# Old / NEW scoreing on field targets?



## fmoss3 (Apr 20, 2003)

Can any of the old timers tell what year NFAA changed the scoreing on the field targets. The old scoreing was 5-3. The new (present day) scoreing 5-4-3.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

To use a popular response....a long time ago.


1977.

And it really doesnt matter to anyone that shoots that was born after 1975. What they know is what whay it is.


----------



## rogersaddler (Feb 4, 2009)

I wasn't shooting then. But I think it was 2001 they went back to the 5-3 scoring for one year


----------



## huteson2us2 (Jun 22, 2005)

It was a sad day for me. I know it was around 1975. The numbers at the tounaments dropped 30% right away in the state I lived in at that time. Then came all the classes and more archers left NFAA. 3-D became popular and more archers left NFAA. 
I remember only one target for the 35 fan. Now if you are first up, you shoot two arrows in the top left target and two arrows in the top right target from the corresponding stakes. Then rules started changing every time the NFAA directors had a meeting and the numbers would drop some more.
My range in AZ has something called our fifth Saturday field round. In May, we had a good turnout as no membership in NFAA or State is required and allows new archers to learn the game. I was asked to take a group out and explain rules. It was similar to teaching a class in nuclear physics. To make it harder we shot a 14 target Fita Field round also. The rules in Fita Field are exactly the opposite of NAA field. I don't think I will see any of the archers shooting any field rounds again soon.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

I believe the first year on the 5-4-3- METRIC face we use today was in 1977.

I think the 5-3 scoring was put back in somewhere in 1998 or 1999 for a trial period of one or two years. It was a metric face and looked nothing like the "old" pre 1977 NFAA 5-3 face. This "new" 5-3 target face had an x-ring in the middle of the spot. The OLD pre 1977 NFAA field/hunter faces had a much smaller "dot" and had no x-ring.

The other thing that has dropped pretty much out of sight is mentioned in the "Disappointing" thread...and it has to do with the larger number and variety of PERSONAL achievement awards the NFAA has to offer....but nobody promotes anymore!
Here's a link to those things starts on page 66 and goes on from there...so many incentives, so much to offer...yet there are naysayers out there that say "The NFAA has NOTHING to offer its shooters." Bull hockey to that, folks!

http://www.nfaa-archery.org/depot/documents/1401-2013611-Constitution & By-Laws 2013-2014.pdf 

Many of you say you've shot 300's indoors during a State tournament. Did you get your NFAA 300 patch and certificate? Many of you say you've shot over 500 in a State or local registered tournament. Did you get your NFAA 500 Club Certificate and Patch? Many of you have taken numerous large and small game with bow and arrow and are NFAA members? Did you get your Art Young Big or Small game award?
Many of you say you've shot perfect 300 Vegas or 450 Vegas...did you get your Perfect Certificate or Patch for that?

field14


----------



## SpotShy (Mar 14, 2005)

THANKS FOR THE INFO GUYS. 

I'm updating some state records and was wondering when the change was. 1977 was the first year I shoot indoors.....didn't start outdoors till about 1980 or 81.


----------



## rsw (May 22, 2002)

The very first official round on the "new" field face was shot at the 1976 NFAA National Tournament. It was the final day pro round and I believe the high score for the round was 543 or something very close to that. It was raining that day as I remember well and I had to quit in the middle of the round. The rain melted my full length leg cast and it broke at the ankle. 1977 marked the first year of the round.


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

96 was the year they tried the 5-3 scoring. It was held in Watkins Glen NY. Thursday we had torrential rains.


----------



## huteson2us2 (Jun 22, 2005)

My memory isn't what it used to be but I remember that we went to the 5-4-3 scoring around 1975 and the bowhunting classes started around 1977. The pros were still shooting the pro round (5-4-3-2-1 instead of the animal round at the 1982 nationals in Darrington but quit that soon after. I still believe that changing the scoring to 5-4-3 was the single worse thing to happen to the NFAA. Don't know about other states but the state I was in lost about 60% of it's shooters.

The change was made because the pro freestylers were stating to shoot perfect scores on field and hunter rounds, so instead of changing the pros to 5-4-3-2-1 scoring on all targets like a lot of us wanted, it was decided to change everyone's scoring. Now that some pros are shooting perfect rounds again, the NFAA is thinking of making the X ring a 6.

I understand that this will not make any difference to the die-hard NFAA fans on AT, but try to think of how this might cause others to lose interest in NFAA shoots. Personally I don't think there are that many archers still shooting NFAA rounds to notice any difference. I will be at Darrington in a couple of weeks and will see how many of you are still attending the Nationals. Over 1600 at Redding and over 1800 at Vegas. Lets see if even 500 shows up at Darrington. I don't mean to be negative, but something is causing the attendance at field rounds to dwindle. I believe it to be the changes made by NFAA to help the few and drive away the many. My first love in tournament archery has always bee the field shoots and I am getting tired of shooting sectionals with only 35 people attending when I remember 200.

There are about 100 archers in the US that will never believe that the sky is falling even though it's resting on your head.


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

So, let me get this straight. Under the 5-3 scoring, basically it was a 5 for what is now the 5 and 4 rings?

I've got to be honest, that would be horrible for compound freestyle shooters. Hell, I'd shoot perfect scores if that is what the scoring was, and I'm not that good.

I can *maybe* see that for trad and pin shooters.


----------



## JF from VA (Dec 5, 2002)

Here is what the old 5-3 target looked like:


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

here's some of the reasons why field aka 'the big round target game' isnt more popular:

1)takes too long
2)no challenge in known distance
3)confusing
4)no money in it for amateurs
5)bow doesnt shoot further than 40yds
6)scoring change
7)too many arrows
8)too much work maintaining a course/putting one in
9)no local courses
10)not enough BIG events
11)gotta join the NFAA
12)not good enough/afraid to embarrass oneself
13)shotgun starts



some are total BS excuses and others have a half-truth to them. i wont tell you which ones are in what catagory, and i wont throw my subjective spin on it. feel free to add more to the list. debate all the rest.


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

Ahh, ok, a little different. I guess that is more like just one ring of the current 4 rings.


----------



## JF from VA (Dec 5, 2002)

What I posted is the target that was used in the late '90's. I don't know if earlier versions were the same.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The "old" target did not have an x ring. The targets were 6, 12, 18, and 24 inches in diameter for the 3 ring. The 5 rings were half that, being 3, 6, 9, and 12 inches in diameter for the 5 ring. the center spots were 1, 2, 3, and 4 inches in diameter, except the hunter targets had a 3 inch spot for the 24 inch target. there was also an oddball hunter target for the 32 yard fan. It was a 12 inch target but had a 3 inch spot.

Seems like I remember the field targets had a NFAA stump emblem in the center of the spot or maybe that was the hunter target or maybe both.

The pro division exerted a lot of pressure on NFAA to change the target because of all the 560 scores being shot. I was in this up to my ears and it was not long before many of us realized that it was a misguided thing to do. I deeply regret my part in the target change at that time. It is likely that the target may have been changed by now, but at that time and for the good of the NFAA, it was definitely the wrong thing to do.

The NFAA was only ten years from the 1967 reorganization into an organization of states with the state run board of directors as we have today.

One of the options presented was to simply split the five ring in half and the three ring in half. Score the spot as five and the old five ring as four and three and the old three ring as two and one respectively. This would have been for the pros, but too many pros did not want their scores on the board to be lower than the non-pros. And it was recognized that having everyone shoot that target would be devastating for the large number of non-pros, the primary supporters of tournaments.

So, the metric target was born with a larger four ring and three ring and a larger spot that you have to hit for five points. And the multitude of shooters were devastated anyway and NFAA lost a significant amount of membership.

As pros, all we could see was our own self centered misguided ego influenced personal desires and we failed to recognize the greater good that was being abrogated and abandoned to satisfy a segment of members that was not the prime support of the organization.

And now we have the pros scoring six points for the X. In addition to distancing the pros from the non-pros that support the organization, this actually amounts to a BWW (Broadwater-Wilde-Woody or whatever names you feel appropriate) benefit program to distance their scores farther away from the other pros.

It is important to the lifeblood of any competitive sport organization for the base of the pyramid to play the same game as the top echelon. Now we no longer even have that.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FS560 said:


> The "old" target did not have an x ring. The targets were 6, 12, 18, and 24 inches in diameter for the 3 ring. The 5 rings were half that, being 3, 6, 9, and 12 inches in diameter for the 5 ring. the center spots were 1, 2, 3, and 4 inches in diameter, except the hunter targets had a 3 inch spot for the 24 inch target. there was also an oddball hunter target for the 32 yard fan. It was a 12 inch target but had a 3 inch spot.
> 
> Seems like I remember the field targets had a NFAA stump emblem in the center of the spot or maybe that was the hunter target or maybe both.
> 
> ...


Yep, history repeating itself...once again...the PROS get one thing, the joes get...well...you figure it out. At least this time, however, so far (that could change next year) only the pros will use the X as a "6".

Above someone mentioned amatuers can't shoot for money in the NFAA...danged straight! If you wanna shoot for money as a "non-Pro", then you can attend the "open" tournaments out there that allow you to do so if you pay the fee. However, I hope to high heaven the NFAA doesn't buckle under and start something along the lines of a "semi-pro" division....Want to shoot for MONEY in sanctioned events? Then ante up, PAY your PRO dues and run with the big dogs.

Takes too long? 112 shots for FOUR people in 5 hours or so? I have been to 3-D events where I spent 3 HOURS to shoot TEN shots! It is common at the big 3-D events to spend 3 hours for 20 shots, too. So "taking too long" doesn't hold water at all.

No challenge in "known distance"? Well... let's see...how many perfect 560's are being shot on field and hunter rounds in tournaments? How many of you here on AT have ever shot a clean half (280), let alone a perfect 560? The % of perfect scores when properly compared to the total number of rounds shot is exceedingly low...so...what is so "no challenge" about it. Anyone can get lucky on ONE shot on a target...but you ain't gettin' lucky with FOUR shots on one target!

Too much work putting in a course? At least with a field/hunter course...the range stays put for awhile. Once it is in, then yes, there is mowing and trimming...However with 3-D events...you gotta figure out the staking/layout, haul out the 3-D animals, haul out the stakes and bow racks, place the stakes and bow-racks, trim/mow. Then, once the shoot is over...you get the honor and privilege to take out the stakes and bow racks, load them up, then pull out the a3-D animals and load them up. Then you gets to haul them to the storage area, unload them, park the trailer, etc.
Then, for the next shoot...you get to do that all over again; time after time after time.
WIth a field course that is set up...you haul out the target faces, put them onto the bales, mow/trim and you are ready to go for the tournament...AND...you continue to shoot those targets after the tournament is done for a couple of weeks or more. Getting ready for the next event? Glue up some target faces, put them out on the range, check the mowing and trimming, shoot the event, continue to shoot those same target faces.
Field/hunter is a ONE TIME setup...unless somebody goes nutso and starts moving targets around or ripping them out just for spite.

Gotta Join the NFAA? Well, you gotta join IBO or ASA too sports fans! In addition, if you'd sit down and read the NFAA Constitution and By-Laws, you'd quickly find that the NFAA has TONS MORE to offer the members than just tournament shooting! There are many, many achievement awards that you are eligible to receive as a paid NFAA member...PLUS a liability insurance policy, too. Just check out the 20 pins, the Robin Hood Awards, Big and Small game awards, Diamond Buck award, and a host of other achievement items. ASA and IBO do NOT offer this sort of thing. 
NAA/WFA offers tons of achievement awards too..

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

FS560 said:


> The "old" target did not have an x ring. The targets were 6, 12, 18, and 24 inches in diameter for the 3 ring. The 5 rings were half that, being 3, 6, 9, and 12 inches in diameter for the 5 ring. the center spots were 1, 2, 3, and 4 inches in diameter, except the hunter targets had a 3 inch spot for the 24 inch target. there was also an oddball hunter target for the 32 yard fan. It was a 12 inch target but had a 3 inch spot.
> 
> Seems like I remember the field targets had a NFAA stump emblem in the center of the spot or maybe that was the hunter target or maybe both.
> 
> ...


Jim, great post. The old face did have a stump in the center. My numbers are approximate, but after 2 years with the new face, the membership went from 35,000 down to 18,000. Think maybe there was a problem ? It was a matter of ego. When the ordinary shooter was shooting 550 or better, then go to shooting 475, it was quite a blow. That is when 3D started to take off. I became director about that time & tried for about 5 years to get the old face re instituted but got shot down. I was finally able to get a 5-3 face passed, but it only lasted 1 year. It didn't have a chance when you had whole states boycotting the face. 
Now you have the pros shooting a different scoring system than the rest of the pack. WRONG. I know the rationale is that," that's what they want , let them have it." Years ago he pros shot the expert round on Fri. while we all shot the animals. That created an animosity between the have nots & the haves. It got changed to bring everyone back under the same rules. What some don't understand, is that the pro division is just that . A division of the NFAA just like BB, BH, FS, etc. Only difference is that some of them shoot better than most of us. I marvel & am in awe of the skills that some have. Now they are different again. I would like to know what the vote was or maybe I don't want to know since the new divisions that were created.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Great post by Jim and Mike. You youngsters that weren't around back when and even in 96 when the old 3/5 target was tried again just how few 560's were shot. Nothing's automatic. And in 77 when 550 shooters became 520 shooters over nite with the 5/4/3, the bottom fell out. If someone is a better shot than you, either pick your game up or just accept it. Trying to come up with a target that will make you better than you are is about as ridiculous as it gets.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Unclegus said:


> Great post by Jim and Mike. You youngsters that weren't around back when and even in 96 when the old 3/5 target was tried again just how few 560's were shot. Nothing's automatic. And in 77 when 550 shooters became 520 shooters over nite with the 5/4/3, the bottom fell out. If someone is a better shot than you, either pick your game up or just accept it. Trying to come up with a target that will make you better than you are is about as ridiculous as it gets.


I agree. Over the years since I've been an NFAA member (since 1969), it seems that the NFAA bends over backwards to try to make everyone happy...but as always the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Most of the time, and nearly every year, there is a constant flux in changing the bowhunter rules, especially on equipment in an effort to get more "bow hunters" to shoot NFAA..>Has this happened, NEVER! NFAA makes the changes because the "bow hunters" out there say that they'll start shooting if the NFAA does this or that. The NFAA does it...and all they have again is a bunch of no-shows and those people asking for something else again. There have even been States asking to allow bowhunter Freestyle to be able to move their sights during a round and to be able to use lenses in their scopes (or so I've heard!)...but yet keep them as BOWHUNTER freestyle, because, after all, they shoot short stabilizers!
First came the big vote on whether or not to allow release aids; sometime around 1970 or 1971...at least that time NFAA members all got a ballot to vote from and everyone that voted got counted. It split the NFAA apart and membership was lost; it also was the beginning of the end for the PAA, too.
Then, the fiasco with the change of the target face and scoring effective 1977...at the insistence of a SMALL MINORITY of shooters...the Pros...and threats of the PROS boycotting the NFAA tournaments if the target wasn't changed (or so we heard that there was a threat; couldn't tell you for certain that this is true from the aspect of ALL pros back then or not; but the pros in my local area at the time were threatening total boycott of NFAA tournaments. So, the NFAA Buckled under and changed the target face and scoring to the 5-4-3 system.

Back then, they had a good system for breaking ties at the 560 level...SHOOT OFFS (my heavens, they have this NOW at Vegas and Indoor Nationals...all those scoring perfect for the tournament have a shoot down...novel idea? NO! that was going on in the 1970's), why didn't they leave it alone? Why did they have to make it harder for the PROS to shoot 560, and next to impossible for the joes? It sure wasn't "progress" from an attendance/membership standpoint.
So, now, here we are again making the Pros separate from the joes by changing the scoring system and having "separation" of the total scores between the joes and the "Pros" and then showing both the "real 560 based score" and the new scoring of 6-5-4-3 for PROS only, as if this isn't segregation or something. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the 6-5-4-3- scoring pushed down to everyone sooner or later.
It is sad that all of these adjustments are made to supposedly prevent shooting perfect scores by the very, very small percentage of top echelon shooters...and the vast majority of the shooters get to watch the "joes' " scores plummet and their satisfaction levels drop like a rock..just so the hot dogs can feel good???

I know I'll be blasted and chastised for what I'm saying...but it is so common and has happened so many times...that you would think people would wise up and learn from past history, instead of repeating it over again and expecting different results. I think the 6-5-4-3 system is wrong and that it should have been left alone; if a few "tie"...then shoot if off..."they" keep saying people like shootoffs and shoot-downs, so what is the problem?


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Not sure it matters...but the Pro scoring is actually a +1 format. Effectively, the 'X' becomes a '6', but the score would be reported as: 560 +82. Total: 642. In the end, AMs can still compare scores and see how they would line up. I know a lot who did under the now 'old' system anyway, by comparing their total and X count.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Not sure it matters...but the Pro scoring is actually a +1 format. Effectively, the 'X' becomes a '6', but the score would be reported as: 560 +82. Total: 642. In the end, AMs can still compare scores and see how they would line up. I know a lot who did under the now 'old' system anyway, by comparing their total and X count.


Probably doesn't, really, since it is a done deal. It is also similar to the "up" system used in ASA, which is confusing, since everyone has "missed" but yet are points "up"? But that is similar to golf with regard to strokes under or over "par".

It is likely a means of playing "catch up" whereby you can have a "4" and make up for it by shooting some extra "6's" to catch back up again. Right now, for the past few years, if a Pro shoots a 558 or a 557, they are pretty much relegated to shooting for 3rd place. Problem is those top two aren't missing my X's either....but there is some chance of picking back up from a devastated one or two "4's", rather than the "game over" situation where some walk off the course after their first or second miss if they've already got a score in and see that they cannot better it.


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

field14 said:


> rather than the "game over" situation where some walk off the course after their first or second miss if they've already got a score in and see that they cannot better it.


When I saw that change, I figured that was in direct response to what I read happened at last years nationals.

I dunno, having not been around at that time, not sure what to think. I do know my scores would be a hell of alot higher on that 5-3 face, but obviously, I wouldn't be a better shooter. If I look at what I can currently do, and then they changed the rules to where I was suddenly 30-40 points lower, yeah, I'd find that pretty discouraging.

I dunno if anything grassroots can be accomplished, but I'm trying to gauge some interest in some local shooters and/or shop to see if we can't get something more going in the area. I don't know if there is enough interest. I don't really want to do anything that is a "big shoot", but more of a "hey, come learn this archery game", and "look at these patches and pins you can earn" kind of thing. I've got to see if I can find some more like minded individuals though.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

ThunderEagle said:


> When I saw that change, I figured that was in direct response to what I read happened at last years nationals.
> 
> I dunno, having not been around at that time, not sure what to think. I do know my scores would be a hell of alot higher on that 5-3 face, but obviously, I wouldn't be a better shooter. If I look at what I can currently do, and then they changed the rules to where I was suddenly 30-40 points lower, yeah, I'd find that pretty discouraging.
> 
> I dunno if anything grassroots can be accomplished, _but I'm trying to gauge some interest in some local shooters and/or shop to see if we can't get something more going in the area._ I don't know if there is enough interest. I don't really want to do anything that is a "big shoot", but more of a "hey, come learn this archery game", and "look at these patches and pins you can earn" kind of thing. I've got to see if I can find some more like minded individuals though.


How's about INCENTIVES for PERSONAL achievement instead of everything always being based upon SCORE for the hot dogs?

The NFAA has an achievement system that is BAR NONE (well excepting an achievement system offered by NAA/WFA, that is):
Here is the link to the NFAA Awards system...and then you can go to the NFAA Constitution and By Laws and read about the rest of them!
It is unreal that the NFAA and WE MEMBERS...constantly fail to mention the awards systems offered for personal achievement in both field shooting AND especially BOWHUNTING by the NFAA!

In my opinion, this is likely one of the most overlooked items when it comes to promoting the NFAA as something to join and to enjoy!!!
MORE needs to be done to promote the benefits of membership in the NFAA...IBO and ASA have nothing of the sort (at least not that I can find!). And YES...the NFAA also has a bowhunter Defense Fund, too!

http://www.nfaa-archery.org/programs/awards.cfm Then get into the Constitution and By Laws and look up even MORE details about these great incentive programs...BOWHUNTING is really well represented by the NFAA.


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

Yes, that is what I'm trying to bring up with the people I'm talking too.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

ThunderEagle said:


> Yes, that is what I'm trying to bring up with the people I'm talking too.


Since a lot of your friends and also 3-D shooters are likely bow hunters...don't fail to mention the Bowhunter's liability insurance policy! I've NEVER been turned down to hunt on private property when I've used that insurance policy as part of my permission pitch...along with proof of membership in an archery organizaton (I show them my NFAA card).

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

One of the reasons the 5 spot round is so widely popular is that the face does not pointedly separate scores from top to bottom. The 1977 field face did just that, and so will plus 1 for X's if ever adopted for everyone. I like seeing shootoffs myself---pretty exciting stuff.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Rolo said:


> Not sure it matters...but the Pro scoring is actually a +1 format. Effectively, the 'X' becomes a '6', but the score would be reported as: 560 +82. Total: 642.


They didn't post the scores like that for our recent state shoot.

http://www.wisconsinarcheryalliance...2013_Results/WAA_2013_Outdoor_State_FINAL.pdf

So the flight guys have absolutely now way to compare to the Pro's. Flight guy shoots a 554 field and looks like he wasn't even in the ballpark compared to the pro scores.

Same game same scoring is my thinking. I haven't been at this nearly as long as any one else on here. But loving this game and trying to promote Field is a really hard sell to begin with and this kinda stuff just makes it worse. Not to mention only 5 PMFS and 19 AMFS shot at our state shoot.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

erdman41 said:


> They didn't post the scores like that for our recent state shoot.
> 
> http://www.wisconsinarcheryalliance...2013_Results/WAA_2013_Outdoor_State_FINAL.pdf
> 
> ...


Once again, there is lack of promotion from the MEMBER level and it continues right through to the club level, the local level, the State level, the Sectional level, and the National level.
3-D shoots are promoted to the nth degree...but Field shoots are seemingly a "non-mentionable" even if flyers are made up and taken in to the local clubs...they get "hidden" or scoffed at as "nobody is interested anyways."
Then comes the lack of awareness about the many benefits besides just shooting dots with regard to your membership in the NFAA...that is, things the NFAA has for its members that neither the IBO or ASA offer theirs...

Of course, the newbies are "gotten to" first by the hoardes of bow hunters and 3-D shooters and don't get the straight skinny from the field shooters that are around - - until it is too late and the newbies are convinced otherwise.

That is the way it is, and the way it has been...and this "new" segregation between the Pros and the Joes with regard to the scoring system is almost a repeat of 1976...but it is a done deal for now, so once again, the JOES get all confused and depressed once again.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

erdman41 said:


> They didn't post the scores like that for our recent state shoot.
> 
> http://www.wisconsinarcheryalliance...2013_Results/WAA_2013_Outdoor_State_FINAL.pdf
> 
> ...


I suggest you talk to your State association about it.


----------



## rsw (May 22, 2002)

Unfortunately, the NFAA elected to make a significant change in 1976 which occurred at the birth of 3D popularity. Those two simultaneous events cost the NFAA membership dearly. On the other hand, it was time to do something as the scoring had gotten out of hand for the top shooters. I happened to be in TX at that time and 560s were everywhere. 4-5 guys had to shoot down at every tournament event it seemed like. Like Jim Q, I was all for the change and most of us relished the challenge of the new face, but unfortunately, the less skilled archers were really outgunned by the new target. Unlike many, though, I support the separation of pros from the joes because the current target face needs to be made more difficult in my opinion, but not at the expense of the majority of the archers. Most of the pros live in another world when compared to the average weekend shooters and the organization needs the pros as an attractant to mainstream archers. The NFAA is barely hanging on as it is and the prognosis isn't all that rosy!


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

NFAA doesn't need pros as an attractant. They need the fun of the game and the individual achievements actually promoted. Seriously, a pro being at a shoot isn't going to increase participation, hell, it may decrease it at this point.


Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

rsw said:


> Unfortunately, the NFAA elected to make a significant change in 1976 which occurred at the birth of 3D popularity. Those two simultaneous events cost the NFAA membership dearly. On the other hand, it was time to do something as the scoring had gotten out of hand for the top shooters. I happened to be in TX at that time and 560s were everywhere. 4-5 guys had to shoot down at every tournament event it seemed like. Like Jim Q, I was all for the change and most of us relished the challenge of the new face, but unfortunately, the less skilled archers were really outgunned by the new target. Unlike many, though, I support the separation of pros from the joes because the current target face needs to be made more difficult in my opinion, but not at the expense of the majority of the archers. Most of the pros live in another world when compared to the average weekend shooters and the organization needs the pros as an attractant to mainstream archers. The NFAA is barely hanging on as it is and the prognosis isn't all that rosy!


I think the birth of 3D was a result of the NFAA change. I don't believe that most of the pros live in another world. Only a few live there. At last years out door , only 7 pros shot better than the AFS champ. You wish to make this face more difficult ? All this furor over the X ring being a 6 now is to combat one person. 
It is Jesse B's curse that he is such a phenomenal archer that some think the way to get to him is by adding another point to the score. Just be using more faces as they will have the X ring shot out. 
If the pros want to be so separated from the Joe 's, have them form their own organization again & piggy back on the NFAA tournaments.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't wish to get rid of the pros, but any time you have special rule for one group , you will have a problem . That was the case when the pros shot the Xpert round when the Joe's shot the animal round. 
Ties are good because every one loves a shoot off if done properly.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Well put Mike


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

archer_nm said:


> Well put Mike


 Agreed.:thumbs_up


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

field14 said:


> Once again, there is lack of promotion from the MEMBER level and it continues right through to the club level, the local level, the State level, the Sectional level, and the National level.
> 3-D shoots are promoted to the nth degree...but Field shoots are seemingly a "non-mentionable" even if flyers are made up and taken in to the local clubs...they get "hidden" or scoffed at as "nobody is interested anyways."
> Then comes the lack of awareness about the many benefits besides just shooting dots with regard to your membership in the NFAA...that is, things the NFAA has for its members that neither the IBO or ASA offer theirs...
> 
> ...


Our club (of which I am a board member) has tried and tried to promote our field course and field shoots. We just had a weekend shoot that had 30-3d targets, Modified FITA round, and a half Field round. If you shot all 3 you would have been eligible for overall champ trophy. Only two people shot all three. We begged and pleaded everyone that showed up to try the field round. Offered to shoot it with them. Told them to come out on Monday night's since myself and another member shoot a half round every Monday night. Well we ended up with 79 shooters for the weekend. 77 shot the 3d course, 9 shot the FITA, and 6 shot the half Field. The six that shot the field were the same six members that shoot field all the time anyway. We couldn't get a single new person to try the field round.

We had our normal field shoot (one day shoot half round Field/half round Hunter) in May and ended up with 15 shooters total even though it was the only shoot going on in a wide area. I was the only one that shot it that shares the same city in the address as the club. We promoted that shoot the same way we promote any 3d shoot.

So here at the member level and the club level we are trying just not succeeding at getting people to try field. Field is just a tough sell to begin with. People have a perception that it has all these different rules anyway. This just helps perpetrate that perception. Nobody I know is confused or depressed just disheartened that knowing this will make promoting this game even more difficult not less. A touchdown in High School counts for six same as college and the NFL.

So if they want the x counted for six do it across the board Pros and Joes. Name one other sport that scores their game different for the professionals vs the amateurs.

Like one other person said the 5 spot is successful because of the uniformity and simplicity. Most of the products people buy now is geared toward making things simpler. (cell phones, computers, salad in a bag, pay at the pump) Ties and shoot offs are great and add to the sport not detract from it. Who doesn't like a little drama. Heck I thought it was cool as heck people switching to x10's for the shoot off and inside out scoring.

If someone walks off the course cause they dropped a few points that is on them not the game itself. Why not make a rule if you walk off the course once the round starts that isn't due to equipment failure or injury you won't be invited back for a year.

I love this game and by far my favorite type of archery. I have tried and tried because I can see the writing on the wall even at our club. Why should a club with limited resources spend a lot of money on bunkers for a game that gives very little return back to it financially wise. I am sure there will come a day at my club when the board doesn't have any field shooters on it and will make a decision that the money would be better spent going towards more 3d targets and replacement cores.

I don't know what the answer is but making things different, creating more rules, more classes, more confusion isn't going to help getting more people to even give it a try.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

I really don't think it's the rules myself.....If someone can do all of the things you can do on a cell phone, then the NFAA rules shouldn't be rocket science. Field Archery isn't for everyone. You actually have to practice a lot to be really good at it and to me that's the rub that keeps it down...... Just my opinion. Really big difference when the 5 was half the size of the target.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Unclegus said:


> I really don't think it's the rules myself.....If someone can do all of the things you can do on a cell phone, then the NFAA rules shouldn't be rocket science. Field Archery isn't for everyone. You actually have to practice a lot to be really good at it and to me that's the rub that keeps it down...... Just my opinion.


Yeah it could be that simple. I fall into the trap that there are more archers that are "like me" than there probably is. I enjoy a challenge and shoot a lot, just haven't got the "to be really good part" down yet.


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

You know, the reasoning for the rule changes are misguided as well. If the pros are really concerned about getting level with Broadwater, they don't need to bring him back to them, as he'll still be better. If they actually went back to the 5-3 targets, they would have a chance to get in a shoot-off with him. Then who knows what would happen (he'll still win, but that is beside the point).


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

ThunderEagle said:


> You know, the reasoning for the rule changes are misguided as well. If the pros are really concerned about getting level with Broadwater, they don't need to bring him back to them, as he'll still be better. If they actually went back to the 5-3 targets, they would have a chance to get in a shoot-off with him. Then who knows what would happen (he'll still win, but that is beside the point).


I thought the change back to the 3-5 target in 96 was a great move, but I was definitely in the minority. The biggest complaint if I remember correctly was from the top shooters who said that this target would make the round as difficult as the indoor, because one small miss and you were out of it. I think there were a few Pros that boycotted the Nats at the Glen over it.....Here's a new brief..... If you can't shoot in a 12" group consistently at 60 to 80 yards, you don't need to be a pro nor are you a really top archer. IMHO... And if Jesse or Woodrow has you by six or seven or more points on the metric, what's the difference???? X's ain't going to do it??????????? Then you can ONLY count on them making a mistake and you making none to get there either way you go. It's hard to please everyone, but it's also harder to let the whole thing get out of balance to satisfy 5% or less of the shooters. You see which road has been chosen now and in the past.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Using the pros as an attraction to mainstream archers is ok, provided that the game is the same and the mainstream archers have a reference. That reference is no longer available with the +1 or 6 ring scoring, whichever you want to call it. The base of the pyramid supports the game and with the insertion of a break between the base and the tip, the base will waste away. Ponzi schemes always collapse when the tip is too tall for the base.

JB will now just win by a greater spread and the rest will be more frustrated.

This is more of a bonehead move than the 1977 target change. That, at least kept the game the same for everyone, although the mainstream archers were severely slapped in the face and many simply voted with their feet.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

I would have no problem personally in going to a +1 or 6 scoring system for all classes.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Rolo said:


> I would have no problem personally in going to a +1 or 6 scoring system for all classes.


I'm far from the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I only see that widening the gap between the bottom and the top in every class.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Rolo said:


> There's not much of a lesson to be learned the second time a calf kicks you in the balz.


Agreed.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Unclegus said:


> I'm far from the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I only see that widening the gap between the bottom and the top in every class.


Hey...I got no problem recognizing how much I suck. I already do it by comparing base scores and X counts and all that other stuff. Not sure why anyone else has a problem recognizing that some people are just really darned good at things, even elite, while they may suck themselves, or fall someplace in the middle. 

Golf has been used as an example in this thread. True, the rules between the Pros and AMs remain the same, but the playing conditions are greatly different. Just talk to the regulars at courses that hold the US Open and other PGA tour events, and ask them how much they like playing the course under the tournament conditions. Maybe we ought to revert back to the old scoring, but have different courses and conditions for the Pros. The scores may be similar, so people feel better about themselves when comparing. They just get to ignore the conditions of play.

I tell ya...it's this whole "everybody has to win, and no one can lose mentality...Like I said, I recognize I suck. I recognize that there are people a lot better than me. I got's no problem with that, and I have no clue why others do...


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

I personally would like to see us go back to the old face. 

My archery career started off shooting rubber deer. I went to 7-8 ASA events and I can tell you now that we didn't leave on Sunday until after all four shootdowns were over. That's just the way it was and there were a LOT of other people that were the same way. The stands were usually full of shooters watching the Pro's put on an exhibition. It was fun to watch. We didn't get to see the Pros shoot their rounds during the competition so being able to watch them judge and shoot a handful of targets was a blast. One of the best shots I'd ever seen was a 14 that The Hammer hit at the Classic in Columbus, GA on the final bonus target. 

Now, if the NFAA went back to the old face, are there gonna be more people shooting clean rounds. You bet. SO what is the problem with having a handful of shooters that have the potential to win?? I don't see one. Create a Shootdown format that is exciting to watch and get a good announcer to go with and I'd bet you could fill some stands with AMs waiting to see who will pull it out. There may even be some of those AMs that would take the chance to become Pros figuring that in limited arrow Shootdown, THEY might have a chance to beat Jesse or Dave or Reo. Were there any empty seats at the LAS Shootdown?? How many people sat in the seats at Vegas and watched?? 

Our game can be exciting. We just need to get out of the way and let it be exciting and only having a couple of people with a chance to win before the event even starts isn't the way to build excitement.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Spoon13 said:


> Now, if the NFAA went back to the old face, are there gonna be more people shooting clean rounds. You bet. SO what is the problem with having a handful of shooters that have the potential to win?? I don't see one. Create a Shootdown format that is exciting to watch and get a good announcer to go with and I'd bet you could fill some stands with AMs waiting to see who will pull it out. There may even be some of those AMs that would take the chance to become Pros figuring that in limited arrow Shootdown, THEY might have a chance to beat Jesse or Dave or Reo. Were there any empty seats at the LAS Shootdown?? How many people sat in the seats at Vegas and watched??
> 
> Our game can be exciting. We just need to get out of the way and let it be exciting and only having a couple of people with a chance to win before the event even starts isn't the way to build excitement.


Seems like a reasonable enough idea, but would like to hear more about the logistics of it. Every 3-D shoot down I have ever seen took place in a location that had very little in common with the other 40 targets. Flat fields with little by way of trees, shade, etc. Not to mention that the shoot-downs generally are never among people with tied scores. The element of suspense risk/reward and someone coming from behind to win also present.

With field...how can a shoot down be accomplished that would allow spectators, and also still include all the elements that make field 'field'? There's no risk/reward element. There would be no coming from behind. Which face? How many targets? How many arrows per target?

Not being critical of the idea, just trying to understand how it would be implemented to accomplish the goals. (As an aside, assuming it goes back to the 5/3 target, how long could it last?)


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

Rolo said:


> Seems like a reasonable enough idea, but would like to hear more about the logistics of it. Every 3-D shoot down I have ever seen took place in a location that had very little in common with the other 40 targets. Flat fields with little by way of trees, shade, etc. Not to mention that the shoot-downs generally are never among people with tied scores. The element of suspense risk/reward and someone coming from behind to win also present.
> 
> With field...how can a shoot down be accomplished that would allow spectators, and also still include all the elements that make field 'field'? There's no risk/reward element. There would be no coming from behind. Which face? How many targets? How many arrows per target?
> 
> Not being critical of the idea, just trying to understand how it would be implemented to accomplish the goals. (As an aside, assuming it goes back to the 5/3 target, how long could it last?)




welllll.......

every range has a practice area and those are generally in the open. hold it there. each course/club comes up with a prescribed order of target distances to be shot prior to competition. the shoot offs are held in front of EVERYONE that stays to watch.....like indoor nats and vegas. put all those damn stools to use that you just gotta have.

target selection will revolve around a coin toss of a poker chip with the field face on one side, the hunter face on the other. whatever target face the coin toss selects, determines the first face shot and it alternates between the two until the winner is decided. same as in the indoor venues, drop out of the expanded 5ring (assuming the 5-3 target is used), you're out. after the initial eliminations, drop out of the inner 5ring, you're out. then you move on to the x-ring...then inside outs.. eventually you will have a winner. this shoot-off format applies to ALL classes and divisions with respect to their max distances.

EVERY DAMN TIME we quote the good book, it states that x's are to be used for tie-breakers with the exception of the vegas game. how, all of a sudden, counting x's isnt good enuff or doesnt matter? why do you idiots in charge keep wanting to re-invent the wheel when the rules have ALWAYS had the method to break ties? you keep asking where are all the people going.....maybe instead of catering to the smaller groups, you listen to the bill paying masses. and no, do not canvas the groups that SAY they will play if a change is made but NEVER make good on their coercive stand. until you prove that the game and the rules are stable, people are going to get frustrated and leave.

dont tell me to write it up and submit it, cuz we all know how that works out.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Spoon13 said:


> I personally would like to see us go back to the old face.---


It would have to be something much tougher to eleminate anyone these days.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Interesting...and I guess if we are going to use the word "idiots"...we ought to use the word comprehension too...



rock monkey said:


> every range has a practice area and those are generally in the open. hold it there. each course/club comes up with a prescribed order of target distances to be shot prior to competition. the shoot offs are held in front of EVERYONE that stays to watch.....like indoor nats and vegas. put all those damn stools to use that you just gotta have.


I guess you missed the part about how having a shoot-off on a nice, flat, lush practice range would take the field out of what makes field 'field'. Definitely a comprehension issue. But really, a field shoot-off on a flat, lush practice range could work, I guess, if people wanted a shoot-off that bad. Doesn't really seem relevant to field though. We already have American and International rounds. Maybe just forget field courses all together. throw out 28 target buts on a flat pasture, at the required ranges and have yourself a field shoot. Would be a heck of a lot easier to maintain.



rock monkey said:


> target selection will revolve around a coin toss of a poker chip with the field face on one side, the hunter face on the other. whatever target face the coin toss selects, determines the first face shot and it alternates between the two until the winner is decided. same as in the indoor venues, drop out of the expanded 5ring (assuming the 5-3 target is used), you're out. after the initial eliminations, drop out of the inner 5ring, you're out. then you move on to the x-ring...then inside outs.. eventually you will have a winner. this shoot-off format applies to ALL classes and divisions with respect to their max distances.


I suppose that's doable. Though it leaves out the animals...which are used to arrive at the final scores. How do you decide the distances? How many targets? There's an inner X with the old 5/3 faces? Who knew. Considering the number of 560s that are likely to be shot with the 5/3 faces (at least in the Pro Div.) how many ends before the first elimination is over? Are we still shooting 4 arrows per face? How long do you anticipate these shoot-offs to last?



rock monkey said:


> EVERY DAMN TIME we quote the good book, it states that x's are to be used for tie-breakers with the exception of the vegas game. how, all of a sudden, counting x's isnt good enuff or doesnt matter? why do you idiots in charge keep wanting to re-invent the wheel when the rules have ALWAYS had the method to break ties? you keep asking where are all the people going.....maybe instead of catering to the smaller groups, you listen to the bill paying masses. and no, do not canvas the groups that SAY they will play if a change is made but NEVER make good on their coercive stand. until you prove that the game and the rules are stable, people are going to get frustrated and leave.
> 
> dont tell me to write it up and submit it, cuz we all know how that works out.


Ya lost me there. I always figured the Directors of the individual States got their marching orders from the members of the individual States they represent...at least those that bother to contribute. If a Director isn't doing what a majority of his members want them to do, then they need to find a new Director. If the members ain't going to bother to participate, then I would expect a Director to do what he/she believes their State would want them to do, and what they believe is in the best interests of the State and NFAA. If that isn't want the State's membership wanted, then they ought to speak up, or find a new Director. It's a fairly simple proposition.

Ah much like everything else, it's usually the *******es that don't bother to participate that piss and moan the loudest when things don't go the way they think they should. It's always easiest to sit on the sidelines, maintain that cover, and complain about what happens after it happens, without getting involved before it happens.

A sign of the times I tell ya...


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

well....

when was the last time your state's rep to the grand meeting of the minds actually voted with the state's membership? in my case, well....there leaves much to be desired.

there are a ton of instances where the powers that are do as they please without regard to the rest of us. a sort of microcosm of society, you can say. idiots might be too strong of a word because occasionally, even an idiot can learn from their mistakes.

it bothers me to no end that almost every year, now every two, we have a discussion on the forum to come up with a unified point of change amongst all of the AT readers. why does there have to be multiple submissions for the same change when one change can be supported by multiple states and districts? i KNOW there are lurkers from the powers that are do absolutely nothing relevant to the open discussion we have here. instead, they come up with their own cool kid, 15 signature agenda item to walk on us not so cool kids.

did anything about the scoring change get mentioned to the rest of us? i dont recall it being mentioned. every time i reconsider joining the NFAA, they do something stupid to make me not. atleast in the NAA/US Archery/FITA world, the decisions are sound and management attitudes are stable.

i make it my business to know about the changes to the game so that i can help all the few that want to try the game at my club. since there are so few that know how to play the 'big round target' game in north-central ohio, it really does help to have someone familiar with it to be the tour guide.

if i'm steppin on toes, bummer....they need to be stepped on.


----------



## distributor (Mar 18, 2004)

In 1977 when we changed the target we started the boat sinking with a small hole drilled in the bottom of the boat, Now at that time we could have stopped the small hole up but we elected every time there was another problem (or who ever holled the loudest ) we would go and get a larger drill bit and make the hole in the boat larger If we keep this up I belive the boat is going to sink. but if we quite catering to the small percent of shooters we just might be able to patch the holes in the boat and keep it from sinking if it is not too late. Before this target change we used to get attendance at invitation shoots in the excess of 250 shooters but today we can get 15 shooters This is what we get by catering to the top shooters or pros. Just think about this why should we use,the x for a extra point just to satisfife a few shooters when we need to take care of the main body of shooters. ( Shame on all of us for what we have done or let it have happened when it could have been stopped )


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

So...let me see if I got this right. You are not a member of the NFAA, have chosen not to be involved in the NFAA, can't navigate the web well enough to find the agenda items before the meeting (they are posted online), but want to sit on the sidelines, call people idiots, and piss and moan about what the NFAA, and your State's Director does, has done, will do? Why the hell would he or she or the NFAA listen to you, considering that?

Considering most of the votes are not reported on a state by state basis, and considering I have no idea what other members have told the Directed...I don't have a clue. But, the agenda items that I have been the most interested in passing, and against and have talked to my Director about, and that the State Association has taken a position on, have gone that way more often than not. 

Actually, it's back to every year. As far as whatever AT establishes...only a small sample (maybe even people who aren't NFAA members, like yourself). Using AT to establish what the members want would be an act of idiocy...IMO. 

The one thing we agree about is 15 signature items. Absent an emergency, I think they do adis-service to the membership. 

Why would the scoring change get mentioned to you? You are not a member. Seriously, why the hell do you think you're entitled to notice of something you chose not to support? But yes, the scoring change was communicated to members and non-members when it was a proposal, and when it passed. 

NAA/US Archery are set up to be governed in a completely different model than the NFAA. Its what happens when you model things after the government. The NFAA would certainly be run a lot more efficiently if it were the same model. But then the members would have no say. And piss and moan about that. 

And, if you make it your business to know...you ain't doing a very good job. Like I said, the agenda items are published before the meeting, and the results of the meeting are published after.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

Awesome......just awesome. So clubs that aspire to be a part of the big round target game arent important and neither are the officers or members that put in the work to provide 'something different' than the area norm.

I guess we really dont matter. So with that, there really is no need to expend the energy and resources because we dont sit at the cool kid's table.

That will save me a ton of work and a ton of personal funds.

Non members and non affiliated clubs take note......you dont matter.




Rolo said:


> So...let me see if I got this right. You are not a member of the NFAA, have chosen not to be involved in the NFAA, can't navigate the web well enough to find the agenda items before the meeting (they are posted online), but want to sit on the sidelines, call people idiots, and piss and moan about what the NFAA, and your State's Director does, has done, will do? Why the hell would he or she or the NFAA listen to you, considering that?
> 
> Considering most of the votes are not reported on a state by state basis, and considering I have no idea what other members have told the Directed...I don't have a clue. But, the agenda items that I have been the most interested in passing, and against and have talked to my Director about, and that the State Association has taken a position on, have gone that way more often than not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

rock monkey said:


> Awesome......just awesome. So clubs that aspire to be a part of the big round target game arent important and neither are the officers or members that put in the work to provide 'something different' than the area norm.
> 
> I guess we really dont matter. So with that, there really is no need to expend the energy and resources because we dont sit at the cool kid's table.
> 
> ...


No...the pissing and moaning non members who chose to sit around, and chose not to get involved, and expect it to be delivered to them...even though they chose to not get involved or become members, is going to be ignored.

If you care enough to get involved, beyond pissing and moaning, and choosing to not get involved, become a member, and take a little personal motivation, you will be welcome with open arms. There's a big difference.

I mean really, if clubs or people 'aspire' to be part of it, it really ain't that hard to be a part of...even as a guest. People who sit on the side and piss and moan...well their motivations may be very different indeed. Really...so vocal and so adamant, yet so unwilling to get involved?

Oh...can you tell me again about how the NFAA fails to notify members and non-members of the agenda items and the results? Still really confused on that one. Maybe, when its looked on with the perspective of finding anything to complain about, sooner or later you may actually get something right...cuz your assertion that it is not available is well...wrong. And, we know what that does to credibility...


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

Im not a member so it doesnt matter


Not like i havent posted search results for the eadter egg hunt on that oh so modern webpage and layout the nfaa has.

Not like i havent had to seek the list of agenda items from other club pages because the expeditious communication skills of the national org has them posted in a timely manner


If the state delegates had nothing to hide and were more communicative to their states of responsibility, the membership might be that much more involved. Please direct me to the source document that lists how the states voted. I know you cant fins it. To publish that would ruin the cool kids club.

Why all the secret squirrel stuff? If you voted as your state's membership asked, things would be different.

I do piss and moan because i care about the game BUT i have ZERO tolerance for the politics involved.

Since im not a member and my club is not affiliated, our voice.....ok mine, doesnt matter. No worries about drumming up interest in the big round target game cuz if you aint in, you aint in.



Rolo said:


> No...the pissing and moaning non members who chose to sit around, and chose not to get involved, and expect it to be delivered to them...even though they chose to not get involved or become members, is going to be ignored.
> 
> If you care enough to get involved, beyond pissing and moaning, and choosing to not get involved, become a member, and take a little personal motivation, you will be welcome with open arms. There's a big difference.
> 
> ...


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

easiest way to find how every one voted, is to instruct your director to ask for a role call vote on what you have interest for.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

rock monkey said:


> Im not a member so it doesnt matter


No...you're not entitled to the things you demand. And because you demand, and like to call people who volunteer their time to an organization "idiots" and make irrational and unsubstantiated general statements...yeah, I can see why you are ignored, especially with all the hostility.



rock monkey said:


> Not like i havent posted search results for the eadter egg hunt on that oh so modern webpage and layout the nfaa has.


Really...your credibility continues to wane, this is the issue you are going to hang your hat on?



rock monkey said:


> Not like i havent had to seek the list of agenda items from other club pages because the expeditious communication skills of the national org has them posted in a timely manner


Um...for the last several years, if the State clubs have them, they are on the website. If they have been officially posted in the magazine, they are on the website. Really, all you have to do is look. I know it's easier to complain...for you, but really again?



rock monkey said:


> If the state delegates had nothing to hide and were more communicative to their states of responsibility, the membership might be that much more involved. Please direct me to the source document that lists how the states voted. I know you cant fins it. To publish that would ruin the cool kids club.


What again are the State Directors hiding? Why are they hiding things? Source documents...easy.

Step 1: Go to NFAA website. 2. Find box on left side of page that says "Documents". 3. Click on that box. 4. Find document you are looking for. %. Click on that document and read till your heart is content. Compare and contrast to AT. Step 1: Go to AT website. 2. Find forum you want to read. 3. Click on that forum. 4. Find topic you want to read. 5. Click on that topic and read till your heart is content. Yep, that NFAA page is so hard, difficult, and cumbersome. It is much easier to do all the AT stuff, and complain.

Unless a role call vote is conducted, how each Director voted is not reported. Members who want to know how their Director voted need to ask the Director. If the Director doesn't want to answer, then the State needs a new one. 



rock monkey said:


> Why all the secret squirrel stuff? If you voted as your state's membership asked, things would be different.


There's no secret squirrel stuff. What evidence do you have that a Director voted contrary to what the State membership wanted? Really, where is it? If that is true, is the Director still a Director? Or, is it a case of the Director not voting the way you wanted them too?



rock monkey said:


> I do piss and moan because i care about the game BUT i have ZERO tolerance for the politics involved.


That certainly makes its way into the top 3 lamest, most self-centered, selfish, chicken excrement excuses of all time. You care about archery because you say you do, but are unwilling to do anything about it.

Here's the translation of what you said: "Because I don't like the politics involved, I chose not to be involved and chose not to try to do anything to change the sport I care about to make it better for me and others. I don't care enough to put my personal feelings aside and work for a better end."

Yeah...you certainly say you care, just not as much as you care about your personal feelings and distaste for the politics you perceive. Interesting way of caring about something...put your self interest first.



rock monkey said:


> Since im not a member and my club is not affiliated, our voice.....ok mine, doesnt matter. No worries about drumming up interest in the big round target game cuz if you aint in, you aint in.


Well...I am a member, and my club is a member. As a member, I sure would expect that the NFAA did what its members wanted. Not what some lazy, sit on the sidelines and be selfish non-member says what he thinks the NFAA should do. Don't you think the membership of any org kinda deserves to have the org follow its directive, and not the directive of people who like to sit on the sidelines?

The reality is, I have never encountered an NFAA member or an affiliated club that is not willing to help other people or clubs that are non-members and not affiliated. It happens all the time. But yeah, with your attitude, I certainly don't blame your director for ignoring you...you have certainly shown yourself to be what you are...


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

My personal attitude is that, if I am not a member of something, I do not expect my voice to matter and I will not attempt to foist my opinion on the subject organization. Apparently, some non-members of NFAA are not as civilized and expect NFAA to cater to their demands.

It is very simple. If we are not good enough for you to join, we are not good enough for your demands to matter. .......CLICK


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The 6 ring scoring for the pros is not about tie breakers. It is about the misguided thinking that lower scoring pros can jump on JB if he misses a few fives.

Get real! JB will still shoot more sixes and beat them by more than ever.


----------



## distributor (Mar 18, 2004)

FS560 said:


> The 6 ring scoring for the pros is not about tie breakers. It is about the misguided thinking that lower scoring pros can jump on JB if he misses a few fives.
> 
> Get real! JB will still shoot more sixes and beat them by more than ever.


Looks like it is 1977 all over again the very top pros will be the dominate force that will lead the pack. It will not be long before there will only be a hand full of pros left in the pro division

after the 6 point scoring for the X ring is introduced.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FS560 said:


> My personal attitude is that, if I am not a member of something, I do not expect my voice to matter and I will not attempt to foist my opinion on the subject organization. Apparently, some non-members of NFAA are not as civilized and expect NFAA to cater to their demands.
> 
> It is very simple. If we are not good enough for you to join, we are not good enough for your demands to matter. .......CLICK


I agree...The "freeloaders" that pee and moan about having to join the NFAA in order to compete for awards/championships at State level and above are just that..."FREELOADERS". They want their cake and to eat it to. They want to come onto the course, shoot up the targets, pay the same registration fees as the MEMBERS, and to compete for the same awards. Those are also the ones that do the most cryin' and whinin' about the course, the tournament, and of course the organization the REFUSE to join.
Let 'em try to bowl in any sanctioned bowling league, let alone a city or state tournament...and see how far they get.

In addition, since I'm a paid up NFAA member and have been for over 45 years..I WILL voice my opinion with regard to this recent segregation of the pros from the joes regardless of what the 'pros' think about it. It DOES affect ALL the members of the NFAA to have this segregation; we've seen it before, same horse, different color than that one in 1976, is all. The new target and scoring did NOT add members to the NFAA; just the reverse was true. It won't "add" members to the Pro Organization either...the same 5-6 are going to be on top regardless, but those below that will only be farther behind and toss up their hands and quit donating their cash to the hot dogs."

The NFAA has way, way more to offer its members than either IBO or ASA...but of course, people won't check things out in the awards section of the CBL of the NFAA...and they listen to the nay-sayers that the NFAA has "nothing to offer." This is far from the truth...but the naysayers and freeloaders "Can't handle the truth."


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

Reading through this thread pretty much sums up why this game won't grow. Archers can be their own worse enemy. It is sad that the validity of a person's opinion depends on if they wrote out a check or not.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## redman (Feb 22, 2003)

I would have no problem personally in going to a +1 or 6 scoring system


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

So, they shut Jesse B down...for ONE NFAA National Outdoor.

However, in 2014, it was the same thing with different names...a HUGE separation of score between 1st and 2nd and 3rd, and then a tightening up of the scores from 3rd on down.

Scores based upon the original 560 were tight...but when the +1 for the "X" was added in, Jesse Broadwater kicked arse and it was basically, just like in 2013 (different person), The winner in the PRO division was settled and it was over after the first day.
When Jesse B shot the 559 hunter with 95 "6's" EVERYONE ELSE was shooting for 3rd place! It was a done deal.

The +1 scoring is NOT working; it is NOT tightening up the "race" or allowing the catch-up it was intended to do. Hopefully, the powers at be will not shove this down the throats of the entire NFAA. I doubt if the +1 scoring for the X in the PRO Division will survive another year.

Interestingly, if they want separation, go back to the OLD pre 1977 target face; it is overall smaller for each size, and score it 5-4-3...That would make things really interesting!
Supposedly we are all "better shooters" today than pre-1977, so let's try it and find out! This would make us even "better"; at least based upon the rationale used in the past.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

JF from VA said:


> Here is what the old 5-3 target looked like:
> 
> View attachment 1705883


Not quite, because the OLD 5/3 target didn't HAVE an X ring.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

wa-prez said:


> Not quite, because the OLD 5/3 target didn't HAVE an X ring.


Yes, you are correct WA-prez. As stated earlier in the thread by, I think, Jim Quarles, the old 5-3 scoring "inches" NFAA target face initially had nothing inside the "dot". Then, I think when they went to the "5-Star approved" Official NFAA face, the NFAA "stump" symbol was lightly printed in themiddle of the "dot." Back then, the "dot" was just that, an aiming spot. 
Of course, we always kept track of how many "dots" we hit or "spots" we hit. A "4-dot-20" was much sought after...and those "dots" were a LOT smaller than the 5-ring is today! We even used to autograph the target when he had either a 3-dot-20 or a 4-dot-20 on the target!
We also played a "dot/spot game" where you paid a nickel or a dime for each dot/spot you were beaten by to ALL those that had a dot count higher than you for the 28 target round (or 56 targets in ONE DAY, which was common when I started). So, the person that shot the most "dots" for the day was paid by everyone, and the person with the fewest dots for the day PAID OUT to everyone that had joined the dot/spot contest.
We had a whale of a time doing this and counting "dots." It wasn't until later that some tournaments used "dots" to break the ties in lieu of a shootoff. Of course, if they didn't use dots to break ties, then out to the range we went to shoot off for 3 targets and if still tied, then target for target. Some "shootoffs" could last quite some time. So, clubs modified the shootoff rules that after 3 normal scoring targets, then the next target was for "dots" and the one with the most dots won; if still tied then next target. That pretty much shortened up the shootoffs.
I think the most "dots" I ever witnessed was by Gene Parnell at a Wyoming State Field tournament when he had 90 "dots" and a 558 total score; cleaned everyone's clock that day! That was also in the day when finger shooters and release shooters competed TOGETHER in the same shooting class, too. Gene was shooting his home-built Rope Spike release aid and a Spartan II recurved bow. He went on to win Vegas with that same release aid and Spartan II bow, too. I believe the year he won Vegas was 1973.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## ahunter55 (Aug 17, 2009)

NFAA FIELD is still "My" favorite round & in my recurve, finger days (late 60s early 70s) shot some pretty darn good scores. Started back tourney shooting 3 years ago after a30 year layoff (still bowhunted though) & did State Fields + the NFAA outdoor Nationals this year. I will always say, this round separates the men from the boys. 112 arrows up to & including 80 yards.


----------



## ahunter55 (Aug 17, 2009)

Oh, I managed to win my Division with a 556 Field with fingers & recurve at the 1970 Great Lakes Sectional (Lake Geneva Ws.) a 560 Animal & a 295 outdoor PAA (they did not have Hunter faces & substituted the outdoor PAA 300 round). I don't remember the "Dots" marked on the side of my cards but I had plenty. Yes, 2 day shoot & 56 targets the 1st day.. Like I said, it separates the men from the boys...


----------



## sweet old bill (Apr 21, 2003)

sure seems I am one of the guys that stopped shooting NFAA with the change in the targets time frame and also a lot of the clubs just went to 3D's targets as they said it was cheaper to do and less man power to maintain a range. Now at 73 I still have a bow setup for NFAA FS, have one club within a hour half to me that has a NFAA range.

I can think back to shooting in VA with Jim Quarles, and he was the guy we all wanted to beat. I went to NY to shoot the big shoot of the year and had just gone from B to A shooter, and came in second that year in BHFS fingers. We must have had 50 people that made the trip from VA...The club I was from at that time was Cub run archers of Manassas VA.

It seems to get back to having a larger amount of shooters you have to have simple rules and make it fun again.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Shot the old face only twice at an invitational two years running after the 1977 change---cleaned it both times to get into a large shootoff. Easy to see why it was changed.


----------

