# USA Archery Indoors - The Future



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

I think it's a tough question. I'd be cool to see the top 8 have to shoot it off for the title. The down side is that many of us (especially the guys who will be making the top 8) already have busy schedules, and it'd be rough to have to add one more trip into the mix that you may or may not get to attend. And the costs of a whole other weekend sure hurts things as well.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

The specifics don't matter as much to me. Indoor Nationals should not be a mail in tournament. Yes, I know there will be lots of valid arguments made about cost of travel, etc., but a National event deserves a single National stage.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Sighting In said:


> I think it's a tough question. I'd be cool to see the top 8 have to shoot it off for the title. The down side is that many of us (especially the guys who will be making the top 8) already have busy schedules, and it'd be rough to have to add one more trip into the mix that you may or may not get to attend. And the costs of a whole other weekend sure hurts things as well.


The idea that the archer, families and coaches do not feel the need to compete in every event will take some time to soak in. We don’t expect distance runners to compete in 100M competitions. We don’t expect a water polo to compete in diving. We don’t expect velodrome cyclist to compete in the Tour De France.

The beauty of target archery is that one can compete in multiple disciplines and do well and an archer focus part time on one discipline and do well. It’s about choice and providing opportunity to meet the demand.

Is there a need or will there be to many events that are empty? Based on the number of parents that have children that aspire to be like Katniss Everdeen, and the sheer number at the NASP championships, the future is bright and now. 

Is it just me more playing a short Facebook game between TV time outs commercials and fewer are playing guitar hero and computer games for hours on end. The only pressure I see is $4 gas discouraging participation which leads to the idea that perhaps a family and archer can better afford to focus on just one discipline for a few months instead of year around. 

Another thing I see is youth taking a little longer to get their driver’s license and the need to buy $4 gas. When I visit with an equestrian who describes their vet bill or an ice skater/Hockey player trying to find ice time or a soccer family that has a coach from Germany and sends their player to Europe to train. I can see more and more folks find archery to be attractive. My belief is that more opportunity result less expensive meaningful competition and character development.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> The specifics don't matter as much to me. Indoor Nationals should not be a mail in tournament. Yes, I know there will be lots of valid arguments made about cost of travel, etc., but a National event deserves a single National stage.


 and media recognition and attention that the archers deserve to receive.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, let's skew the results toward those who don't have to pay for their travel or take time off work even more... 

The current format makes it about as fair and inclusive as it can be.

And gives those of us with lives outside of archery a level playing field, thank you.

John


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

:mg::mg:Bob, it's gonna fail. Oh, but wait, if it does, what are you going to do. Yikes.:eek2:


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

There will always be detractors for a 1 venue national event. The fact is, having everyone shoot at one venue, under the same conditions, at the same time, is as fair as you can get. The NFAA does not hurt their members by holding their national indoor championship in Kentucky. WAF has as good an indoor show as there is at Vegas. I don't think USAA members believe the best archer is crowned via a mail in event. Calling it as I see it gents.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Both sides of the argument have strong positions. A classic dilemma.

But I'm guessing it will happen. The trend is allllllll about chasing after the money. 

But what price victory?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The fact is, having everyone shoot at one venue, under the same conditions, at the same time, is as fair as you can get.


Provided everyone is there. But when a certain group of archers don't have to fund the trip out of their own pockets, a single event will always favor that group over those who do.

John.


----------



## TomG (Dec 4, 2002)

I know France has a lot more archers than the US but their system is quite good. It is the same for most championships. Each local tournament that is registered with the national body sends all the results in (using an unified software) and a national ranking is done based on the top 3 scores of each archers. The top 32 or 64 are invited to the national championship. If someone cannot go, next one inline is invited (I believe...). Rankings are updated weekly and allow archers to know if they are qualified. This gives some legitimacy to local tournaments.

Thomas


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

TomG said:


> I know France has a lot more archers than the US but their system is quite good. It is the same for most championships. Each local tournament that is registered with the national body sends all the results in (using an unified software) and a national ranking is done based on the top 3 scores of each archers. The top 32 or 64 are invited to the national championship. If someone cannot go, next one inline is invited (I believe...). Rankings are updated weekly and allow archers to know if they are qualified. This gives some legitimacy to local tournaments.
> 
> Thomas


Some perspective please: The longest distance E/W or N/S across the entire country of France is under 600 miles.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Texas alone, is bigger than that.


----------



## bowgal (Jun 12, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Yea, let's skew the results toward those who don't have to pay for their travel or take time off work even more...
> 
> The current format makes it about as fair and inclusive as it can be.
> 
> ...


Not sure if I understand this reply, are you talking about the RA's who do not pay for their way? I have always felt they have better support than the average archer. That's fine, it just means I have to train and save money smarter than they do..... I do have a family, job and life outside of archery and traveling again to compete for another indoors will be hard finacially and time wise. FWIW...............


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What I'm saying is that we can crown a champion archer without requiring everyone to drop another $1k on a single event. Indoors is indoors is indoors. Whine about lighting or noise or whatever, but it's still 18 meters without any wind. There is no reason one score in Alaska shouldn't equal one in Georgia, or one in Massachusetts. Not under this format.

We have precious few opportunities to shoot national events "close" to home. Let the professional archers, whether NAA or NFAA, have their series, but let the rest of us play close to home every now and then too.

John


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

I feel that Champions should be crowned in direct competition on level playing fields under similar or identical conditions. I therefore believe that the National Indoor is not a true National Championship as much as it is a mail match. Until there is a single, unified location for either all participants or finalists, I don't feel it has the gravitas of a National Outdoor or National Field title.

In my opinion, when an event can fill a podium with three shooters who may never have even seen each other face to face, it isn't a true Championship. It's a mail match.

The French system is one of the best in the world, but the point about distance is a legitimate one. Better to cite the European Championship, which is essentially a "nationals" made up of the best "state" representatives. That might be a better example to consider, both in terms of cost and geography and also prestige for the title.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Frankly, the regional shoots should all be done at the same time. Doing that would eliminate a lot of issues. And it may still be a mail in tournament, but by having all regions shoot on the same weekend, you get rid of a lot of complaints.

This is the modern day and age. Excel file complilation is easy to do and results should be able to be done quickly. 


Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> I feel that Champions should be crowned in direct competition on level playing fields under similar or identical conditions. I therefore believe that the National Indoor is not a true National Championship as much as it is a mail match. Until there is a single, unified location for either all participants or finalists, I don't feel it has the gravitas of a National Outdoor or National Field title.
> 
> In my opinion, when an event can fill a podium with three shooters who may never have even seen each other face to face, it isn't a true Championship. It's a mail match.
> 
> The French system is one of the best in the world, but the point about distance is a legitimate one. * Better to cite the European Championship*, which is essentially a "nationals" made up of the best "state" representatives. That might be a better example to consider, both in terms of cost and geography and also prestige for the title.


European Championships are a much better comparison, but still... (ALL of Europe isn't shown in this overlay, but neither is the US): 










(http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm)


----------



## wanemann (Oct 7, 2010)

When the event is one location and one time you only have the best of who can get there at that time


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

It would be a huge step if all the regions at least had the same format. Some regions allow two ends of practice. Some, have practice ranges. Some have open practice before scoring.


----------



## TomG (Dec 4, 2002)

I'm surprised that so many people are complaining about the cost associated with a national indoor championship. Vegas and NFAA indoor nationals do not have any problems getting the best archers...

I think there is a conflict between leisure/semi competitive archers and top level competitive archers.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Talking about added travel costs anyone else notice that the 2013 USA Junior World Trials are part of the SoCal event and not JOAD nationals. So, many families will likely forgo one or the other due to vacation and cost issues.
http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...-Announces-Exciting-2013-Events-Schedule.aspx


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I feel that Champions should be crowned in direct competition on level playing fields under similar or identical conditions


Are you suggesting that any of the indoor national champions in the past were not legitimate champions then?



> When the event is one location and one time you only have the best of who can get there at that time


However, there is a lot of truth to this statement.

Look, we already have enough events where all the professional archers have the advantage of not having to pay their own way to travel. Indoor Nationals, IMO, is the one event every year that levels the playing field for every archer and encourages participation. It is the most well attended archery event of the year because it is the most accessible. And part of crowning a true champion is ensuring that ALL the best archers attend the event.

True, NFAA hosts their single indoor nationals every year at Louisville, but just look at the attendance in the recurve divisions compared to USArchery indoor nationals. It's pitiful by comparison, and rarely is their good competition at the top levels.

Indoor nationals is a very successful event in it's current format. Let's not go looking for problems to fix that don't exist.

John


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Does indoor even count for national ranking? I thought they did away with it in the Senior class, but I think the Indoor National champ automatically makes the USAT team....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Scott, it has, and it hasn't. For years, it did not count, then it did, then it didn't. I'm not sure currently whether it does or not. I'd have to look that up. But I think you're correct that the national indoor and national field champions are automatically added to USAT if they are not already named to it.

And don't get me started about USAT and archers who have someone handing them plane tickets every few weeks...

Certainly, the top 3-4 archers who make USAT are going to be there year in and year out. They're just that good. But from about 4 down, it then becomes as much a matter of disposable income or "support" as it is about talent.

John


----------



## Scott.Barrett (Oct 26, 2008)

Last year, it did not count which is why I skipped it....I'm not going to win one of these things in the near future, but I do like to get national ranking points to have something to show for my efforts. If there are no points available, I really don't see the reason to attend....


----------



## nc514 (Jun 27, 2012)

Well, I know that in amateur motocross there are multiple national championship titles up for grabs. I think archery should look toward the amateur archery scene to make it's splash than professional archery. Precious few of us will ever be a pro-archer.

Back to amateur motocross: There are two championships, which carry the most prestige: Loretta's (AMA) and Ponca City Grand National Championships (NMA). Loretta's only takes 40 riders total from a collection of the top riders from each of the AMA regional championships. If you qualify locally/regionally, you've made the final cut and get to race for the championship.

Ponca City allows area qualifiers, so that you can go to the race and then have to qualify for the final once there. The advantage to this is you get to race the national championship, the bad part is, you may be traveling a long ways for little track time if you fail to qualify for the main races.

The other championships (Texas, FL, Branson and others) are usually a collection of regional riders and a few others coming from different parts of the US. 

I could see 3D maybe doing something like this because you have the woods, difficult shots, wind/weather, etc.

But in anycase, I think it would be best to have a "best of the best" championship, and also other "championships" than are more regionally focused. This would allow folks more opportunity to progress in a highly competitive atmosphere without the time/money investment. Leave the big time travels to the uber competitive and skilled archers.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> And don't get me started about USAT and archers who have someone handing them plane tickets every few weeks...


I didn't realize you paid for your free trips when you earned them. Good on you. Way to put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Golly gee, gt, I guess you'd really have me there if I had said international events. But unfortunately for you, the topic is USAT here. Do try to keep up. 

And you didn't bother to answer my question either. Gee. I'm shocked. :mg:

Don't you just love it when those with a financial interest in the outcome of tournaments comment on how they're conducted? What a great country we live in.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Oh, you mean you didn't pay for the trips you earned? Gee, I'm shocked.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Here's a thought...

Have regional qualifiers for nationals (both indoors and outdoors) and use the entry fees from those regional qualifiers to fund the top shooters travel expenses to nationals. That way, folks can "earn" their way to nationals, represent their region, and we get a common national championship event, and nobody that qualified is at a serious financial disadvantage.



> Oh, you mean you didn't pay for the trips you earned? Gee, I'm shocked.


George, I'm dissapointed in you. You usally do a better job of keeping up. We're talking about domestic events and USAT here. Do try to stay on topic.

John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I feel that Champions should be crowned in direct competition on level playing fields under similar or identical conditions. I therefore believe that the National Indoor is not a true National Championship as much as it is a mail match.


When it comes to the current Indoor Nationals format, you either agree with this statement or you don't. 

George, in your eyes it seems that none of the indoor national champions are legitimate. That's unfortunate. I'm sure they would disagree.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Scott.Barrett said:


> Last year, it did not count which is why I skipped it....I'm not going to win one of these things in the near future, but I do like to get national ranking points to have something to show for my efforts. If there are no points available, I really don't see the reason to attend....


 I would like to see an Indoor USAT series of tourneys. I love indoors when its 110 degrees F or 90% humidity outside, but mostly because it is such a great developmental environment that promotes form and release vs poundage.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

midwayarcherywi said:


> There will always be detractors for a 1 venue national event. The fact is, having everyone shoot at one venue, under the same conditions, at the same time, is as fair as you can get. The NFAA does not hurt their members by holding their national indoor championship in Kentucky. WAF has as good an indoor show as there is at Vegas. I don't think USAA members believe the best archer is crowned via a mail in event. Calling it as I see it gents.





>--gt--> said:


> I feel that Champions should be crowned in direct competition on level playing fields under similar or identical conditions. I therefore believe that the National Indoor is not a true National Championship as much as it is a mail match. Until there is a single, unified location for either all participants or finalists, I don't feel it has the gravitas of a National Outdoor or National Field title.
> 
> In my opinion, when an event can fill a podium with three shooters who may never have even seen each other face to face, it isn't a true Championship. It's a mail match.
> 
> The French system is one of the best in the world, but the point about distance is a legitimate one. Better to cite the European Championship, which is essentially a "nationals" made up of the best "state" representatives. That might be a better example to consider, both in terms of cost and geography and also prestige for the title.




Agreed! I enjoyed the old days at Harrisburg..............and I think a more centralized venue can be found to host one indoor national. :thumbs_up


----------



## m013690 (Sep 3, 2011)

TomG said:


> I think there is a conflict between leisure/semi competitive archers and top level competitive archers.


That's exactly the point. And if there were more events for us leisure/semi-competitive archers, there might not be such a drive to keep nationals accessible. But for me, in this calendar year, indoor nationals will be the only -- let me repeat ONLY -- event with a recurve division withion 1-day driving distance.

Look, the best archer in the country is going to win regardless of if he's shooting next to the guy shooting 2nd place or not. It's indoors. There are no wind or other field conditions that would benefit a guy in Washington state over the guy in Virginia. I'd be willing to bet that the guys at the tops of the boards really don't care that much (but if they're on here and want to correct me, that's fine), but for the rest of us, to have that ONE chance in the year to get together with hundreds of fellow enthusiasts, it's a great experience. For those of us that have jobs, and mortgages, and kids, and car payments (or maybe a job that doesn't just let you take time off whenever you feel like it) -- that is, those of us in the real world, who can't afford to just go running all over the country for one weekend of fun -- this is the chance we get to go to a venue that within reasonable distance, and enjoy a sport that's inaccessible enough to begin with.

So what if we're not competing for the top spot? The sport's small enough as it is. Why in the world would we want to go and alienate any more people who want to be a part of it?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but mostly because it is such a great developmental environment that promotes form and release vs poundage.


Agreed Bob. 

Vegas does a good job of recognizing that indoors is such a level playing field, both men and women shoot together in the flights.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I can see a host of championships which allows one to compete locally, regionally, nationally and face to face:

Each site can have a first, second and third based on the 2x600 round results
Each region can have a first second and third, based on the regional sites 2x600 round results
There could be a National first second and third, based on all the sites 2x600 round results
This way you go to one event and have a chance at three titles via the same 2x600 round that you can drive to in a day. The entry fee would be raised to cover the cost of numerous awards.

Then have a single get together where Indoor National Championship Invitational is decided by head to head competition. The Indoor Invitational National Championship would be contested in the categories with lots of entrants.
I think we need to be inclusive to encourage and accommodate a growing sport.


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

TomG said:


> I'm surprised that so many people are complaining about the cost associated with a national indoor championship. Vegas and NFAA indoor nationals do not have any problems getting the best archers...
> 
> I think there is a conflict between leisure/semi competitive archers and top level competitive archers.


How much is the prize money for a USArchery Indoor Championship? Perhaps that is part of the reason the NFAA can draw the best shooters.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bob, I like the way you're thinking.

I've always thought the idea of states or regions sending representatives to a national championship would be an interesting way to go.

NFAA has a lot of this already figured out.

John


----------



## JaMag (Apr 13, 2007)

Let me inform those following this thread.
Just FYI,
>--GT--> happens to be George Tekmitchov of Easton Archery... Or Hoyt, Which ever you prefer to be associated with.
They in fact, the main financial support of the USAT and the RA's through their "unbiased" annual donations. 
Am I correct in that statement GT?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

JaMag said:


> Let me inform those following this thread.
> Just FYI,
> >--GT--> happens to be George Tekmitchov of Easton Archery... Or Hoyt, Which ever you prefer to be associated with.
> They in fact, the main financial support of the USAT and the RA's through their "unbiased" annual donations.
> Am I correct in that statement GT?


although i assume most of the posters on this forum know who George is,

I dont get your point. What is the point that GT is George? 

Because George works for Easton / Hoyt, his opinion is more valid? 


Chris


----------



## JaMag (Apr 13, 2007)

> although i assume most of the posters on this forum know who George is,
> 
> I dont get your point. What is the point that GT is George?
> 
> Because George works for Easton / Hoyt, his opinion is more valid?


Actually, No. I don't believe his opinion has any more validity than any other person on this site. To the contrary actually. 
It irritates me that this site is used by those that currently have a heavy handed corporate financial stake in what direction US Archery takes. 
IMO, this site should be used by Archers, for Archers who have a voting right in the direction of US Archery. 
If George, or Easton, or Hoyt want to have a say in the Archers community, let them post on their own forum. Or hold an open conference and invite all archers to participate.
But, I doubt that will ever happen.
Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.
-J


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

thank you for clarifying. I did not understand what you were saying or alluding to. 


Chris


----------



## JaMag (Apr 13, 2007)

NP, I should try and be more direct and not lower myself to GT's level.
I just get tired of seeing GT taking cheap shots at John.
John, has proven himself time and again.
And GT has no grounds to stand on.
-J


----------

