAN HOPING TO GET LUCKY IN A 12ARROW LOTTERY) ukey:

Someone here has made some points how "we need pressure matches", "it should be exciting", etc. etc. etc. Exciting and under pressure is one thing - making it rediciolous and in conflict with common sense and logic - is another!

I would say, as a smallest modification of the current FITA + OR world championship format, to make it *more fair to the athletes (!)* and reward one's result:
1. maybe lesser arrows in qualif.round, and certainly less contenders in the OR, say 16 (or 32) best archers,
2. more arrows in elimination matchplay (18 or 24 at least). This will also reduce the risk of wind deciding one's destiny in the event.
Some guys made some nice points and ideas in this direction...

As it is now, we are not watching a "exciting matchplay sport event, with pressure etc etc" as some of you advocate - we are watching a ridicoulous 12-arrow lottery, and sometimes I feel sad for those fine shooters that are not rewarded for their efforts and abilities. Just look at how many times we see this: "64.th, or 110.th, or who knows...., eliminating a 1.st". Hopefully one day this will be a proffesional sport, with professional athletes, making a living of doing this sport, like tennis or golf - and no way that a competition format like we have it now, will be acceptable - I have no dilema on this.
One more note, regarding a point of view where _"only the mathcplay adds drama and pressure"_: imagine if there would be no eliminations (I am not advocating this!) - so, the FITA round (or any round) would decide the medals. You can bet that this would add some pressure on each and every archer on the line - who came there to win! Every single arrow (out of the 144 or how many) would matter soooo much ! Beeing TV & spectator friendly is another issue! Let's face it - shooitng sports can never be that "spectator friendly, eciting, whatsoever" as....say soccer! Trying to adapt the sport for the sepctators doesnt mean it should be made ridicoulous and un-fair to the athletes.

As some conclusion: it is very clear that the current competition format is not good, in terms of beeing fair to both athletes and the spectators, and rewarding one's performance. I believe FITA should do something about it...

Best regards to all of you.


----------



## AggieX10 (Mar 29, 2004)

I have to weigh in on this... To the guy who said 'There is no strategy in archery match plays' yeah... you pretty much lost me there. There is certainly wind strategy, and there are certainly mental strategies. Do you think Braden Gellenthein shoots his 3 arrows in his matches in 45 seconds for no reason?? No. Because if he puts 3 tens in there in 45 seconds, he's putting the pressure on the other guy. Do you think that when it's windy, I just go up there and fling 3 arrows and let them fall where they may? No. I pick my shots and my execution to give me the best window to shoot in. The fact is, I don't approach a match with the 60th seed the same way that I do against a Cousins, a Willet, a Gellenthein, or a Wilde (both of them). 

OR rounds are a different event. The argument that none of you bring up in the Erika argument is that she was the 15th seed. Because the qualifying round was worse than the 2nd seed. The reason she was in a position to lose was that she shot a 326 at 50m. Loginova put herself in a position to be successful and had the stones when it counted. THE BETTER SEED ADVANCED!!! 

The OR's are a different beast and a different round that requires a different mentality. 144 arrows allows for ups and downs and you have time to get better throughout the round. In an OR you have to be on top of your game, and somedays the other guy is just better in that round. That can mean losing 119-118... it could mean 112-111. 

Point is: Tiger Woods is good in aggregate rounds AND matchplay. Reo Wilde is good at qualifying rounds AND matchplay. The Steelers were good in the regular season AND the playoffs. It didn't matter how the others were playing around them, they took care of business of who was in front of them. If you shoot 120's, you can't lose... if you drop more points than the other guy... it's on you. Qualifying AND matchplay.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

it seems many cannot accept the fact that there are possible upsets in sport....it only means the favored player did not perform his best THAT DAY....the winners in archery tournaments happen to be the best for that tournament only...that doesn't make them the best archer...

many here believe that the best archers are those that shoot the high scores in the ranking rounds...if they don't win the tournaments that is just the same as a golfer who is low medalist in a lot of qualifying rounds but doesn't win the event...those guys just don't get the job done!!

....tiger woods is not no.1 because he won one match...or even one tournament...or even 10!...he is no.1 because he has won 70 PGA events over his 12 years on the tour which is more than 20% of all the tournaments he entered...he has won on all kinds of formats and has proven that he is head and shoulders above the competition but even he can get beat!!....the US open is the only major golf tournament still using an 18-hole play-off in case of ties...the US amateur does have a 36-hole final but then it is purely a match play event...all the others use a 1 hole sudden-death system but for the british which uses a 3-hole(or is it 4?) system...

these changes in golf for example have been made mainly for television and to have an immediate winner as soon as possible....archery had the same objective except that the expected increase in tv coverage has not happened ...yet...

that doesn't mean we have to stop trying to find ways to make it happen....


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2009)

AggieX10 said:


> I have to weigh in on this... To the guy who said 'There is no strategy in archery match plays' yeah... you pretty much lost me there. There is certainly wind strategy, and there are certainly mental strategies. Do you think Braden Gellenthein shoots his 3 arrows in his matches in 45 seconds for no reason?? No. Because if he puts 3 tens in there in 45 seconds, he's putting the pressure on the other guy. Do you think that when it's windy, I just go up there and fling 3 arrows and let them fall where they may? No. I pick my shots and my execution to give me the best window to shoot in. The fact is, I don't approach a match with the 60th seed the same way that I do against a Cousins, a Willet, a Gellenthein, or a Wilde (both of them).
> 
> Thats not strategy that just commone sence shooting, Braden shoots in 45sec anyway, and the fact that it does not work consistantly proves it no stratigy playing the wind has no effect on your opponent only you. I approach every match the same way...shoot more tens then him. Ericka seed is also meaningless since a 12 arrow system is set up to include lesser archers after all a 1320 shooter can shoot 12 arrows just as good as a 1400 shooter can, thats the rub.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Much like other sports, here is what I would like to see....

The qualifying round can be what it is and anyone should be able to show up for it. Flat out take the top 64 regardless of country, because we are looking for the best 64 right? Then the OR round would be like the "heat" system in track and field. Group them by 8 and have each group shoot the 12 arrows. Winner from each group moves on and then you use the others in descending order of highest score to fill the bracket. Repeat until there are 4 left and they shoot it out for the medals. I believe this would let the best archers make it through and not get stuck out by a fluke performance.

To me, this seems to match up well with standard golf, baseball or basketball the rewards the best and most consistent players. If we wanted who was the best at the moment, you only need one arrow shoot-offs until the luckiest, not the best archer wins.

This has been a great discussion! Go USA!!!!!!


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

While they are different sports altogether, the similarity lies in the fact that you have to compete with at least one athlete or one team (or more in the case of swimming/running) to eliminate the weaker player/s and the winner advancing to the next level. In every match play, it is expected that you should be at your best in order to advance to the next level.

Honestly, compared with the other sports events, archery has the best and fairest method of ranking it's players before the OR since everyone is ranked according to the same condition on the same day on the same format on the same tournament during the qR. The best player on that particular day gets the #1 seeding and the weakest gets the last seeding. And because of that, all the odds for the top 4 players meeting in the finals are with them being paired with lesser mortals as their presumably warm-up matches before the big championship event. This fair and square ranking is not present in other sports event. 

Unlike in other sport. say golf and tennis, they based their ranking on a format that is cumulative in nature, i.e. points earned at all tournament they participated in. So it do not measure the true biorithmic condition of the athletes at the time of the tournament. That's the reason why Nadal or Federer of tennis can get beaten in 3 sets by a weaker players sometimes because they are not the best at that point in time. 

When ranking can not be done at all, say in boxing or wrestling or in many other sports, they resort to draw lots which is even worse.

In swimming and running and in many other team sport where ranking before the elimination round is not possible, they resort to the athletes best time records to determine who should be in each heat/event /group and in the process, eliminates the weakest. Most sports group however are doing their best to separate the best two players/team so they can have the chance of meeting each other in the finals.

Let's face it, the reason archery is not getting the desired TV time slots is because it is not "yet" a known sport event in most countries. With no viewers, there is no commercial value for the TV sponsors. While the qR is a poor TV viewing format, the OR might have a better chance to attract viewers especially when they show the target at close range together with the shooters. 

Maybe when we have enough number of archers worldwide to command a viewer's impact, then TV might get interested, or maybe because of TV exposure, we can influence many to be interested in archery... it's a chicken and egg dilemma. 





Xs24-7 said:


> Swimming...do they simply run a bunch of single elimination 50m laps with an athlete removed each lap...no..they run a series of heats with the fastest swimmers in each heat advancing...they do this to protect the field from one off flash in the pan performances.
> golf....surely you cant compare 18 holes of match play golf with a cumulative total of 65-70+ strokes to 12 arrows of archery...and even in golf they use a 36 hole final at major match play events...
> Tennis...they use sets..with matches lasting hours...the tennis equivalent to archery match play would be one game...
> basketball...again...the games last hours...the finals are a 7 game series...they dont decide the champion based on 7 free throws...
> ...


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

I think the biggest issue that most have with it is the situation that Erika was in. Regardless of the beginning ranking, if two archers shoot a 119 and 118, and another makes it to the next round with a 108, I have to question if the format allows the best to make it through. I believe that the tournament is much like golf. It is the person versus the target and scoring the best that they can, not just against one person. The OR is truly unique compared to every other archery competition in that you only have to do enough to beat the other person, not the best that you can do. They change I see is to take the top half scores and move them forward to the next round.

Given the way the OR is setup, could you see people passing on shots because they got too far ahead? "I'm up by twelve, I'm going to pass on this last arrow....". This seems to make it a lot like pole vaulting and high jumping...

Thoughts?







artvid said:


> While they are different sports altogether, the similarity lies in the fact that you have to compete with at least one athlete or one team (or more in the case of swimming/running) to eliminate the weaker player/s and the winner advancing to the next level. In every match play, it is expected that you should be at your best in order to advance to the next level.
> 
> Honestly, compared with the other sports events, archery has the best and fairest method of ranking it's players before the OR since everyone is ranked according to the same condition on the same day on the same format on the same tournament during the qR. The best player on that particular day gets the #1 seeding and the weakest gets the last seeding. And because of that, all the odds for the top 4 players meeting in the finals are with them being paired with lesser mortals as their presumably warm-up matches before the big championship event. This fair and square ranking is not present in other sports event.
> 
> ...


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

Xs24-7 said:


> Yoru posts shows the total lack of understandin of how other sports work, and you are just quoting BS you observe watchign the 5 minutes sportcast....


How can you even say this to me when you don't know me at all. I am a sports man and I can play respectable tennis, golf, archery, basketball, baseball, badminton, swimming, table tennis, chess, a boxing and wrestling champ in my college days, and a little of the other sports like soccer, karate, etc... and zero in all sports that requires snow.

Naturally, I watch a lot of sports TV so I know what I am saying...

Be careful in passing judgment to others you do not know... you may stick to the issue at hand..


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i really like scott.barrett's suggested format and hope that we will see it or something akin in the future....
.....artvid's points are well taken too....


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

...with reference to scott's last post i can see a situation wherein an archer may opt not to shoot his last arrow if he is 11 pts ahead with 1 arrow to go.....UNLESS there is a rule that says you have to shoot all 12 arrows or if you're after a record score......
...in golf match play when one player is up by more holes than the number of holes left to play, the match is over---they have the option,however, to continue playing till the last hole but it will no longer have any bearing on the match....


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

The heat system is an excellent format but it can not be replicated in all FITA event. For example, it is almost impossible to generate 20 much more 64 players at each age group in a national FITA sponsored tournament, at least in this part of the world, and FITA should not make a separate rule for national event vis.a vis. the international event because national elimination becomes meaningless if it is different from the international event... So in FITA's rule, what is applied to 128 players, it should also be applied to only 4 players.

Just my thoughts...




Scott.Barrett said:


> Much like other sports, here is what I would like to see....
> 
> The qualifying round can be what it is and anyone should be able to show up for it. Flat out take the top 64 regardless of country, because we are looking for the best 64 right? Then the OR round would be like the "heat" system in track and field. Group them by 8 and have each group shoot the 12 arrows. Winner from each group moves on and then you use the others in descending order of highest score to fill the bracket. Repeat until there are 4 left and they shoot it out for the medals. I believe this would let the best archers make it through and not get stuck out by a fluke performance.
> 
> ...


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

art..i don't see much of a problem if the participants are few...things will just move faster--ie--if we are the only 2 guys in the seniors division we can go straight to the OR...unless they also give awards for the ranking rd!!....at least sure medal na!! he he he!!


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

AggieX10 said:


> .......
> 
> Point is: Tiger Woods is good in aggregate rounds AND matchplay. Reo Wilde is good at qualifying rounds AND matchplay. The Steelers were good in the regular season AND the playoffs. It didn't matter how the others were playing around them, they took care of business of who was in front of them. If you shoot 120's, you can't lose... if you drop more points than the other guy... it's on you. Qualifying AND matchplay.



I agree with this, but wonder if 12 arrows is enough? In golf, you have 18 holes of match play....Steelers had 4 quarters. The OR is the same as March Madness for NCAA collegiate basketball....you qualify to get in and then you just gotta have a good streak. This definitely does not guarantee that the best team wins, just that they can get hot at the right time!

Let me throw this out....I'm not half the shooter that most of the female competitors are, much less the gents, but on a good day I could hang with them for 12 arrows as I think most of the people here could do. Does this really feel like the right way to determine who the best shooter is?


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

jmvargas said:


> art..i don't see much of a problem if the participants are few...things will just move faster--ie--if we are the only 2 guys in the seniors division we can go straight to the OR...unless they also give awards for the ranking rd!!....at least sure medal na!! he he he!!


If you don't have 64, just got straight to the OR! Full FITA takes forever anyway! I think this is the reason that FITA doesn't become a dominant form of archery, at least in the US. If there was some type of modified OR round with a nice big ranking board, the competition alone would draw people in and we could definitely increase the amount of spectators. Someone mentioned earlier that the only people that watch a FITA are family members of the shooters and thats it! I love the sport and think it would be mind-numbing to watch for 2 days straight! We can do a lot with this format if we could do some work on it!


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

we all THINK we can do it too but believe me it ain't gonna happen when the stakes are high....i can still remember my knees shaking so much i imagined everyone could see it when i had my first OR match in a national ranked tournament!!....PS...i KNOW i have the shots to probably defeat or tie tiger woods in a one-hole match on a shortish hole but making it happen if and when the opportunity actually arises is a different story..


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

The best shooter in archery is not determined by only 12 arrows... it is determined by 12 arrows x 8 opponents, at least in an international event. In local event, it is 12 x 4 or less. So, in order to be champion, you should shoot consistently by beating every other players along the way. This can hardly be done (almost can't be done) by those players seeded at the bottom. You should not only have the skills but a little luck that your "hot" streak does not fizzle in the middle of the tournament. 

Looking at the result of the recent world cup in Korea, I believe those seeded at the top were the ones competing in the last 8 and the eventual champions are those who were seeded at the top also. So what's wrong with the current system if the final result is not far from what we expect? Upsets in all sports happen but it is very rare that the top 4 players are upset altogether in a single tournament, except in Golf.

Being able to hang out with the best for 12 arrows is the best motivation for intermediate players like me to be inspired in archery. It gives me the drive to hone my skills a little more so the weaker players will not upset me the way I can upset the best players in our club. 

The qR is too detached from other players. During the 1st 12 arrows, 90% of the shooters already know that they don't have a chance to top the qR. But they hang on, firstly to compete with themselves by besting their personal best, and secondly to score better so they can place themselves in the upper middle of the pack, at least. 

The OR is more personal. More so for the weaker player, it affords them to pray for goodwill, hope for the best of luck and shoot their best error less archery in years against an opponent they consider stronger than they are. It becomes more exciting if the 1st 6 to 9 arrow score is too near for comfort of the stronger player. Then the nerves will come in. The one who is used to pressure, or had more tournament exposure, will eventually prevail.

Archery is a very limited sport where you can only see a military drill-like movement among all players. Under this circumstance, it is extremely hard to make it more exciting, firstly to the players and secondly to the viewers. 





Scott.Barrett said:


> I agree with this, but wonder if 12 arrows is enough? In golf, you have 18 holes of match play....Steelers had 4 quarters. The OR is the same as March Madness for NCAA collegiate basketball....you qualify to get in and then you just gotta have a good streak. This definitely does not guarantee that the best team wins, just that they can get hot at the right time!
> 
> Let me throw this out....I'm not half the shooter that most of the female competitors are, much less the gents, but on a good day I could hang with them for 12 arrows as I think most of the people here could do. Does this really feel like the right way to determine who the best shooter is?


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

Mari... that's a good idea... let's introduce that to our next tournament and pay only half the fee, he he he... 

I've been missing you lately in several tournaments already. I hope you can make it at the national indoor qualifying tournament this Sunday. Our club will be sponsoring a tune-up indoor tournament on Saturday.. If you are already completely healed, then I expect you to be there, buddy.. Subic is just 1.5hrs away...




jmvargas said:


> art..i don't see much of a problem if the participants are few...things will just move faster--ie--if we are the only 2 guys in the seniors division we can go straight to the OR...unless they also give awards for the ranking rd!!....at least sure medal na!! he he he!!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, lets use the 100 meter dash as our example. 

What happens there? Well, the top qualifiers in each HEAT advance eventually to the finals.

This is exactly what I'm proposing here - that the field gets cut in 1/2 each round until the top four go head to head in the semi's and then the medal matches. 

This isn't rocket science...

John.


----------



## AggieX10 (Mar 29, 2004)

That's not strategy, that's common sense shooting... give me a break. And that it doesn't work consistently?? Have you ever shot against him when he puts 3 in the x ring and you still have 2 arrows to shoot? 

And you're right... Braden's match shooting ability does not work consistently... He just never seems to be able to take his qualifying scores and put together a string of good matches... (that might be one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard of in my life. And I'm sure his Titles would agree with me...)


THE QUALIFYING SCORE IS NOT MEANINGLESS!!!!! If Erika is the 1 seed and shoots a 118, she advances that round... if she gets beat as the 1 seed, the other person SHOT BETTER THAN HER IN THAT ROUND over the same unit of measure. Argue the number of arrows shot in a round... I won't disagree, but to say that it's unfair to put two archers on the same line at the same distance and the same amount of arrows at the same target and the better shooter of that round advances? That sounds fair to me. And it gives the 63rd seed a chance to put it all together for 12 arrows.

Let's just get the top 4 seeds together for the NCAA tournament... I mean... they were the best in the regular season... so obviously they are better teams than the lower seeds... why should they have to risk losing to them on one given night? 

The point is consistently, the guy who averages 116 is going to beat the guy who shoots a 112. But that one match can come get you.


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

I am not sure but the one who scored the 119 probably has a higher seeding in the qR than Erika as what AgieX10 insinuated. She could have made an upset but the better seeded player played better as expected. 

If we are too concerned with scores in the OR, then we might not need the OR after all... we can just stick to the qR and award the winners altogether because that's all we wanted in the first place - crown the one with the highest score. The 12 nor the 24 nor the 36 arrow format may not be enough to eliminate the upsets but a 144 arrow format should do it. 

The better solution would be to give separate recognition to the qR winners and another one to the OR winners because they represent 2 different performance requirements from the archers..

Evey body knows that world class athlete normally don't show their best during the preliminary rounds.. just enough to advance to the next level. So they don't really need their best to advance, just enough to deny the weaker player the chance to upset him. It is in this respect that world records are normally established in the final rounds, but I know the best athletes could have done this in the trial rounds. 

In Archery, top archers may not be too motivated to score their best during the initial rounds . just enough to deny the weaker archer the chance to upset him. But when faced with a real giant, they give more focus to scoring better. So the score is not at all relevant - it is the win that is more relevant. If we try to examine closely the OR scores, first 2 round average score of the best archers are normally much lower than the last 2 rounds. At least, that is almost true in most tournaments that I joined.




Scott.Barrett said:


> I think the biggest issue that most have with it is the situation that Erika was in. Regardless of the beginning ranking, if two archers shoot a 119 and 118, and another makes it to the next round with a 108, I have to question if the format allows the best to make it through. I believe that the tournament is much like golf. It is the person versus the target and scoring the best that they can, not just against one person.


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

Is it not what the OR format is doing- cutting the field of archers in half at each round until only 2 remains on top to contest the crown?

If you do it by heat, you are just creating a mini-qR with less number of arrows instead of 144. The more numbers of players you put in a single heat, the more it looks like a qR, only with less arrows.

If we will be doing that in a local tournament, we will be repeating the qR, only this time, with fewer arrows, or we will end up with 2 players per heat because of too few sign-ups. Then it will be the same banana altogether. 

As I've said before, FITA rules should not fit only the international event or the US and Koreans where you can easily generate hundreds of participants to any tournaments. FITA rules should equally apply to countries with not too many archery enthusiasts. Remember, there are other age groupings to consider, i.e. yeowman, bowman, cubs cadets, juniors, seniors, masters and the boys/girls division as well.








limbwalker said:


> Okay, lets use the 100 meter dash as our example.
> 
> What happens there? Well, the top qualifiers in each HEAT advance eventually to the finals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

> Is it not what the OR format is doing- cutting the field of archers in half at each round until only 2 remains on top to contest the crown?


No it's not. With OR the cut is random. Apply it to long jumping - in the qualification the guy who jumps 5 ft goes through to the final, the guy who jumped 7 ft goes home. Any random viewer watching this will think it's daft. Agreed the OR system is completely incomprehensible to the average viewer so they may not see this happening.

Think of it more like the cut after 36 holes in golf major tournament.


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

Say that again??? I can not understand why a guy who jumps 5 ft goes thru the final while the guy who jump 7 ft goes home? This is a far cry from archery where the best qR qualifier is given all the advantage to win by being paired with the weakest players in the group.It is similar to Federer being paired with the 64th rank, then the 32nd rank, then the 16th rank until ha gets to face the nr 2. Is that not fair enough for Federer? If he squamble one of his earlier match leding to the finals, you can't blame it on the system or the waeker player who beat him,,, it is entirely Federer's fault. That is similar to Archery... if the top qualifier lost his game to the weaker opponent, it is nobody's fault but him..

In the OR the only level playing field is when you get to face an opponent under exactly the same condition, environment, winds, sun, crowd, targets, etc.... in short everything is fair between the two. 

For example, You can not compare the score of the 1st pair who shot under very calm condition, almost perfect weather, no crowd to put pressure, etc with the other pair who was shooting when the wind got erratic or strong, when there were drizzles or rain or when the crowds were rowdy. Obviously, scores will be different because of different conditions. 

So, the only moment in the tournament that everything is fair is when you are faced with an opponent under exactly the same condition for both of you. The OR and of course the qR is almost exactly like that.. in qR, everybody shoots under similar condition hence, the top qualifiers get rewarded with top seeding. 

In fact, the OR is never fair to the weaker player because he is not given the chance to face his equal. If he is lucky to shoot his way up, it is always under the disadvantage of shooting against a better opponent, and will never really have the chance to shoot against his co-equal. If he beats the #1, he deserve it.

I think the best way to settle who the best archer in the OR is to let them face and shoot each other until there is only one man left standing, much like a duel. Do you think the score is relevant here? This is what I think the OR is trying to simulate but can not risk losing too many archers in each tournament. By the way, the adoption of the hit-miss concept in compound will totally make our arguments about OR scoring moot, at least in compound.




Joe T said:


> No it's not. With OR the cut is random. Apply it to long jumping - in the qualification the guy who jumps 5 ft goes through to the final, the guy who jumped 7 ft goes home. Any random viewer watching this will think it's daft. Agreed the OR system is completely incomprehensible to the average viewer so they may not see this happening.
> 
> Think of it more like the cut after 36 holes in golf major tournament.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Since this thread is pretty much about people frustrated about Erika A. not proceeding with 118, I would like to point out that her defeat wasn't just the unlucky 119-118, but also her catastrophic score at 50m. Had she shot that one better she would not have come across Loginova that soon.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2009)

artvid said:


> ...and I also can not understand why you can't see the similarity of archery with other sports. I have used many other sports to compare with archery (please read my other posts) like running, swimming, golf, combative sports, badminton, billiard, tennis, basketball, and a lot more. Even in combat shooting where I have been participating in the past, there is such a thing as "man versus man" portion which is similar to head to head format.
> 
> If I may ask you, what particular sport can you compare with archery then?


Right now there is none, all the sports you listed again have a stragity system and requier burst of power, archery has none of that so no matter what you set up you have an archer trying to hit the middle, no stratigy exits to use against your opponent in archery, the seeding system as it is now is pretty much a non issue since the 1320 shooter can shoot 12 arrows as good as a 1400 shooter


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

...i also heard erika took the loss pretty hard...it may not be much of a consolation but she lost to the no. 2 ranked archer----that's nothing to be ashamed of...


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2009)

AggieX10 said:


> That's not strategy, that's common sense shooting... give me a break. And that it doesn't work consistently?? Have you ever shot against him when he puts 3 in the x ring and you still have 2 arrows to shoot?
> 
> And you're right... Braden's match shooting ability does not work consistently... He just never seems to be able to take his qualifying scores and put together a string of good matches... (that might be one of the most ridiculous things I ever heard of in my life. And I'm sure his Titles would agree with me...)
> 
> ...



No I don,t shoot agianst Braden but I do shoot against Dietmar alot and he shoots just as fast. Yuor own argument proves how meaningless the ranking round is, Ericka shooting a 118 and lossing against her opponent but that same score would have advanced her in another match shows that. She has no way of knowing what score will need so obviously she trys to hit the ten everytime against everyone. Listen to your own words" gives a 63 seed a chance" why do they need a chance and the 1st seed doesn,t???

Here in Canada we have been using a double elimination since the we saw just how stupid the current system was, it at least make the OR round somewhat palitable it gives an equal "chance" to recover from a bad round that could have advanced you against others but also requiers the lead from the lossers side to beat the lead from the winners side twice, which happened this year with Dietmar at our Spring Fita


Fita has a perfect elimination system now with the Fita field, just use that system with what ever qualification round they have...so easy see and use


----------



## Rugby (Feb 13, 2003)

To me the answer would be to have medals for the full FITA and medals for the matchplay. 
Your full FITA score is what you are measured on. For a compound shooter, shooting a 1400 is like running a sub 4 minute mile and less people have run a sub 4 minute mile than climbed Everest. 
The Matchplay is great but clearly history has shown the best archers do not often win the matchplay. Luck can pay a part in who wins and also perhaps a "different" type of archer is more suited to matchplay. 
Cricket, foreign to many Americans, is a good example of two different competitions which have different significance. They play 5 day test matches and have recently introduced a shortened version called 20/20. Each side bowls 20 overs (6 balls per over), 1 innings each. The highest score wins,
20/20 games take 3-4 hours. Great for TV, great for the crowd. The teams dress in colourful uniforms. A lot of revenue is generated by having it on TV.
However test match scores, averages, etc... are the things which the players are measured on, much like a full FITA. The test averages are the ones that count.
The 20/20 is a brilliant spectator sport but at the end of the day bragging rights belong to the test results. 
The makeup of the sides is also different as some players excel at the shortened version.
Both forms are good, both have their place. It would be unfair to judge a 5 day player on how they went in the 4 hour version, just as it is comparing the best full FITA shooters to their matchplay results. It simply isn't fair.

The Olympics should have medals for both, where the best archers win the medals they deserve. It would only mean adding an extra day to the archer event. 
The result of the matchplay would be less significant but still over a great TV/spectator event.


----------



## urabus (May 22, 2006)

i saw in one of the world cups this year...where Braden, after making a critical 10....started air punching, "shouting" and hi-five his "coach" who in turn also made some noise.....while the other archer still have to shoot.....is this not a form of strategy????


what do you call this??

one shoots, spots and the 3rd stare down......i mean look at the body language.......or have i got it all wrong........theres no strategy in archery????


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

What's strategy you will have in swimming, running, bowling, etc. that is not similar to archery? In these sports I cited in particular, the players are only concerned of their own strategy of doing their best no matter who their opponents are. 

And what do you mean by burst of power? I don't see that in golf, bowling, or any other similar sports either. Bowling world cup is very similar to archery... they use a qualifying round to rank the players, then go to the knock out system much similar to archery OR. 

For example, a bowler can win 300 versus a 299 in one match while the other pair of bowlers' score is 200 versus 199. However, the beaten player who scored 299 can not complain of not being able to advance to the next level because the other winning player in the other match only scored 200. It is not fair but it is the system and it is how the tournament is played. Everybody know the rules beforehand and they just follow the rules. 

In archery, especially for recurve, it is extremely difficult to get the same score over and over again from 12 arrows, much like in bowling getting a roll of 250 all the time... It is just not possible for a human to do it. Even a machine will not be able to do it when subjected to different weather and wind condition..

If Erika scored 118, I can surely say that her previous matches were much lower than 118, She was lucky to hit 118 but her opponent was luckier (or better) to hit a 119. But if you let them face each other again, I doubt if they can replicate the same high score twice in a row. If they did and they can do it all the time, they should be holding the FITA world record already. 




Sean McKenty said:


> Right now there is none, all the sports you listed again have a stragity system and requier burst of power, archery has none of that so no matter what you set up you have an archer trying to hit the middle, no stratigy exits to use against your opponent in archery, the seeding system as it is now is pretty much a non issue since the 1320 shooter can shoot 12 arrows as good as a 1400 shooter


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Getting back on topic, that was about "World Archery Championships", I'd like to point out that we have presently to recognize a new superpower in Compound archery, that is Russia. Their Compound teams are in both Gold finals, after winning yesterday the demonstration mixed team event with a perfect score of 160 over 16 arrows. Having Russia against US in Compound men final is surely surprising. Even more astonishing than this, Gold final for ladies compound will be shot by Russia against Korea, that has today swept the field with their Compound ladies team.
Compound world sems rapidly changing.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2009)

artvid said:


> What's strategy you will have in swimming, running, bowling, etc. that is not similar to archery? In these sports I cited in particular, the players are only concerned of their own strategy of doing their best no matter who their opponents are.
> 
> And what do you mean by burst of power? I don't see that in golf, bowling, or any other similar sports either. Bowling world cup is very similar to archery... they use a qualifying round to rank the players, then go to the knock out system much similar to archery OR.
> 
> ...




if you can't see the forest for the trees I can't help you at all, if you can't see clear stratigy in sports like badminton,tennis ect, I can't help you if you can't see bust of power in golf, racket sports swimming etc I can't help you
Archery has none of that

What you are after is to induce luck in order to give lesser archers a chance at winning those are called novelty events not championships, championships should crown the best archer


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2009)

urabus said:


> i saw in one of the world cups this year...where Braden, after making a critical 10....started air punching, "shouting" and hi-five his "coach" who in turn also made some noise.....while the other archer still have to shoot.....is this not a form of strategy????
> 
> 
> what do you call this??
> ...


no not stradigy at all since one is talking to his coach and the other the archer can't see her anyway.


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

Can you please explain to us what you mean by strategy and burst of power so we can see the forest as you have seen it yourself? Please enlighten us with your explanation so we can see the light of what you really mean. You don't need to help us. Just explain and we will be happy to listen. 




Sean McKenty said:


> if you can't see the forest for the trees I can't help you at all, if you can't see clear stratigy in sports like badminton,tennis ect, I can't help you if you can't see bust of power in golf, racket sports swimming etc I can't help you
> Archery has none of that
> 
> What you are after is to induce luck in order to give lesser archers a chance at winning those are called novelty events not championships, championships should crown the best archer


----------



## AggieX10 (Mar 29, 2004)

Vittorio - Right on the Money... the Russians have had an impressive showing in the compound division. They have always had a great women's team. The most impressive thing is that Sofia Goncharova who has perennially been one of Russia's top shooter is not in Korea.


On the OR subject... Whatever round that FITA decides on, I'm not in control of that - I'm just going to try and beat the guys in front of me in any round that I shoot. At the end of the day, if someone in any format performs better than me and I don't place or advance, it's on me because I didn't get the job done. Sometimes George Mason beats North Carolina and Connecticut...


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2009)

artvid said:


> Can you please explain to us what you mean by strategy and burst of power so we can see the forest as you have seen it yourself? Please enlighten us with your explanation so we can see the light of what you really mean. You don't need to help us. Just explain and we will be happy to listen.


Easy, lets take golf, does a person use the same swing on a putter that they use on a driver...no 
archey does a person pull less weight on 30m then they do on 90m

Badimton, does Lin Dan emplor the same stradigy as he does with Tufalk... or Peter Gade ...certainly not

archery- does an archery shoot 8's to lull his opponent into a false sence of security then come back with 10's certainly not

swimming/rowing/running, to athelites use the stradigy of sitting in the wake then use a burst of power to over take the leader near the finish....yes

Ski Arch could do this but not target archery since sitting back mean you lose


the problem with the current system is that archey is a static sport but is thrown into a H2H format designed for non static sports


this why we use a double elimination here in Canada, first if gives more matchplay experience and takes most of the luck out


----------



## Paul Williams (Jun 18, 2006)

*Russia*

Russia is rising.
Vittorio is correct, check out the performance of Russia in team, individual, and mix team:

CM Tm finals for Gold
CW Tm finals for Gold
RW Tm finals for Bronze
RM TM lost out in 1/4 finals

CW Indv made the semi finals

C Mix Tm Gold

that's a great performance for the Russians.
yes, Vittorio is correct, things are changing.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Sean McKenty said:


> does a person pull less weight on 30m then they do on 90m


You don't know that for a fact. Since you explained that different arrows are allowed in FITA outdoor, then I would not be suprised that some people decided to use their 2nd bows, tuned them for less weight and shot fatter arrows for 50 and especially 30m.

Main thing is that WE ARE INDEED ALLOWED to switch bows, it's our decision (not) to do it


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

PS
If you wanted to "equalize" the new set system to acutal abilities of archers, maybe it would be a good thing to make it, instead of 3 sets, who gets 5 sets 1st, or 3 sets difference (3-0, 4-1).
In a really tight shoot-off there could be more than 9 sets of 3 arrows (that's around 30 arrows for a shoot-off).


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2009)

Dado said:


> You don't know that for a fact. Since you explained that different arrows are allowed in FITA outdoor, then I would not be suprised that some people decided to use their 2nd bows, tuned them for less weight and shot fatter arrows for 50 and especially 30m.
> 
> Main thing is that WE ARE INDEED ALLOWED to switch bows, it's our decision (not) to do it


I was refering to an archer that shoots his normal equipment, no there is nothing stoping them from changing equipment if passed inspection, but in the last 10 years as a National judge I have never seen an archer use a 30lb recurve at 30m over what they used at the others and be of any consiquence, either way they don't shoot any differently up close than they do at distance


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2009)

Dado said:


> PS
> If you wanted to "equalize" the new set system to acutal abilities of archers, maybe it would be a good thing to make it, instead of 3 sets, who gets 5 sets 1st, or 3 sets difference (3-0, 4-1).
> In a really tight shoot-off there could be more than 9 sets of 3 arrows (that's around 30 arrows for a shoot-off).


I am not seeing how this set deal will make for good tournamnet flow, me and another archer did this test last night, we shot at the IFAA field face which is 10cm all else 0, we shot to 5 sets to get a 3 set winner of those 5 sets 4 went to 3 arrow tie break plus measurment. We were not sure how the timing will work so we shot alternatetly this turned out to be 27 arrows for the match considering that a match could be decided in 6 arrows will sure throw a wrench into timeline of the tournament itself.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2009)

Paul Williams said:


> Russia is rising.
> Vittorio is correct, check out the performance of Russia in team, individual, and mix team:
> 
> CM Tm finals for Gold
> ...



Great for the country biut the Koreans are also in 3 of the 4 gold medal matches as well including the womens compound,


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Sean McKenty said:


> I was refering to an archer that shoots his normal equipment, no there is nothing stoping them from changing equipment if passed inspection, but in the last 10 years as a National judge I have never seen an archer use a 30lb recurve at 30m over what they used at the others and be of any consiquence, either way they don't shoot any differently up close than they do at distance


I'm aware that most of archers won't change equipment in a single event, however, that is not the point. The point was your comparison to golf. It's the way golf is played. However, if an archer decided to train with one bow for 70/90m, and other bow for 50/30, and did that for months/years then he would definitely show up at competition with 2 bows.

Further on, any serious archer that shoots more than one venue has separate bow/arrow setups for outdoor fixed distances, indoor, field and 3D. Those variations speak for themselves.


----------



## x10x (Oct 6, 2008)

Sean Mckenty mentions Double Elimination. I think that is the Key!!

For instance in almost all of the major billiard tournaments there is a double elimination format. This means that the top two players could face each other in the early rounds with one getting knocked to the one loss side and eventually making it back to the final. As a billiard player myself, wanting to stay on the winners side is very important as you will not have to win as many matches to be in the final. Being on the 1 loss side means I would have to play many more matches but I am still in the tournament and have a fighting chance. 

True double elimination style tournament rewards both the hot shooter and the consistent top shooters as it is not just a one and done event. 12 arrows would not be considered too little as you now have a second chance. Also you would need to keep the 12 arrow count for time constraint reasons. Overall shooters would be happier shooting in that format as it always seems to produce the top three shooters which is what everyone wants and gives a fighting chance to anyone coming out of the one loss side. 

The format helps build excitement as you root for your favorite shooter to make it through the rounds. The winner of the one loss side might have shot more arrows overall but is also "hotter" and in the zone making the finals a bit more exciting.

Billiards has also used a round robin format where shooters shoot against each other in smaller groups to determine seeding in a single or double elim bracket. Of course archery has the Fita round which to me is a great way to seed in a double elimination bracket. Billiards also typically has a higher number of games to win in the final to make the "gold" match more entertaining and a true test of each shooters skills. I think that alone could help --increasing the number of arrow say in the 1/8 round and beyond.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Sean McKenty said:


> I am not seeing how this set deal will make for good tournamnet flow, me and another archer did this test last night, we shot at the IFAA field face which is 10cm all else 0, we shot to 5 sets to get a 3 set winner of those 5 sets 4 went to 3 arrow tie break plus measurment. We were not sure how the timing will work so we shot alternatetly this turned out to be 27 arrows for the match considering that a match could be decided in 6 arrows will sure throw a wrench into timeline of the tournament itself.


I'm not sure how the format will be setup. They must've figured it out. But it can be simplified like this:
1. All archers to the line
2. after 3 arrows shot archers retreat and only archers that think they got equal score remain on the line.
3. Judge goes to verify they indeed are equalized and then 1 by 1 arrow is fired till all 1st sets have been won. 

Repeat 1 2 3 till the shoot off is done.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Or: All shoot at the same time and whichever pair remains last, keeps shooting till they're done.

This also brings in another aspect of the play: Remember how we all advize 1st-time-tournament shooters that they don't feel as if everyone is watching them, because they would be wrong - we say "everybody is actually minding their own business".
But with this, the more a pair gets isolated the more eyes is directed to what they are doing... A whole new aspect into the game, that's for sure.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Getting back on topic, that was about "World Archery Championships", I'd like to point out that we have presently to recognize a new superpower in Compound archery, that is Russia. Their Compound teams are in both Gold finals, after winning yesterday the demonstration mixed team event with a perfect score of 160 over 16 arrows. Having Russia against US in Compound men final is surely surprising. Even more astonishing than this, Gold final for ladies compound will be shot by Russia against Korea, that has today swept the field with their Compound ladies team.
> Compound world sems rapidly changing.


At the World University Games Danzan Khaludorov from Russia shot a 351 and 347 for the top seed in the men's compound in the double 70 qualification. What was remarkable was the Elite bow, Trophy Taker shaky hunter rest (a hunting style fall away rest), Victory arrows and caliper release he was shooting. The Russians certainly have serious game.

http://www.bowhunting.net/artman/publish/NEWS/FITA_Archery_Uses_Victory_For_Gold.shtml


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

all these developments just show that the world of archery is changing and those who can best adapt to these changes will prevail....am pretty sure the russians and korean compounders do not worry about formats--they just do all they can to prepare for whatever it is!!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Since this thread is pretty much about people frustrated about Erika A


Actually, I wasn't aware of that. Too bad for her, but it does help illustrate my point. BOTH of those archers should advance. 

Look, if both you and your opponent shoot well in a match or round, then you should both be rewarded. Shooting well in relation to the field, and being eliminated, it just a riduculous twist. No archer should be elminated for shooting better than half the field.

John.


----------



## FateAtropos (Jan 21, 2009)

Limbwalker, I definitely agree that just cutting out the lower half of the field every round would indeed make it more fair and more likely for the best to win, but that would make all tournaments awfully short-- with this, there would be no purpose to the ranking round, as the position you are in is irrelevant to who one is against. I can see this being more fair, but at the same time, there would only be 7 sets of 12 per tournament, and less for those eliminated early. While helping to put the best at the top where where they should be, it hardly gives a chance to those less experienced.

~Chris


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

In golf, that is not strategy to swing a putter in the green and driver in the tee. That's how the game is played, it will be ridiculous to swing the putter like a driver to putt. Your swing, be it in the fairway or green has only one single purpose, i.e. to put the ball where you want it to be, much like the bulls eye of archery.

In badminton, certainly Lin Dan has various styles of playing but that is the way badminton should be played. His main objective in every hit is to put the shuttlecock in a place where his opponent can't return it easily, similar to archery's bull's eye.

In running, especially the 100m dash and 200m dash, I don't see Usain Bolt to let his opponent lead the way then overtake them at the last few steps. He likes to run his best and as a consequence, he leads from start to finish... not much strategy there except the sheer determination to execute what he is trained to do and to be in the lead, much like the archer who wants to be in front after 3,5 or 9 arrows in preparation for the kill on his 1last end.

Also similar in swimming 50m and 100m events, the swimmer just swim their best and they don't normally see if they are leading or not specially in a very tight race. Each player have their respective pacing (mastered during practices) that they have to execute regardless of how their opponents pace themselves. There is not much strategy there except to execute what they are trained to do. That is no different from archery.

How about in bowling? You just throw the ball at the pins in accordance with what you've been doing a thousand times with the aim of hitting a strike... not much different from archer's bull's eye. 

And burst of power? I think using a 4 to 10lb bow and pulling close to 50# for recurve and 60# for compound is a lot harder than throwing a 9# bowling ball. It takes a lot of discipline and sheer power to pull those bows, hold them steady for few seconds and pull them again thru the clicker or BT release. Newbies would take years (decades) before they can use and master the kind of bows the world's best uses. 

While using double elimination is a good concept, it still not a guarantee that the best will always win. In almost all sport using the double elimination or best of 3, 5 or 7 sets, we can see that the favorites don't always win. Billiards, for example, can not produce a single winner all the time. World cup winners are different year after year even though they use the double elimination, presumably to eliminate the element of luck. 

But I like the double elimination because it can extend my shooting time...

The only guarantee that the best shooter wins is to stop at the end of the qR and AWARD THE WINNER OUTRIGHT... there is no more need to go to the OR because we don't want the best player to lose anyway..





Sean McKenty said:


> Easy, lets take golf, does a person use the same swing on a putter that they use on a driver...no
> archey does a person pull less weight on 30m then they do on 90m
> 
> Badimton, does Lin Dan emplor the same stradigy as he does with Tufalk... or Peter Gade ...certainly not
> ...


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

What's the point of doing the qR and ranking if everybody will be shooting again against everybody and try to score better than half. Also, will there be any guarantee that the best will not score lower than half in a 12 arrow or 18 arrows. It only takes one errant arrow and you're out, regardless of your standing in the qR. And what will you do if after the 12 or 18 arrows, majority have the same scores and you have to break the tie in order to determine the upper half? 




limbwalker said:


> Actually, I wasn't aware of that. Too bad for her, but it does help illustrate my point. BOTH of those archers should advance.
> 
> Look, if both you and your opponent shoot well in a match or round, then you should both be rewarded. Shooting well in relation to the field, and being eliminated, it just a riduculous twist. No archer should be elminated for shooting better than half the field.
> 
> John.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

So what then is the point of the OR round? If you just shot a full FITA, isn't that the event that we should be awarding the medals for? That seems to eliminate the whole problem...it is the best, most consistent archer at all distances! The OR seems to just be tacked for the heck of it!

Since I have only shot a few FITA's, is this shot commonly? Haven't had to shoot this yet in the US.....


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

artvid said:


> What's the point of doing the qR and ranking if everybody will be shooting again against everybody and try to score better than half. Also, will there be any guarantee that the best will not score lower than half in a 12 arrow or 18 arrows. It only takes one errant arrow and you're out, regardless of your standing in the qR. And what will you do if after the 12 or 18 arrows, majority have the same scores and you have to break the tie in order to determine the upper half?


That's the point....you don't have to shoot better than half, just better than one! Score is irrelevant in that you only have to win by one point every round. This would be exciting as a made for TV event, but it certainly does not produce the best archer.

They're going to need to fix this before I make my run for a world championship in the next couple of years! :darkbeer:


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Actually, I wasn't aware of that. Too bad for her, but it does help illustrate my point. BOTH of those archers should advance.
> 
> Look, if both you and your opponent shoot well in a match or round, then you should both be rewarded. Shooting well in relation to the field, and being eliminated, it just a riduculous twist. No archer should be elminated for shooting better than half the field.
> 
> John.


John, if in the US Open, semifinals, N.Djokovic and Rafael Nadal offered an exquisit tennis performance, and prior to them (in other semi-final) Federer and Murray played an utmost boring match, you're saying they both should be out and Nadal and Djokovic should play again for the title?
You simply can't reward both shooters.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i think the problem lies in our definition of "the best archer"....for some it is who shoots the highest scores....for others it's who wins the tournament.....oh well............


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Dado said:


> John, if in the US Open, semifinals, N.Djokovic and Rafael Nadal offered an exquisit tennis performance, and prior to them (in other semi-final) Federer and Murray played an utmost boring match, you're saying they both should be out and Nadal and Djokovic should play again for the title?
> You simply can't reward both shooters.


The difference is that even though it was a boring match, both competitors had the full chance to win based on their ability. They had at least 3 sets if not 5 to show who was better. Now change that to exactly 1 game....how does that measure the competitor?


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

jmvargas said:


> i think the problem lies in our definition of "the best archer"....for some it is who shoots the highest scores....for others it's who wins the tournament.....oh well............


I believe it to be the person who most skillfully competes in their sport by facing challenges that truly test their ability. FITA is definitely a great test of one's ability as an archer as are many other formats, i.e. indoor, field, 3D...but I don't think the current OR round is a one......

I'm a big fan of the USA shooters, but they all knew what the format was going into it. By showing up they accepted the fact that you could shoot a great round and still get knocked out. It sucks, but it's not like the tourney was changed midway through.

Hey...these people made it to the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS! Even if they didn't do as well as they like, they're still among the best in the world!


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Scott.Barrett said:


> The difference is that even though it was a boring match, both competitors had the full chance to win based on their ability. They had at least 3 sets if not 5 to show who was better. Now change that to exactly 1 game....how does that measure the competitor?


If you recall, in the past almost all men tennis competitions had 5 set option, with minumum 3 sets required to win..
Today, 95% of them is reduced best of 2.

Back to archery: it's not exactly one game, it's who wins 3 sets 1st. So, at least 9 arrows, but, in tough head-to-head game more likely 15 or more arrows, which is more than current 12 arrow shoot off.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Dado said:


> If you recall, in the past almost all men tennis competitions had 5 set option, with minumum 3 sets required to win..
> Today, 95% of them is reduced best of 2.
> 
> Back to archery: it's not exactly one game, it's who wins 3 sets 1st. So, at least 9 arrows, but, in tough head-to-head game more likely 15 or more arrows, which is more than current 12 arrow shoot off.


I guess I kind of equate that to swinging the racquet 15 times....that could happen in one long volley. I would think that an archer would need a few more "swings" to measure their skill....


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Scott.Barrett said:


> I guess I kind of equate that to swinging the racquet 15 times....that could happen in one long volley. I would think that an archer would need a few more "swings" to measure their skill....


I really don't know what's best for archery, but I know that a full fita round, not to mention the double fita round, is far from being interesting to watch/cover.
I also know that if FITA invested in coverage WITH *OR* SHOWN ONLY (new or the old) they could pick up some interest. But you can't get "ordinary" people interested in these kinds of sports if they're clueless about what they are watching.


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Dado said:


> I really don't know what's best for archery, but I know that a full fita round, not to mention the double fita round, is far from being interesting to watch/cover.
> I also know that if FITA invested in coverage WITH *OR* SHOWN ONLY (new or the old) they could pick up some interest. But you can't get "ordinary" people interested in these kinds of sports if they're clueless about what they are watching.


Now shooting just OR would be pretty fun! I would sign up for that in a second, but would there be enough interest from the archers? I bet if there was some money involved, it wouldn't be hard to find people.....


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2009)

artvid said:


> In golf, that is not strategy to swing a putter in the green and driver in the tee. That's how the game is played, it will be ridiculous to swing the putter like a driver to putt. Your swing, be it in the fairway or green has only one single purpose, i.e. to put the ball where you want it to be, much like the bulls eye of archery.
> 
> 
> Wheres does the archer lay up in archery???, if you have a 575yd dog leg left are you going to drive the hole or lay up
> ...


I have said before the or round in fita field is the way to go, if you want to make the cut you had better start shooting more arrows in the middle, not just sometimes and hope for an easy match


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

You can be sure that all the members of FITA Congress are reading this thread and will base their decisions on the future WC format on what they see here... :lol:

We need to get a few things straight. 

First, archery is a unique sport - you can't make exact comparisons with swimming, tennis, bowling. The closest would be the shooting sports, and frankly, I have no idea how they are all scored, except that if you think archery is messed up category-wise, don't even THINK about discussing gun sports.

Second, the closest commonly known sport is professional golf. In most stroke-play tournaments, it's a 4-day affair, and about 72 shots a day. Everyone plays against the field. Same as archery used to be: a 4-day affair, 72 shots a day and the best score wins.

Similar mental game, similar physical demands, similar evolution, where top golfers now have to be much fitter than they were, and properly fitted equipment DOES make a difference.

The biggest difference between golf and archery is that golf has much more variation, and even in a blowout on a 4 -day event, there is always the possibility of a leader screwing up in the last moments (Jean van de Velde ). Doesn't happen in archery - nobody is going to blow a 10 point lead going into 30M. And for spectators it's as boring as, well, I don't need to tell you.

Now, golf has its match play events - for those of you who don't know it, it's usually a qualifying round, and the top golfers are then seeded and play a full match, 18 holes, against each other. Single elimination, and it can take half a day. But it's hole by hole, not total points.

A 6-and-5 blowout show of force advances, same as a close, par-filled, 1-up.

An archery comparison would be a full FITA qualifier (or maybe 2 70 M rounds), take the top 32 and match them up, and have them shoot 12 ends of 3 arrows against each other. Award a point for the winner of each end. Whoever wins the most ENDS, not total score, would advance. A 358-357 match would be just as exciting to watch as a roller-coaster 340-320, with 60s and 59s scattered among the 51s and 50s.

I think that would be a fair system for an exciting World Championship or Olympics.

Keep the piddly 12-arrow rounds for the World Cup and other such events.


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

*OR only?????*

OR only????

Archers, especially those that are not sponsored by their countries, would not spend thousands of dollars for the air fare, hotel, food and tournament fee and carry very heavy equipment, assemble it on sight just to shoot 12 or 24 arrows, get eliminated, pack the same equipment and be a tourist the rest of the week. Professional players in tennis or golf world events can afford to be eliminated in the first round because every players are being paid just to play in the tournament. But that is not the case in archery.

The reason why many archers (who have no illusion of winning by the way) would like to compete in the Qualifying round is because they want to establish personal record (score) for every distance that they shoot. The OR is just a bonus. You may reduce the field to 64 or 32 or 16, or do a double round robin, or use the heat system... but the fact remains the same... there is no guarantee that the qR winner will also win the OR. 

The one seeded as 124th has no illusion of winning the tournament but he is hanging in there just to experience the OR. On the other hand, the more archers in the field, the more punching bags for the best players before they get to face the real threats to them in the last 2 rounds. This is the best set-up that I can think of for the elite archers... from the very beginning of the OR, they are already set-up to win at the expense of the lesser mortals. If they still lose to a punching bag, then that's their fault. What more can these elite players would ask for? I think it would be asking too much if they will be guaranteed to win every matches even if they shoot poorly because they are supposed to be the #1 or 2 or 3 or 4.




Scott.Barrett said:


> Now shooting just OR would be pretty fun! I would sign up for that in a second, but would there be enough interest from the archers? I bet if there was some money involved, it wouldn't be hard to find people.....


----------



## Paul Williams (Jun 18, 2006)

*Congratulations*

*Congratulations to Team USA Compound !!!

World Champions and GOLD Medalists 
Compound Mens Team*

Dave Cousins
Reo Wilde
Braden Gellenthien

*World Championship Bronze Medalists
Compound Womens Team

*Erika Anschutz
Kendal Nicely
Diane Watson

great job, we are all very proud of you guys, each and every one!!!

cheers,
Paul Williams
"SGT Williams"


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash, I could live with that. 12 ends of 3 arrows with one point for each end won. At least you'd have a 36 arrow match. IMO, 12 arrows is simply not enough for a fair competition. Too much luck is involved.

John.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Scott.Barrett said:


> Now shooting just OR would be pretty fun! I would sign up for that in a second, but would there be enough interest from the archers? I bet if there was some money involved, it wouldn't be hard to find people.....


I didn't say "shoot OR only", I said the coverage would have to show OR only if we wanted to have a shot at making this sport more interesting to view. With the new hit/miss format, who knows, maybe if it was broadcasted in the US and the US guy was sweeping off the oponents....


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Stash, I could live with that. 12 ends of 3 arrows with one point for each end won. At least you'd have a 36 arrow match. IMO, 12 arrows is simply not enough for a fair competition. Too much luck is involved.
> 
> John.



I like the system if it is modified in order to avoid the possibility of creating havoc and frustrations in the field. 

Let me give a scenario.... 32 pairs are in the shooting line for the 1st end of 3arrows. After the 1st end, 16 pairs ended up in tie, so they have to break the tie. After the 1st tie break, 10 are still tied so they have to break the tie some more. At the 3rd tie break, still 2 pairs remained tied so they have to break the tie again.

In all those times, the rest of the field had to wait until all the winners of the 1st end has been declared. 

Then comes the 2nd end of 3 arrows....same scenario happened... 3rd end of 3 arrows, similar scenario happened.... until the end of the 12th end... 

You can just imagine how frustrating it will be to the rest of the field with more waiting time than shooting time. Before the 12th end is over, it would have taken actually 4 times the length of time to finish the 1st OR round assuming that at after each end, there are 3 tie breaks.

In order to solve this horrendous problem, there should be no tie break at each end. Tie will remain as is and each player will be awarded 0.5 point each. The winner of each end will be rewarded 1.0 point. 

The match will be played in 9 ends of 3 arrows per end.

The first player to accumulate 5 points win the match. That means, either winning 5 ends (even if he lost 4 ends), or winning in 3 ends (3 points) and tying in 4 ends (2 points). 

If an archer had already accumulated 5 points, he and his opponent need not proceed to the next end even though they have only shot 5 ends since it will be statistically not possible for the other guy to overtake the one with 5 points. 

Those that are close fight, i.e., 4 points a piece after 8 ends, can still proceed with the last 9th end. If still tied at 5 points each, then the tie breaker will be played... that means the 10th end should be to break the tie only.

With that system, the flow of the tournament will be smooth and it will be exciting to all the players. It gives the better archer the benefit to recover from some lost ends.

....and at the same time, all archer will be shooting a minimum of 15 arrows (3 arrows x 5 ends) up to a maximum of 27 arrows (3 arrows x 9 ends). It could be even more if still tied at the end of the 9th end and they have to proceed to the 10th end by shooting 1 arrow at a time to break the tie.

Just my thoughts...


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

I just thought of something.....going to be a hard time comparing yourself to others in practice and such. What are you aiming for now? 6? ummmm, ya.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Arvid: 

You're making things too complicated  

In the golf match-play system, the winner of a hole gets a "point". If they tie, nobody gets a point. It's not necessary to have a winner of each end.

They don't actually call them "points" - if one golfer wins 5 holes, the other wins 4 and they tie on 9, the winning golfer is "1 up". If the winning golfer is 3 holes ahead with only 2 left to play, the match is over and he wins "3 and 2". If they are even after 18 holes, they continue until one wins a hole.

It could be easier and faster for an archery version. If after 12 ends the 2 archers are tied, then a one end shootoff, with closest to the middle on the last arrow would break the tie.



Anyways, it's just a suggestion. Not like it's ever going to happen :wink:


----------



## artvid (Nov 23, 2008)

Stash,

This is another variation that I think would equally work well... It is actually similar to my proposal except for the awarding of half-point to each archer in case of tie in one end... 





Stash said:


> Arvid:
> 
> You're making things too complicated
> 
> ...


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

....the new world record holder (Oh) just lost to the more experienced 2008 Olympic gold medalist(Ruban) in the bronze medal match for the men's recurve in korea--110 to 111.....the finals is an all-korean affair but that's nothing new..


----------



## azarcherymom (Jul 13, 2004)

Back to the Original point of this thread.......
Congrats to all of our shooters. You continue to make us proud. It was a pleasure to share this event with all of you. You are an amazing, talented group of archers. I hope I have the opportunity to travel and cheer you all on again. Thanks for a great trip.

Reo, Congrats, not too many people shoot a 119 and get the reaction you got for your lone 9. 

I have soooo many pics to wade through, I will do so this weekend and upload to our site.

Thanks TEAM USA for the great memories.

"Happy, Love You" 

Julie


----------



## bigdawg (Feb 26, 2003)

Hey,
So everybody has good points in regards to matchplay. I agree there are upsets, but in the end everything works itself out. How many times have you seen #63 upset #2. It happens, but how often do you see them go on and win….never. I have compiled a few stats from the past 4 world championships. If I had more time I would go into more detail. 

First off, I think most people will agree that the top 32 archers in a category don’t have a lot separating them. I consider any of the top 32 archers in a category all have a legitimate chance of winning the championship. There is a lot of depth in all categories. Very rarely does an archer who is outside of the top 32 make it into the medal round. Sometimes that low seed outside of the top 20 is a great archer who had a bad round.

2009 
1st 2nd	3rd	4th
RM	2	4	11	1
RW	3	1	23	20
CM	1	22	5	34
CW	2	21	9	11

2007 
1st 2nd	3rd	4th
RM	2	17	43	4 *43rd is Alan Wills*
RW	2	1	14	28
CM	32	6	5	23 *32nd is Dietmar Trillus*
CW	11	5	8	23

2005 
1st 2nd	3rd	4th
RM	2	24	6	4
RW	12	2	1	6
CM	17	3	12	50
CW	12	6	40	15

2003 
1st 2nd	3rd	4th
RM	8	3	7	28
RW	2	1	6	28
CM	2	1	3	21
CW	1	2	3	4

Thanks,

Blair


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Again, back to topic:

Last 3 arrows of Recurve Men Gold final: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbtec0yOEUg 


OH Jin Hyek (Mr. 1386) shooting, 300fps, September 6 : 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqGMz7oDpeE


----------



## Breadcrumb (Sep 7, 2009)

Just to clarify, Shooting (which is a Olympic target sport, too) uses no match play for Air Rifle or Air Pistol. There is a qualifying round and the top 8 shooters have a second shorter round to determine the winner. The best score counts. 
Suggestion # ...
I had 4 times the pleasure to shoot a competition which added for results the individual position of the archers in 720 70m round, the match play and the full FITA round with ties broken according to the match play. 
For some time I have been wondering whether we give the competitors sufficient opportunity to differentiate themselves with their shooting skills. It is not really fair to shoot the FITA and then to start from scratch with just 12 arrows each time to work up again. Most top ranked archers fall in the 1/8 and ¼ matches. In the past decade we have seen too many 1 competition wonders as it is too rare to find someone on the podium twice or more (even with the World Cup). 
We had many changes in the rules of shooting from the start of the 1972 Olympics. Looking at the performance of the top 4 Olympians in the precedent and succeeding World Champs, we had the archers in the top 16: 85 %, 100 %, 100 %, 75 %, 100 %, and with the introduction of match play in 92: 75 %, 50 %, 17 %, 47 % and 60 %.
On top 4 placements we have 0 to 37.5% with match play and 29 to 58 % without matchplay. 
Interestingly, the compound archers have more difficulty to make use of a high ranking round position in the last three World Championships than the Recurves.


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

Breadcrumb said:


> For some time I have been wondering whether we give the competitors sufficient opportunity to differentiate themselves with their shooting skills. It is not really fair to shoot the FITA and then to start from scratch with just 12 arrows each time to work up again.


I think everyone agrees with you.


My opinion (for what it's worth)
1976, 1980 and 1984 ... Darrell Pace top archer in the world with little chance to catch him if shooting 288 arrows (double FITA).
Fita introduces Grand FITA for 1988 Olympics, Jay Barrs wins.
1992 Match play is started and in place ever since. 
Since match play no consistant winning country (for men).
I think this was the "unspoken" goal for the changes in the selection of a (olympic) winner.

For a sport that is all about consistency, 12 arrows leaves too much to chance; TV appeal be damned!


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

another thought to make it more "interesting"---make the men and the women compete together and may the best person win!!......it'll never happen though...he he he!!


----------



## Pete M. (Jan 2, 2009)

> 1976, 1980 and 1984 ... Darrell Pace top archer in the world with little chance to catch him if shooting 288 arrows (double FITA).
> Fita introduces Grand FITA for 1988 Olympics, Jay Barrs wins.


Darrell Pace did not win olympics 1980, if that is what you mean. It was Tomi Poikolainen from Finland.


----------



## OldSchoolNEO (May 11, 2009)

Pete M. said:


> Darrell Pace did not win olympics 1980, if that is what you mean. It was Tomi Poikolainen from Finland.


I did not say that he won the Olympics in 1980

I said...



OldschoolNEO said:


> 1976, 1980 and 1984 ... Darrell Pace *top archer in the world *with little chance to catch him if shooting 288 arrows (double FITA).


This fact is undinable!


----------



## Pete M. (Jan 2, 2009)

I agree. I also know Darrell was not in olympics 1980. That is a shame...


----------



## asa1485 (Jan 16, 2008)

Please forgive me for butting in but, will there be any video of this anywhere?


----------



## Jim Pruitte (May 27, 2002)

archery.tv

Videos should be posted within the next week or two.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

vittorio has some of his personal videos of the recurve men finals(last 3 arrows only) and of the new world record holder in action in youtube now...search under"archery ulsan 2009"..


----------



## asa1485 (Jan 16, 2008)

Thanks guys


----------

