# News on USAA & barebow



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...Shares-Information-Regarding-Barebow-Division


From the posts in the thread when BB was first removed from the NTC this year I was lead to think there was a large contingent of BB shooting, at least a couple dozen. But unless the chart presented in just false it seems there is less than a hand full of people who have participated in the last few years - in fact only 4 last year. 


If you are the only one In Your division do you feel that validates a National title? 


But it looks like there is hope for future inclusion...


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

The chart matches what I've generated unofficially. You have far more participation in National indoor


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Dacer of all the comments I've read regarding including barebow in the NTC, I don't recall any of them mentioning validating a National title. The overwhelming response has been that they simply want to shoot in their division and not be lumped in with another group. Would it be so difficult to require X number of archers in a division to qualify for the National title?

Still, the numbers paint a bleak picture. But then, Texas is showing hugs amounts of participation in barebow with are state tournaments bringing in 30-40% of participants shooting barebow. So, the archers are out there. The question is why aren't they coming to the NTC each year? Do they not feel welcome? Do they not enjoy the format? Are they just plain not interested?

A side question is how do you validate a National Championship when you don't have participation in ALL of the divisions?


----------



## Laurie Borealis (Mar 10, 2012)

Barebow archers, this is our chance to be heard. USA Archery CEO Denise Parker knows we're out there from our growing numbers in indoors and field tournaments and from our vocal response when barebow was eliminated from the outdoor target nationals. But we haven't been showing up at that tournament. I exchanged emails with Ms. Parker, and here's what she said: "If you want to create an interesting thread, find out what type of competition Barebow archers want to shoot. Clearly 70m Outdoors is not cutting it… so what would they participate in? I read your thoughts, but I would be curious as to what the larger constituent group would want." She's listening. Let her know what format you'd like, on this forum and, better yet, in comments to the statement she just released about barebow on the USA Archery website (click on News; right now it's the featured story and there's a great shot of national barebow champion in indoors and field and former world field champion Rebecca Nelson-Harris of California), or comment on the post about the statement on the USA Archery Facebook page. btw, the U.S. has a super strong men's barebow team headed to the world field championships in Croatia in August. And check out the results from the International Internet Barebow Championships (www.barebow.com), which are based on results sent in from sanctioned fita indoors tournaments around the world. John Demmer of Pennsylvania is on top of the men's results, and despite being far outnumbered by participants from other countries, the U.S. won three of the four team categories. U.S. barebow is on the rise. Maybe we can get USA Archery to hold a barebow championship for outdoor target. If we show up.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Mulcade said:


> Dacer of all the comments I've read regarding including barebow in the NTC, I don't recall any of them mentioning validating a National title. The overwhelming response has been that they simply want to shoot in their division and not be lumped in with another group. Would it be so difficult to require X number of archers in a division to qualify for the National title?


True. That seems reasonable.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

John (limbwalker) has offered a format for barebow in previous posts on this subject and it is based on what is done in field. Barebow shoots the next closest set of stakes/targets. So, for target FITA, barebow would shoot the same targets as the cadets. (And this works for JOAD too if anyone cares about JOAD barebow, as Texas has demonstrated with its TOTS events ). For single distance target competitions, barebow just shoots at the OR distance of the next closest distance, again cadet for adult barebow. (60meters). It is not like it is an odd distance or inconveniences the logistics of the other targets. There is so much untapped potential here. I am just glad we are about to move out of the dark ages and embrace barebow archers.


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

Would have been great if that had set up the Barebow task force before removing the class from outdoor nationals even with the low numbers. 
I really would like to see barebow at the JOAD level. 
I think this opens the competition up to a lot of young archers and will only promote the sport of archery in general.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Tom, I keep forgetting that moving the barebow archers up a distance is not the norm. It's been working so well, I don't even give it a second thought anymore.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dacer said:


> http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...Shares-Information-Regarding-Barebow-Division
> 
> 
> From the posts in the thread when BB was first removed from the NTC this year I was lead to think there was a large contingent of BB shooting, at least a couple dozen. But unless the chart presented in just false it seems there is less than a hand full of people who have participated in the last few years - in fact only 4 last year.
> ...


who cares-no one is going to confuse say my wife's title with Brady's Or Erika's. Last year USA made it as inhospitable as possible for BB-NO BB for JOADS and the Senior/Master division shooters were forced to shoot the 6 ring targets at 50/40/30 meters.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Jim C said:


> who cares-no one is going to confuse say my wife's title with Brady's Or Erika's. Last year USA made it as inhospitable as possible for BB-NO BB for JOADS and the Senior/Master division shooters were forced to shoot the 6 ring targets at 50/40/30 meters.


I can't speak to them making it as inhospitable as possible for BB shooters last year or further back. 

But IMHO, a national title has a level of prestige to it that if you win by default, or if there are only 2 people competing, something needs to change going forward. I hope they come up with a way to include BB that will stimulate increased participation. 

But with only 4 participants in all of BB I can see why USAA wants to step back and evaluate what can be done to better the prospects of BB for future national events.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dacer said:


> I can't speak to them making it as inhospitable as possible for BB shooters last year or further back.
> 
> But IMHO, a national title has a level of prestige to it that if you win by default, or if there are only 2 people competing, something needs to change going forward. I hope they come up with a way to include BB that will stimulate increased participation.
> 
> But with only 4 participants in all of BB I can see why USAA wants to step back and evaluate what can be done to better the prospects of BB for future national events.


as i said-its a chicken and egg thing

remind me what the BB winners get in terms of sponsorships etc

NADA

its like NFAA indoor. someone like Ben Cleland or Erika gets thousands of dollars in contingency dollars. Vic Wunderle shoots a 600 in recurve and might get some stuff. a world class "traditional archer" or the youngest XBow world champion in history-Brent hankins-wins his division and they get a cup.

the "Minor" champions aren't complaining. and the pros walking away with big checks from Hoyt or Matthews or Easton or Tru Ball etc aren't complaining that their championships are being cheapened by some then 17 year old boy winning Xbow with the top score ever in that division

you tell all those kids who are shooting BB and BB Lite (NASP) that there is no place to go and they won't go anyplace. but BB is a grassroots archery that might find us another John Magera


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> you tell all those kids who are shooting BB and BB Lite (NASP) that there is no place to go and they won't go anyplace. but BB is a grassroots archery that might find us another John Magera


And that Jim scares the crap out of the establishment.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TomB said:


> And that Jim scares the crap out of the establishment.


No Doubt.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> you tell all those kids who are shooting BB and BB Lite (NASP) that there is no place to go and they won't go anyplace. but BB is a grassroots archery that might find us another John Magera





Jim C said:


> who cares-no one is going to confuse say my wife's title with Brady's Or Erika's. Last year USA made it as inhospitable as possible for BB-NO BB for JOADS and the Senior/Master division shooters were forced to shoot the 6 ring targets at 50/40/30 meters.


Yeah, the Nationals should be the *exemplar* for how people should be treated at USAA sanctioned tournaments around the country. Making BB shoot 6 ring targets and then saying that too few BB shooters show up is a self-fulfilling prophesy, and sets a *bad* example of how to treat BB shooters. 

We've got a number of folks shooting BB in our club, people who could shoot with sights but are enjoying the challenge of BB shooting. And the AAP pins fully support BB shooting, thanks to folks intervention with USAA. It is time for USAA to complete the circle and fully support BB shooting at the Nationals. I'd like to be able to tell our members that USAA supports them and that they get something of benefit **to them** for their membership, not just insurance for the club.

As for crowning a national BB champion out of a small pool? Well, the first part of winning is showing up. But if that is still an issue there are lots of ways to deal with it, including a MQS for all categories, short of eliminating the category.

Part of the problem is USAA has to decide what the National Outdoor Championships are. Are they, as they have traditionally been, a national gathering of any and all members who wish to attend? If not, then they need to come up with an alternative that serves that function. Eliminating BB is a half-arsed measure.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

That has been the problem, getting BB shooters to show up! I don;t know what it is, I practice at 60M and if you PRACTICE enough, you hit more than miss!
So, why is it for the past years, have there been so few of my BB compatriots? Can anyone answer that one?! 
I posted to FB a message about this, in response to DP's article, which laid it out, and gave a possible solution, in the forming of a task force!



Laurie Borealis said:


> Barebow archers, this is our chance to be heard. USA Archery CEO Denise Parker knows we're out there from our growing numbers in indoors and field tournaments and from our vocal response when barebow was eliminated from the outdoor target nationals. But we haven't been showing up at that tournament. I exchanged emails with Ms. Parker, and here's what she said: "If you want to create an interesting thread, find out what type of competition Barebow archers want to shoot. Clearly 70m Outdoors is not cutting it… so what would they participate in? I read your thoughts, but I would be curious as to what the larger constituent group would want." She's listening. Let her know what format you'd like, on this forum and, better yet, in comments to the statement she just released about barebow on the USA Archery website (click on News; right now it's the featured story and there's a great shot of national barebow champion in indoors and field and former world field champion Rebecca Nelson-Harris of California), or comment on the post about the statement on the USA Archery Facebook page. btw, the U.S. has a super strong men's barebow team headed to the world field championships in Croatia in August. And check out the results from the International Internet Barebow Championships (www.barebow.com), which are based on results sent in from sanctioned fita indoors tournaments around the world. John Demmer of Pennsylvania is on top of the men's results, and despite being far outnumbered by participants from other countries, the U.S. won three of the four team categories. U.S. barebow is on the rise. Maybe we can get USA Archery to hold a barebow championship for outdoor target. If we show up.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

NTC and JOAD nationals used to be for the membership of National Archery Association (within the past ten years, dba USA Archery). It was a chance for everyone to come together, and catch up, share stories, and hang out. People would shoot on Cooke Field, go to the annual meeting, stay in the dorms at Miami University in Oxford Ohio, (not far from the fields at JOYCE PARK) and hang out and have a great old time.
Now, SADLY, it is NOTHING like what it used to be. 
Our society longs for the nostalgia of yesteryear, and how to bring it back. I don't know that you can, because EVERYTHING is SO competitive.
Sad really.
Maybe the return of BB for JOADs, Seniors and Masters, with a different format, can right the ship. 
I cannot help that I was the only one in my division to sign up and show up...as my signature says, "Half of winning is showing up, the other is shooting well" which is what I did when I showed up. It wasn't my fault that nobody wanted to pay the $150, plus travel, room, etc for the chance to win a title. I still paid my fee, and came and shot. Sadly, I don't get to do that this year, because of the "numbers game." Well, a $150 entry fee, for a $25-30 medal (I may be being generous with that dollar amount for the cost of the medal), still nets NAA, dba USAA $125-$120. As they say, money talks...oh wait, I could have shot with the recurve Master ladies, whose numbers are diminished this year as well. Kind of puts things in a quandary doesn't' it. 
Now, LIMBWALKER how do we get on that task force?! ;-)




Mulcade said:


> Dacer of all the comments I've read regarding including barebow in the NTC, I don't recall any of them mentioning validating a National title. The overwhelming response has been that they simply want to shoot in their division and not be lumped in with another group. Would it be so difficult to require X number of archers in a division to qualify for the National title?
> 
> Still, the numbers paint a bleak picture. But then, Texas is showing hugs amounts of participation in barebow with are state tournaments bringing in 30-40% of participants shooting barebow. So, the archers are out there. The question is why aren't they coming to the NTC each year? Do they not feel welcome? Do they not enjoy the format? Are they just plain not interested?
> 
> A side question is how do you validate a National Championship when you don't have participation in ALL of the divisions?


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I guess official or unofficial, it doesn't matter if I would have wanted to shoot for the joys of shooting, and finding out if anyone else wee going to show up? NAA (dba USAA) lost my money for 2014,tournament and has upset someone who greatly supports their organization, making one feel ostracized for wanting to shoot without sights and stabilization, and shoot PURE archery! Exhilarating, covers the feeling when it hits that mark! 



Beastmaster said:


> The chart matches what I've generated unofficially. You have far more participation in National indoor


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I am a barebow/traditional shooter. I shoot more 900 rounds then any other round. I used to shoot a lot of the old 90 meter fita distances, until Washington State got rid of that tournament. Shooting long distances isn't hard, one just has to get used to it. People shot the York round for centuries before the Oly or compound bow was even a twinkle in peoples eyes.

Changing the distances to make it "easier" is more an insult than an accommodation. One of the biggest mistakes the NFAA made in the past couple years is changing the traditional/long bow distances to youth distances for all tournaments except nationals/sectionals. That was a huge punch in the gut by the NFAA.

Anyways, a lot of this has to do to the complete lack of advertising of the class or explaining the division at the national and local levels. It is like we are the completely forgotten stepchild. It takes a lot of work just to search through the internet to find out what the latest is going on in regards to barebow/traditional tournaments.

If you want more people, then make a big effort to make it known.

Work with the NFAA in making the barebow (recurve)/traditional class a class to be recognized. For example, the Vegas shoot. They have a small xbow class, but the generic barebow class has compounds, recurves, longbows all competing together, and they charge you an extra $50 just for the privilege to shoot in the pro division. Separate them out and quite hiding them with the Oly and compound shooters.

It would be interesting to see the statistic on barebow attendance when the National Traditional championships was at the same location the weekend before? If I remember right there were more barebow shooters then, and a bunch of them shot the Traditional championships.

It costs a lot of money to travel to events. Barebow shooters pretty much have to pay their entire way. They don't get sponsors. Many of the Barebow shooters have jobs that make it difficult to take a week off. Not that taking time off is hard, one has to decide if it is worth to take the time off to travel to an event. There needs to be an incentive to want to go, such as all expense trip to represent the US in the worlds.

Push to have barebow/traditional shooters to be on TV and in the magazines.

Create a national ranking system for barebow shooters that also incorporates NFAA tournaments as part of the ranking. This to include state level events. 

Ignore the barebow/trad shooters long enough, then you will fulfill your own prophecy, no one shows up.

I used to be a member of USAA, but let it expire a couple years ago when it became obvious that the NAA/USAA had no interest in promoting the barebow/traditional division. Why should I give money to an organization that shows no interest in my existence. Dropping the barebow division just further tells me that it was the right decision to stop supporting them. I would be happy to rejoin if I felt that they valued the barebow/trad division.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> I am a barebow/traditional shooter. I shoot more 900 rounds then any other round. I used to shoot a lot of the old 90 meter fita distances, until Washington State got rid of that tournament.


Washington State has NOT got rid of the 90 meter FITA.

We do have an Outdoor FITA on our Tournament Calendar.

We have not been successful in the past few years of finding a host willing to provide a facility for the tournament.

I hope we can find a place / date for the 2015 event. We're starting work on the 2015 Calendar NOW. 

This is kind of outside the Barebow issue, but general info for anyone in the state.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

wa-prez said:


> Washington State has NOT got rid of the 90 meter FITA.
> 
> We do have an Outdoor FITA on our Tournament Calendar.
> 
> ...


I hope we can find a course/club to host it. Grays Harbor should build a course and host it...


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I know it is difficult to award a national title to an event where only 1, 2, 3, or so people show up for a class when one knows that there are a lot of people nation wide that shoot the class, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at state scores to see people shooting scores higher than what one sees at the nationals.

But dumbing the event down to attract people doesn't make people want to come.

NAA needs to really look at themselves and not the barebow division to figure out why people don't show up.

Why would a person spend $1000 to $2000+ to travel to the event? What is the incentive?

If you are an Oly shooter and you have desires/hopes to be on the US national team with a chance to shoot the Olympics, well, the nationals is a required event. Skip it, and you are eliminated from the chance to participate in the Olympics. So for Oly shooters, its a required shoot, so people are forced to have to participate in it. Because of this, it draws the best of the best, it draws a lot of up and coming shooters.

The wealthy compound division is full of high dollar sponsors that enable a lot of top compounders to go. Those who want to be Pro shooters need to exposure to attract the sponsors. So it is a financial investment for them to attend.

So we barebow shooters, what is the incentive to spend a small fortune to go? A t-shirt?

So if there isn't much incentive for barebow shooters to go to an event, then what events do they actually go to? Well one is Vegas. People go Vegas not because it is 20 yards, but because the town itself is a destination. Because it is a destination, it draws more people, more shooters attract more shooters, and then there is even more post shooting fun at the town.

Anyways, dumbing the class down isn't going to attract people to come. You have to analyze what drives people to spend a small fortune to actually bother to come. That is what needs to be done.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Anyways, dumbing the class down isn't going to attract people to come. You have to analyze what drives people to spend a small fortune to actually bother to come. That is what needs to be done.


I'm going to disagree/agree with you. First, making a contest different doesn't necessarily make it "dumbing" down of the event. As a contest between archers, the best archer still wins, so there is no "dumbing" in that aspect. And if changing the event attracts more people, then the competition is *greater*, even if the target is closer or larger. That is the opposite of dumbing down.

As to "isn't going to attract people to come," I think you are right in that *some* people might not be attracted to adjustments for barebow, however, I think others might. The question is whether their would be a net gain or net loss of people, and that would depend on a lot of factors, and I don't know which way it would fall, and I think it could easily go either way depending on how you do the marketing.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

wa-prez said:


> Washington State has NOT got rid of the 90 meter FITA.
> 
> We do have an Outdoor FITA on our Tournament Calendar.
> 
> ...


What about the football fields there at Darrington?


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

If anyone is interested in what your committee will be doing for you to come up with a suitable round for BAREBOW at the 2015 NTC/EJN in Decatur AL, please PM Limbwalker or me! We are half the committee! As Rob with LAS said, "There is NO WAY I'm standing in your way!" So, "All y'all" know we have some GOOD backing!
I'm going to try to contact a feather manufacturer to see if they might want to help "Sponsor" our new barebow round. This should be good because it APPEARS that USA Archery has HEARD our plea.
The reason the barebow and the CLOUT are so important to MODERN archery, is because it has to do with TRADITION at National Target!
Maybe if we are successful in bringing back BB then we can bring back CROSSBOW and the traditional men and women! THAT would be awesome! I do remember when we were all together, as it wasn't THAT long ago. In oxford they had their own field, the practice field was located farther away from Cook field, the trad people were there the early part of the week, even at Joyce park, they had used the practice field that was in the middle of the two tournament fields, to shoot their rounds, but they were out of there in two days, no issues, no nothing...why are they gone? Who knows.
Please help us, as we strive to grow tournament barebow, with a more reasonable round for JOAD through MASTERS!!! We can do this, but we need your support! I had SO MANY PEOPLE walk up to me and say how they missed me shooting  That just means, PEOPLE NOTICE the wrongs and they will do everything in their power to help us get it back and stronger than ever!
Thanks Everyone! Liz (ard)



Laurie Borealis said:


> Barebow archers, this is our chance to be heard. USA Archery CEO Denise Parker knows we're out there from our growing numbers in indoors and field tournaments and from our vocal response when barebow was eliminated from the outdoor target nationals. But we haven't been showing up at that tournament. I exchanged emails with Ms. Parker, and here's what she said: "If you want to create an interesting thread, find out what type of competition Barebow archers want to shoot. Clearly 70m Outdoors is not cutting it… so what would they participate in? I read your thoughts, but I would be curious as to what the larger constituent group would want." She's listening. Let her know what format you'd like, on this forum and, better yet, in comments to the statement she just released about barebow on the USA Archery website (click on News; right now it's the featured story and there's a great shot of national barebow champion in indoors and field and former world field champion Rebecca Nelson-Harris of California), or comment on the post about the statement on the USA Archery Facebook page. btw, the U.S. has a super strong men's barebow team headed to the world field championships in Croatia in August. And check out the results from the International Internet Barebow Championships (www.barebow.com), which are based on results sent in from sanctioned fita indoors tournaments around the world. John Demmer of Pennsylvania is on top of the men's results, and despite being far outnumbered by participants from other countries, the U.S. won three of the four team categories. U.S. barebow is on the rise. Maybe we can get USA Archery to hold a barebow championship for outdoor target. If we show up.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Warbow said:


> I'm going to disagree/agree with you. First, making a contest different doesn't necessarily make it "dumbing" down of the event. As a contest between archers, the best archer still wins, so there is no "dumbing" in that aspect. And if changing the event attracts more people, then the competition is *greater*, even if the target is closer or larger. That is the opposite of dumbing down.


I am all for having fun, challenging, and exciting events.

Here are two examples of recent dumbing down the trad/barebow shooters. 2 years ago NFAA changed the distances for traditional and longbow from adult stakes to the youth stakes. They claim that the kiddie distances will attract more shooters. For the State Games of America championship next year, the Trad-barebow distances are 20-30-40 yards whereas adults shooting any other class shoot 40-50-60 yards. The general trend from these high level organizations in an effort to try to attract more barebow shooters is to shorten the distances as if that is the only reason why people don't shoot that distance. It is not the distances that scare people away. People have been shooting the York round for almost 200 years with longbows. Even the Olympics had the York round with longbows. Too many people think that if you don't have a sight, you cant shoot distances.

A National championship shouldn't be easy, it is supposed to be hard. Let the barebow people shoot the same event that everyone else shoots.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> The general trend from these high level organizations in an effort to try to attract more barebow shooters is to shorten the distances as if that is the only reason why people don't shoot that distance. It is not the distances that scare people away. People have been shooting the York round for almost 200 years with longbows. Even the Olympics had the York round with longbows. Too many people think that if you don't have a sight, you cant shoot distances.


I think it would be fun if the Olympics went back to longbows, say IFAA longbow, without sights - it would really make the good archers stand out and the rest of the 122cm target wouldn't be so un-used. The variability of BB at 70 meters is a lot more clear and you don't need a micrometer to tell who's winning.

However, when people talk about the York round and longbows they tend to forget that when the York Round was created, it was designed with the idea that an archer who was a "fair shot" would hit the 4' diameter *bale* every time at 60 yard, but miss the entire *bale* half the time at 80 yards, and miss the entire *bale* two thirds the time at 100 yards--hence the reason for the extra arrows shot at the different distances. The nationals were decided based on how many times you hit the *bale*, or a combination of hits plus numeric score based on the 5 ring target depending on the system in any given year. These days we generally prefer to set up target distances that don't involve missing the entire bale most of the time.



Mr. Roboto said:


> A National championship shouldn't be easy, it is supposed to be hard. Let the barebow people shoot the same event that everyone else shoots.


_Competitors_ make the nationals challenging, not the distance or target size. _More competitors _means more challenging. That's really what the Nationals are about - competitors. (Well, that and a fun national gathering of USAA membership.)

I don't mean this, BTW, as a slight to any BB shooters who enjoy shooting, say, full FITAs. They have my utmost respect. I'd love to be able to shoot like that and I really enjoy the number of dedicated BB archers we have in our club working out to longer distances. But based on the records for the outdoor nationals there just aren't that many of you showing up, and that hasn't changed for the better over the years, so it makes sense to try a variation to see if there might be a way to make the nationals more attractive to to a wider variety of BB shooters. Not saying that it couldn't revert back if that doesn't work out, just that it makes sense to try something else if what USAA has been doing hasn't been pulling in the numbers.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

itbeso said:


> Quote Originally Posted by wa-prez View Post
> 
> Washington State has NOT got rid of the 90 meter FITA.
> 
> ...


I don't think finding a field would be TOO much of an obstacle. For example, we've got a great multi-field playing field near my house, there is also a beautiful site at Arlington - where you turn off I-5 if going to Darrington.

A football field, unless there is a lot of vacant space beyond it, is a little small for a 90-meter FITA.

The real obstacle is coming up with about 20 matts and stands, enough bow racks, etc.

I'm seriously thinking about putting in for a grant, our state JUST announced a new program to fund competition (of all types, not just archery) for youth. But I've got too many irons in the fire already, somebody energetic like Robots could take on a project like this.


----------



## bows'n'roses (Jun 5, 2007)

Joan Hinterbichler asked me to post this for her as she's having difficulty getting onto AT.

Some information about the Traditional National Target Championships:

Yes, we used to be part of the big NTC, shooting the weekend before but when the calendar changed to
starting the tournament to Wednesday instead of Monday we got cancelled. The tournament is now a stand-alone
event held the last weekend in August at the Demmer Center at Michigan State University, E. Lansing.

This year's dates are Aug. 23-24.

This is the traditional equipment tournament and not the barebow division, per se, since we use the
BLBS rules for point of aim reference. But many of the trad archers do shoot barebow.

Correspondence with USAA has indicated that they are indeed interested in keeping us alive and finding
more and better ways to promote us. More exposure will bring more participation --we are working on it!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

On the road still, but just checking in. As Liz stated, PM me or her to let us know what you're thinking, and please be specific to Outdoor Nationals and how to include barebow in that event. That is the charge we've been given. 

As Kevin and Tom stated, what we've been doing in TX has worked so well for barebow this past few years that we hardly give it a 2nd thought anymore, so that will be one of the solutions I propose. But there are lots of good ideas out there.

1st thing to remember is that we need to work within the framework of the Outdoor Nationals format, and try and be additive instead of requiring yet another field, or set of distances, matches, etc. We'll be working on that. I look forward to it.

John


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> On the road still, but just checking in. As Liz stated, PM me or her to let us know what you're thinking, and please be specific to Outdoor Nationals and how to include barebow in that event. That is the charge we've been given.
> 
> As Kevin and Tom stated, what we've been doing in TX has worked so well for barebow this past few years that we hardly give it a 2nd thought anymore, so that will be one of the solutions I propose. But there are lots of good ideas out there.
> 
> ...


This makes perfect sense to me John because one of the benefits of Nationals is the social part. If the barebow are relegated to another field and format, it just further sets up a "we vs. them". I still like the "one distance closer" solution as it allows the social interaction, is no more trouble for the tournament director and field crew, and it fun and challenging for the barebow archers.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

I'm hoping that once we get BB back in we can try to get TRAD back too! If there is that possibility at all. 
Trads shoot a different program and may require a "separate" field, but adjacent to the main event. We cannot lose that connection to the history of archery, with the TRADS shooting! BUT, the TRADS might like their own nationals at MSU's Demmer Center. 
I think a "Open Nationals" should include EVERY ASPECT OF ARCHERY! 
We cannot lose the CLOUT round, which is amazingly fun, and I think because of the turnout we had this year it is here to stay, but my thoughts on that is, we need to have it after the ranking rounds, instead of the day of practice!! Maybe the Friday of the ranking rounds, while waiting for the results? That would fill the void of time and allow EVERYONE to experience "Battlefield Archery". 
It's all going to take time, ideas and people to get behind this to make it happen. I think if USA Archery is willing and we all can find a pathway and solutions, then we might make some headway. 
We will need those of you who shoot recurves, to maybe take off all the junk and give BB a try! Heck, even some of you compound folks and pick up a stick bow or recurve without all the accouterments and give it a fling! I know one person who is going to give it a shot!!!  
MAYBE, just maybe we can have a great BB turn out for Decatur Alabama in 2015. That will make this all worthwhile!
Best to "All y'all!"



bows'n'roses said:


> Joan Hinterbichler asked me to post this for her as she's having difficulty getting onto AT.
> 
> Some information about the Traditional National Target Championships:
> 
> ...


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

Only problem for next year is that the Nation Senior games (July 3-11) overlap with the Outdoor nationals (July 1-5)
The full schedule for National Senior games is not out and how the division will be split over the 3 sessions is unclear. 
But even if the recurve barebow is later in the schedule I don't see many people travelling from Decatur, Alabama to Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yes, that will be a problem, as many of our most talented and dedicated barebow archers will be in the twin cities area for the Nat. Senior Games. But to prove barebow is a serious outdoor discipline, we must show that JOAD and Adult archers will show up in numbers at Nationals. So we need to start now, by deciding on a format early so these archers can practice and compete for the next 11 months to prepare for Decatur in 2015.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

John, whatever the committee comes up with, I hope USAArchery doesn't at the last minute decide to go flip flopping the expectations.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Agreed. We can't forecast that now, or have any idea how our recommendations will be received, so that's on my "don't worry about" list at the moment. From the conversations I had at Nationals, there seems to be an understanding that it's an important part of our history, and an inevitable and important part of our future as well, with all the JOAD kids coming up who shoot barebow. One official I spoke to voiced concerns about barebow distances being attainable for even those newest to the sport (which I agree) and my reply was that asking a 12 year old Cub female recurver to shoot 50 meters was no walk in the park either (IMO, the most limiting division and distance on the field right now).


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed. We can't forecast that now, or have any idea how our recommendations will be received, so that's on my "don't worry about" list at the moment. From the conversations I had at Nationals, there seems to be an understanding that it's an important part of our history, and an inevitable and important part of our future as well, with all the JOAD kids coming up who shoot barebow. One official I spoke to voiced concerns about barebow distances being attainable for even those newest to the sport (which I agree) and my reply was that asking a 12 year old Cub female recurver to shoot 50 meters was no walk in the park either (IMO, the most limiting division and distance on the field right now).


Totally agree John. My recommendation is to front end the spade work so that the committee has plenty of time to play 20 questions with the staff and BOD so you don't run out of time and get adequate info in a timely manner to the archers to prepare for next summer. Also, the tournament organizers will need as much lead time as possible too. My fear is a super job by the committee and then it is decided that there is not enough time to implement for next year and we loose momentum with the archers. Inertia in USA Archery is a formidable obstacle.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BB distance should be around the POD that most archers use for WA Field and 900 rounds to prevent them needing to create still another set of arrows/tune to compete.
Personally I like shooting 70m because I rarely have a POD shorter than 60m. But I know many WA field shooters who are holding over on any target much past 50m and some women it's closer to 40m.

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Grant, I completely agree. And great observation btw, that takes an experienced barebow archer to really appreciate.

For the unwashed, POD = "point on distance" or the distance at which the point of your arrow is directly on the bullseye.

Mine, for example, is 55 meters with my current setup.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Even though the NFAA thinks trad shooters can throw an arrow past 50 yards, I still shoot the full 60 yard adult distances in the 900 rounds. My Point on is just a hair past 60 yards. For 70m it is the shelf, and 90m its my knuckle. And I only pull 43 pounds. Anything less than 35 yards, I am on the ground. Its not the distance that is the problem. Once you know your gaps, you can shoot from 10 to 100 yards all day long.

Any format that is good enough the the Oly shooters and the compounders, is good enough for the barebow shooters.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

This isn't about NFAA, it's about USAA BB Shooters. Different org and different rules. Bottom line is unless you get your POD to your competitive distance then you will lose to someone who does.
Making the USAA competitive target distance similar to the maximum field distance would create a better cross-over of equipment and technique.

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Any format that is good enough the the Oly shooters and the compounders, is good enough for the barebow shooters.


So, while I "want" to agree with you (personally, I do subscribe to that theory, but I have more than myself to consider here), I have to think about what's going to work for the youngest participants, and those who have only shot barebow for maybe a year? before they decide to make the trip to Nationals. There is a real concern that if Nationals is once again open to barebow archers, and esp. if we encourage the JOAD barebow participants to attend, that the round still be fun for them (i.e., not spending all their time in the green ring). We have our share of misses here in TX, even with the reduced distances, but I'm not absolutely sure that the barebow archers are missing at a greater rate than the Cub and Bowman recurve archers. If anything, I'd say it's about equal really.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I am all for ways to get the younger shooters involved. We need more young shooters. In most of the shoots that I go to, I am the youngest trad/barebow shooter at a ripe old age of 51. I am seeing more youngsters out on the flat range learning the barebow, but most of them are not showing up for tournaments. I am hoping that will change.

Anyways, Grant, I know that the NFAA is a different beast than the USAA. But the NFAA Trad division is almost identical to the Barebow Recurve. If you don't stingwalk and don't use a stab, then you can switch back and forth between the two with no problem.

I just use the NFAA as an analogy. They changed the adult and above distances to all tournaments to the youth distances. With the exception to sectionals and nationals. One of the primary arguments for the distance change is that they think it will attract more shooters. The youth up to the age of 17 still have to shoot the same distances. So the justification for shorter distances to attract new shooters will not work for any of the youth and younger because they still have the same distances to contend with. The drawback is that they will be stuck with the same shorter distances for the rest of their lives unless they want to shoot the nationals and then they have to learn new distances for 1 tournament. So the very rule change they made to try to make the event more "attractive" is actually making the event more boring and less appealing for the long haul. Yes, I know the NFAA and the USAA are different. I just don't want to see the USAA make the same type of a rule change, shortening the distances for the adults/seniors because they think it will attract more shooters.

In another analogy, world field team event has a compound, oly, and a barebow shooting all the same distances together as a team. If the US Nationals changes the barebow class to an event that is at a lower level than what the compound and oly shooters prepare for, then how does the US expect to field a full team when the expectations of the barebow shooter is at a lower level than what the rest of the world is doing. It is a slippery slope. If the target nationals lowers the competition level (relative to the compound and oly classes) for the barebow shooters in an effort to attract more shooters, then where does that stop? Local and state events will start following the rules for the nationals (it will happen because it is a lot easier to just say we are just following the national rules), then how long will it be until the field rules are modified, etc.

Another thing that should be considered in rule changes is the pride and respect aspect of things. I am pretty sure that most barebow shooters will have more pride in their results with a lower score when shooting the same event as everyone else shoots, versus a higher score shooting in an accommodating event. 

Anyways, I know I keep pounding the same drum. We all have the same goal, getting more shooters to come to the events, locally and nationally. And it is very difficult to motivate people to want to up their game or even step out of their comfort zone and shoot a tournament. I also know that it is difficult to justify having a division when only 1 or 2 people shows up. I have run a lot of tournaments that had that happen and it gets frustrating.

I just hope that when the powers get together to work on this problem, that they make well informed decisions. I just hope that the team that makes all the recommendations/decisions are dedicated barebow shooters of all types of events (i.e. target, indoor, field, 3D) and they look at the trickle down implications.

Sometimes no changes are really needed. Just a jubilee year off to let the ground rest, so then the harvest will be plenty for the next few years.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Any format that is good enough the the Oly shooters and the compounders, is good enough for the barebow shooters.


So, you are fine shooting inner 10 on 6 ring targets? You might be, but I don't think that would work for most BB shooters. Even though I take your earlier point about the York round (with qualifications) I don't think that it makes sense to hold BB recurve shooters to the same format as compounds, and not necessarily FITA Recurve, either, now that they are using 6 ring targets at some distances.

I think we all tend to advocate for the kind of shooting we like and are good at. What I'm wondering is if you think you and your ideas are representative of most barebow shooters or if there might be more BB shooters who would prefer not to shoot 6 ring targets, etc.?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> In another analogy, world field team event has a compound, oly, and a barebow shooting all the same distances together as a team. If the US Nationals changes the barebow class to an event that is at a lower level than what the compound and oly shooters prepare for, then how does the US expect to field a full team when the expectations of the barebow shooter is at a lower level than what the rest of the world is doing.


To talk apples to apples, Fita (WA) field already has an "accommodating" distance for barebow, despite them all shooting the same stakes for the team round. So, if we have barebow shooters at a closer distance than recurve, it would be nothing new according to World Archery. We'd just be doing it on a flat field as opposed to a hilly one.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Warbow said:


> So, you are fine shooting inner 10 on 6 ring targets? You might be, but I don't think that would work for most BB shooters. Even though I take your earlier point about the York round (with qualifications) I don't think that it makes sense to hold BB recurve shooters to the same format as compounds, and not necessarily FITA Recurve, either, now that they are using 6 ring targets at some distances.
> 
> I think we all tend to advocate for the kind of shooting we like and are good at. What I'm wondering is if you think you and your ideas are representative of most barebow shooters or if there might be more BB shooters who would prefer not to shoot 6 ring targets, etc.?



LoL - I own the 6 ring. And I visit the 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 ring all the time. I always joke around, that a good day of shooting is a day when you finish with the same number of arrows as you started with. My entry fee pays for a target, and I use the whole target. I never said I was good. If I was advocating what I was good at, it wouldn't be archery. I just really enjoy it.

I would love to shoot all of the big tournaments, but I am not wealthy. I like many of the shooters I shoot with, have the same underlying issue about attending national events, cost. It is not the format of the event, we all like the different formats. Its cost. Its like I have said before, shortening the distance to events isn't going to address the cost issue. So if it isn't going to address the cost issue, then why change it.

I can see from the responses that there is an advocacy to shorten the distances. That is fine, everyone has their opinion. I am just hoping that those that will ultimately make the decision gets a broad spectrum of different opinions. I am for keeping the distances the same. And my opinion for why the attendance is low is cost.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

So, I am reading all this banter back and forth and am not seeing any suggestions, like adults shoot 50 M at the 122 cm face, or JOADS shoot 30M at the 122 cm face.

We need to hear those sorts of ideas!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I'm not sure who you are Mr Roboto, but I'm usually the youngest Trad shooter at WSAA events and quite successful as well. I also shoot WA BB for 3D, indoor, target and field.

For WA Field (the only event where BB even gets to be part of the team) the max distance that barebow shoots is 50m at the 80cm target. Most WA BB archers are set-up with a 50-55m POD and stringwalk under it. I fail to see the purpose in terms of team development to have WA Field shooters practice beyond that distance. 50m on the 122cm target makes a ton of sense given that the distance is already in use by the compounds.

John: Correct me if I'm wrong but even in the team round the BB shoot from a closer stake.

-Grant


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Grant, I should know the answer to that, but I'll have to look it up. I have a Jr. barebow archer about to leave for Croatia, so I guess that would be good to know, eh?! 

Liz, I'm not sure if you're familiar with what we're doing now in Texas, but essentially, we chosen to move the barebow archers up one set of distances, just as in WA/FITA Field. And since our TOTS events are 3-distances instead of 4 (removing the longest distance of the fita), that means that adult/Jr. barebow archers start out at 60M on a 122, Masters/Cadet archers shoot 50M on a 122, Cub shoot 30M on a 122, and Bowman shoot 20M on a 122. These are also the distances and target sizes they shoot for single distance events.

What this allows us to do is simply set up the field the same way we would for any other event, and place the barebow archers accordingly within the existing field. No extra setup or target sizes required, and the barebow archers are having a ball with it. It also provides plenty of challenge, but yet plenty of opportunity for success for all barebow archers.

Rick Stonebraker and I have been consistently pushing the 300 mark at 60 Meters (he's been shooting "up" a division to compete with me in the Seniors instead of his normal Masters). I think that if the top archers are shooting in the 300 range, that makes the scores fairly consistent with what recurvers are doing, and levels the playing field somewhat. I have no doubt that if Rick shot the Masters 50M distance, he would be scoring in the 310-315 range.

But the "one distance closer" rule of thumb works well for the Cadets (who shoot 50M), Cubs (30M) and Bowmen (20M) too. I can't say we're seeing any more misses from our barebow archers than we are from our recurve archers at our state events under this format. 

This will be my suggestion, and will allow the field to be set up the way it already is by simply placing the barebow archers on the appropriate distance for their division.

John


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Grant, I should know the answer to that, but I'll have to look it up. I have a Jr. barebow archer about to leave for Croatia, so I guess that would be good to know, eh?!
> 
> Liz, I'm not sure if you're familiar with what we're doing now in Texas, but essentially, we chosen to move the barebow archers up one set of distances, just as in WA/FITA Field. And since our TOTS events are 3-distances instead of 4 (removing the longest distance of the fita), that means that adult/Jr. barebow archers start out at 60M on a 122, Masters/Cadet archers shoot 50M on a 122, Cub shoot 30M on a 122, and Bowman shoot 20M on a 122. These are also the distances and target sizes they shoot for single distance events.
> 
> ...


I completely endorse John's recommendation here as a tournament organizer and coach. But, the single biggest benefit I think is the social part of the experience. The barebow archers are just part of the mix. Now if I had to separate lines (morning and afternoon) like at nationals, I would obviously have the barebow archers shoot with the recurve line as the compound game is completely different now (except at our TOTS events).


----------



## gitnbetr (Jan 17, 2007)

I'm going from memory here, so please don't hesitate to correct me. The old format for the Old Farts, I'll call us Masters, called for distances of 70, 60, 50 and 30. If under the new format targets are already set up at those distances, I would like to see us able to shoot 4 distances rather than the three used in the TOTS format. I do not agree with using the inner 10, 6 ring target. It would also be fun to be able to compare our scores to the recurves at 70m. Would that also help BB to compete in the Open? 

If this format is not compatible, I agree with the TOTS format. I assume that what we learn in 2015 can be used to make adjustments in 2016. The issue at this point is more participation by bare bowers.

By the way John, I tried to make reservations at the Courtyard in Decatur yesterday, but they don't have any rooms for that time period. Maybe USAA has done more than you think in assuring hotel space.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

gitnbetr said:


> I'm going from memory here, so please don't hesitate to correct me. The old format for the Old Farts, I'll call us Masters, called for distances of 70, 60, 50 and 30. If under the new format targets are already set up at those distances, I would like to see us able to shoot 4 distances rather than the three used in the TOTS format. I do not agree with using the inner 10, 6 ring target. It would also be fun to be able to compare our scores to the recurves at 70m. Would that also help BB to compete in the Open?


Nationals is single distance only these days. No more full FITA.
Is there even another category which shoots 60m at nationals?

-Grant


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> Is there even another category which shoots 60m at nationals?


The cadets shoot at this distance.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

grantmac said:


> Nationals is single distance only these days. No more full FITA.
> Is there even another category which shoots 60m at nationals?
> 
> -Grant


Don't the compounds shoot at 50m? Granted, that isn't 60m, but it is sort of an endorsement of closer distance than 70m, and a note that not all bows set ups need to be required to shoot at the same distance, even if the distances for FITA compound and recurve seem kinda backwards. :dontknow:

Is there agreement that BB shooters should all be allowed to shoot full, 10 ring single-spot targets? That seems like a basic starting ground and one that requires no special set up on the part of the organizers, though having a closer bale shouldn't be much of a logistics issue if folks agree that 60M would be a good BB distance (think of it as splitting the difference between compound and sighted recurve).


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Is there agreement that BB shooters should all be allowed to shoot full, 10 ring single-spot targets? That seems like a basic starting ground and one that requires no special set up on the part of the organizers, though having a closer bale shouldn't be much of a logistics issue if folks agree that 60M would be a good BB distance (think of it as splitting the difference between compound and sighted recurve).


It boggles my mind as to why we're having to discuss this. Giving BB at the very least the option of shooting a full sized target seems like such a no-brainer to me.


----------



## gitnbetr (Jan 17, 2007)

Is there agreement that BB shooters should all be allowed to shoot full, 10 ring single-spot targets? 

Yes


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Yes - shoot the full target. A 5 on the score card is much better than seeing an M


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Both Cadets and Masters recurve archers already shoot 60 meters. In fact, the cadet line is so large these days that there seems to be as many 60M bales now as there are 70. 

I don't know yet whether Nationals will ever be a 4-distance event again. Checking on that. But I am expecting a single distance event.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Both Cadets and Masters recurve archers already shoot 60 meters. In fact, the cadet line is so large these days that there seems to be as many 60M bales now as there are 70.


So, following your easy to follow "1 up" suggestion, should Masters BB be at 50m?


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

Since it looks like I am the only advocate for barebow shooters shooting the same distance (as appropriate for their age group) as the other styles. How about having the rules that will allow the barebow shooters to be able to shoot the longer distances. Their scores will still be ranked with all the other shooters in the particular style and age group. So shooting the longer distances will then be a personal choice and it only puts them at a disadvantage.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Warbow said:


> So, following your easy to follow "1 up" suggestion, should Masters BB be at 50m?


Correct. I'll add that as a compounder, it makes for a very interesting day when sharing a bale with a Masters BB or two! 



Mr. Roboto said:


> Since it looks like I am the only advocate for barebow shooters shooting the same distance (as appropriate for their age group) as the other styles. How about having the rules that will allow the barebow shooters to be able to shoot the longer distances. Their scores will still be ranked with all the other shooters in the particular style and age group. So shooting the longer distances will then be a personal choice and it only puts them at a disadvantage.


For a local and state tournament, that would be fine. When you're having to deal with 900 archers, having a handful that want to do things a little differently presents a logistical nightmare.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Since it looks like I am the only advocate for barebow shooters shooting the same distance (as appropriate for their age group) as the other styles. How about having the rules that will allow the barebow shooters to be able to shoot the longer distances. Their scores will still be ranked with all the other shooters in the particular style and age group. So shooting the longer distances will then be a personal choice and it only puts them at a disadvantage.


Would you be ok with shooting on 6 ring targets so that all of the 70 meter targets are set the same?

I can see what you are getting at: you like to shoot the long distance, so why not just let you since it would mean a lower score and can't give you an advantage in your class. 

However, making adjustments at all to BB (and even getting more BB shooters to attend) is an uphill battle, so making the proposal as simple, streamlined, hassle free and least objectionable to USAA might mean that adding something as simple as your request might just make it seem that much more of a logistics hassle for a very small group of shooters. (I know, I know, if *you* are willing to just shoot as is it doesn't seem like you should be considered the hassle.)


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Mr. Roboto said:


> Since it looks like I am the only advocate for barebow shooters shooting the same distance (as appropriate for their age group) as the other styles. How about having the rules that will allow the barebow shooters to be able to shoot the longer distances. Their scores will still be ranked with all the other shooters in the particular style and age group. So shooting the longer distances will then be a personal choice and it only puts them at a disadvantage.


One can always enter the Olympic recurve division with their barebow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TomB said:


> One can always enter the Olympic recurve division with their barebow.


Yup. That's what I was thinking. Nothing stopping that from happening.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> So, following your easy to follow "1 up" suggestion, should Masters BB be at 50m?


Yes. Masters barebow, in Texas, shoots 50 Meters on the 122. We had a couple of gentlemen at our state outdoor who did just that, and let me tell you, they were thankful that their distance was no further than 50, as their arrows were lobbing in quite nicely.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Yes. Masters barebow, in Texas, shoots 50 Meters on the 122. We had a couple of gentlemen at our state outdoor who did just that, and let me tell you, they were thankful that their distance was no further than 50, as their arrows were lobbing in quite nicely.


Hmm...kind of like a 50 meter free throw shot? Nothing quite like watching a near maximum ballistic trajectory... Anyway, sounds fun and inviting.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

TomB said:


> One can always enter the Olympic recurve division with their barebow.


Been there, done that, have a t-shirt, and always get eliminated in the 1st round.

I can understand there are logistics issues that have to be dealt with. But national rules always has the trickle down effect to state and local rules.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Mr. Roboto said:


> I can understand there are logistics issues that have to be dealt with. *But national rules always has the trickle down effect to state and local rules.*


I think that is quite true. The Nationals should be set as the exemplar of how to hold a tournament. And that is one of the many reasons I think they should specifically accommodate barebow shooters, even if only a few show up. Due to travel, cost and the way the tournament is run, the Nationals don't necessarily reflect the full demographics of USAA membership, and various state and local tournaments will have different turnouts. None the less, the Nationals should represent the classes that are found and popular around the country, as they are, for example, in Texas.

It could take years for BB shooters to come back to nationals, too. You can't expect an instant turn around after being somewhat "hostile" to BB to them in past events. So some patience will be needed, too.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Been there, done that, have a t-shirt, and always get eliminated in the 1st round.


Of course. 

So, with that being said, I'm having trouble understanding what you're asking for.


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

I am glad that all the outdoor shoots in Massachusetts are still doing a 4 distance fita but it would be nice if they allowed barebow to shoot one distance down. 

Back to nationals
If a single distance. All 122cm targets.
60m Senior, Junior
50m Masters, Cadets
30m Cub
20m Bowmen

sounds like a good format. masters can always shot senior division if they want a longer distances and bowmen, cubs and cadets can shoot up a division for more of a challenge. 

This has my vote.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks Trevor. It does seem to be working well for us. Not really a surprise, as again, Fita field has done this "one distance closer" thing for many years...

I suspect that in the past, had adult male barebow archers shot 70/60/50/30 fita's instead of 90/70/50/30, we would have seen a lot greater participation.


----------



## Orange+Blue (May 20, 2011)

The reasons for lack of attendance at Outdoor Nationals maybe more than just distances and target sizes. 
Even when I was competing outdoors BB at the full FITA distances, Outdoor Nationals was never really on the radar. I couldn't justify the time and financial costs to attend.

Having said that, distances and target face changes are what drove me away from BB, at least for outdoors.
To my mind, the only way to drive up BB participation at the National level is to drive the participation at the regional ,local and club levels.
Distances and faces would certainly play into that.

The questions are whether changes at the National level really would trickle down to the regional and local levels and whether BB at the National level would be given a long enough stay of execution to allow to regrowth at the lower levels.

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> To my mind, the only way to drive up BB participation at the National level is to drive the participation at the regional ,local and club levels.
> Distances and faces would certainly play into that.


I think we've proven that can be done, at least here in Texas. And USArchery has played a part in that by granting full achievement status to barebow archers, allowing them to work their way up alongside their recurve and compound counterparts. I've enjoyed watching several of my JOAD students, as well as a number of other local JOAD barebow archers, work their way out to 30, 40 and even 50 meters over the past few years.

Right now, with barebow, we're in a place were the 70/60M distances (Senior/Masters) are almost never too easy for anyone, but are certainly too hard for most. We need to find the sweet spot where the round is challenging, but not discouraging, and that's worthy of a National Championship title without also having to restructure an already taxed event.

John


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

At our state (NFAA) event here in Washington the bare bow shooters shot with the kids at the shorter distances. This did two things the adult BB shooters helped the kids with arrow pulling and scoring and it allowed them to shoot at the shorter distances without the event planners having to make special accommodations for them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bow, the "cross pollination" we see here in TX between the veteran barebow archers and the Masters and Cadet recurvers, is a very positive thing IMO. 

Another thing it will accomplish is to allow the senior recurvers to continue what they are doing now, without distraction - Something I see as necessary for USAT hopefuls and for the media that tends to follow them.

I can see where the adult barebow archers could shoot alongside the Masters recurvers at 60M, and the Junior barebow archers will shoot alongside the Cadet recurvers at 60M on the JOAD line. Where it could get tricky is if the Masters barebow archers (and there will be a number of them) need a new row of bales at 50M on the adult line, or if they might be shooting alongside the Cub recurvers on the JOAD line.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

If you go back and look at the national fita field championships, you will notice that the number of barebow shooters are on the same order as the number of Oly and compound shooters in almost all classes. So why does this event draw some many barebow shooters. Why does this event draw so few Oly shooters and compound shooters when compared to the National Target?

Some people argue that shorter distances draw more barebow shooters. Then why doesn't the same argument that shorter distances would draw more Oly and compound shooters? The indoors draw more than the outdoors, that is shorter distances.

Why does the NFAA outdoor nationals draw more than the Fita Field in all classes except for barebow-recurve? Fita Field draws more barebow-recurve shooters than the NFAA Trad division does. Shorter distances? one could make that argument. But the half the fita field targets are unmarked distances which is a lot harder to deal with overall than a couple 80 yard targets.

I contend that when it is all said and done, it is not the distances that is a deciding factor for the vast majority of barebow shooters, but it is more of a cost-benefit issue.

For Oly and compound shooters there is a financial benefit in terms of current and future sponsorship funds this is a huge driver. This is also a mandatory event for anyone that desires a ranking for team selection.

So for a barebow shooter what is the cost-benefit for attending the national Target? For the fita field there is a benefit/incentive. Its required if a barebow shooter wants to shoot the worlds. So there is an incentive to go to the field championships but none for the national target.

In the end, it all about the cost to attend verses the benefit of attending. Shorter distances really isn't going to fix that.

Now addressing the issue of distances for local events. Well there may be some merit to that in helping to draw more people to the local events, because our culture today shys away from difficult endeavors. 
Making distances shorter doesn't change that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Nat. field draws more barebow shooters because it is the only game in town. NFAA doesn't get it when it comes to shooting barebow. FITA field allows for stringwalking, and the top barebow archers in the world shoot this style. Artificial limitations on how a bow can be shot only cheapen the competition IMO. It's akin to governors on stock cars. Like kissing your sister, because you know there's more there if it were only allowed. 

As for benefit, it is twofold: 1) the opportunity to win a national championship title, and 2) the social aspect of being included at the largest outdoor target event that USArchery has to offer. Many barebow archers (like myself) are going to be there anyway as coaches or parents. So, we will shoot if we have an opportunity, whereas now, there is no point in it.



> because our culture today shys away from difficult endeavors.


Moving targets to a reasonable distance for the discipline doesn't take away from the level of competition. Instead of 250's at 70M, they will be trying to shoot 290's or 300's at 60M and beat the other archers who are also shooting 290's. However, moving the targets one distance closer has the added benefit of being inclusive to the less skilled barebow archers, which is something we want if we are to continue the discipline in the future.

John


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Since this is the USAA Barebow thread, I have an idea for a t-shirt, and talked about it with someone who does t-shirts...

Idea #1:
Barebow: Shooting in the Raw

Idea #2:
Barebow: Raw Archery

Can't decide on color or anything, but we NEED a slogan!

Any other ideas?!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

They don't call it "arco nudo" for nothing.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> As for benefit, it is twofold: 1) the opportunity to win a national championship title, and 2) the social aspect of being included at the largest outdoor target event that USArchery has to offer. Many barebow archers (like myself) are going to be there anyway as coaches or parents. So, we will shoot if we have an opportunity, whereas now, there is no point in it.
> John


Now, don't get me going on the NFAA rules.......

I completely agree with the two points you have here. If the event was in my backyard (within a couple hundred miles), I would be there every year. If I knew there were people that shot at the same level as Alan Eagleton and Ben Rogers would be there for sure, I would be more tempted to show up. Yeah, there is a lot of that chicken and the egg issue here.

Unfortunately, it is expensive to travel to a lot of events out of state. So for many of us, we have to decide if we can afford to go. If money wasn't an issue, I am pretty sure the organizers would require us to qualify to go because there will be so many (overall count head count I mean) that will want to be coming. I being in the front of the line.

I am wondering how much of this is due to the rule (shooting class) incompatibility between WA, IFAA, IBO, and the NFAA. If they can start standardizing on rules, then that opens up a lot more potential people capable of coming. Maybe that is one of the things that needs to be focused on.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

With all due respect, I don't know of anyone who consistently shoots at the same level as Alan and Ben - in major competitions. This is why we hold national championships - so all the backyard champions have a chance to prove their skill in front of God and everyone, the way Ben, Alan, John and others have, in the same conditions. Shooting 60 meters in a calm, sheltered setting among friends and shooting on a windy open field after the horn sounds alongside 400 others are two completely different tasks. 

One nice thing about Nationals, Vegas and the USAT series is that now we have Ianseo, and everyone's score goes up in real time, for all the world to see.  Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, and no mulligans.

As for standardizing rules, I completely agree. NFAA allowing stabilizers in their "traditional" class was a step in the wrong direction IMO, and I know many barebow shooters who completely agree. It may have brought NFAA closer in line with IBO, but it took it further from World Archery.

John


----------



## Jeb-D. (Sep 21, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> As for standardizing rules, I completely agree. NFAA allowing stabilizers in their "traditional" class was a step in the wrong direction IMO, and I know many barebow shooters who completely agree. It may have brought NFAA closer in line with IBO, but it took it further from World Archery.
> 
> John


I don't have the desire to put a stab on my barebow, but I am glad that screw on weights are allowed now. I can use the riser I already have instead of spending money for a dedicated BB riser.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

lizard said:


> Since this is the USAA Barebow thread, I have an idea for a t-shirt, and talked about it with someone who does t-shirts...
> 
> Idea #1:
> Barebow: Shooting in the Raw
> ...


Not sure if this organization is still around, but it had shirts with "Barebow is Out of Sight." http://www.floridaarchery.org/BBF_Ltr_July_2005.pdf


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

A couple of us have been ruminating about shooting the Senior Games next year, or attend USAA Outdoor Nationals. What is clear to me concerning barebow, if there is to be a barebow division next year, it needs to happen rather soon, as people are planning now for next years schedule. Many do not have the flexibility to make plans in just a couple of months. There are some whose employers need a 1 year lead time!

So if a barebow 2015 at Outdoor Nationals is seriously being contemplated by USAA and advised by Liz and John, make it happen soon. Then there will be time to get the word out to all who may consider shooting it and enough time to make the proper arrangements. 

I would hope USAA is patient with building the barebow division. I don't think anyone can reasonably expect gangbuster numbers right away.


----------



## badkitty (Oct 13, 2012)

How inclusive to skill level is nationals supposed to be? With the the sighted bow classes, is it reasonable that someone with intermediate skill level can show up and expect to shoot?

The reason I ask is that the elite barebow archers can handle 70 meters with the full 122 cm face scoring in the 260-270s, however they'll probably use different gear and technique (lower anchor and different release) than what they practice 98% of the time. For everybody else, this format would not be much fun with a lot of misses. 70 meters is tempting, though. If you shoot split finger instead of three-under and anchor lower than normal, you get a pretty decent sight picture.

What are the other distances/target sizes that are being shot at nationals (60 meters on the 122cm face with the cadets and 50 meters on the 80 cm face with the compounds)?

70 meters is doable with facewalking but if you want to make the event more inclusive then consider either 60 meters on the 122 cm face or 50 meters on the 80 cm face. Either of these 60 meter or 50 meter formats would still be pretty challenging for barebow. Look at some videos of barebow guys shooting the 50 meter shots in field events. You still see some shots in the outside rings even at the elite level. Whatever distance is chosen, use the full 10-ring target.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

IMO, the current NTC format is not all that inclusive. Asking a 10 year old to shoot 30 meters with what's usually about a 20 lb. recurve, or IMO the most challenging division on the entire field - Female Cub recurvers shooting 50 meters - is for advanced intermediates and above only if they want to keep them on the bale. 

Other formats used at Nationals in the past, and at USAT ranking events asked female recurve archers to shoot a 6-ring 80cm face at 50 meters. I saw some of our nation's top female recurves score MISSES at that distance on that target a few years ago during the Texas Shootout. 

So no, the current formats are not designed to be all-inclusive. They are designed to follow World Archery events, which (wait for it...) are shot by the top archers in the world. 

Having said that, the compromise (if you even want to call it that, since the idea came from none other than World Archery itself) we employ here in Texas seems to meet folks halfway. Offering a challenging round for experts, but also one that relatively new archers won't get too discouraged by.

For our TOTS events, the adults and junior barebow archers shoot 60M on a 122, 50M on an 80, and 30M on a 60cm face. I can tell you that 50M on an 80cm face is no picnic in the wind for a barebow archer. Not at all. But the 60 on the 122 is not only fair, it falls in line with what two other divisions on the field (cadet and masters recurve) are doing, and the barebow participants can easily fall in with them without having to create a separate field, or a new distance or target size.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Midway, I completely agree that we need a decision soon on whether there will be a barebow division, and for what ages, at Nationals in Decatur. The format doesn't have to be decided right away, but folks need to know asap whether to make plans to attend, or not.

John


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Midway, I completely agree that we need a decision soon on whether there will be a barebow division, and for what ages, at Nationals in Decatur. The format doesn't have to be decided right away, but folks need to know asap whether to make plans to attend, or not.
> 
> John


As long as you have the ear of USAA, could you work on getting JOAD barebow for Indoor Nationals?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

midwayarcherywi said:


> As long as you have the ear of USAA, could you work on getting JOAD barebow for Indoor Nationals?


There is kind of no excuse for them not to have it given that JOAD now has Stars Pin Awards up through Gold Olympian for BB. 

(If that reasoning works, and it should and would if USAA are being _reason_able (fingers crossed) it would show how important the incremental changes to the Stars Pin Awards program are.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

One event at a time. One of the quickest ways to kill a new project is to start planning for additional projects before the first one is even reality.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> One event at a time. One of the quickest ways to kill a new project is to start planning for additional projects before the first one is even reality.


Sigh... I guess I'll put off building that addition for all of the JOAD national indoor barebow awards my future children would earn...


----------



## rambo-yambo (Aug 12, 2008)

I am a barebow shooter myself and I shoot mostly 900 rounds (yard or meter), I have no problem shooting the 40-50-60 distances. I don't think shortening the distance would make the game easier for 2 reasons: 1. shortening the distance also reduces the size of the target. 2. shortening the distance also requires a higher score to win. You probaly will need closer to 800 points to win ( instead of around 700). Shortening the distance does not make it any easier. 

Having said that, I think changing to 20-30-40 yards is a bit too much and is disrespectful to barebow shooters. Hopefully the distance will be lengthened over time if we have enough interest and enough complaint.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Rambo, the suggestion was to move BB shooters one distance closer, but there has been no mention of changing target sizes. So a senior BB archer would shoot 60m instead of 70m at the same 122cm target they were shooting at before. The reasoning behind moving them up a distance is not to make the scores go up, even though they naturally will, but to give those who struggle at the longer distance a bit of a break. The thought is that by moving them one distance closer it will help eliminate the discouragement some BB archers might feel at having to shoot the longer distance.

Also, we're talking about US Outdoor Nationals which is a single distance event, not a 900 round. In the end, how far the target is will be irrelevant to the outcome. A competitive archer will still be just as competitive at a target 10m closer. The benefit will be at the other end where we have more participants because it's less daunting of a task.


----------



## rambo-yambo (Aug 12, 2008)

Mulcade said:


> Rambo, the suggestion was to move BB shooters one distance closer, but there has been no mention of changing target sizes. So a senior BB archer would shoot 60m instead of 70m at the same 122cm target they were shooting at before. The reasoning behind moving them up a distance is not to make the scores go up, even though they naturally will, but to give those who struggle at the longer distance a bit of a break. The thought is that by moving them one distance closer it will help eliminate the discouragement some BB archers might feel at having to shoot the longer distance.
> 
> Also, we're talking about US Outdoor Nationals which is a single distance event, not a 900 round. In the end, how far the target is will be irrelevant to the outcome. A competitive archer will still be just as competitive at a target 10m closer. The benefit will be at the other end where we have more participants because it's less daunting of a task.


I was referring to posting from Mr Roboto on July 25th for the State Games of Championship next year when I posted my last posting. (I guess I should have quoted the original posting). I wonder what format will they be using and if USAA has any influence on that game.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

rambo-yambo said:


> I was referring to posting from Mr Roboto on July 25th for the State Games of Championship next year when I posted my last posting. (I guess I should have quoted the original posting). I wonder what format will they be using and if USAA has any influence on that game.


Oops, my bad. :darkbeer:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Sigh... I guess I'll put off building that addition for all of the JOAD national indoor barebow awards my future children would earn...


Ah impatient youth...

Give it time. Don't give up so easily.

We got the adult achievement program and barebow achievement pins in both it, and JOAD, didn't we?


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

Truthfully I would be happier getting barebow in the JOAD indoor nationals than having barebow in outdoor nationals if I had to make the choice.
Its much more likely for someone to attend a regional indoor national competition. (unless they decide everyone shoots a vertical 3 spot).
I have a feeling that USA Archery would prefer outdoor nationals be an elite archery competition with a much smaller field and I am sure there have been various qualifying proposals for the outdoor nationals.
But I hope the membership can steer USA Archery back towards being a national archery association rather than just an Olympic association focusing on the elite athletes and corporate sponsorship.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I have a feeling that USA Archery would prefer outdoor nationals be an elite archery competition with a much smaller field


On the contrary. Denise described at the annual meeting how she prefers that Outdoor Nat's continue to be an open event.



> I am sure there have been various qualifying proposals for the outdoor nationals.


This is something I have been in favor of, if for nothing else than to give the event credibility. The VERY first question I get from non-archers (parents, grandparents, local media, etc) when I say I'm taking students to Nationals is "what did they have to do to qualify?" When they hear my answer "nothing" the status of the event is immediately diminished in their eyes. Every time.

Eventually, if archery continues to grow, USAA will have no choice but to require qualification scores for Outdoor Nat's.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

You have to qualify to go to the State Games of America, and it is a lesser event that most of the people reading this probably hasn't even heard of. Qualifying for an event does elevate it. But not all states are slaves to the USAA. Some states are slaves to the NFAA or the IFAA. So how does one develop a decent qualification process.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Simple. Same way they have done in the past for Olympic trials - submit a qualifying score with the registration information. Qualifying scores could be shot at any sanctioned USAA event. They should like that, as that would increase participation at sanctioned USAA events.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The argument against qualifications is that Nationals has always been an inclusive "family atmosphere" and some don't want to change that. 

At some point, if things keep growing the way they have, we'll either have to use qualifying scores, or we'll have to split JOAD and the OTC again - something I am most definitely not in favor of if they include JOAD divisions at a separate OTC, as it creates two "national champions" - and really confuses the issue. Not to mention making families who have both kids and adults shooting (or coaches who want to shoot) travel to two separate events.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> The argument against qualifications is that Nationals has always been an inclusive "family atmosphere" and some don't want to change that.
> 
> At some point, if things keep growing the way they have, we'll either have to use qualifying scores, or we'll have to split JOAD and the OTC again - something I am most definitely not in favor of if they include JOAD divisions at a separate OTC, as it creates two "national champions" - and really confuses the issue. Not to mention making families who have both kids and adults shooting (or coaches who want to shoot) travel to two separate events.


For the sake of productive debate, let me disagree here. How much shooting did you do at the NTC this year? ;-) I have several problems with the combined event, the most important being the overtaxing of the fixed number of field crew, tournament officials, judges, and media/IT people. When things go south, as they always seem too, the kids get the short end of the stick. The second problem is the significant number of coaches/parents that leave their bows at home and choose not to shoot so they can be there for their kids. Local logistics of handling almost 1000 archers speaks for itself.

If we want to solve the dual confusing championships, then run Nationals like the other USAT events that are not kid friendly (i.e. no bowman and cub distances). Let JOAD nationals be for the kids with the appropriate resources allocated to running a top notch event as has been done in the past. It also lets us use some of the resources on the most forgotten part of JOAD, development, for example teaching the bowman and cubs how to score, do electronic scoring, shoot team round, proper line etiquette, etc. without holding up the entire tournament. It also keeps those scarce resources from having to forgo other important tasks at Nationals while double checking the inevitable score card errors of the JOADS. Of course my proposal begs for the answer on where do the cadets and juniors determine their nationals champions. I suggest that since the cadets and juniors have evolved into major competitive divisions, that their champion is crowned at the National Target Championships and that JOAD nationals is just another USAT event for them. Moreover, the better cubs always have the opportunity to shoot up as cadets at the NTC and use that as a learning experience for the next year when they likely will be cadets.

Both ways, combined and split, have pros and cons, and this would be a very classic idea to run by the membership, unless USA Archery has some boundary conditions that prevent one or the other option (such as max number of bales, judges, venue size, etc. that would necessitate a limit to entries or the lack of available dates and venues for two separate events.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

No, I didn't shoot this past year, but if we can get barebow included for next year, I will be shooting.

I know quite a few adult archers who had many students at Nationals. Spoke to many of them. 

Personally, I'm not going to be able to fund 2 trips to Nationals every year. So if they split them, there will be ZERO chance of me shooting as I will be coaching at JOAD Nationals and not making the trip to the NTC.

I do agree though that the kids always get screwed whenever a problem comes up. This year's TV coverage was a perfect example. Fields full of kids waiting around for their turn to shoot and getting shuttled from field to field, mostly due to the elites getting to shoot on camera.  As much interest as USArchery thinks they can generate by televising the elites at Nationals, they are losing (plus some) by making many of those same kids take a seat while this happens. 

If we are successful at getting barebow included in the NTC, it has to potential to further increase participation and grow the event. At some point in the next few years, a decision will need to be made. I think Decatur may have been chosen due to the potential for expansion at that venue. So we may have just gone from a possible 1000 in Ohio to perhaps 2000 at Decatur, simply due to available field space at the venue.

My vote will always be for qualifications to limit the numbers, as every other major sport requires qualification criteria for their national championships and it is expected. It's a matter of credibility. It will also make it easier on us JOAD coaches who have overzealous archers (and parents) who wish to attend nationals but really are not ready. Requiring a qualification score will give us an easy tool to say "if you qualify, you can go." And then we get some local motivation for them to train, so they can qualify for nationals. Otherwise, they have to stay home and watch while those who did qualify, get to go.


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

I still contend that the issue that so few barebow shooters goes to the nationals is primarily the pure cost to compete. When there is only 1 or 2 people shooting, the question that the shooters has, am I really winning the title or am I buying the title. Once one gets the national champion title for the first time, then it gets crossed off the bucket list, and then what is the incentive to spend thousands to go to the event?

Anyways, since the topic of splitting the event and changing the format has been suggested, how about also considering the changing of the location of the event for the barebow class. Over the past 10 years, when considering USAA (formally NAA), NFAA, IFAA, IBO organizations for both the barebow-recurve and Traditional styles, where does the vast majority of the top level shooters live? The west side of this country. Say for example, California. I am pretty sure that if the outdoor nationals was in California, there would be at least a dozen highly skilled shooters shooting in the barebow division.

I know, splitting up events and spreading them around to different locations is very far from ideal. But the reality of it, is that the most of the top barebow shooters live on the west side of the country, and most of them do not see the cost-benefit ratio being worth the time and expense to travel to.

I am pretty sure that everyone reading this has gone to tournaments in the "back yard" because of its location, but would have said no to attending it if they had to spend $1000 to get there and back. Location does have a bin impact.

Maybe the USAA should look at rotating the event to different locations of the country every year. Next year it is in Decatur. What about having the event in California in 2016? Just a thought


----------



## Mr. Roboto (Jul 13, 2012)

As a quick side question, does anyone know where the Field Championships will be held next year? I can't find it on the USAA website.


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

Arcus said:


> Not sure if this organization is still around, but it had shirts with "Barebow is Out of Sight." http://www.floridaarchery.org/BBF_Ltr_July_2005.pdf


Yes, the NFAA Barebow Fraternity is still alive and well. 

They are a social group and advocate for all who shoot bows without sights - Barebow, Bowhunter, or Traditional.

I attended the Barebow Picnic held during the NFAA Outdoor Nationals in Yankton. We had about 20 people there.


----------



## adnoh (Apr 4, 2008)

It's so expensive to go to tournaments. Otherwise I would be going for sure.


----------

