# Olympic Archery Format: Do we need to change again?



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

Introduction/Summary

The current Olympic archery format of set-based tournament system is not the best method of determining the best archer on the field due to small number of arrows and possibility of an inferior archer fluking his/her way into the further round.
The pre-1988 format of double-FITA while ideal for determination of the most skilled archer, is tedious for spectators and not very TV/media friendly in terms of excitement
Adaptation of the format used by ISSF for shooting, aspects of which were used for 1988 Olympics, whereby top 8-16 athletes from qualification advance to the final with elimination of one archer at a time after several arrows may be an interesting alternative to provide enough of sample size to determine the best archer of the field while satisfying spectator's demand for excitement, tension and drama.

Now the Olympic competition is done, I wonder if this may be appropriate time to discuss the competition format. First of all, I would like to begin by congratulating Ms An, Mr Gazoz and all other medalists on their remarkable achievements, the event has been one to remember for ages. I do not want to take away nothing from their achievements.

I have never been a fan of the current single elimination format in the Olympic archery, even less of the current set system. This conviction has even become stronger since I started learning and practicing archery myself, as I came to understand how hard it is to increase skill at each level, with exponential efforts needed to climb to the next level of proficiency further you travel. With this perspective of personal experience in mind, I am now more confident than ever that the current system, while it may be good for entertainment of spectators, IS NOT conducive to determining the best, most skilled archer or team at the time of the competition. 

In the current system, an archer may win a match with say 20/20/30/30/30 over another archer scoring 29/29/29/29/29, by set score of 6-4. Total score out of 150 would be 130 vs 145. A question should be asked, whether the first archer is really the better archer deserving to progress to the next stage of the competition. I know it's an extreme of example but less drastic situation can and do occur occasionally. The principles of statistics tell us that the chance of this increase with fewer number of arrows, especially between international-level athletes with so little between them in skill levels. This can be somewhat overcome by designing for longer matches requiring more arrows and sets to be played, but World Archery have been moving away from those directions for several decades.

Another problem with the system is that the 70/720 qualification results have little relevance to the outcome of the whole competition. It is quite possible to come say 40th out of 64 archers in the field and with some luck aided by the system encouraging upsets due to small number of arrows can win the whole thing. There is next to no advantage in winning the qualification, not even a bye to second or third round as do happen in sports such as Fencing and other tournament-based sports. It is telling that the men's gold medal match was played by archers who posted 10th and 24th rank in the qualification. Again, I am not saying the finalists did not deserve to be there but one can ask whether they are the most consistent, skilled archers of the day.

Final major problem is to do with "tedious" nature of the tournament-based system. We want the competition to be fair and the general public want to see some upsets but they also want to see better archers to have a good chance of winning; that, in a nutshell is the essence of the sport competition. I wonder how many people would want to spend their time watching a match between 32nd vs 33rd in ranking. From the latest Olympic competition, it took 3 days of preliminaries to whittle the field of 64 down to 16, then a single day to play the finals. I am not privy to viewership data but I imagine the viewership in those three days weren't too great. 

So how do we solve this issue? The best solution as far as the archery as the sport is considered may be to have two separate championships, one based purely on results of an extended shooting session of 70/720, full FITA or double-FITA and another based on tournament with seeding based on World ranking, but we know IOC will not let archery gold medals to double anytime soon (with possible exception of Compound Archery introduced in 2028 LA). I also acknowledge that going back to pre-1988 model of double-FITA round determining the medals is not the best due to it being tedious and slow for the spectators, though I personally believe it is the best method for determining the best archer on the field. 

I found an interesting format in the 1988 Olympics, that of a full FITA round for qualification followed by four rounds of 36-arrow sessions, with the numbers being whittled from 24 to 18 to 12 down to 8 by the final round. That is a pretty good system, allowing for those with mediocre score on the FITA qualification for whatever reason to recover to challenge for the medals if he or she is really the best archer on the field. Unfortunately, this method doesn't solve our problem of the tournament being stretched for multiple days and can be still considered rather tedious for non-archer spectators having to monitor scores of up to 24 archers for 36 arrows. Also, some may argue that this allows for "too many" chances for dark horses, by allowing one person to say hover around top 10 spot for the majority of the tournament and coming back with a surprise/fluke performance in the final round to win the whole competition over someone who broke World records in all preceding rounds and just faltered a bit in the final to place second.

There is no perfect solution that will satisfy all archers and vast majority of general public/spectators but I believe the system currently adopted by ISSF for their Olympic shooting competition to be noteworthy. In a nutshell, in this system all shooters shoot a qualification round of say 40 or 60 shots, to get a score out of 400/600. The top 8 shooters qualify for the final. In an interesting change introduced from 2016, all 8 finalists are allowed 10 shots or so to determine ranking amongst them, then after a set of two further shot, the bottom-placed athlete is eliminated, then further two shots to eliminate the 7th placed shooter and so on; usually it takes 24 shots to determine the Champion in 8-shooter final (unless there are shoot-offs to break the ties). This kind of system allows for good interest and engagement by spectators as things can move quite quickly and mitigate the concerns from the current system of "inferior" archer progressing to the next round by fluking a couple of 9-15 arrows. This also incentivise performing well in the qualification round, making it much more difficult to fly under the radar by placing somewhere between 10th to 50th place; as the gap between athletes in top 10 or 20 are so narrow, it will "force" athletes to shoot their level best or risk not reaching the final. 

Of course, the ISSF system cannot be imported to archery without some modifications. For starters, culling all but 8 archers after single round of qualification may not go down so well; it is probably more reasonable to expand the final to say 12 or 16 archers. If we are to hypothetically allow 16 archers to advance to the final round from the qualification then allow them to shoot 12 arrows each (2 sets of 6-arrow ends or 4 sets of 3-arrow ends) then start elimination after one 3-arrow end (arrow 15), it will take 57 arrows (plus shoot-offs if there are ties for elimination) to determine the medalists; the whole competition can be done in one day after the qualification. Even with 8 finalists it will take 33 arrows. This provides a substantial sample size making it much more difficult for a "mediocre" archer to fluke his or her way to the medals. Due to elimination every few arrows, suspense and interest of the spectators will have a good chance of being maintained. In this system it may also be preferable to have all archers to shoot together within a set time limit (e.g., 20-40 seconds x number of arrows to be shot) rather than one archer shooting at a time, for the purpose of time organisation, suspense, and to eliminate real or imagined bias of rapidly changing wind conditions favouring some archers over others.

As an aside one may also consider introducing a semi-final round to have top 16-32 archers from the qualification fight for final spots, especially if the intentions are to have only few archers (e.g., 4 or 8) in the final. This is basically a pale, nerfed version of the 1988 system, and while workable, the semi-final itself will likely be dull, tedious for spectators, as it will likely have to take 36, 72 or 144 arrow cumulation round rather than sequential elimination proposed for the final.

Of course, this proposed competition format based on ISSF system is not perfect. For one thing there is no special privilege for coming first in the qualification as opposed to second or eighth. While one may consider having the finalists starting with a portion (e.g.,10%) of the qualification scores, this goes against the principle of a fair competition in the final round and will be harder to apply in archery compared to shooting as we do not officially use decimals to distinguish between different 9s or 10s other than X-tens. We also have to acknowledge that best qualifier in sports such as track athletics or swimming do not get any privilege in finals other than lane assignment, likes of which can probably be accommodated in archery as well. Upsets can still happen, but if a shooter comes on top after 57 arrows, is it really a fluke or is it simply that he or she was the better archer at that point in time, if not for majority of the previous Olympiad cycle? After all there is not a huge amount of difference in statistical power between 57 and 72 arrows, at least if you compare it against that of 9-15 arrows. I wonder what you people in the international archery community thinks of this idea, whether it is fair, workable, what are the pitfalls or whether it is a complete disaster of a delusional idiot. Thank you so much in advance!!


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

that's a wall of text there, i didn't read it all, but I agree this current system is not the best.

I was thinking this variation, keeping the 720 ranking round and elimination rounds.

*Give handicap bonus points based on the ranking round,*
+2 points for #1 to #16
+1 point for #16 to #32
#32 to #64 gets zero.

No set system, total points for 15 arrows.

So when #1 vs #64, #1 would have 2 points added to his total score.




I think it's a much better system, it would have saved me from losing all this money betting on Olympic archery this year.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

nakedape said:


> that's a wall of text there, i didn't read it all, but I agree this current system is not the best.
> 
> I was thinking this variation, keeping the 720 ranking round and elimination rounds.
> 
> ...


Sorry about length, I put the summary bit in the front so people can read few lines and decide if they want to go ahead.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

FWIW, I think archery would make a great gambling sport, like Keirin in Japan.


Maybe we can have a talk with the Korean Yakuza.

Anyone have Jo-Pok connection? PM me...


----------



## cgdubs (Jul 31, 2021)

nakedape said:


> that's a wall of text there, i didn't read it all, but I agree this current system is not the best.
> 
> I was thinking this variation, keeping the 720 ranking round and elimination rounds.
> 
> ...


Go USA!


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

720 x 2 Ranking round then Double Elimination.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

cgdubs said:


> Go USA!


To where?


----------



## Lumis17 (Jun 9, 2003)

IMO, there’s no way you can remove the spectator aspect because of the dollars. It’s much better TV by far; it even held my wife’s interest since every arrow means more. 

Overall, it works for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and it also works here. You’ll get upsets in the early and middle rounds, but by the time you get to the final 4 or 8 I don’t think you can say many of them don’t deserve to be champion. I think this head to head format places more emphasis on the mental side and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

TER said:


> To where?


To Space where Canadians will never go.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

nakedape said:


> To Space where Canadians will never go.


I didn't ask you, troll.


----------



## Joseph_A_Feiccabrino_Jr (Aug 1, 2021)

I am for a minimum score to be considered say a 280 out of 300.

Then a point system based on placing at tournaments held throughout the year. With required tournaments to qualify. Something like awarding 10 pts for winning a required tournament, 8 pts for second, 4pts for third, 1 pt for fourth. There should be 25 tournaments, participation in 20 is required. People get sick, have families, work... Total pts divided by the number of tournaments to adjust for the 5 allowed missed tournaments. The highest amount of adjusted points makes it to the team. The 25 tournaments to be held at various different locations in USA. This should provide the best archers in a variety of weather conditions and minimize the effects of lucky and bad days we all get from time to time


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

World archery thinks that having every match be a one arrow shoot off is great tv and great for spectators. Thats why they cut the shooting time from 40 to 20 seconds and implemented the set system which lets a bad shot have less value and keep the matches close. This with variable wind and conditions gives many upsets, as we just saw in the Olympics. World archery isnt interested to change anything.

With so many shootoffs to decide matches at the Olympics, World Archery was gleefully clapping each time.

World archery isnt interested to find the best archer of the day, they are interested in giving the spectator a close match that is a toss up at any moment. 

Chris


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

Joseph_A_Feiccabrino_Jr said:


> I am for a minimum score to be considered say a 280 out of 300.


280 out of 300 would be equivalent to 672 out of 720.

Let's make it 670.

That would be 8 men and 4 women who scored 670+ this Olympic in the ranking rounds.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> With so many shootoffs to decide matches at the Olympics, World Archery was gleefully clapping each time.
> 
> World archery isnt interested to find the best archer of the day, they are interested in giving the spectator a close match that is a toss up at any moment.


maybe...

the media likes to build up stars.

WA had a one hour documentary for Brady and multiple promos.

NBC also.

To have his run end early is not good.

Same goes for Kim JD. They were hyping him up from his early wins in team and mixed.

I think WA would prefer having Brady and Kim JD in the finals.


----------



## cerelestecerele (Aug 5, 2019)

Like what Lumis17 importantly said, the current match format has the ability to make my otherwise uninterested partner and family to feel some excitement when watching a match, and to want to watch a match to the end - even more so with the team matches. Watching a qualification round, even in person, ranks about the same as paint drying for them.
So I think individual and team matches, where it's clear who to watch since only one person shoots at a time, are here to stay. However single elimination (the current system) is only good at finding the gold medalist, and not silver and bronze. All three medals count towards the tables however so it's worth using a system that gives a clear 2nd and 3rd place as well.

However, I think the qualification round should involve a target list change halfway through, like how football teams change sides at half time. Having each archer move half the field to one side (so edge to middle or middle to edge) would give everyone similar overall wind exposure and get rid of most of the arguments about the qualification being unfair due to the target assignments offering an advantage. 

The other inherent issue is how both 2nd and 3rd place archers have won and lost the same number of matches and there's no way to get silver if you start on the same side of the bracket as the eventual gold medalist. Likewise, there's a lot of "X was beaten by Y in an early match and Y went on to win gold so maybe X would've progressed to a medal match otherwise".
Both of these would be fixed by using a double elimination system with only the top 32 archers instead. Due to the cut, the qualification round would regain some of its meaning, and the same number of matches would happen as before. So someone who lost an early match (maybe to the eventual winner) would have a second chance to prove themselves. The silver medalist would have lost one match and the bronze would have lost two matches, one against the silver medalist and one earlier on.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

I see some who prefer status quo (nothing wrong with that opinion) keep narrating supposed merits of the current system but not really critiquing this proposal or other methods, neither are they taking part in the poll.



Lumis17 said:


> IMO, there’s no way you can remove the spectator aspect because of the dollars. It’s much better TV by far; it even held my wife’s interest since every arrow means more.
> 
> Overall, it works for the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and it also works here. You’ll get upsets in the early and middle rounds, but by the time you get to the final 4 or 8 I don’t think you can say many of them don’t deserve to be champion. I think this head to head format places more emphasis on the mental side and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.


I am very aware of the need to keep the spectator aspect and explained how we might achieve that while giving better statistical credibility.



chrstphr said:


> World archery thinks that having every match be a one arrow shoot off is great tv and great for spectators. Thats why they cut the shooting time from 40 to 20 seconds and implemented the set system which lets a bad shot have less value and keep the matches close. This with variable wind and conditions gives many upsets, as we just saw in the Olympics. World archery isnt interested to change anything.
> 
> With so many shootoffs to decide matches at the Olympics, World Archery was gleefully clapping each time.
> 
> ...


If what you are saying is true, that they aren't interested in finding the best archer of the day, they do not serve any purpose of existing, do they? I hope it's not as bad as that...



nakedape said:


> maybe...
> 
> the media likes to build up stars.
> 
> ...


I personally agree that final match-up would've garnered more interest and excitement, and wouldn't be surprised if that's what World Archery had in mind they are not making it easy.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

cerelestecerele said:


> Like what Lumis17 importantly said, the current match format has the ability to make my otherwise uninterested partner and family to feel some excitement when watching a match, and to want to watch a match to the end - even more so with the team matches. Watching a qualification round, even in person, ranks about the same as paint drying for them.
> So I think individual and team matches, where it's clear who to watch since only one person shoots at a time, are here to stay. However single elimination (the current system) is only good at finding the gold medalist, and not silver and bronze. All three medals count towards the tables however so it's worth using a system that gives a clear 2nd and 3rd place as well.
> 
> However, I think the qualification round should involve a target list change halfway through, like how football teams change sides at half time. Having each archer move half the field to one side (so edge to middle or middle to edge) would give everyone similar overall wind exposure and get rid of most of the arguments about the qualification being unfair due to the target assignments offering an advantage.
> ...


I took quite a bit of time explaining why the formats such as double-FITA is not appropriate despite it being the gold standard to determine the most skilled archer due to its dull nature and lack of appeal to the spectators; the current format certainly is better for that. But that doesn't mean that is the only way to ensure the spectator interest/excitement, and that's what this idea about, how to ensure both spectator interest and statistical validity of having a good chance of finding the best archer in the field. 

I find your input on double-elimination system interesting; while it doesn't solve all the problems of the current system, it will certainly be a step in the right direction.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

It seems WA takes a micro view on this—make a couple minutes of paint drying seem competitive.

It really needs a macro approach. That should start with a self-serving cycle:

Ultimately they want ad/sponsor money (along with sport viability). To get that you need viewership numbers and sport participation. To get that you need viewers to get invested. To get that you need athletes that viewers can get invested in long-term. To get that you need the same athletes appearing in finals creating familiarity and drama. To get that you need to eliminate the random outcomes of competition (aka the best should always rise to the top, with some opportunity for underdogs).

The human drama needs to drive this sport (rivalries), that will come from consistently having the same names compete.

Often it seems like an archer out of nowhere wins a major event then then drops off the map the next year.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

They don’t have to televise the entirety of a double FITA or any at all, use it as the tool for elimination. Make the 30m the last distance and televise that. Do a 4-person h2h match with the top 4 from the double fita. Many options.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

kshet26 said:


> It seems WA takes a micro view on this—make a couple minutes of paint drying seem competitive.
> 
> It really needs a macro approach. That should start with a self-serving cycle:
> 
> ...


While I abhor ideas such as cheating or match-fixing to ensure the desired outcome, I agree the highest-ranked or "best on paper" archer rising to the finals of majority (but not all) of major competition sells well. This idea would increase the chance of highest-ranked archers reaching the final while retaining the chances for upset. I am quite good with your idea of the final involving only four archers and yes, that will allow even round-robin, though I imagine that will be even less popular as it will likely have at least two Koreans and Ellison vast majority of times, so no emotional investment from most other countries.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Yeah the intention is to let the best self-select through sustained performance, that should naturally happen.

Agreed that the top likely containing Koreans (rightfully) at least until some money starts flowing allowing countries more growth.

Let’s say the last event for medals comes down to the 30m of a double FITA, they could follow golf and just focus on the leaders/favorites. (The added benefit is that 30m is more spectator friendly and accommodating by municipal facilities than 70m).

Or take the top 8 from the double for elims.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

I think the best option would be switching the format from target to field then having a shootoff among the top eight with the shootoff score determining the medal order. Televising the ranking round would be interesting given the variety of shots and the final would be good viewing without the set system. Also as previous world fields have demonstrated, even the best archers can get tripped up having to estimate distance or make cuts when shooting at an angle.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Actually, I’d be interested in a double fita (highlight recaps). Then take the top 8 for a modified fita (3 ends each distance, winners of each distance assigned points, total assigned points determines winner). That would be interesting re: short game archers v long game.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

While I think we're all loathe to admit it, the olympics isn't about finding the very best archer in the world. It's about growing the sport when the world is watching (non-endemic potential sponsors too). We've got all the world cup events to find the best archer -- these events are for us, the people already invested. The olympic format should reflect this priority.


----------



## Sydneyphoenix (Jan 4, 2020)

Rael84 said:


> I think the best option would be switching the format from target to field then having a shootoff among the top eight with the shootoff score determining the medal order. Televising the ranking round would be interesting given the variety of shots and the final would be good viewing without the set system. Also as previous world fields have demonstrated, even the best archers can get tripped up having to estimate distance or make cuts when shooting at an angle.


Sounds interesting. I admit I know next to nothing about field archery, are you thinking of field archery replacing target archery or as a separate event? 



kshet26 said:


> Actually, I’d be interested in a double fita (highlight recaps). Then take the top 8 for a modified fita (3 ends each distance, winners of each distance assigned points, total assigned points determines winner). That would be interesting re: short game archers v long game.


Sounds similar to 1988 Olympic format, except the deletion of quarter and semi-final group elimination rounds. That will certainly work, are you thinking of sequential elimination in final round too?



Rael84 said:


> While I think we're all loathe to admit it, the olympics isn't about finding the very best archer in the world. It's about growing the sport when the world is watching (non-endemic potential sponsors too). We've got all the world cup events to find the best archer -- these events are for us, the people already invested. The olympic format should reflect this priority.


That's fair. But I wonder if we have to necessarily sacrifice the goal of crowning the most skilled archer as the Olympic champion while pursuing the growth of interest in archery among the public.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

I think field should replace target archery. You could do similar formats (women's, men's, teams, mixed teams). The teams format would have even more import with teammates communicating how to approach the target.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

I guess the difficultly with this discussion is the definition of the "better" archer? What is the "better" archer? Someone that can plug away at 144 arrows and get the best total score? Or someone that can control their mind in a shoot off and get the highest score? (Lots of archers shot poorly in shoot offs, even compared to the shots during the match.) Or something in between? Is an archer that shots three nines to get 27 better or worse than an archer getting 27 with an 9-10-8? Right now, those archers are equivalent. 

Once you change the rules, you bias one type of archer over another. Tennis changed the rules because they did not like dominance of Pete Sampras. Strong serves were simply marginalized in the sport. 

So, what makes an archer great? Once you have that, what are the rules that test the skills needed to determine that?

Also, to marginalize the appeal of a sport to an audience is odd. We all agree ranking rounds are really dull. I certainly did not get into archery because I saw a bunch of people shooting a lot of arrows. I got in because of watching the tournaments. And there is a lot to chose from. If you don't like the set system, try WA Field that uses cumulative scores. There is still a final in the medals.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Same discussion after every major event where the participants’ favorite athletes don’t win. 😄 i’ll bet they’re not complaining in Turkey. Or Korea.

I was strongly against the changes to total points when they first came out back in the late ‘80s. Grand FITA, total point matches, the hit/miss for compounds, and now the set system. But I have to admit, it’s certainly the most watchable format so far.

Yes, in some cases an archer with a lower overall score wins. 20-20-30-30-30 will beat 29-29-29-29-29-29.

But in other sports, say the baseball World Series, a team that wins the first three games 10-0 but loses the next four 2-1 does outscore the opponents 33-8, but will lose. Nobody complains. A 100m racer who runs under 9.80 in several heats but has a bad start in the final can lose it all. A fighting sports athlete can dominate a match but lose it all with one bad move. It happens, and it’s part of the game.

This is how the world archery body has decided after many years and lots of consideration what determines the “best”. Archers know what the game is, and train for it, and accept the result.

Sure, discuss. Make suggestions. But keep in mind that watchability and excitement is what puts sports into the Olympics and keeps them there. People want the tension of it coming down to the last arrow. They don’t like to watch blowouts. A 30 point lead with 2 minutes left in a basketball game doesn’t keep people glued to the TV.


----------



## cgdubs (Jul 31, 2021)

TER said:


> To where?


To the Olympics!


----------



## cgdubs (Jul 31, 2021)

chrstphr said:


> World archery thinks that having every match be a one arrow shoot off is great tv and great for spectators. Thats why they cut the shooting time from 40 to 20 seconds and implemented the set system which lets a bad shot have less value and keep the matches close. This with variable wind and conditions gives many upsets, as we just saw in the Olympics. World archery isnt interested to change anything.
> 
> With so many shootoffs to decide matches at the Olympics, World Archery was gleefully clapping each time.
> 
> ...


What would you suggest instead of one arrow shoot off.


----------



## cgdubs (Jul 31, 2021)

Rael84 said:


> While I think we're all loathe to admit it, the olympics isn't about finding the very best archer in the world. It's about growing the sport when the world is watching (non-endemic potential sponsors too). We've got all the world cup events to find the best archer -- these events are for us, the people already invested. The olympic format should reflect this priority.


Yes because you have to compete with many other sports people might watch instead. Watching someone flip around in gymnastics has a lot more visually going on so you have to build the hype over a shoot off.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

nakedape said:


> To Space where Canadians will never go.


See the list of Canadian Astronauts who have gone to space. Even when you are trying to get smart you just show how ignorant you are.






Canadian Astronaut Corps - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

cgdubs said:


> What would you suggest instead of one arrow shoot off.


I hate the set system and think they should go back to total points scored. Archery is not tennis.

If a one arrow shoot off is needed, i think both archers should shoot at the same time in the same wind and in the same time allotment. I think the shooting time should be changed back to 40 seconds so if you have a limb failure, you have time to get your spare bow and still shoot the shot.

With the current one arrow shootoff, having them alternate in changing wind throws a coin flip up in the air. Why not have them shoot 3 arrows instead of a one arrow shootoff?

I also think only scoring to 5 set points in the team round and mixed team round is too short and lessens the value of those rounds. Why does individual shoot for 6 set points and teams do not? Why not have it the same for all?

Chris


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> Why not have them shoot 3 arrows instead of a one arrow shootoff?


confusing for TV


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

chrstphr said:


> Why not have them shoot 3 arrows instead of a one arrow shootoff?


Because they have already done that for five ends and that did not decide the match. And then what do you do for a 27 that could be 9-9-9 or 10-9-8? A single arrow is clean.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> I personally agree that final match-up would've garnered more interest and excitement, and wouldn't be surprised if that's what World Archery had in mind they are not making it easy.


They were hoping for Brady vs Woojin at the 1/8 round

They had to edit it twice because of the upsets. They gave up after that... LOL


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> 720 x 2 Ranking round then Double Elimination.


This.

Double elim is the only way this sport can be taken seriously in the Olympic games. The current format is a joke.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Sydneyphoenix said:


> I took quite a bit of time explaining why the formats such as double-FITA is not appropriate despite it being the gold standard to determine the most skilled archer due to its dull nature and lack of appeal to the spectators; the current format certainly is better for that. But that doesn't mean that is the only way to ensure the spectator interest/excitement, and that's what this idea about, how to ensure both spectator interest and statistical validity of having a good chance of finding the best archer in the field.
> 
> I find your input on double-elimination system interesting; while it doesn't solve all the problems of the current system, it will certainly be a step in the right direction.


As I've said before - I introduced double elimination into the Texas State Outdoor event years ago. It was an immediate hit and the tension/drama was off the charts. 

Without it, this is nothing more than a crap-shoot every four years.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

Hikari said:


> Once you change the rules, you bias one type of archer over another. Tennis changed the rules because they did not like dominance of Pete Sampras. Strong serves were simply marginalized in the sport.


What rules did tennis change?

Nadal have suggested abolishing the second serve.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> Double elim is the only way this sport can be taken seriously in the Olympic games. The current format is a joke.


no serious competition use double elim.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

nakedape said:


> You guys would never have gone if we didn't bring you guys along.
> 
> Next time, take the China spaceship.


LOL, I corrected you, showed you to be wrong, and you still disagree and insist you must be right somehow. Typical low tactics of an insincere (dishonest) person.



chrstphr said:


> With the current one arrow shootoff, having them alternate in changing wind throws a coin flip up in the air. Why not have them shoot 3 arrows instead of a one arrow shootoff?
> 
> I also think only scoring t 5 set points in the team round and mixed team round is too short and lessens the value of those rounds. Why does individual shoot for 6 set points and teams do not? Why not have it the same for all?
> 
> Chris


I'm thinking Chris may have meant 3 arrow shoot off with the one arrow closest to the centre winning? Think how exciting that shoot off would be. Three times the second shooting archer responds to the first shooter. 

And I also wonder why Team Event is only 5 set points rather than three? Does anyone here remember the reasoning behind that decision when it was made?


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

nakedape said:


> What rules did tennis change?
> 
> Nadal have suggested abolishing the second serve.


It was a technology change to make the ball slower.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

Hikari said:


> It was a technology change to make the ball slower.


ok, I didn't know they changed.

I know the ping pong balls got bigger to slow the game down.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

TER said:


> I'm thinking Chris may have meant 3 arrow shoot off with the one arrow closest to the centre winning? Think how exciting that shoot off would be. Three times the second shooting archer responds to the first shooter.


I like that idea! It would prolong the drama of the shootoff. 
But at the same time, they are trying to keep the match from stretching out too long.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

It does seem the one of the highest priorities of World Archery is to shorten the amount of time everything takes.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

TER said:


> It does seem the one of the highest priorities of World Archery is to shorten the amount of time everything takes.


Meanwhile, we can all suffer through hours of beach volleyball in the round of 16.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

limbwalker said:


> Meanwhile, we can all suffer through hours of beach volleyball in the round of 16.


Well, at least their athletes jump around. The most we have is a spinning bow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> Well, at least their athletes jump around. The most we have is a spinning bow.


sigh. the amount of coverage that beach volleyball gets these days is my personal pet peeve. Nothing against the athletes, but geez almighty all the other sports they could be showing in prime time. Round of 16? Really?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

TER said:


> It does seem the one of the highest priorities of World Archery is to shorten the amount of time everything takes.


176 matches done one after another does make for long days. Maybe not for the athletes, but for the officials, staff and volunteers.

I posted that I had a hard time believing they could run these matches 13 minutes apart, but they did a great job on that. The only serious delays were the technical scoring problem, and if course, the postponement due to weather.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

Stash said:


> Same discussion after every major event where the participants’ favorite athletes don’t win. 😄 i’ll bet they’re not complaining in Turkey. Or Korea.


Pretty sure on Korean Archerytalk, there is a Korean Limbsaver who is already complaining why the 3 Korean men failed so badly after doing so well in the ranking rounds.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Well, there are jerks everywhere...I thought all of ours were in A&E, but obviously I was mistaken.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

LOL, another "expert".


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> 176 matches done one after another does make for long days. Maybe not for the athletes, but for the officials, staff and volunteers.
> 
> I posted that I had a hard time believing they could run these matches 13 minutes apart, but they did a great job on that. The only serious delays were the technical scoring problem, and if course, the postponement due to weather.


If this is a problem, then just take the top 32 in the ranking round, and run double elim's from that group. Unless of course, there has ever been an Olympic champion from out of the 33-64 archers in the raking round?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

nakedape said:


> Pretty sure on Korean Archerytalk, there is a Korean Limbsaver who is already complaining why the 3 Korean men failed so badly after doing so well in the ranking rounds.


Your beloved Koreans tho... How dare they.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> sigh. the amount of coverage that beach volleyball gets these days is my personal pet peeve. Nothing against the athletes, but geez almighty all the other sports they could be showing in prime time. Round of 16? Really?


Come on, John, you’re surprised at the coverage? If these women didn’t all have like zero percent body fat, it would be on year-round.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Come on, John, you’re surprised at the coverage? If these women didn’t all have like zero percent body fat, it would be on year-round.


It's boring af to watch tho. Sorry, just my opinion. I hate that a few sports take up so much time from so many other interesting sports.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> Your beloved Koreans tho... How dare they.


yeah, I would find them and deport them to North Korea.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

limbwalker said:


> It's boring af to watch tho. Sorry, just my opinion. I hate that a few sports take up so much time from so many other interesting sports.


Not sure why volleyball is in your sights. Baseball would top my list..and not just in this decade...or century...


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

I hate team sports in general, unless it's over a net.

I say get rid of soccer, baseball/softball, basketball, rugby, and handball.

and that goofy mixed team triathlon.


----------



## ItsJim (Jul 29, 2016)

At the rate things are going, I'm thinking Corn Hole may become a new Olympic event...


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Mixed Team Cornhole.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Mixed Team Cornhole.


And you'd eventually watch that too.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Actually, I’ve always wondered why some sort of just plain “Throwing” for accuracy event wasn’t a major international sport. 

Something basic, like a wall with a hole in it, say, 25 meters away, and you throw a ball 25 times, most in the hole wins. Make the hole a bit larger than the ball, and use a standard ball you can get anywhere (billiard or snooker ball would be good for throwing), and this could be played virtually anywhere at little expense.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

How is that different from Olympic recurve?

😁

Except, an Olympic recurve rig looks cool...


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

Stash said:


> Actually, I’ve always wondered why some sort of just plain “Throwing” for accuracy event wasn’t a major international sport.


dart? bowling?



> Something basic, like a wall with a hole in it, say, 25 meters away, and you throw a ball 25 times, most in the hole wins. Make the hole a bit larger than the ball, and use a standard ball you can get anywhere (billiard or snooker ball would be good for throwing), and this could be played virtually anywhere at little expense.


And you would call it? Gloryhole?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I’d call it “Throwing”. 

Duh.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

nakedape said:


> To Space where Canadians will never go.


You need to get more info before posting.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

nakedape said:


> confusing for TV


How so? The other ends are 3 arrows. How would the audience not be confused with regular set play, and suddenly be confused by the shootoff? 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Hikari said:


> Because they have already done that for five ends and that did not decide the match. And then what do you do for a 27 that could be 9-9-9 or 10-9-8? A single arrow is clean.


then if tied, closest to the X decides. Same as for the one arrow shootoff. What do they do now when both shoot a 10? 


Chris


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Archery is not a spectator friendly sport, but single elimination with a set system definitely makes it more so. This Olympics was good entertainment.

It feels like a desire to change it is based on the belief that someone else should have won. But that’s not a good reason.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

I would change nothing, in any sports for Olympics. You have a limited time to show you are better than your opponent when all is on the line. Otherwise, all that “each arrow counts” mindset is worthless.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Stash said:


> Same discussion after every major event where the participants’ favorite athletes don’t win. 😄 i’ll bet they’re not complaining in Turkey. Or Korea.
> 
> I was strongly against the changes to total points when they first came out back in the late ‘80s. Grand FITA, total point matches, the hit/miss for compounds, and now the set system. But I have to admit, it’s certainly the most watchable format so far.
> 
> ...


television revenues now dictate the format of the olympics rather than determining the best athlete. Plus the Olympics are being cluttered up with "sports" that are more about sex appeal than athletic competition. We have been told for years that "duplication of skills" is what keeps compound archery or BB archery out of the olympics but we all know that is complete BS. Three on three basketball, beach volleyball and the trampoline events all violate that rule but since they are more TV friendly (and when a sport"requires bikinis you know its not pure athletics that are increasing its popularity), they are added to the games while the worldwide sport of squash is not included, even though its top athletes are among the most agile and fittest athletes on the planet.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

Jim C said:


> (and when a sport"requires bikinis you know its not pure athletics that are increasing its popularity), they are added to the games while the worldwide sport of squash is not included, even though its top athletes are among the most agile and fittest athletes on the planet.


First of all, you are wrong about beach volley, the women are not required to wear bikinis, that is their preference. Not pure athletics? LOL, they are sure way more athletic than Olympic archers. There were quite a few overweight archers at this Olympics. I wouldn't be surprised if a third of them can't do a 10-minute mile.

Yeah and there are many good reasons why squatch and raquetball don't get any TV time.

And yes "duplication of skills" is exactly correct. Nobody wants to watch all three different types of bow events. Even majority of archers have their own bias/preference towards one form of archery.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> How so? The other ends are 3 arrows. How would the audience not be confused with regular set play, and suddenly be confused by the shootoff?
> 
> Chris



If I understand ur proposed idea, shootoff, 3 arrows, total score and if u tie, closest arrow.

so shooter A has 9/9/9, shooter B has 10/9/8, B would win?

The viewers would think that's unfair.....


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

FerrumVeritas said:


> It feels like a desire to change it is based on the belief that someone else should have won. But that’s not a good reason.


That is a very good reason when you know that the person who lost is a better, more skilled archer.

It's like having the NBA playoffs, and instead of best-of-seven, you just make it one game to 30.

That's essentially what you are having with the current format.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

nakedape said:


> First of all, you are wrong about beach volley, the women are not required to wear bikinis, that is their preference. Not pure athletics? LOL, they are sure way more athletic than Olympic archers. There were quite a few overweight archers at this Olympics. I wouldn't be surprised if a third of them can't do a 10-minute mile.
> 
> Yeah and there are many good reasons why squatch and raquetball don't get any TV time.
> 
> And yes "duplication of skills" is exactly correct. Nobody wants to watch all three different types of bow events. Even majority of archers have their own bias/preference towards one form of archery.


so it was the handball women who were fined for not wearing bikinis? ok sure. if you dislike archery so much, why are you on this board basically trolling other posters. You also don't seem to understand there are many different types of athletic skills. I played volleyball in college. beach volleyball is essentially where over the hill real volleyball players go to make money


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Draven Olary said:


> I would change nothing, in any sports for Olympics. You have a limited time to show you are better than your opponent when all is on the line. Otherwise, all that “each arrow counts” mindset is worthless.


like the marathon or the numerous "pools" for basketball and beach volleyball?

the fact is, the old format picked the best archer. the current system is purely for TV revenues.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

nakedape said:


> That is a very good reason when you know that the person who lost is a better, more skilled archer.
> 
> It's like having the NBA playoffs, and instead of best-of-seven, you just make it one game to 30.
> 
> That's essentially what you are having with the current format.


Wow, we're in agreement here. Earlier I compared it to playing one round of 18 holes for a medal, but this comparison works well too. 

Simon Fairweather called it in 2004 - He said it's like playing "rock-paper-scissors for a gold medal."


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Regarding the duplication of skills argument, I would love to see compound indoor included. Everyone knows that next to Olympic recurve at 70M, indoor compound is the most competitive most elite form of that sport and has been for decades. What those folks are trying to do (not miss ever) indoors is nothing short of amazing and I put it right up there with what Olympic recurve archers are attempting to do in the wind at 70 meters. I also think the Vegas-style shoot-off makes for great television. If anything should be in next for archery, it should be indoor compound.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Jim C said:


> like the marathon or the numerous "pools" for basketball and beach volleyball?
> 
> the fact is, the old format picked the best archer. the current system is purely for TV revenues.


I think there are best archers in ranking, and then there are best archers in head to head matchplay, and they aren't necessarily the same archers. This is pretty easy to see by the dominance of the Korean men in ranking over the years, but the less than dominant performance in the matchplay. Some of that is format, as I've argued before myself, but not all of it. We've seen enough iterations of Korean men ranking very high and not placing high in the matchplay to have sorted out that it's not just the format. The matchplay is much more of a mental game.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

But who is to say that best of 7 or a full double FITA round is what defines the “best” basketball team or best archer?

Take running. If we decide that the “best” runner is the one who can win a 1OK, does that mean that Usain Bolt was only the greatest at rock-paper-scissors running? Just because golf is generally 4 rounds of stroke play, does it mean that the winner of a match play event isn’t the “best”?

All that we have done is change our arbitrary definition of “best” in archery. An and Gazoz were the “best”. Deal with it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> But who is to say that best of 7 or a full double FITA round is what defines the “best” basketball team or best archer?
> 
> Take running. If we decide that the “best” runner is the one who can win a 1OK, does that mean that Usain Bolt was only the greatest at rock-paper-scissors running? Just because golf is generally 4 rounds of stroke play, does it mean that the winner of a match play event isn’t the “best”?
> 
> All that we have done is change our arbitrary definition of “best” in archery. An and Gazoz were the “best”. Deal with it.


They were the best in that format, using your logic above.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

An and Gazoz probably would have won in a double elim format as well. If the could not I would say they were less “best” on that day than the current system suggested. 

I think the final 8 including so few of the high ranked archers indicates a problem with the system. Certainly lower ranked shooters should have a chance but I think we have gone too far in the direction of chance over skill. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Exactly. So all we’ve done in Archery is take 2 formats, one the full round total points, one the match play. And we’ve simply dropped the full round total points game. We still have an event that finds the best archer. In that format.

My objection is not that the full round format is gone, it’s that people are saying that An and Gazoz (or whoever wins) are not necessarily the “best” archers at the Olympics. They are, just like the 100m winner is the “best”. The only complaint is that we no longer do the archery equivalent of the 10K.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Exactly. So all we’ve done in Archery is take 2 formats, one the full round total points, one the match play. And we’ve simply dropped the full round total points game. We still have an event that finds the best archer. In that format.
> 
> My objection is not that the full round format is gone, it’s that people are saying that An and Gazoz (or whoever wins) are not necessarily the “best” archers at the Olympics. They are, just like the 100m winner is the “best”. The only complaint is that we no longer do the archery equivalent of the 10K.


Not a good analogy. The training requirements and body types/abilities for a 100m vs. 10k are completely different. In archery, we have 64 people all doing the same exact thing.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

As an analogy, it’s fine. Analogies are not comparisons.

Like in running, we have long event “best” runners and short event “best runners. The Olympics happens to have both (and a lot of others on between). As does swimming and other sports. Yes, different training, different body types, are more successful in different types of events, but so what?

In archery we have long-event “best” archers, and short event “best” archers. Sometimes the same archers excel at both, sometimes not. Maybe we use the same physical training for both, but there are clearly different mental skills and training for the different events. The Olympics just happens to have only the short events. Doesn’t mean that the winners aren’t the “best” archers - the Olympics just happens to only have a game that finds the “best” short-event archers.

I don’t think there would be any interest at the administrative level of having a total score Olympic medal as well as a match-play Olympic medal.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Is there anyone who denies that the reason for the change to this match play was for TV revenues rather than improving upon finding the "best" archer

ask any golfer in the world-if you had a chance to play the world #1 in Golf for a million dollars, would you rather play him in a 36 hole match or one hole?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> As an analogy, it’s fine. Analogies are not comparisons.
> 
> Like in running, we have long event “best” runners and short event “best runners. The Olympics happens to have both (and a lot of others on between). As does swimming and other sports. Yes, different training, different body types, are more successful in different types of events, but so what?
> 
> ...


Not what I'm suggesting at all, but it seems we've gone from one extreme to the other. Somewhere in the middle is probably the right answer.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Not what I'm suggesting at all, but it seems we've gone from one extreme to the other. Somewhere in the middle is probably the right answer.


do what they do for field. I remember when Jay Barrs-top seed in an AZ cup about 23 years ago got upset by the lowest seed-a guy who, IIRC shot more 10s in the 18 arrow match than he did the first day of the FITA, and Barrs was out despite having scored 200 points more than the guy who beat him. BTW IIRC that archer was beaten rather badly in the next round


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

If you ran 100 races of 100m you would probably get the same winners much more often than running 100 of our elimination tournaments. Our elim rounds are more like running a bunch of sprints back to back. In track the top 8 all compete together. It really is not a great analogy. 

Regardless, the purpose of increasing TV interest would be better served with a cut to 8 and double elimination. You get the drama and you get the high profile names plus the comeback possibilities. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

Jim C said:


> Is there anyone who denies that the reason for the change to this match play was for TV revenues rather than improving upon finding the "best" archer


I think is what is lacking is whether the current rules don't result in choosing the "best" archer. It seems that people simply want to bias the sport in a different way to achieve a different outcome because they did not like this one, but there is little evidence that a different or even "better" outcome would result. At least no one has presented any evidence.

You might be able to blame TV revenues, but I got interested in archery because of watching matches. It can be exciting. So you think making archery dull is better for the sport? (If I want to be bored, I can always watch baseball or cricket.)


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Hikari said:


> I think is what is lacking is whether the current rules don't result in choosing the "best" archer. It seems that people simply want to bias the sport in a different way to achieve a different outcome because they did not like this one, but there is little evidence that a different or even "better" outcome would result. At least no one has presented any evidence.
> 
> You might be able to blame TV revenues, but I got interested in archery because of watching matches. It can be exciting. So you think making archery dull is better for the sport? (If I want to be bored, I can always watch baseball or cricket.)


Our sometimes present TV commentator said for years that the Olympics would have cut archery-in favor of yet another artistic presentations where leotards or bikinis were the dress code and judges awarded the scores-if archery had not gone to a more TV friendly presentation. That leads to another issue-is picking the best archer more important than having archery in the Olympics, or is keeping the TV Gods who run the Olympics happy, more important?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

nakedape said:


> If I understand ur proposed idea, shootoff, 3 arrows, total score and if u tie, closest arrow.
> 
> so shooter A has 9/9/9, shooter B has 10/9/8, B would win?
> 
> The viewers would think that's unfair.....


the one with the ten would win since its closest to the center.

Do viewers think its unfair when the one arrow shootoff results in two tens and the one that wins is the closest one to center which actually happened at Tokyo?

Are you serious or just trolling? This is not difficult to understand.


Chris


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

chrstphr said:


> the one with the ten would win since its closest to the center.


And that is kind of the problem. The 9-9-9 score actually points to being from the better archer. But this could simply be decided with a single arrow per the current rules. The arrow closest to the center. No need for three arrows.


----------



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

> *Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás: *Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


Some of you who are more recently joining the sport may not be aware that the IOC was set to discontinue archery in the Olympic Games after 1992.

(Some of you who have been in the sport for a while should be aware of this).

Reality check: The Olympic Games are, first and foremost, an event and a business built around the requirements of television and TV audiences. Full stop.

Some of us might wish it were for more altruistic reasons, as it arguably was, a century ago, or wish that it were not so, but that is the reality, and millions of people in 200 countries benefit from this business. 

The TV-friendly format changes that then-FITA president Jim Easton led, working with NBC, after the 1988 Games and implemented for Barcelona ‘92, are the primary reasons that the sport is not only still in the program, but has been upgraded to Group C in terms of IOC revenue sharing (after London 2012).

Quite simply, those of you enjoying archery now, are here primarily because of those efforts- because if Olympic archery had been dropped from the program, your odds of finding a place to participate, instruction to improve your proficiency, equipment you could afford, and opportunities to compete, would be as close to zero as you can possibly imagine.

As far as pronouncements and theories about “improving the round for television”, comments like this…



> Regardless, the purpose of increasing TV interest would be better served with a cut to 8 and double elimination. You get the drama and you get the high profile names plus the comeback possibilities


…clearly show you have never dealt with NBC executives, who, for all their possible faults, do have a fair handle on how to keep TV audiences engaged. And this ain’t it.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Hikari said:


> And that is kind of the problem. The 9-9-9 score actually points to being from the better archer. .


I disagree, The better archer shot a 10. That is the center of the target and the best shot of the round. The other archer shooting 9s did not find the center or 10 ring.

The 8 by the winning archer is negated by the better 10 shot. USA archery, and i believe World Archery differentiates ties by Xs and then 10s. Closest to center. Doesnt matter how many red or blue the other archers had, center X and 10 shots hold more weight than 999999999999s .


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> Some of you who are more recently joining the sport may not be aware that the IOC was set to discontinue archery in the Olympic Games after 1992.
> 
> (Some of you who have been in the sport for a while should be aware of this).
> 
> ...


The fact that George has poo-poo'd the idea of double elimination actually gives me hope that it might actually become a reality. LOL

I think I'll go back and re-watch the mixed team event now.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

>--gt--> said:


> Some of you who are more recently joining the sport may not be aware that the IOC was set to discontinue archery in the Olympic Games after 1992.
> 
> (Some of you who have been in the sport for a while should be aware of this).
> 
> ...


How so, George? What exactly drives TV interest? And what makes NBC so competent at determining how to increase viewership. The numbers don't look so good this time around. Do you think the current system is optimal for the TV experience for either passing interest from the non-archery public or for the archery-interested? There is no doubt that Jim Easton and the changes to the format kept archery in the Olympics. But I see no reason not to consider that it could be improved. What do people tune in to see? They tune in to see the popularized players compete and they tune in for the drama of competition. The more they can see the familiar players, the more likely to view. Lots of rounds of elimination don't add much to the experience. I would rather watch a more limited field perform more while still keeping the drama of elimination.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lcaillo said:


> How so, George? What exactly drives TV interest? And what makes NBC so competent at determining how to increase viewership. The numbers don't look so good this time around. Do you think the current system is optimal for the TV experience for either passing interest from the non-archery public or for the archery-interested? There is no doubt that Jim Easton and the changes to the format kept archery in the Olympics. But I see no reason not to consider that it could be improved. What do people tune in to see? *They tune in to see the popularized players compete and they tune in for the drama of competition. The more they can see the familiar players, the more likely to view. Lots of rounds of elimination don't add much to the experience. I would rather watch a more limited field perform more while still keeping the drama of elimination.*


This. Right. Here.

Leonard, you are 100% correct even if some people can't see it.


----------



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

lcaillo said:


> How so, George? What exactly drives TV interest? And what makes NBC so competent at determining how to increase viewership. The numbers don't look so good this time around. Do you think the current system is optimal for the TV experience for either passing interest from the non-archery public or for the archery-interested? There is no doubt that Jim Easton and the changes to the format kept archery in the Olympics. But I see no reason not to consider that it could be improved. What do people tune in to see? They tune in to see the popularized players compete and they tune in for the drama of competition. The more they can see the familiar players, the more likely to view. Lots of rounds of elimination don't add much to the experience. I would rather watch a more limited field perform more while still keeping the drama of elimination.


We don’t actually disagree on the principles behind your comments. I have been a public advocate for a repechage round for thirty years now (nineteen on this forum) for WA specific events. I’ve shot many “j-ladder” type pistol competitions and they are not difficult to manage. They are, however, very hard for typical TV commentators and general media types to understand and relate to (a general, not archery enthusiast) audience.

Fundamentally, and we see it time and again, mass media types simply do not want a “complicated” round. And like it or not the Olympic Games are a mass media event.

I absolutely agree that we should have repechage rounds at World Archery events, but the Olympic Games are not a WA event- they are an IOC event.

This is a point a lot of folks here seem to miss.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What is repechage and how it works in wrestling


Repechage in Wrestling, Tokyo 2020 - Introduced in Beijing Olympics in 2008, Sushil, Yogeshwar and Sakshi Won bronze medals through Repechage rule.




sportstar.thehindu.com


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

lcaillo said:


> I would rather watch a more limited field perform more while still keeping the drama of elimination.


Would you watch if that “more limited field” didn't include Americans? 😄 The Olympics and Olympic Archery isn’t just NBC and Brady. It’s Indonesians, Chinese, Mexicans, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Romanians, Kazakhs...how are you going to limit the field but still include the whole world?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

(Olympics) Primer on baseball tournament: how double elimination works | Yonhap News Agency


By Yoo Jee-ho TOKYO, Aug. 1 (Yonhap) -- By losing to the United States on Saturday night...




en.yna.co.kr


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What is a 'Repechage' in Olympic competitions?


The term refers to a phase of the competition and loosely translated from French, "Repechage" means "second chance."




www.9news.com


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Israel’s mixed judo team defeats Brazil, will battle Russians for Olympic bronze


One final round stands between the team and a podium slot; earlier, it lost quarter-final when France fought back from 3:1 to win 4:3




www.timesofisrael.com


----------



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

Stash said:


> Would you watch if that “more limited field” didn't include Americans? 😄 The Olympics and Olympic Archery isn’t just NBC and Brady. It’s Indonesians, Chinese, Mexicans, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Romanians, Kazakhs...how are you going to limit the field but still include the whole world?


Stan, I had the exact same observation and was typing a similar missive, but just gave up. It’s remarkable how this comes up over and over again- I was just looking back at some stuff from 03, 04, and 08 (on other forums as well) and there are plenty of posts that would fit right into this thread without a single edit.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

Stash said:


> Would you watch if that “more limited field” didn't include Americans? [emoji1] The Olympics and Olympic Archery isn’t just NBC and Brady. It’s Indonesians, Chinese, Mexicans, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Romanians, Kazakhs...how are you going to limit the field but still include the whole world?


Yes I would. You included the whole world in the qualification round. The less competitive shooters likely won’t make it past the first round now anyway and viewers just following them are likely gone after they are out. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

chrstphr said:


> I disagree, The better archer shot a 10. That is the center of the target and the best shot of the round. The other archer shooting 9s did not find the center or 10 ring.
> 
> The 8 by the winning archer is negated by the better 10 shot. USA archery, and i believe World Archery differentiates ties by Xs and then 10s. Closest to center. Doesnt matter how many red or blue the other archers had, center X and 10 shots hold more weight than 999999999999s .
> 
> ...


The archer that shot the three 9s is simply more consistent. The archer getting the 10 and 8 shows more variability. I can reasonably measure skill by not only accuracy, but also precision. 

And you can disagree. But my logic is no more valid than yours. 

So a single arrow shoot off is a better method as there is no arbitrary criteria.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

My opinion is that precision represents better technique. When we decided tied on tens I always thought that was backwards in a way. But I can see the argument from the other side as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks to gt, repechage is my new favorite Olympic word.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> the one with the ten would win since its closest to the center.
> 
> Do viewers think its unfair when the one arrow shootoff results in two tens and the one that wins is the closest one to center which actually happened at Tokyo?
> 
> Are you serious or just trolling? This is not difficult to understand.


LOL, just because I see it different, I gotta be trolling?

What is more hilarious to me is that you don't see that the public will be confused by ur 3 arrow shoot off idea....


As they say, people fall in love with their own ideas....


----------



## hockeyref (Jun 2, 2006)

Some food for thought coming from an "archery enthusiast" that has sat there watching with my wife who is NOT into archery. I can say that the head to head matches keep her interest and I think that for the Olympic spectacle they are the way to go - for us older folks "The thrill of victory and agony of defeat". It has already been mentioned that the ranking rounds need some tweaking to mitigate shooting position advantage\disadvantages so I will let others address this. The one change that I would suggest would enhance the spectacle for the unwashed mases but might just drive purists nuts. I would tweak the single arrow sudden death tiebreaker format so that the archers take their shot as near to simultaneously as possible. My thought is both archers are on the line with a nocked arrow and a 20 second count down clock. At 10 seconds archers are permitted to draw and release their shot. Closest to center wins tie breaker. This format 1- eliminates any advantage\disadvantage from conditions for shooting first or second, 2- has the archers trying to make their absolute best shot to win and not knowing what their opponent's best shot was until they are measured 3- maintains some excitement for TV (but maybe has less drama than having one archer setting the bar and the second having to match it).


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

Stash said:


> But who is to say that best of 7 or a full double FITA round is what defines the “best” basketball team or best archer?


the people that control the sport.




> Take running. If we decide that the “best” runner is the one who can win a 1OK, does that mean that Usain Bolt was only the greatest at rock-paper-scissors running?


not a good analogy,
let's say we can rewind the time "Groundhog Day" style, you will see more consistency in the 100m/200m sprint results than with the archery elimation brackets.
I am sure of this.




> All that we have done is change our arbitrary definition of “best” in archery. An and Gazoz were the “best”. Deal with it.


would you have said this back in 1988? 2000?
which coincidentally S. Korea women swept the podiums in both


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

hockeyref said:


> The one change that I would suggest would enhance the spectacle for the unwashed mases but might just drive purists nuts. I would tweak the single arrow sudden death tiebreaker format so that the archers take their shot as near to simultaneously as possible. My thought is both archers are on the line with a nocked arrow and a 20 second count down clock. At 10 seconds archers are permitted to draw and release their shot. Closest to center wins tie breaker. This format 1- eliminates any advantage\disadvantage from conditions for shooting first or second, 2- has the archers trying to make their absolute best shot to win and not knowing what their opponent's best shot was until they are measured 3- maintains some excitement for TV (but maybe has less drama than having one archer setting the bar and the second having to match it).


I think the purists would be for it.

but you already point to the issue, the camera needs to focus on one person at a time.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> Thanks to gt, repechage is my new favorite Olympic word.


What I love about GT is that he can, at the same time, be and infuriating condescending pr!(# and rarely do we fail to learn something useful from conversations that he participates in. In the first respect he is sort of like you and me, John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

hockeyref said:


> Some food for thought coming from an "archery enthusiast" that has sat there watching with my wife who is NOT into archery. I can say that the head to head matches keep her interest and I think that for the Olympic spectacle they are the way to go - for us older folks "The thrill of victory and agony of defeat". It has already been mentioned that the ranking rounds need some tweaking to mitigate shooting position advantage\disadvantages so I will let others address this. The one change that I would suggest would enhance the spectacle for the unwashed mases but might just drive purists nuts. I would tweak the single arrow sudden death tiebreaker format so that the archers take their shot as near to simultaneously as possible. My thought is both archers are on the line with a nocked arrow and a 20 second count down clock. At 10 seconds archers are permitted to draw and release their shot. Closest to center wins tie breaker. This format 1- eliminates any advantage\disadvantage from conditions for shooting first or second, 2- has the archers trying to make their absolute best shot to win and not knowing what their opponent's best shot was until they are measured 3- maintains some excitement for TV (but maybe has less drama than having one archer setting the bar and the second having to match it).


I have lost track of when the alternating sequence in one-arrow shoot-offs are introduced, but I know we used to shoot simultaneously, and probably still do in most events. I think the alternating one arrow shoot off is unique to certain competitions or once you get to a certain point in the competition. I'm sure a judge could come along and explain that. Yes, there used to be a strategy involved in the one-arrow shoot-off. Some would choose to shoot quickly hoping a good shot will put pressure on their opponent while others would wait for their opponent to shoot. Both had their risks. I always felt shooting second was the more risky of the two choices, so I always tried to shoot first. Mostly because if the first archer shoots a good arrow, the crowd noise may affect the second archer.

I can remember several times watching two archers in a shoot-off waiting for the other to shoot as the time ran off the clock, then both of them put themselves in a terrible position of having just a few seconds to shoot their arrows. LOL


----------



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

lcaillo said:


> What I love about GT is that he can, at the same time, be and infuriating condescending pr!(# and rarely do we fail to learn something useful from conversations that he participates in. In the first respect he is sort of like you and me, John.


Ah. And here I thought we were having a respectful discussion.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LOL

Leonard, he didn't even realize you were paying him a compliment. Oh well. No good deed goes unpunished.

Welcome to the club. We like it here.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> LOL
> 
> Leonard, he didn't even realize you were paying him a compliment. Oh well. No good deed goes unpunished.
> 
> Welcome to the club. We like it here.


Indeed, it was a compliment and poking a bit of fun a ourselves. But GT knew that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lcaillo said:


> Indeed, it was a compliment and poking a bit of fun a ourselves. But GT knew that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You really think he did? Maybe the thought of being compared to either of us was too much?  Meh, regardless, welcome to the club.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

nakedape said:


> LOL, just because I see it different, I gotta be trolling?
> What is more hilarious to me is that you don't see that the public will be confused by ur 3 arrow shoot off idea....
> As they say, people fall in love with their own ideas....


No, We can disagree. You appear to be trolling by saying the public would be confused if a 3 arrow round was used as a tie break, but they arent confused by the previous FIVE 3 arrow rounds to get to the tie break. 

Certainly you can dislike the suggestion of a 3 arrow shoot off tie break. But your reason seems a bit trollish. 

But to each his own. 

Chris


----------



## Boomer2094 (Aug 12, 2016)

FerrumVeritas said:


> It feels like a desire to change it is based on the belief that someone else should have won. But that’s not a good reason.


I think this is why OP started the poll.. While I don't disagree that current format doesn't award the "Best" archer, it's the format that Olympic Organizing committee agreed on in order for archery to remain part of Olympics. For TV viewership or whatever other reasons.

Could it use a little change? Sure, But it is up for those with influence in the archery world to convince Olympic Organizers to change the format of competition. We can discuss it until the cow comes home, but until those in power change things, it will remain a discussion on some obscure archery forum called ArcheryTalk.

I have no issue watching current format of Archery in Olympics... I do have to admit, it is very frustrating when the person/team/nation I was rooting for lost the match... But my frustration is placed on the archers that shot those bad scores. Blaming the format isn't going to all of sudden fix things.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Boomer2094 said:


> I think this is why OP started the poll.. While I don't disagree that current format doesn't award the "Best" archer, it's the format that Olympic Organizing committee agreed on in order for archery to remain part of Olympics. For TV viewership or whatever other reasons.
> 
> Could it use a little change? Sure, But it is up for those with influence in the archery world to convince Olympic Organizers to change the format of competition. We can discuss it until the cow comes home, but until those in power change things, it will remain a discussion on some obscure archery forum called ArcheryTalk.
> 
> I have no issue watching current format of Archery in Olympics... I do have to admit, it is very frustrating when the person/team/nation I was rooting for lost the match... But my frustration is placed on the archers that shot those bad scores. Blaming the format isn't going to all of sudden fix things.


Just simply introducing a repechage round (I just wanted an excuse to use that word...) would be an improvement. Right now, if some highly ranked archer gets caught in a swirling gust because of the stadium setting and loses the match, that just leaves too much to chance and we all start debating whether the best archers are making their way to the finals. But if they are beaten twice then I think everyone would agree they did not deserve to win.

We actually do have repechage in Olympic archery - it's just that you have to get to the semi-finals to trigger it. It's called the bronze medal match. Mac, Khatuna and our '04 men's team all experienced repechage (okay. I'll stop using it now. )

Imagine if archers who lost with 4 set points all qualified to be in the "wild card" bracket. The same way track athletes can qualify on time even if they weren't the two fastest in their heat...


----------



## Boomer2094 (Aug 12, 2016)

Limbwalker,

Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Repechage round"? would you mind explaining it to me?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Boomer2094 said:


> Limbwalker,
> 
> Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Repechage round"? would you mind explaining it to me?


Repechage is just a 5 dollar way of saying a loser's bracket or double-elimination.

If track athletes can earn their way into the top 8 by time, then maybe archers can earn their way into the loser's bracket by set points.


----------



## Boomer2094 (Aug 12, 2016)

Oh, you mean like the archers that lost the semi-final get to shoot against each other for the Bronze medal?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Boomer2094 said:


> Oh, you mean like the archers that lost the semi-final get to shoot against each other for the Bronze medal?


Yes. All I'm suggesting is that the double-elim extend below the top four. It's not that extreme of an idea.


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

The Vegas 'Lucky Dog'. - John


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

jhinaz said:


> The Vegas 'Lucky Dog'. - John


Yea, there is plenty of examples to draw from. And they do it because it adds drama, not takes away from it. In a lot of people's minds, it adds fairness too. I didn't realize how many sports already use it though.


----------



## Boomer2094 (Aug 12, 2016)

Since someone mentioned the Vegas Shoot...

Just for giggles, what do you think if Olympic adopted Vegas shootdown style match as individual medal round? Final 8 plus a "lucky dog" from the loser's bracket?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Boomer2094 said:


> Since someone mentioned the Vegas Shoot...
> 
> Just for giggles, what do you think if Olympic adopted Vegas shootdown style match as individual medal round? Final 8 plus a "lucky dog" from the loser's bracket?


Seems to work pretty well in Vegas, but that's indoor compound and it's a bit of a different beast.


----------



## Boomer2094 (Aug 12, 2016)

I think it would provide plenty of dramas for the TV crowd. plus give plenty of time for the announcers to talk about archers and their shots. I think it would be entertaining.

Plus, it would replace 8 separate 1-on-1 matches (4 quarter final, 2 semi final, gold and bronze matches) with one 9-archer matches.

Granted, It will have to have another 8-archer match to determine who the "lucky dog" will be... but that's two multi-archer matches instead of 8 1-on-1 matches.

3 arrow ends, 20 second per arrow with 10 second in between to prepare. Archer who shot the highest score stays in until there's only one remain.

I think it'd be fun!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Boomer2094 said:


> I think it would provide plenty of dramas for the TV crowd. plus give plenty of time for the announcers to talk about archers and their shots. I think it would be entertaining.
> 
> Plus, it would replace 8 separate 1-on-1 matches (4 quarter final, 2 semi final, gold and bronze matches) with one 9-archer matches.
> 
> ...


It would be fun, but with the history (and entrenched mindsets) that exist with the FITA crowd, any change has to 1) come from the "right" people and 2) not be too extreme. I'm sorry to inform you that your proposal features neither of these. 

I mean, look how many people voted to go back to the double-FITA !


----------



## Boomer2094 (Aug 12, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> It would be fun, but with the history and entrenched mindsets that exist with the FITA crowd, any change has to 1) come from the "right" people and 2) not be too extreme. I'm sorry to inform you that your proposal features neither of these.


Oh, I'm fully aware of that.... As I have stated on post #123, Until those in power choose to change things, this will remain a discussion... 

But, hey, one can dream... 😝


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

limbwalker said:


> ...that just leaves too much to chance and we all start debating whether the best archers are making their way to the finals.


Define what constitutes the "best" archers? I think that needs to be defined. There is always random variables in the competition. I could wake up with a cold. Even with double elimination, the wind conditions can be different. Competition has always been the best archer _*on that day*_. It seems like many of the proposals here are just hedging bets by creating more opportunities, but that does not lead to different results.

No one has yet to show that there would have been a different outcome to the Olympics if the rules were different. Nor has it been demonstrated that it would result in the "best" archers being awarded a medal.

And I am not picking on you. I think these are serious questions. Will other rules determine "better" archers win or just "different" archers? Are the rules significant or just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> Define what constitutes the "best" archers? I think that needs to be defined. There is always random variables in the competition. I could wake up with a cold. Even with double elimination, the wind conditions can be different. Competition has always been the best archer _*on that day*_. It seems like many of the proposals here are just hedging bets by creating more opportunities, but that does not lead to different results.
> 
> No one has yet to show that there would have been a different outcome to the Olympics if the rules were different. Nor has it been demonstrated that it would result in the "best" archers being awarded a medal.
> 
> And I am not picking on you. I think these are serious questions. Will other rules determine "better" archers win or just "different" archers? Are the rules significant or just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?


I guess partly due to the ranking round and partly due to their track record going into the Olympics is how I would define the "best" meaning to me, the top 8 or perhaps 16, but no more than that. I don't think 20 guys or gals have a legitimate shot at a medal if we ran the event three consecutive times, for example. Probably more like 8-10.

I agree we are trying to find the best on that day, but there are ways to make the competition fair and reward the best archers without turning it into a game of chance.

Ask the top ranked archers from the ranking round and from their competitive histories going in to the games how they like single elimination matchplay in a stadium bowl. I doubt any of them would choose that format given the option. They won't complain about the current format, but I doubt any of them would choose it.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

chrstphr said:


> ...the public would be confused if a 3 arrow round was used as a tie break, but they arent confused by the previous FIVE 3 arrow rounds to get to the tie break.


Well, if one archer gets the higher score, for example 9-9-9, and the other archer get a lower score, 4-5-10, then yes, the crowd could be confused. Certainly, the best archer did not win. 

It seems you want a three arrow shoot off because you feel it biases the competition in your favor. But a one arrow shoot of can also be better because the archer with better mental control will not be phased by that. I can understand your position because the single arrow places greater pressure on you. But should rules just be about making the athlete feel comfortable?

The difficulty with rules is they simply bias the game in favor of one position or another. No position is intrinsically better.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

The way the round is shot right now is about as good as it can get. I personally do not want a "second chance" for the Korean archers. The amount of pressure and steel nerves needed to shoot this round is about as high a level as it can get. The excitement generated by the non-archery viewer has proven that this round is good and I highly doubt, at this time it can get much better. The only improvement could be when a bow catastrophically fails and the archer gets an extra 10 seconds to grab their backup bow and continue on.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

limbwalker said:


> I guess partly due to the ranking round and partly due to their track record going into the Olympics is how I would define the "best" meaning to me, the top 8 or perhaps 16, but no more than that. I don't think 20 guys or gals have a legitimate shot at a medal if we ran the event three consecutive times, for example. Probably more like 8-10.
> 
> I agree we are trying to find the best on that day, but there are ways to make the competition fair and reward the best archers without turning it into a game of chance.
> 
> Ask the top ranked archers from the ranking round and from their competitive histories going in to the games how they like single elimination matchplay in a stadium bowl. I doubt any of them would choose that format given the option. They won't complain about the current format, but I doubt any of them would choose it.


I think those are all valid reasons. This is a difficult problem of what makes the "best" archer. While past performance does indicate to a certain extent future results, it does not hold true in all cases.

And this is where I kind of start wondering what we are looking for in a top archer. If it is simply average score, then we could have the ranking round an be done with it. Shoot enough arrow and you will get the archer's performance. It is pretty much a low stress event.

But is the ability to control your emotions that separate archers? Is having a strong mental game something we should capture in competition? Then, the brackets capture that. The single arrow shoot off as well (it is interesting how scores drop off from the last end to the shoot off).

Is part of archery knowing how to deal with the environment? Is the ability to make lemonade an important attribute in an archer? In an outdoor sport, learn to deal with wind.

In some ways, we capture the gamut of these qualities with our three main archer disciplines. Compound is a game for you to lose. Barebow is far more variable, where the archer is more of a factor. OR sits in the middle. All are valid where you would not argue the "best" archer is not winning.

Then there is the spectacle of sport. I doubt anyone is simply for the ranking round format, not even the athletes when that can top that. We accept a certain amount of randomness and we want some unpredictability.

I am not sure of the answers. I certainly would need some testing and statistical analysis to make a good decision. Naturally, we would all like to tweak rules to our individual favor or comfort. And that I think is a missing part of this: what defines the "best" archer and then how do you design a test (rules) to determine that while giving an audience a competition they would want to watch. (Simple when you frame it that way...  )


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> The way the round is shot right now is about as good as it can get. I personally do not want a "second chance" for the Korean archers. The amount of pressure and steel nerves needed to shoot this round is about as high a level as it can get. The excitement generated by the non-archery viewer has proven that this round is good and I highly doubt, at this time it can get much better. The only improvement could be when a bow catastrophically fails and the archer gets an extra 10 seconds to grab their backup bow and continue on.


I'm not disagreeing with you Rick, but is the reason you don't want the Korean archers to have a second chance because they are just better archers? 

I get the ratings, TV, money, etc., etc. but a part of me also is a purist at heart and wants a competition that rewards the better archers.

As someone who was never in a position to consistently beat the best archers on the planet, single elimination and especially the set system, gave me a better chance than any other format, I felt. So if I were a young man, I'd be voting against my own interest LOL


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari, I'm all for dealing with the elements so long as they are at least "somewhat" consistent. I always liked my chances in the wind vs. archers who were better than me when it was calm. But putting archers who spend their lives shooting on open fields into a stadium bowl for the biggest competition they will ever enter doesn't seem very fair to me. Like I said before, it's like taking world class swimmers and making them swim across a river for a gold medal. It's not a condition they normally see, and in stadium bowls where it's not uncommon to have wind flags pointing at one another, I don't see how that resembles anything we see in a typical event.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

chrstphr said:


> No, We can disagree. You appear to be trolling by saying the public would be confused if a 3 arrow round was used as a tie break, but they arent confused by the previous FIVE 3 arrow rounds to get to the tie break.
> 
> Certainly you can dislike the suggestion of a 3 arrow shoot off tie break. But your reason seems a bit trollish.
> 
> But to each his own.


Dude, me and Hikari both tried to explain to you why people would be confused with your system and you still don't get it?

I give up.


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you Rick, but is the reason you don't want the Korean archers to have a second chance because they are just better archers?


Yup, obviously.

And I find your criticism that they can't handle the pressure in the elimination rounds laughable.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Hikari said:


> Well, if one archer gets the higher score, for example 9-9-9, and the other archer get a lower score, 4-5-10, then yes, the crowd could be confused. Certainly, the best archer did not win.
> 
> It seems you want a three arrow shoot off because you feel it biases the competition in your favor. But a one arrow shoot of can also be better because the archer with better mental control will not be phased by that. I can understand your position because the single arrow places greater pressure on you. But should rules just be about making the athlete feel comfortable?
> 
> The difficulty with rules is they simply bias the game in favor of one position or another. No position is intrinsically better.


Now you are misunderstanding. The closest to the center only applies of the tie break set is TIED after THREE arrows.
9-9-9 vs 10-5-4 is a 27 vs 19 and the 27 wins. The 9-9-9 vs 10-9-8, the ten wins.

My point with the 3 arrow shootoff is it does negate some of the wind factor being over 3 arrows vs one.

Only having one arrow and shooting alternately makes the wind a much larger factor in these coin flips than over a set.

But i give up. This isnt hard to understand but the two of you seem to not be able to grasp what i am saying so i give up.

Chris


----------



## Taufiq (Oct 17, 2016)

How about not change anything but just lengthen the match to let's say 11 sets with first to 12 set points win. So in terms of arrow volume it would be more like ranking round. This way the _quickest_ they can win the match is by shooting 18 arrows each instead of current format where the longest way to win the match is by shooting 15+1 arrows.


----------



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

I think Rick summed things up quite well. The length of the matches is suited for the needs of television. We learned that lesson back when matches were 18/12 arrows.

Again, repechage doesn’t belong in the IOC’s televised Olympic event (though I do see a place for it in “our” events such as World Cups and World Championships).

In my opinion, this would be a much shorter discussion thread, if certain people had made the podium. I have a feeling people in, for example, Turkey, Korea, Japan, Mexico, and Italy (except one notable contributor here- who has been pretty quiet about the lottery argument lately  ) are just fine with the way it’s done now.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

chrstphr said:


> Now you are misunderstanding. The closest to the center only applies of the tie break set is TIED after THREE arrows.
> 9-9-9 vs 10-5-4 is a 27 vs 19 and the 27 wins. The 9-9-9 vs 10-9-8, the ten wins.
> 
> My point with the 3 arrow shootoff is it does negate some of the wind factor being over 3 arrows vs one.
> ...


And you seem to be missing our point. We are not saying we don't understand your point, but you can't grasp ours.

The wind is irrelevant, unless you are now saying if there is no wind then it is a one-arrow shoot off? You still have not made a case, beyond a personal preference, for a three arrow shoot off. Yes, I can see you would prefer it because it gives you three chances. But that is the point: it still becomes chance (why not ten arrows, that would give archer an even great chance at getting an arrow closer to the center). After five ends, a good archer would have already sized the wind and environmental conditions. They have shot 15 arrows. So they know the target. The one arrow also tests the archer's mental game. And you simply cannot see that. Why is the skill in a one arrow shoot off so hard for you to grasp and the arbitrary nature of your scheme? Sometimes it is good to be open to other ideas beyond your own.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

nakedape said:


> Yup, obviously.
> 
> And I find your criticism that they can't handle the pressure in the elimination rounds laughable.


It's only criticism if it's not true. Facts are just facts.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> I think Rick summed things up quite well. The length of the matches is suited for the needs of television. We learned that lesson back when matches were 18/12 arrows.
> 
> Again, repechage doesn’t belong in the IOC’s televised Olympic event (*though I do see a place for it in “our” events such as World Cups and World Championships*).
> 
> In my opinion, this would be a much shorter discussion thread, if certain people had made the podium. I have a feeling people in, for example, Turkey, Korea, Japan, Mexico, and Italy (except one notable contributor here- who has been pretty quiet about the lottery argument lately  ) are just fine with the way it’s done now.


Let me just point out where the idea began, for the record.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Facts are the Korean men rarely live up to their rankings during matchplay. Maybe that will change, but my point still stands.

(edited to clean up this thread)


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Hikari said:


> And you seem to be missing our point. We are not saying we don't understand your point, but you can't grasp ours.
> 
> The one arrow also tests the archer's mental game. And you simply cannot see that. Why is the skill in a one arrow shoot off so hard for you to grasp and the arbitrary nature of your scheme? Sometimes it is good to be open to other ideas beyond your own.


I do see your point. World Archery sees your point. The one arrow shoot off is already the status quo. And it is also a coin flip with having the archers shoot alternately, each archer is shooting in a different situation. I do not think it is a fair tie breaker. You do. 

Chris


----------



## nakedape (Sep 28, 2015)

^
the only way to be fair is to shoot at the same time (but its bad for TV)

I like the 3 arrow idea initially because it prolongs the drama of the shootoff (but at the same time, you have to keep the length of the match in mind)
but like I said the tie issue (999 vs10/9/8) would confuse the audience.

there is another alternative,
3 arrows, score not cumulative. whoever has closest arrow to center wins.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Giving it some additional thought, there are three things I would add/change: 
If you shoot a 30, you get an additional point. Give some weight to those perfect scores. 
You have an additional 10s in the case of equipment failure.
1-arrow shoot offs are shot simultaneously.

Equipment failure can be narrowly defined as something that prevents you from shooting the bow (broken limb, broken string). I'm actually not opposed to changing the time to 30s anyway, to let an archer better read or wait out the wind.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Does the best player or team win in any sport? The best on any given day wins. The element of chance is important. I won't posit what is the best format, because there are so many choices, but I can tell you that one of the best archers in the world won the Gold medal this Olympics. In fact, it happens most of the time. You'll almost never see a 64 seed take out a 1 seed. A highly seeded archer beat another highly seeded archer. The idea that because an archer is uber elite, he or she must win the majority of the time is false. 

The notion of bringing it when you need to bring it is exciting. The elimination format, while not perfect is very watchable and adds pressure and excitement to the sport, where many other sports are trying to crowd out archery. Just because Kim, or Ellison did not win doesn't mean the system is broken.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Does the best player or team win in any sport? The best on any given day wins. The element of chance is important. I won't posit what is the best format, because there are so many choices, but I can tell you that one of the best archers in the world won the Gold medal this Olympics. In fact, it happens most of the time. You'll almost never see a 64 seed take out a 1 seed. A highly seeded archer beat another highly seeded archer. The idea that because an archer is uber elite, he or she must win the majority of the time is false.
> 
> The notion of bringing it when you need to bring it is exciting. The elimination format, while not perfect is very watchable and adds pressure and excitement to the sport, where many other sports are trying to crowd out archery. Just because Kim, or Ellison did not win doesn't mean the system is broken.


None of what you said is wrong, nor should it preclude us from trying to improve what we already have.


----------



## hockeyref (Jun 2, 2006)

Hey nakedape, how is it bad for TV? Just set the time limit short enough that they HAVE to concentrate on their own shot and CANNOT wait, yet it may be uncomfortably short for some archers... I say that just adds to the pressure and the best come through under pressure. On the screen the viewers see a 4 blocks tow two are zoomed in on the archer from the target and right below is their target face.


----------



## Hikari (May 15, 2021)

chrstphr said:


> I do see your point. World Archery sees your point. The one arrow shoot off is already the status quo. And it is also a coin flip with having the archers shoot alternately, each archer is shooting in a different situation. I do not think it is a fair tie breaker. You do.
> 
> Chris


I think the one arrow and three arrow shoot off are testing two different things. The three arrow shoot off is very close to set play that it is not really presenting a different problem than the regular match with a slight difference on how the set is decided. As an archer, my probability is better with three arrows, but that is also part of chance--the more I shoot the greater chance I have getting close to the center. So if I am standing there, I would want three arrows. But are competition rules just to make the archer feel good?

Since the archers have gone through five sets of three arrows, the one arrow become interesting as you can test if the archer will choke when they are presented with one chance. If archer is about the mental game, then the one arrow is a good test that can separate based on that. Since the game has been close enough to get to that point, I think there is a good argument for a decisive test. Certainly, from a spectator point of view, it certainly is dramatic. 

What I have not seen is how either actually benefits the "better" archer or what "better" actually means. Certainly, I am unaware of any statistical analysis with either type of shoot off simply because it has not been tested--it maybe the number of arrows in a shoot off does not effect the result. The archer that get closer with three arrows might be the same archer that gets closer with one. I would also want to measure the variance. It could be the archer with less control simply gets "lucky" and hits closer with one of the three arrows.

Personally, even though as an archer I would prefer three arrows, I think the one arrow adds a new dimension to the match. Would I still be able to control my shot if given only one chance to decide the game.

Their is one more shoot off style. The first arrows decides the match based on score. If the score is the same, another arrow is used and the one closer to the center wins. That might be a good compromise as the first arrow for score gives more latitude and gives another opportunity if both archers have similar performance. That second arrow for distance would be a higher level of accuracy. (If that is the same, then another arrow is used and measured from the center again.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hikari said:


> I think the one arrow and three arrow shoot off are testing two different things. The three arrow shoot off is very close to set play that it is not really presenting a different problem than the regular match with a slight difference on how the set is decided. As an archer, my probability is better with three arrows, but that is also part of chance--the more I shoot the greater chance I have getting close to the center. So if I am standing there, I would want three arrows. But are competition rules just to make the archer feel good?
> 
> Since the archers have gone through five sets of three arrows, the one arrow become interesting as you can test if the archer will choke when they are presented with one chance. If archer is about the mental game, then the one arrow is a good test that can separate based on that. Since the game has been close enough to get to that point, I think there is a good argument for a decisive test. Certainly, from a spectator point of view, it certainly is dramatic.
> 
> ...


We used to do this. 1st arrow for score, 2nd arrow for score and 3rd arrow closest to center. Took too long. You were holding up the entire field of play.

However as gt pointed out earlier, perhaps we should have slightly different rules for WA events than we have for the Olympics, which as he continually points out, are only shot for TV revenue these days and not to determine who is actually the best.


----------

