# Pro money, compound vs recurve, Help!



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

Just received my NFAA Archery Magazine for Dec.Jan. I turned to pages 31 and 41 and I read the amount of money being offered for prizes. A. Those amounts are high; boardering on obscene. B. Neither "sponsor" is offering any money for recurve. I read occassionally that recurve shooters are unwanted and a waste of time because there are so few of them and they don't deserve to be recognized as national champions. Well, how about this: we don't want Italians shooting, because there aren't that many of them, and because there are so few, we don't want to recognize them as national champions even if they score high enough. Put up 20K for recurve shooters and they'll be plenty to come out and shoot. C. The National Field Archery Association seems to be big on indoor shoots at a whoppingly long 18 meters (20 yards for you nonmeteric folks). I could be wrong, but I don't recall reading any big money prizes for an actual Field shoot. I could be wrong, as this is the second ever copy or issue of the magazine I have received. Which brings me to the question, is there any "big" prize money offered to the recurve shooters in field competition, or do we just want them to go away and pretend they don't or should not count for anything?

My points are: where is the money coming from? Why are recurve shooters shut out? Why the emphasis on indoor shooting at whippy-do-dah 18 meters?
Seems to me that there was a partnership with Easton and recurve was supposed to be in the mix. I guess that's not to be a reality until this summer or next year. Or are powers that are going to say, "Look at all the compound shooters we have in Vegas, and two recurvers. We need to get rid of them. Recurvers are a waste of valuable breathing air."

Yes, I shoot barebow recurve. Yes, I am an member of NFAA since July (I think, maybe August). Yes, I've shot compound and put in three kill shots in a row at 40 yards, and I lent my 38# take-down recurve to the compound bow owner who shook like a leaf trying to hold the shot, and put three shots in the 3-D deer's butt. In fact, I like compound shooters, honest, some bowhunters have chips on their shoulders, but compound shooter are cool. I just think recurvers are not warmly invited. And field shooting beats indoor any day of the week and twice on Sunday. So what gives here? There must be a history to this situation. Either NFAA supports field shooting with recurve and compound or not. Hoyt doesn't seem to. Ironically, my bow is a Hoyt Nexus with M1 limbs. Talk to me. What's the deal?


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

I think you are missing the point...

The money the companies are putting up....Martin, PSE, Hoyt, Mathews....is contingency money. It is for winning the PRO Division. Not the amateur classes. 

The prize money being won is from entry fees....if you want it in your class tell your recurve buddies to pay their money and go shoot....otherwise you can't complain.

It is just like comparing the FS Men Pro money to the FS Women Pro money....look at the #'s of shooters. There is a huge difference...perfect example on a small shoot...the LAS Classic which is in two weeks cost $150 to shoot man...woman...recurve...pins...whatever. The Mens Open class last year had 143 shooters, senior men open had 29, the womans class had 18, the pin class had 25, the limited class had 11...

still think there should be the same money?

It has nothing to do with not wanting recurve shooters....the # of barebow shooters isn't anywhere close to that of any other class. I know 3-4 people that shoot barebow recurve at National events...and a handful of people that shoot barebow compund... So if you think that Martin, Hoyt, PSE, Mathews or any other company is gonna just throw money at a class that never has more then 10-20 shooters (men and woman) at a major shoot you are kidding yourself.

There are to many classes as it is....there where over 50 Championship Bowls given out at indoor nationals this year....

Archery is about putting the arrow in the middle...nobody is forced to shoot any class. But I personaly like shooting the gear that I am the most accurate with. 

But are you shooting for money or fun? Because if you are shooting for money then turn PRO (they will gladly take your entry fee and I can find you a PRO sponsor)....shoot the gear you choose in OPEN CLASS/FS....and as I like to say....GO GET YOU SOME......


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

*Missed my major point. I wasn't clear. My bad.*

Okay, if Hoyt puts up 20K for compounder, and nothing for even their own manufactured recurves, then recurvers have nothing to show up for. If Hoyt stated that from now on they will have a recurve class with a $5,000 pot, plus whatever is put in from the entry fees of, say, $150.00 per shooter, then I do believe recurvers would sign up. 

That is my point. Is it fair to say, "Recurvers, you guys need to get 100 people and pitch in with your entry fees, and winner takes all, and be happy, shut up and leave . But Hoyt and Martin, etc. are spending tremendous amounts of money, but only for compound bows. Seems to me that the seed money ought to be spread out a little more. So, my conclusion is that the *companies*that are putting up the money have shut down the recurve bow, and that is that. And the compounders are happy because that is more for them, pros, wantabe pros, et al. I understand that. "Tis business, not personal." I get it.

My other point was that NFAA is National Field, and I don't see where the promotion of field archery is when the big money shoots are "indoors" and at 18 whole meters. I just do not know, are there big money field tournaments? Is Hoyt putting up 20K for the best field archer at XYZ Field Tournament? Just makes me wonder if the NFAA ought to be the NIAA, National Indoor Archery Association. 

Then I am wondering about the deal with EASTON and the NFAA, and their push, so I read, for renewed recurve shooting interest. Or shall it be, we don't want any recurvers here, there aren't enough of them, so give the money to the compounders instead. Then the cycle begins anew.

There must be some people who know the history of this situation. If I am new and see and wonder about this, then others might be. Just looking for information.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

rpdjr45 said:


> So, my conclusion is that the *companies*that are putting up the money have shut down the recurve bow, and that is that.


In point of fact, one of the companies mentioned above did shut down production of their Olympic/target recurve. Martin used to make the Aurora and limbs to go with it. They gave up on it three or four years ago and didn't replace it with anything.

As for the National Indoor Archery Association, that would seem to be a more accurate name than the one currently in use. NFAA puts on the outdoor nationals and lends its blessing to the outdoor sectionals but that about it for field. They sure aren't doing anything to promote it. In the 3-4 years I've been trying to bring it back in my area I have received ZERO help or encouragement from the NFAA, despite asking several times.

Dave


----------



## NEVADAPRO (Jul 5, 2007)

At most shoots there is an open class and it is open for a reason! Most recurve shooters that are shooting indoors are shooting as amateurs and can not earn over a certain amount of money a year in order to maintain that status! I do agree though that if there are enough recurve shooters to warrant a recurve division then they should pay! But the bottom line is, there has to be enough shooters to warrant a recurve division. I know that if 200 recurve shooters started showing up at the big shoots, they would pay!! You can't expect it to be the other way around! I was there when compounds started showing up at the Trop shoot (Vegas)! You should have heard the recurve guys!! Compound shooters were the Devil and they were all going to kill the sport! Guess what? The compound shooters didn't cry about it! They kept showing up and now it's the recurve shooters have to do the same thing!!

And by the way, 18 meters is not 20 yards...it's 18 yards, 1 foot, 9 inches!!


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

*18 meters = 20 yards.*

18= 20 yards in the new math. :wink:


----------



## NEVADAPRO (Jul 5, 2007)

rpdjr45 said:


> 18= 20 yards in the new math. :wink:


All math outta be that way!!! We should just round it off!!:wink: At Vegas, when I shoot the practice with my 20 yard mark, it only takes about 2 clicks (sorry OBT, I know it's 5 clicks!!:wink to be in the x ring, so it's not very much, that's for sure!!! God bless, Todd


----------



## NHSarcher (Oct 15, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> It has nothing to do with not wanting recurve shooters....
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Ravenshorn (Nov 1, 2006)

*Compound vs Recurve*

It isn’t because anyone wants to see the recurve go away. It all boils down to free-market economics. Currently the demand is for the compound and that is where the money is going to go. I shot recurve in the late 70s and enjoyed the heck out of it, but even then compounds dominated the ranges. Recurves were on their way out and compounds were on their way in. 

On the Indoor vs Outdoor thing. The indoor has been a part of the NFAA for the better part of its history. The intent was to provide a shooting venue for shooters to continue honing their skills during inclement weather. It’s just grown in popularity. Another venue that has taken it’s toll on the field round is 3-D. I’ll bet if you go through Archery Talk you’d find postings lamenting the demise of the field round due to 3-D as well. On a side note… if you think shooting at 18 meters (20 yards) is so easy, I’d like to know what your PB is shooting the NFAA 300 round with recurve?

In the unlimited classes people are willing to shoot with as many bells, whistles, plumb bobs, yoyos, and gyros as they can get on their bows and still hold it out at arms length. Archery companies love it because it gets their product out there. It’s all about the money and exposure gets the money. When people see me and my wife shoot they automatically want to know what equipment we use. They expect to see the magic bullet, sight, stabilizer, etc that will make their score improve. The very next thing they ask is “How much?” They don’t stop to think that we get our scores through the hours and hours of practice we put in.

Did you ever wonder why the compound has not been allowed in the Olympics? It sure isn’t because it is the most popular means of poking a stick into a bale at 90 meters. The fact of the mater is this… as soon as the compound is allowed into the Olympics, the recurve will go the way of the English long bow. When it does happen, several hundred years from now, our great-great-great grandchildren will watch crummy renaissance reenactments of recurve archers shooting their bows.

Hey! I bet 5,000 years ago the sling-shot shooters complained that the stick bow was drawing all the money away from their indoor cave shoots also…. What do you think?


----------



## stevegabriel (Apr 18, 2007)

To me the most obvious reasons are 1) hunting and 2) time.

I came back to archery 1 1/2 years ago after a 30+ year layoff. I wanted a recurve or longbow because I knew little or nothing about compounds and back in the 70's "the release" was just beginning to make an impact with the first 300's scored in the PAA events. There were arguments it should be outlawed at PAA tournaments!

FF to 2008. The main reason Archery exists as a sport in the USA is because of bowhunting. With a properly set up compound bow and competent instruction a new archer can be shooting 10" groups at 20 - 25 yards in a matter of hours and can be ready to hunt whitails in just a few months.
Shooting a stickbow using fingers? and no sights? A much longer learning curve before you're ready for the woods. 

So the average archer who is considering entering tournaments is a hunter that already owns a compound. He can invest time and money in technology he already understands and is already reasonably proficient with. Upgrading existing gear is easier than essentially starting over with a recurve.

In Europe, recurves/longbows are more popular than compounds since bowhunting is not as important in archery circles as it is in the US. Earlier this year at the IFAA world championships, there were 200+ longbow shooters using wood arrows, the largest group at the tournament! 

As long as bowhunting is the primary recruitment tool for new archers, the compound bow will dominate stickbows. After all, would you prefer to hunt a grizzly with a 70lb longbow, shooting 170 fps and holding that at full draw like Tred Barta, or would you rather use a 70 lb compound shooting 270 fps and hold 25 lbs at full draw? A hungry grizzly who's looking at you like a kitten looks at tender vittles...


----------

