# Anyone else 18 and 70 metered out?



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I've always considered myself a fan of target archery ever since taking it up in 2003, but frankly watching basically the same archers shoot the same distance over and over and over again is getting a bit boring.

And I'll be honest, shooting the same two distances year after year is as well. I can always go shoot something else, but as a fan and consumer of target archery, I guess I'd like to see something different. Maybe they alternate the WC format from 70m to the four distance FITA? Not sure what the answer is, but just like (here I go again with the golf analogies) there are "horses for courses" in pro golf, I'd like to see different formats that challenge the archers in a unique way from one event to another.

Seeing some of these world class archers shoot field is exciting and interesting, but not enough of them do it and there isn't as much international competition in the field event.

I'm just not sure how much longer WA can continue with the single-distance target events without losing the audience's attention. Five more years? Ten? Thirty?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh, and just to get this out of the way... (Rick) - "If you hate archery so much..." LOL  

I'm asking as a fan, who else is getting a bit of 18 and 70 meter fan fatigue? Anyone?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Swimming forum:
“I’m tired of watching them swim back and forth the 50m length of the pool. How about we get them to swim ACROSS it every other year?”

Track forum:
“I’m tired of watching them run around the track the same way every year. How about we get them to run CLOCKWISE every other year?”

Judo/Karate/Taekwando forums:
“I’m tired of watching them fight the same way every year. How about we have 3 person gang fights?”

Shooting forum:
“I’m tired of watching them raise their arms, pull the trigger, lower their arms. How about we introduce a new division, ‘Gangsta’, where you have to hold the pistol sideways?”


It’s target archery, man. It looks exactly the same at every distance. 😄


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Swimming forum:
> “I’m tired of watching them swim back and forth the 50m length of the pool. How about we get them to swim ACROSS it every other year?”
> 
> Track forum:
> ...


Here we go...

Damn Stash.

Let's use your swimming analogy. Why do you think there is more than ONE swimming distance, eh? Hell, there ARE more events - even Olympic and WC events, than those held in 50 meter pools. So you just helped me make my point.

Christ almighty some of you guys that never want to hear anything but the status quo. If you're perfectly happy to watch archers shoot 18 and 70 meters for the rest of your life, just say so.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Want help looking for your sense of humor? Maybe it fell and rolled under your bed?


----------



## ArchAnon (Feb 27, 2018)

Have you considered the growing sport of "combat archery"? 












On a more serious note, league sports that feed into Olympic or World games will follow the rules of the "top level" game. Baseball, soccer, basketball, etc... they all do the same thing.




Stash said:


> Shooting forum:
> “I’m tired of watching them raise their arms, pull the trigger, lower their arms. How about we introduce a new division, ‘Gangsta’, where you have to hold the pistol sideways?”


This is a joke, but not far from the truth. There is Olympic shooting (set distances, strict equipment regulations) and then "action shooting" for the people who might want to use two hands on a pistol and move their feet.

The people who founded these spin-off organizations were looking for something different. @limbwalker, as you mentioned, there are many other archery competition types. Attracting the very best archers to those types is the challenge.

Just like you won't see Phil Mickelson on the miniature golf circuit, you won't see the top-level Olympic archers doing SCA events.




Think up a new sport. One that combines the skills of 18/70m and applies it in a new and fun way. Get some local people to participate and hone the rules. Then post it here as a "postal match" and get others involved. Who knows, you may be the founder of a new sport class that draws people from many current disciplines.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash, rather than come along and whiz all over anything that isn't the status quo, why not just answer the question - how much longer can FITA hold single distance events without losing their audience? No need to get snarky. Just provide your answer.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

ArchAnon said:


> Have you considered the growing sport of "combat archery"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yea, and I'll never see Phil standing there with a 5-iron making 72 attempts at a hole in one either.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Some of you have already missed the entire point of this post.

The question is, how much longer can WA sustain single distance events before they start losing their audience?

The simple answer is "as long as it's the Olympic format...then that's what we'll shoot" which gets back to the chicken or the egg argument we had over on the BB thread. 

Personally, I think something has to give eventually.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

deleted


----------



## ArchAnon (Feb 27, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> "as long as it's the Olympic format...then that's what we'll shoot"


It's only been an Olympic sport for under 50 years. Uniform fixed distance Olympic archery competition has been held a TOTAL of fourteen times. Amazing to think of when put in those terms.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Want help looking for your sense of humor? Maybe it fell and rolled under your bed?


If you want anyone but yourself to be amused, maybe try something other than sucking the fun out of a thread with your first post.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

ArchAnon said:


> It's only been an Olympic sport for under 50 years. Uniform fixed distance Olympic archery competition has been held a TOTAL of fourteen times. Amazing to think of when put in those terms.


Well, the "modern" edition of archery has been in the Olympics for 50 years. And I understand fully the reasons for the single distance format for the Olympic games. It's just a bit concerning to me that WA adopted that format 100% for their WC and World Cup events, meaning every world class target archer is now guaranteed to only shoot 70 meters for probably their entire career. And as such, most viewers will have to watch the same format over and over and over again, played by a very limited number of competitive archers. 

If golf told us that basically the "show" would be the top 10-15 golfers hitting 5 irons at a green 72 times/day, how long would that last? They would probably start losing viewers, and then sponsors pretty quickly.


----------



## 1/2 Bubble Off (Dec 29, 2016)

I don't "watch" target archery very often. I do watch the finals on youtube for most big events.... but watching the entire thing is just not something I want to do with my time. (unless one of my shooters was competing)

As a competitor, I would love to see challenging new formats. I just recently gave outdoor spots a try... as it turns out, I don't suck at it. We were at a Double FITA style tourney (not officially sanctioned), myself and the only other guy shooting old guy compound class discussed shooting the second half at the open 70m recurve bale... I also recently shot my first NFAA 900 round (by far my favorite flavor of outdoor spots)

As a 3D shooter, some of the best fun I've had playing the game was at non-sanctioned events. The long bombs at the TAC were awesome.... An event in Yuma Az, had a truck load of targets inside of 10 yards!!!! One of them was so close I could almost touch it with my 30" stabilizer!!!! (had me really scratching my head on that one) I'm with you @limbwalker and your golf reference... They could really get creative with distances and set ups on the 3D courses.

For outdoor spots, I'm sure they (WA/US Archery) could put together something similar to a 900... I'd play!!!!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

1/2 Bubble Off said:


> I don't "watch" target archery very often. I do watch the finals on youtube for most big events.... but watching the entire thing is just not something I want to do with my time. (unless one of my shooters was competing)
> 
> As a competitor, I would love to see challenging new formats. I just recently gave outdoor spots a try... as it turns out, I don't suck at it. We were at a Double FITA style tourney (not officially sanctioned), myself and the only other guy shooting old guy compound class discussed shooting the second half at the open 70m recurve bale... I also recently shot my first NFAA 900 round (by far my favorite flavor of outdoor spots)
> 
> ...


Agreed. But this question really is about World Archery and the future of WC and World Cup events. There have been countless threads and infinite suggestions here about changing formats. That's not what I wanted to do here. 

I guess I figured that if even someone who has spent 18 years competing at 70 meters, and who considers themselves a fan of world class target archery is ready for a change, how many others feel the same way? And how long will WA stick with this format? Decades more? How resistant to change will WA be, and what would it take for them to change?


----------



## farmerbob1 (Jan 26, 2017)

This is really about John being so bored in his life that he needs to stir the pot weekly and get all of you guys going. How long can this last? Another 10, 20 years?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

farmerbob1 said:


> This is really about John being so bored in his life that he needs to stir the pot weekly and get all of you guys going. How long can this last? Another 10, 20 years?


If you don't have anything constructive to add, just keep scrollin'.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

OK, John, I’ll answer. Even though we’ve discussed this same sort of thing already many times before. Last time about 2 months ago.

Archery is boring to watch. It’s pretty dull for archers, but incredibly dull for non-archers. And it always will be. When’s the last time you heard people around the water cooler or in a bar talking about who should have won the Pan Am archery competition, or the latest Hyundai World Cup? Never. They may have watched a bit of the Olympic archery on TV if it came up during regular coverage, but I’d be willing to bet a huge amount that their hand would be quickly going for the remote the next time Archery was featured.

But around the water cooler and at the bar they do talk about the Masters, or football, or baseball, or any number of other watchable sports, even if they’ve never golfed or played any of those others.

We are a dull sport to watch. Like 10m air pistol, or shotput. Or a few others. Hell, bowling is more exciting. We need to accept this and stop trying to “fix” it to improve non-archer viewership with little tweaks that do absolutely nothing except mess up our historical record-keeping. Grand FITA. Different numbers of arrows for sets. The damned hit-or-miss they tried for compound that one time.

As for different events at WCs and down the line compared to the Olympics, no, I think it’s best to keep them all the same, primarily for the purpose of being able to make comparisons. I, for one, like to be able to say that my best 70 metre scores from 40 years ago would still have gotten me in the top 40 in the Olympic or WC ranking round. Local level archers I think would also like to be able to compare their scores with the Big Guys and Big Gals, and dream, and set goals. And it’s nice the see the progression in records over the years.

If an archer gets bored with 70m (or 50m) they can always go shoot field. And there’s nothing stopping clubs from hosting full 1440 rounds, or 900s, or whatever they want. But major events, and more local qualifying/ranking events (depending on how each country selects their teams) should in my opinion, continue to match the current and historical established rounds. There’s no point in tweaking or changing anything any more. 100 meter track, the Marathon, some Olympic events have lasted a century or more. Equipment improves, training improves, coaching improves, but it’s good to have a standard by which to compare what we do today to what our predecessors did 10 or 50 years ago. We lost that feature in archery about 35 years ago, but it’s now somewhat stable, and I’d like to see it remain so.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Yea, and I'll never see Phil standing there with a 5-iron making 72 attempts at a hole in one either.


Well, maybe not Phil...


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

I think USA Archery testing a 25m event this year is a good thing.

While elsewhere I’ve said that field/3D are not a substitute for target archery, in this context I think that’s exactly what they are. They are a way to add variety to your shooting season. And I love watching field on YouTube. It’s way more interesting than target from an entertainment perspective.

NFAA has their “Target Classic” and 600 and 900 rounds, which are kind of mini-FITAs. Archery GB has their whole thing (York rounds?) which you’d have to pry from their archers’ cold, dead hands.

I would like it if in the “off years” for field archery, WA would hold a single Grand FITA event. But that has nothing to do with the Olympics, compound shooters hate it, and most recurve shooters don’t want to pull more weight.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> OK, John, I’ll answer. Even though we’ve discussed this same sort of thing already many times before. Last time about 2 months ago.
> 
> Archery is boring to watch. It’s pretty dull for archers, but incredibly dull for non-archers. And it always will be. When’s the last time you heard people around the water cooler or in a bar talking about who should have won the Pan Am archery competition, or the latest Hyundai World Cup? Never. They may have watched a bit of the Olympic archery on TV if it came up during regular coverage, but I’d be willing to bet a huge amount that their hand would be quickly going for the remote the next time Archery was featured.
> 
> ...


It's not really the archers getting bored that I'm curious about. Like you said, we have options. It's the spectators/audience. Anyway, I don't think a simple change from 70M to another format would hurt. Just like in the US we used to alternate between 70M and 4-distance FITAs (until we didn't anymore). Still gives folks a chance to compare scores, but also mixes in a little bit of variety without making things goofy (like shooting foam animals with bows with 3' stabilizers and scopes).

I suppose time will tell. I do miss the days that Brady was trying to match the top Koreans at the four-distance FITA. Kinda wish he'd had more chances to. 

If World Archery is content with the equivalent of watching the top 10 guys hit 5-irons at a flag 72 times, and then again 3 times each during match play, then I suppose they deserve whatever audience they get.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Well, maybe not Phil...


Now that attempt at humor was much better.


----------



## ArchAnon (Feb 27, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> They would probably start losing viewers, and then sponsors pretty quickly.


My bet is World Archery doesn't make the bulk of its money from TV deals, the way golf does.

My other bet is.... golf isn't watched by non-golfers. Archery isn't watched by non-archers.There aren't many archers to begin with, so you start with a very small possible base.

Here's a picture of the 2016 Olympics. No crowd restrictions. No social-distance restrictions:











The only people in attendance are probably friends, family, support staff, and a handful of fans.


Archery is not a spectator sport for anyone but the most enthusiastic fan.



Go take a look at the YouTube hit counts on World Games or Olympic finals. We have folks on this very forum who get more YouTube hits than World Archery.




18 years is a long time to participate in ANY sport. You have already gotten as good as you will ever get and seen all you'll ever see. Only the names will change.


But it's not about us. Some kid just picked up a bow for the very first time in Summer camp last month. The future of the sport is for her. She's not sick of it. She hasn't done it all. She hasn't seen it all. 



As long as there is a feeder system, industry support, and coaching it will last. It never needed viewership or fans in the first place, so we have that going for us. Which is nice.



Badminton is still an Olympic sport. Keep an eye on them. When they go away start watching your back.


----------



## 1/2 Bubble Off (Dec 29, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> Agreed. But this question really is about World Archery and the future of WC and World Cup events. There have been countless threads and infinite suggestions here about changing formats. That's not what I wanted to do here.
> 
> I guess I figured that if even someone who has spent 18 years competing at 70 meters, and who considers themselves a fan of world class target archery is ready for a change, how many others feel the same way? And how long will WA stick with this format? Decades more? How resistant to change will WA be, and what would it take for them to change?


Agreed.... but wouldn't the first step in making that change happen at the WA/WC level be getting some lesser events to make the change first??? Kind of making the change at a "grass roots" level to see if it grows up to be a World Cup format?

Seems to me like the WA/WC are content with the status quo.... They need a "reason" to change and 800 shooters showing up to this new format (what ever that looks like) could be the thing that opens their eyes....

I'm not pushing for a change as I'm still having fun kicking around the state level events.... but I'd be all about trying something NEW. Set it up, I'll do my best to come shoot your event!!!!


----------



## Billie (Jul 1, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> If you want anyone but yourself to be amused, maybe try something other than sucking the fun out of a thread with your first post.


Stash made a valid point, despite you claiming he was sucking the fun out of your OP. The Olympic events are all uniform in distance, times, wts, forms….the events he mentioned are examples. You asked how long this can go on? Until the olympics is gone. 
You talk about the viewers losing interest…that hasn’t been a factor in other events. Lack of viewership hasn’t gotten the shot-put or javelin events removed, and I have never seen those having a large viewership. And as pointed out, the archery events have never pulled a big viewership.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Now that attempt at humor was much better.


Nearly a million views on Youtube. You’ll never get that with Brady and Woojin going for the spider...😄


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

To the point who wants to watch qualification rounds being shot?? Only the most rabid and that's once a year for me during the LAS classic. Otherwise it is the finals to decide the metals. Archery does suffer unlike golf that puts people out on a course with so many variables. As Stash says it is as painful as watching paint dry to those not into the sport. Can't imagine that is going to change. Maybe some venue with the equivalent of a golf tourney needs to be invented- not sure how or what.. I still enjoy the finals tho...not sure archery will ever be a "football" or "golf" or discussed passionately around the water cooler... I do however, carry on very passionate discussions with that person who lives in my head of my last visit to the archery range afterwards.... Things can get pretty dicey but we still remain friends.


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

As a spectator it doesn’t bother me at all to be honest. I’m not that interested in 18m but I eventually watched every competitive arrow shot in Tokyo (except qualifying that only had a 10 minute snip). The fixed distance makes it easier to televise well, although some of the cropping in Tokyo was not great.

And actually I don’t find it at all boring when the footage is good enough for you to actually see what is going on. Commentary is the weakest point. Something that shows spectators what the wind is doing would also add value… otherwise when it blows they just look incompetent.

Multiple distance doesn’t really make a difference… watch archer shoot… watch arrow hit. Really to televise it needs to be head to head. I guess you could head to head over 4 distances but the logistics would be a nightmare.

If you think the only people who watch archery at the Olympics are archers then you did not attend the 2012 games. Loads of non-archers. Loads of noise. Every session full. Rio priced itself out of the market and then failed to attract the local audience.

What bothers me is the “luck” part. I’d rather have the matches a bit longer to ensure that weather etc are normalized out of results as much as they can be - even if that means a cut above where it currently is after qualies. Although when I look at the podiums from Tokyo really 5 out of 6 individual medals went to the folks that shot well and consistently. The 6 had a smattering of ride the pony till it bucks but that is the nature of the current rules. Just my opinion of course.

I also don’t think it should be possible to lose if you shoot a 10. Closest to the centre counts for nothing every arrow you shoot so why should it suddenly count on the last? Re-shoot until someone drops a point. So I think the reshoot rule was better. The issue is a bit different for compound.

Bring back the Grand Fita… Gold medal decided at 90m… there can be no argument

Stretch


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

ArchAnon said:


> My bet is World Archery doesn't make the bulk of its money from TV deals, the way golf does.
> 
> My other bet is.... golf isn't watched by non-golfers. Archery isn't watched by non-archers.There aren't many archers to begin with, so you start with a very small possible base.
> 
> ...


Yea, good points.

I still help our local 4-H archery program and every year I put a bow in the hands of kids who have never shot before. Sure is fun. With all the choices that kids have these days, do you think they will choose to stand in one spot and shoot arrows their entire competitive career at 70 meters? Maybe. Is that what World Archery is banking on? 

Just having one or two more outdoor formats would be nice, I think. Kind of like three surfaces for Tennis. Not a huge change, and the same players, but still something different enough to favor certain players over others.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

FerrumVeritas said:


> I think USA Archery testing a 25m event this year is a good thing.
> 
> While elsewhere I’ve said that field/3D are not a substitute for target archery, in this context I think that’s exactly what they are. They are a way to add variety to your shooting season. And I love watching field on YouTube. It’s way more interesting than target from an entertainment perspective.


T think 3D archery is as close as can be to what we are talking about here-- but in most venues no big spidery stabs and delicate little sights on recurves would survive-- just some good basic shooting with a BB is the order of the day- of course there are those bows with wheels but they have their own problems.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

woof156 said:


> To the point who wants to watch qualification rounds being shot?? Only the most rabid and that's once a year for me during the LAS classic. Otherwise it is the finals to decide the metals. Archery does suffer unlike golf that puts people out on a course with so many variables. As Stash says it is as painful as watching paint dry to those not into the sport. Can't imagine that is going to change. Maybe some venue with the equivalent of a golf tourney needs to be invented- not sure how or what.. I still enjoy the finals tho...not sure archery will ever be a "football" or "golf" or discussed passionately around the water cooler... I do however, carry on very passionate discussions with that person who lives in my head of my last visit to the archery range afterwards.... Things can get pretty dicey but we still remain friends.


I think field archery is the closest we can come to golf - and WA does host WC's in that event, but not many nations participate. Again, chicken or the egg. 

Clearly spectators are not the revenue generator for WA. TV and online viewership is steadily growing for archery but WA will now have to compete with other forms of archery for eyeballs and that's where I wonder if 70 meters day in and day out can keep people watching.


----------



## ArchAnon (Feb 27, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> the audience's attention





limbwalker said:


> their audience





limbwalker said:


> most viewers





limbwalker said:


> spectators


Who are these "viewers"? Where are they?





UK_Stretch said:


> I’m not that interested in 18m but I eventually watched every competitive arrow shot in Tokyo





UK_Stretch said:


> the 2012 games. Loads of non-archers. Loads of noise. Every session full.




Oh...... they are in England. Thanks for the correction!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

ArchAnon said:


> Who are these "viewers"? Where are they?


Mostly online these days, that's where.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> Mostly online these days, that's where.


I agree, online.... never fill a football stadium for an archery match...


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Just a quick question - answer honestly. No right or wrong.

Who here is actively following the compound team matches at this moment? At least on Ianseo.


----------



## ArchAnon (Feb 27, 2018)

Stash said:


> Ianseo


I had to Google it to even know what it was.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Just a quick question - answer honestly. No right or wrong.
> 
> Who here is actively following the compound team matches at this moment? At least on Ianseo.


Not me. I don't follow the compounders often but then I don't shoot compound.


----------



## ArchAnon (Feb 27, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> Not me. I don't follow the compounders often but then I don't shoot compound.


Have you answered your own question?


Compound bow shooters in America, headed to the pro shop every fall:











A convention of US recurve Olympic archers:


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Stash said:


> Just a quick question - answer honestly. No right or wrong.
> 
> Who here is actively following the compound team matches at this moment? At least on Ianseo.


I find compound dreadfully dull. I’m paying attention to recurve (although I’ll miss watching to go actually shoot my bow).


----------



## BeiterBiter (Aug 11, 2021)

ArchAnon said:


> Uniform fixed distance Olympic archery competition has been held a TOTAL of fourteen times.


Actually only eight times:
1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2021


----------



## 40n105w! (Dec 29, 2016)

I shoot 18 meters exclusively but when things get boring, and after almost 30 years they occasionally do, I go stump shooting It's as close as we get to field events here in Colorado and with the Rocky Mountains right outside my window it's not hard to find someplace to shoot.

I took my wife for the first time last weekend and the smiles on her face said it all. We need FIELD EVENTS! Outdoors with near targets, far targets, up hills, and downhill. It's a hell of a lot more interesting to watch than 18 and 70 meters (which I do watch). I envision a time when we will have galleries at each target and groups who follow their favorite archers around. Of course I day dream a lot.

Limbwalker's point is well taken..... for shooters, and spectators, it would be nice if we could make things more interesting for both groups.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> I've always considered myself a fan of target archery ever since taking it up in 2003, but frankly watching basically the same archers shoot the same distance over and over and over again is getting a bit boring.
> 
> And I'll be honest, shooting the same two distances year after year is as well. I can always go shoot something else, but as a fan and consumer of target archery, I guess I'd like to see something different. Maybe they alternate the WC format from 70m to the four distance FITA? Not sure what the answer is, but just like (here I go again with the golf analogies) there are "horses for courses" in pro golf, I'd like to see different formats that challenge the archers in a unique way from one event to another.
> 
> ...


I’ve completely lost interest in spots with compound in general. And just when I got back in after a layoff - my Focus is just sitting and I don’t want to shoot it at all.

I don’t know if that’s because everything is 3D now (which I can’t seem to muster interest in either) or if I’m finally tapped out on compound just period. I just don’t want to mess with it anymore, I’m tired of all the money and fiddling with it.

So I may pick up my Olympic bow one more time, or just leave the sport. Finally had to admit it to myself yesterday as I tried to force myself out to the range, and failed.

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> I’ve completely lost interest in spots with compound in general. And just when I got back in after a layoff - my Focus is just sitting and I don’t want to shoot it at all.
> 
> I don’t know if that’s because everything is 3D now (which I can’t seem to muster interest in either) or if I’m finally tapped out on compound just period. I just don’t want to mess with it anymore, I’m tired of all the money and fiddling with it.
> 
> ...


Lee I know the feeling. I set the bow down and mostly just coached for years, picking it back up to demonstrate for my students or in the case of barebow, learn enough to help them attain their goals, then put it back down again. This time of year my neck starts to swell and my traditional hunting bows get all my time. This will be my 43rd consecutive archery deer season. I have our state outdoor target event this weekend, but the only reason I'm shooting is to see how close I can get to some records that are out there. That's about the only reason I shoot anymore and once that curiosity is satisfied, I'll probably go work on the game I'll never be that great at (but enjoy a lot) - golf. 

Someone mentioned the "antiquated" or unique equipment or formats used in other Olympic sports. And there of course is a strong parallel there with archery. But I wonder if those sports aren't at risk of being dropped from the Games as well? Making sure the sports at the Olympics are somewhat relevant and current has to be a consideration, no?

Where is the innovation by WA to stay ahead of the curve? We changed to 70m exclusively what, 15 years ago? Will it still be relevant in another 15 years? What will WA do to make sure it's holding the audience's interest?


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Lee I know the feeling. I set the bow down and mostly just coached for years, picking it back up to demonstrate for my students or in the case of barebow, learn enough to help them attain their goals, then put it back down again. This time of year my neck starts to swell and my traditional hunting bows get all my time. This will be my 43rd consecutive archery deer season. I have our state outdoor target event this weekend, but the only reason I'm shooting is to see how close I can get to some records that are out there. That's about the only reason I shoot anymore and once that curiosity is satisfied, I'll probably go work on the game I'll never be that great at (but enjoy a lot) - golf.
> 
> Someone mentioned the "antiquated" or unique equipment or formats used in other Olympic sports. And there of course is a strong parallel there with archery. But I wonder if those sports aren't at risk of being dropped from the Games as well? Making sure the sports at the Olympics are somewhat relevant and current has to be a consideration, no?
> 
> Where is the innovation by WA to stay ahead of the curve? We changed to 70m exclusively what, 15 years ago? Will it still be relevant in another 15 years? What will WA do to make sure it's holding the audience's interest?


Well, my complaint may not actually be on topic, for which I apologize if so. The other day when PSE discontinued my bow was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back. My whole career on compound has been discontinued/unsupported bows the very instant I plunk down the cash for em. I'm just getting exhausted from spending these huge sums of money for orphaned equipment, where I lose the entire investment through pitiful to no resale because of the low-poundage bows I have to custom-order. And then there's the personal archery shop with literally 1000's of dollars in tools I need to maintain it all which I'm also getting sick of.

If I can figure out my olympic rig and how to execute a shot on it, I don't need a press I don't need to fiddle endlessly. It's a stick with a string on it. So all I need is a stick and a string, and I can shoot cheap XX75's out of it for the multiple years it'll take me to get to 20 yards. No peeps, no scopes, no having to make 5 strings at a time instead of just 1, no release aids that cost a fortune and fail. I;ll be able to get limbs for it till the end of time.

I'm just fed up with compound I guess is what I'm really saying, and maybe only partly just the "grind" of spots.

I could upgrade my entire olympic rig to shooting condition and make a dozen arrows too for half what my now orphaned bow costs. All I need to do is start over and learn how to shoot it.

Either that or quit the sport. I dunno - just had it up to here today, realizing that I can't drag myself to the range anymore with my compound bow....

lee.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)




----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> Well, my complaint may not actually be on topic, for which I apologize if so. The other day when PSE discontinued my bow was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back. My whole career on compound has been discontinued/unsupported bows the very instant I plunk down the cash for em. I'm just getting exhausted from spending these huge sums of money for orphaned equipment, where I lose the entire investment through pitiful to no resale because of the low-poundage bows I have to custom-order. And then there's the personal archery shop with literally 1000's of dollars in tools I need to maintain it all which I'm also getting sick of.
> 
> If I can figure out my olympic rig and how to execute a shot on it, I don't need a press I don't need to fiddle endlessly. It's a stick with a string on it. So all I need is a stick and a string, and I can shoot cheap XX75's out of it for the multiple years it'll take me to get to 20 yards. No peeps, no scopes, no having to make 5 strings at a time instead of just 1, no release aids that cost a fortune and fail. I;ll be able to get limbs for it till the end of time.
> 
> ...


Everything you said is true for barebow archers coming from recurve too. 

Good luck in your journey.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Everything you said is true for barebow archers coming from recurve too.
> 
> Good luck in your journey.


Already done. Ordered a bow about 1/2 hour ago. More than I need but, won’t have to buy the handle again in this life. As for BB, I’m watching Jake Kaminsky’s channel and his experiments with the grip sear. I have exactly the same type of TP that he does, so if I were to try BB, I’d be looking at a similar solution….

lee.


----------



## Admiral Ackbar (Nov 6, 2014)

I would like to see 90m come back and also see compounds compete at longer distances. I watch alot of the WA videos and it does get pretty repetitive watching them stack 10s at 50m until someone drops a 9 and loses. I also think that because of the way the events are filmed it really dulls it down too. 90% of the camera angles are either the archers face, or the target face. There is no sense of the distance they are shooting or the wind or anything else, just release and impact. I think the coolest part is watching a wobbly stick arc through the air at hit something 70m away. I find it hard to believe that with today's cameras they can't track the arrows arc or at least show over the shoulder shots 

I saw this angle a few days ago which is what made me think about it:


----------



## UK_Stretch (Mar 22, 2006)

When I see a compound archer shooting 10,10,10 over and over, while it is impressive it is “as it should be”. When I see a recurve archer shooting 10,10,10 over and over I’m just amazed. My memory is stuck in the 90s when 10,9,9 at 70m was often good enough for Olympic gold.

That’s why 18m is less interesting - a 9 is a bad shot. I don’t want a competition where it is about the bad shot. I want a competition where it is about the good shot.

What sports people flock to is conditioning. There are hundreds of sports that are totally dull until you understand them - people go anyway. Frequently it is because of the “show” that accompanies the event. (In Scotland it means drinking lager for 5 or 6 hours before the match - that might not work for archery).

Stretch


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

I think some of the innovation we've been seeing indoors with Lancaster scoring or with offset bonus rings (used in a recent European championship iirc) will start popping up for outdoor target. This change alone would make for more entertaining matches.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

I like the birds eye camera angles most of all. I hate the standard angles they use most of the time too. And the too fast cutaways where you can’t see hardly anything after the release…. Hurry hurry show where the arrow landed. Another screen in screen for that would be nice do able addition. 
Many of the slow motion or shots shown between ends are much better angles. 

Someone should be able to setup a multi angle , split screen from different positions too. Wouldn’t it be great to see all of the top archers from multiple angles without having to be there?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

So to hold and gain new viewers, is that all we really need is better coverage of the existing single distance format?

I really like this comment from Stretch -



> I don’t want a competition where it is about the bad shot. I want a competition where it is about the good shot.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

Stash said:


> Just a quick question - answer honestly. No right or wrong.
> 
> Who here is actively following the compound team matches at this moment? At least on Ianseo.



Yup; not the best layout for my screen reading software, but managing.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

As a viewer, I’m kind of ghoulishly fascinated by compound, where the first one to screw up loses, no matter how good of a shot they are. But as a shooter, knowing that that‘s ultimately what I’m working my butt off to move towards, is a turnoff. winning because the other guy makes a mistake isnt my idea of fun, but for some reason it’s compelling, well, kind of, to watch it happen to other poor souls. I have no idea why that is…. I believe that part of the human condition is what we call “Schadenfreude”….

lee.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

lees said:


> Well, my complaint may not actually be on topic, for which I apologize if so. The other day when PSE discontinued my bow was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back. My whole career on compound has been discontinued/unsupported bows the very instant I plunk down the cash for em. I'm just getting exhausted from spending these huge sums of money for orphaned equipment, where I lose the entire investment through pitiful to no resale because of the low-poundage bows I have to custom-order. And then there's the personal archery shop with literally 1000's of dollars in tools I need to maintain it all which I'm also getting sick of.
> 
> If I can figure out my olympic rig and how to execute a shot on it, I don't need a press I don't need to fiddle endlessly. It's a stick with a string on it. So all I need is a stick and a string, and I can shoot cheap XX75's out of it for the multiple years it'll take me to get to 20 yards. No peeps, no scopes, no having to make 5 strings at a time instead of just 1, no release aids that cost a fortune and fail. I;ll be able to get limbs for it till the end of time.
> 
> ...



Ironic, I was just on Lancaster looking at Uukha... $1100 riser and $1000 limbs... X10s with tungsten points at "second mortgage" prices. Just saw humor in the compound is expensive thought because when I bought my first recurve I went in with the "it's cheap" mindset, now my recurve rig is worth more than any of my compounds.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

"TheBlindArcher" said:


> Ironic, I was just on Lancaster looking at Uukha... $1100 riser and $1000 limbs... X10s with tungsten points at "second mortgage" prices. Just saw humor in the compound is expensive thought because when I bought my first recurve I went in with the "it's cheap" mindset, now my recurve rig is worth more than any of my compounds.


On recurve I suck so bad it didn’t matter what I bought, but I believe in buying good tools where I can, even if they will be used by a total incompetent like myself. I ordered the Hoyt Xceed on the handle for good-investment and made-in-USA reasons, but a set of cheezy $99 beginner limbs. I’m robbing the sight and quick disconnect off my compoun, which I’m hanging up while I struggle with recurve again…..

so I’ll suck in style at least on the handle….

the arrows are just the humble XX75’s I originally struggled with Olympic style using, back in the 80’s at TAMU.…

I have to build a new backbone for the string jig but once I do, I’ll just make my own strings like usual…

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> As a viewer, I’m kind of ghoulishly fascinated by compound, where the first one to screw up loses, no matter how good of a shot they are. But as a shooter, knowing that that‘s ultimately what I’m working my butt off to move towards, is a turnoff. winning because the other guy makes a mistake isnt my idea of fun, but for some reason it’s compelling, well, kind of, to watch it happen to other poor souls. I have no idea why that is…. I believe that part of the human condition is what we call “Schadenfreude”….
> 
> lee.


That really is the fascination with compound, and why I feel the best format (that I always watch) for compound is the "can't afford to miss" Vegas format.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> That really is the fascination with compound, and why I feel the best format (that I always watch) for compound is the "can't afford to miss" Vegas format.


Agree. Making it harder and harder until even the very tippy top levels in the sport break in half and their careers are ended just by a single iffy shot. Until the final guy and gal manage not to eff up all the way through…

Its kind of like maybe gladiatorial games in Ancient Rome - really really sucks in every way for the combatants, but you cant take your eyes off the blood and guts….

For me, watching recurve isn’t anything like that….


lee.


----------



## Admiral Ackbar (Nov 6, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> So to hold and gain new viewers, is that all we really need is better coverage of the existing single distance format?
> 
> I really like this comment from Stretch -
> 
> I don’t want a competition where it is about the bad shot. I want a competition where it is about the good shot.


I think both. Less archer face/ target face cam, more wide angle/tracking and showing the arrows fly. Longer distances, to increase grouping sizes and actually use the rest of the target face outside the 8 ring. I think shooting a 10 should be an accomplishment, something the crowd would cheer for, not just expected and the crowd OOOO's when you drop an 8. I think outdoors should be about the good shot, the 10 to win when the other shots are 7s. Indoors will always be about the bad shot, who messes up first etc.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

What about adding style points for good form? Make it more like gymnastics or diving or skateboarding...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> What about adding style points for good form? Make it more like gymnastics or diving or skateboarding...


----------



## bahboric (Aug 22, 2013)

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the way tournaments are run in Bhutan:
Archery Gives Bhutan Its Sporting Chance
These certainly seem more exciting than what we have. Consider:
140meters,
singing and dancing every time the target is hit (and even on the range while people are shooting),
opponents standing in front of the target to distract the archer,
drinking is encouraged, use of mild narcotics,
prizes such as washing machines, stoves, refrigerators,

That has to be more exciting than the tournaments I attend.


----------



## Admiral Ackbar (Nov 6, 2014)

bahboric said:


> I'm surprised nobody has brought up the way tournaments are run in Bhutan:
> Archery Gives Bhutan Its Sporting Chance
> These certainly seem more exciting than what we have. Consider:
> 140meters,
> ...



Ok now this i can get behind, I need a good washing machine


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

I like this idea. Hear me out.
Add any of these kinds of fun events to already existing formats. 
The best way to decide the best archer is cumulative or what we have now at 70. Anything else, like fewer and fewer arrows and less time to shoot are just hamstringing everyone’s archery skill, unnecessarily. 

so keep it the same but then have events like single arrow at 90m and winner gets something. They don’t win the tournament they win the 90m fun event or everyone votes by cheer for prettiest shot and you get a neat pin.
Want a speed shoot? Perfect. Do it as an adjunct to the tournament. Tic tac toe, Call your shot, etc. really any of the other weird ideas people have to make it more spicy for archers and spectators alike without ruining the actual contested event. It’s up to everyone to figure out what events would take a small amount of time and logistics. 
I think this is a better idea than trying to scrap and rebuild.


----------



## baller (Oct 4, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> That really is the fascination with compound, and why I feel the best format (that I always watch) for compound is the "can't afford to miss" Vegas format.


I will say this....the "can't miss" atmosphere of the pro compound ranks is both alluring and mentally draining at the same time. Chasing perfection, knowing that over 75% of the competitors in that group have a legitimate shot at winning that week....it's what drives us to put the hours in grinding at home to prepare for the chance at being the last one standing. When I finally settled down after my run in Vegas 2020, and again at the Rushmore in 2021, I was completely spent....mentally and physically....but it's what we do.

A friend of mine and I were talking a bit about not just making target archery more enjoyable to watch but more enjoyable to shoot. As of right now indoor is indoor, the only thing to make it harder (for the most part) is restrict arrow size to 23s or make the target smaller....in some cases this eliminates "the show" aspect of it with shootoffs and what not so probably not going to happen. 

For outdoor compound, perfect is attainable. I think what 718 or 719 is the world record? Perfect is possible. Clean matches happen on the regular. One arrow shootoffs are fun for the drama of the viewer, they suck as an athlete. Olympic recurve 700 is the "perfect" benchmark, anything above that is Greek god status....don't get me started on one arrow shootoffs for Olympic events...

My idea.....move EVERYONE in an adult category to 60m. Compounds keep the 80cm target face, effectively taking 720 out of play, and making the 150 match round a rarity instead of a regular occurrence. Olympic recurve keeps the 122cm face, making the middle 710s possible, and making match rounds tighter. Get rid of one arrow shootoffs in round of 8 and on....similar to major championships in tennis, no tie breakers. A clear set winner by at least 2 points....if it takes longer oh well, the best will win. On the compound side of things if a match is tied at 150 shoot end for end sudden death until you have a winner...if it takes longer oh well...the best will win. 

Roast me if you want, just my idea of making it a little more even for the athletes that put the work in.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

baller said:


> I will say this....the "can't miss" atmosphere of the pro compound ranks is both alluring and mentally draining at the same time. Chasing perfection, knowing that over 75% of the competitors in that group have a legitimate shot at winning that week....it's what drives us to put the hours in grinding at home to prepare for the chance at being the last one standing. When I finally settled down after my run in Vegas 2020, and again at the Rushmore in 2021, I was completely spent....mentally and physically....but it's what we do.
> 
> A friend of mine and I were talking a bit about not just making target archery more enjoyable to watch but more enjoyable to shoot. As of right now indoor is indoor, the only thing to make it harder (for the most part) is restrict arrow size to 23s or make the target smaller....in some cases this eliminates "the show" aspect of it with shootoffs and what not so probably not going to happen.
> 
> ...


I got excited when you said "everyone" until I realized you made the same mistake WA made - leaving out barebow archers. 

BTW, I was the one who propsed the 60M distance for BB at Nationals in 2015, and both Rick (Stonebraker) and I broke 300 - barebow - at that distance (Rick beat most of the masters recurvers in fact). My reasoning was that we (barebow) shoot 50m on an 80cm face in field, so a 122 at 60 should be no problem. I was overruled after that event, and now it's 50, but it started at 60!


----------



## baller (Oct 4, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I got excited when you said "everyone" until I realized you made the same mistake WA made - leaving out barebow archers.
> 
> BTW, I was the one who propsed the 60M distance for BB at Nationals in 2015, and both Rick (Stonebraker) and I broke 300 - barebow - at that distance. My reasoning was that we (barebow) shoot 50m on an 80cm face in field, so a 122 at 60 should be no problem. I was overruled after that event, and now it's 50, but it started at 60!


Yeah unfortunately that's my status quoe as around here barebow archers are as scarce as target events.....neither are in the archery conversation in KS unfortunately.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

baller said:


> I will say this....the "can't miss" atmosphere of the pro compound ranks is both alluring and mentally draining at the same time. Chasing perfection, knowing that over 75% of the competitors in that group have a legitimate shot at winning that week....it's what drives us to put the hours in grinding at home to prepare for the chance at being the last one standing. When I finally settled down after my run in Vegas 2020, and again at the Rushmore in 2021, I was completely spent....mentally and physically....but it's what we do.


Honestly sounds terrible, but I'm glad other people enjoy it.



> A friend of mine and I were talking a bit about not just making target archery more enjoyable to watch but more enjoyable to shoot. As of right now indoor is indoor, the only thing to make it harder (for the most part) is restrict arrow size to 23s or make the target smaller....in some cases this eliminates "the show" aspect of it with shootoffs and what not so probably not going to happen.


Even 23s are big. Everyone who shoots compound tells me it's a precision sport: then they should have to use small arrows to prove it. I'd say something like an 8mm max, basically no bigger than a normal 6.5ID hunting arrow to keep it accessible.



> For outdoor compound, perfect is attainable. I think what 718 or 719 is the world record? Perfect is possible. Clean matches happen on the regular. One arrow shootoffs are fun for the drama of the viewer, they suck as an athlete. Olympic recurve 700 is the "perfect" benchmark, anything above that is Greek god status....don't get me started on one arrow shootoffs for Olympic events...
> 
> My idea.....move EVERYONE in an adult category to 60m. Compounds keep the 80cm target face, effectively taking 720 out of play, and making the 150 match round a rarity instead of a regular occurrence. Olympic recurve keeps the 122cm face, making the middle 710s possible, and making match rounds tighter. Get rid of one arrow shootoffs in round of 8 and on....similar to major championships in tennis, no tie breakers. A clear set winner by at least 2 points....if it takes longer oh well, the best will win. On the compound side of things if a match is tied at 150 shoot end for end sudden death until you have a winner...if it takes longer oh well...the best will win.
> 
> Roast me if you want, just my idea of making it a little more even for the athletes that put the work in.


I like the "win-by-2" option, but it would never work for TV. TV doesn't want overtime. They want a scheduled finish. Organizers realized that they also enjoy that.

I don't think there's an issue with recurve at 70m. It's a distance that's impressive while making more venues available than 90. I don't know why compound doesn't shoot 60 or even 70m. I've never heard a good explanation that didn't boil down to "compound archers don't like it when they can't almost guarantee a 10." I think the current status of barebow at 50m is fine. It's competitive at high levels (few ties) and accessible at low levels (you can do it with about 32# with the right arrow setup and anchor), so I don't see a reason to change it until people are regularly breaking 1400 (which I don't see really happening).

To me, the number of ties is when WA should consider making it harder, especially if those ties are perfect or nearly perfect scores. I think making recurve easier (122cm at 60) would have the opposite effect. I think recurve would need to switch to a 100cm face at 60, but they don't have a problem with the big face at 70 so why bother making it less impressive?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Quite honestly, I don't think most of the viewing audience has any clue how far 70M really is. It's almost impossible to really show that on live broadcasts.


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

Not me. I love it (18m -> 70m). That said, in the club scene here as target archers we shoot a lot of other rounds. FITA 60/900 is one of my favourites.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I gave up 18 meters first. It is just wrong to shoot indoors in Southern California.

Then I gave up shooting FITA's, and spending most my practice time shooting 70 meters.

Field archery is the best game in town. Where are all the WA field tournaments?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I gave up 18 meters first. It is just wrong to shoot indoors in Southern California.
> 
> Then I gave up shooting FITA's, and spending most my practice time shooting 70 meters.
> 
> Field archery is the best game in town. Where are all the WA field tournaments?


There would be more if field was an Olympic event and if more archers wanted the challenge of field. However the majority of archers are (obviously?) happy to stand in one place and do the same exact thing over and over and over again. Next time I head to the golf course, I think I'll just stay on one par 3 and hit 72 5-irons and see what the fuss is all about. LOL


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

limbwalker said:


> There would be more if field was an Olympic event and if more archers wanted the challenge of field. However the majority of archers are (obviously?) happy to stand in one place and do the same exact thing over and over and over again. Next time I head to the golf course, I think I'll just stay on one par 3 and hit 72 5-irons and see what the fuss is all about. LOL


Thats probably not fair, as 3D is almost certainly more popular than target archery from a pure numbers standpoint.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Thats probably not fair, as 3D is almost certainly more popular than target archery from a pure numbers standpoint.


valid point. 

I guess World Archery is satisfied with continuing this for the forseeable future?

Curious what the viewership numbers are for the Olympic games and what the trend is since 70 was introduced.


----------



## Verminaters1967 (Aug 20, 2019)

I like targets that have 4 legs and live in the woods


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Verminaters1967 said:


> I like targets that have 4 legs and live in the woods


God forbid you wear camo... That's a no-no.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I gave up 18 meters first. It is just wrong to shoot indoors in Southern California.
> 
> Then I gave up shooting FITA's, and spending most my practice time shooting 70 meters.
> 
> Field archery is the best game in town. Where are all the WA field tournaments?


I wouldn’t be quitting compound if there were still such a thing as field and there were still field shoots. And weren’t just yardage guessing exercises at invisible rubber deer . I don’t mean to rag on 3D, it just doesn’t move me too much. Since I’m going back to OR, it’s going to be many moons before I can even hit the bail at 18m, so 18 will be all brand new to me again in a few years. Hopefully that’ll hold me for the “duration“.. 

lee.


----------



## Braveheart (Apr 1, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> I've always considered myself a fan of target archery ever since taking it up in 2003, but frankly watching basically the same archers shoot the same distance over and over and over again is getting a bit boring.
> 
> And I'll be honest, shooting the same two distances year after year is as well. I can always go shoot something else, but as a fan and consumer of target archery, I guess I'd like to see something different. Maybe they alternate the WC format from 70m to the four distance FITA? Not sure what the answer is, but just like (here I go again with the golf analogies) there are "horses for courses" in pro golf, I'd like to see different formats that challenge the archers in a unique way from one event to another.
> 
> ...


Full FITA was the best. Too bad they "dumbed" it down. Seems to be the trend 😢


limbwalker said:


> I've always considered myself a fan of target archery ever since taking it up in 2003, but frankly watching basically the same archers shoot the same distance over and over and over again is getting a bit boring.
> 
> And I'll be honest, shooting the same two distances year after year is as well. I can always go shoot something else, but as a fan and consumer of target archery, I guess I'd like to see something different. Maybe they alternate the WC format from 70m to the four distance FITA? Not sure what the answer is, but just like (here I go again with the golf analogies) there are "horses for courses" in pro golf, I'd like to see different formats that challenge the archers in a unique way from one event to another.
> 
> ...


Full FITA was the best. They have "dumbed" it down like everything else it seems to get more money I guess . I would think everybody would like a challenge and to "mix it up".


----------



## lameduck (Jul 24, 2019)

limbwalker said:


> I've always considered myself a fan of target archery ever since taking it up in 2003, but frankly watching basically the same archers shoot the same distance over and over and over again is getting a bit boring.
> 
> And I'll be honest, shooting the same two distances year after year is as well. I can always go shoot something else, but as a fan and consumer of target archery, I guess I'd like to see something different. Maybe they alternate the WC format from 70m to the four distance FITA? Not sure what the answer is, but just like (here I go again with the golf analogies) there are "horses for courses" in pro golf, I'd like to see different formats that challenge the archers in a unique way from one event to another.
> 
> ...


I don't get tired of watching them regardless of distance and the lack of change in distances.....I'm just happy to see there are other people out there doing the same thing I'm interested in, especially when they shoot with bows without wheels.

Maybe because I'm new to archery (started learning in summer of 2019)....or maybe because I've got other hobbies that keep me from getting bored in any of them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lameduck said:


> I don't get tired of watching them regardless of distance and the lack of change in distances.....I'm just happy to see there are other people out there doing the same thing I'm interested in, especially when they shoot with bows without wheels.
> 
> Maybe because I'm new to archery (started learning in summer of 2019)....or maybe because I've got other hobbies that keep me from getting bored in any of them.


18 years (for me) is a long time to shoot and to watch people shoot a single distance. So maybe that's just my problem. But for the sport, WA and the Olympic games have been at 70 since what, 1992? At least the WC's used the FITA round for a while after that. 

I do like the historical perspective and being able to compare scores by different archers against one another. Having records that can be broken 10-20 even 30 years later also adds value in a sport.

I guess time will tell how long WA and the Olympics continue at 70.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Seems to me that almost everyone posting in this thread hates target archery in its current form. How many here actually shoot 70 or 18m rounds regularly?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Seems to me that almost everyone posting in this thread hates target archery in its current form. How many here actually shoot 70 or 18m rounds regularly?


Seems to me you take the most negative possible view of every discussion these days. Everything okay at home?

Questions about formats are always going to bring out people's opinions on which they prefer. I don't know why that would surprise anyone. It's also well known that those who are fine with the status quo tend to not speak up, vote, etc.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Seems to me you take the most negative possible view of every discussion these days. Everything okay at home?
> 
> Questions about formats are always going to bring out people's opinions on which they prefer. I don't know why that would surprise anyone. It's also well known that those who are fine with the status quo tend to not speak up, vote, etc.


Yeah, I’m just older, maybe wiser, obviously more cynical than you. 😄 Hence what’s under my avatar. 

Deal with it in your own way, I’m not likely to change.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

I don’t hate target archery in its current form. I just think WA could do more to offer a wider variety of competitions while still keeping a standardized rule set (which is the issue with: “just shoot another org”).

I really like the 18 and 50 barebow rounds. But I haven’t been shooting as long as some of you.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

IMHO. It's fine the way it is. The variety of shooting styles means one doesn't have to cross over into another. Field, 3d known/unknown, 3d "redding style", indoor/outdoor target. Don't like to shoot one distance, plenty of others to get into.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

rharper said:


> IMHO. It's fine the way it is. The variety of shooting styles means one doesn't have to cross over into another. Field, 3d known/unknown, 3d "redding style", indoor/outdoor target. Don't like to shoot one distance, plenty of others to get into.


I agree that we have choices. But I guess I wasn't clear about what this thread is about. It's about whether WA sticking with 18 and 70 is a good long-term plan for growing the sport (as they say is their strategic goal), and if so, for how long?


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

Stash said:


> Seems to me that almost everyone posting in this thread hates target archery in its current form. How many here actually shoot 70 or 18m rounds regularly?


I actually still love it, which is part of why I'm going back to OR. On the compound, everything around where I'm at is 3D yardage guessing at rubber deer buried behind bushes that I can't see. At a rate of one arrow per hour in 110 degree heat. And I just slap don't want to do that anymore as a shooter - I'd prefer to shoot target archery and/or field. As a spectator, it's still ok to watch, IMO.

The other reason is last year I lost all my personal possessions in an incident, and to get back up to speed on compound I'm looking at multiple 1000's of dollars to rebuild my home archery shop to support the silly thing. And I don't want to do that either. For a fraction of that I can get my OR in shootable form and just try to figure it out and hopefully learn one day how to actually execute a shot on it.

So I can enjoy many years of intense study and practice on my Bowtree in the apartment with an OR bow and a cheap set of XX75s. I can see a year of work on getting through the clicker without a grap/rip on the string alone. Much less hitting what I'm aiming at. And maybe in a few years graduate to 20 yards again. Much less trouble, got plenty of good work I can do, and much cheaper .

As a spectator, my POV is different than it is as a shooter. Compound as a shooter I just don't want to go that direction anymore. As a spectator, I still like the "Schadenfreude" of it. Though I think moving outdoors out to 70M instead of 50M would probably improve it. I think it should be harder than it currently is to make it more enjoyable to watch....

lee.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I've always considered myself a fan of target archery ever since taking it up in 2003, but frankly watching basically the same archers shoot the same distance over and over and over again is getting a bit boring.
> 
> And I'll be honest, shooting the same two distances year after year is as well. I can always go shoot something else, but as a fan and consumer of target archery, I guess I'd like to see something different. Maybe they alternate the WC format from 70m to the four distance FITA? Not sure what the answer is, but just like (here I go again with the golf analogies) there are "horses for courses" in pro golf, I'd like to see different formats that challenge the archers in a unique way from one event to another.
> 
> ...


Personally, I think what they are doing is fine. The great thing about target archery as it is now, is that you don’t have to be an elite archer to keep all your arrows on the bail at competition distances. 18M and 50m/70m distances are not overwhelming to the intermediate level archer, which by the way is archery’s replacement for a spectator group. But as written other places, even elite level archers are not shooting perfect scores or at least it is still rare.

I do think though for us archers who have been doing it a while, at some point target archery just doesn’t fully satisfy us. Yes we will still shoot it, and most of us practice that way. But if that was all we had to shoot, archery may not be a long term hobby.

Thank God for the other games, such as field, 3D, 900, International, etc. These games, except for 3D, don’t come by often but when they do, they add spice to our experience.

Like someone else claimed there is no doubt that the best and funnest and most challenging form of archery is field, but field intimidates the crap out of beginning and intermediate archers, especially finger shooters. Target though does not.

So to follow up, I think Target (indoor and outdoor) as it is, being at the forefront, is not a bad thing, and when new archers progress to an intermediate level, don’t look like impossible to do.

And lets be honest the far majority (90%(?)) of archers that go to these USAT tournaments spending a crap load of money in registration have zero chance to make the team much less podium. But they are encouraged to come, because…well these archers replace the spectators that our big tournaments do not attract.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> I agree that we have choices. But I guess I wasn't clear about what this thread is about. It's about whether WA sticking with 18 and 70 is a good long-term plan for growing the sport (as they say is their strategic goal), and if so, for how long?


I would then say, yes, it is a fine they stick with it because it is also inherantly different than the other options. I would say change it if other competing organizations took over these single distance shoots in popularity and then needed to change to stay relavant.


----------



## ArchAnon (Feb 27, 2018)

@limbwalker, this has been an interesting topic. Thanks for starting the thread!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

ArchAnon said:


> @limbwalker, this has been an interesting topic. Thanks for starting the thread!


Thank you. This forum has always been where I come to "think out loud" about target archery, which has (for better or worse) been a surprisingly large part of my life these past 18 years. I'm just a curious bystander these days for the most part. Nothing WA or USArchery does really affects me in any material way. If I get bored shooting spots, I'll go shoot something with hair on it or go fishing or play golf or go birding or backpacking. I just think if WA's goal (as they say) is growth, they should be thinking about the format. I'm sure they have. The average competitive lifespan of an archer is so short that it probably doesn't really matter what we all shoot. Hard to get "bored" shooting a single distance when you only do it for 4-5 years. LOL


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Probably should have searched for this earlier, for reference. It's a good read and very relevant to this topic.

2013 was the last year the FITA was used in the World Championships, and only for ranking. The first year the four distance FITA was used was 1956. The FITA round was the WC format used to determine the champion for 30 years (56-86). The 70M round has been used at the Olympics now for 29 years... Hmmm.









A brief history of the competition formats used in international archery 1931-2020


The modern archery target is a mixture of English colours and continental scoring zones.




worldarchery.sport





and it looks like the "gold" on our 122's is that size because of a chicken. LOL


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

I know the topic was about whether WA should stick with their standard format but it sort of makes me expand it in my own mind to my personal shooting- should we all stick to our standard format?? How do we keep our interest in archery alive. Over time archery at standard distance targets would be like golf if you were restricted to the driving range and the flag out a 120 yds. It could get boring? I enjoy shooting at 18M because I am still inconsistent enuf that it is not a given what my score will be and lots of room for improvement.(a shout out to BB with no sights ) ..but yrs later if that becomes so consistent it becomes boring then what?? I have only barely started shooting at 50 yds and that is a whole new challenge so that should keep me going for years but I also shoot 3D which is a hoot except for feeding the damn mosquitoes. Maybe it is competition that will keep the sport alive over the long haul.. up the stakes for each trip to the range. Not sure how any of this would relate to the question concerning the WA but in some ways we all have to somehow keep the spark alive.. I often use different targets like the DAIR target, shoot one arrow at different distances and total the score after 5 arrows/five distances. Anything to keep it interesting.


----------



## Braveheart (Apr 1, 2017)

FerrumVeritas said:


> I don’t hate target archery in its current form. I just think WA could do more to offer a wider variety of competitions while still keeping a standardized rule set (which is the issue with: “just shoot another org”).
> 
> I really like the 18 and 50 barebow rounds. But I haven’t been shooting as long as some of you.


Well you should give it a try. Full FITA was the best. I know they wanted to make it easier to get more people in the the sport, i.e. money, but if you haven't shot a full FITA, you should try it. It's more of a challenge.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

woof156 said:


> I know the topic was about whether WA should stick with their standard format but it sort of makes me expand it in my own mind to my personal shooting- should we all stick to our standard format?? How do we keep our interest in archery alive. Over time archery at standard distance targets would be like golf if you were restricted to the driving range and the flag out a 120 yds. It could get boring? I enjoy shooting at 18M because I am still inconsistent enuf that it is not a given what my score will be and lots of room for improvement.(a shout out to BB with no sights ) ..but yrs later if that becomes so consistent it becomes boring then what?? I have only barely started shooting at 50 yds and that is a whole new challenge so that should keep me going for years but I also shoot 3D which is a hoot except for feeding the damn mosquitoes. Maybe it is competition that will keep the sport alive over the long haul.. up the stakes for each trip to the range. Not sure how any of this would relate to the question concerning the WA but in some ways we all have to somehow keep the spark alive.. I often use different targets like the DAIR target, shoot one arrow at different distances and total the score after 5 arrows/five distances. Anything to keep it interesting.


One reason barebow has seen so much growth and so much interest at events like Lancasters is because it's still about "hitting" and not about "missing." I think that appeals to a lot of people.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

lees said:


> Well, my complaint may not actually be on topic, for which I apologize if so. The other day when PSE discontinued my bow was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back. My whole career on compound has been discontinued/unsupported bows the very instant I plunk down the cash for em. I'm just getting exhausted from spending these huge sums of money for orphaned equipment, where I lose the entire investment through pitiful to no resale because of the low-poundage bows I have to custom-order. And then there's the personal archery shop with literally 1000's of dollars in tools I need to maintain it all which I'm also getting sick of.
> 
> If I can figure out my olympic rig and how to execute a shot on it, I don't need a press I don't need to fiddle endlessly. It's a stick with a string on it. So all I need is a stick and a string, and I can shoot cheap XX75's out of it for the multiple years it'll take me to get to 20 yards. No peeps, no scopes, no having to make 5 strings at a time instead of just 1, no release aids that cost a fortune and fail. I;ll be able to get limbs for it till the end of time.
> 
> ...


Your orphaned bow would still shoot better than you... PSE is in the business of making money. They introduce new models that may or may not be better... that's every manufacturer... there's nothing wrong with your bow.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

stick monkey said:


> Your orphaned bow would still shoot better than you... PSE is in the business of making money. They introduce new models that may or may not be better... that's every manufacturer... there's nothing wrong with your bow.


Until something on it breaks or wears out, and PSE quits making the parts I might need. Then there's a lot wrong with it. BTDT and that's not a good place to be with the amount of money you spent to start with.

lee.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lees said:


> Until something on it breaks, and PSE quits making the parts I might need. Then there's a real problem....
> 
> lee.


Tuesday night at our local 4-H archery program, I watched as four (FOUR!) dads hovered around one young archer's compound bow for 30 minutes while 15 or so other young archers all enjoyed shooting their lightweight recurves. It made me chuckle a bit. I kinda felt bad for the young man.

I've coached compound archers and helped them with their equipment, but gradually most of them started shooting recurve or barebow in my JOAD club because they (or their parents, or both) realized they were spending more time working on their bows than they were shooting, and they really just wanted to shoot.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Tuesday night at our local 4-H archery program, I watched as four (FOUR!) dads hovered around one young archer's compound bow for 30 minutes while 15 or so other young archers all enjoyed shooting their lightweight recurves. It made me chuckle a bit. I kinda felt bad for the young man.
> 
> I've coached compound archers and helped them with their equipment, but gradually most of them started shooting recurve or barebow in my JOAD club because they (or their parents, or both) realized they were spending more time working on their bows than they were shooting, and they really just wanted to shoot.


Exactly. And the time spent not on the shooting line working on your shot expands dramatically when your bow is discontinued after only a year on the market. And the manufacturer develops amnesia about it right at the very moment you need support/parts for it the most a few years down the road when you encounter a problem. Yes, they all do, don't believe em when they say they support them forever. Entire investment in your favorite bow -> gone.

I'm one of those weird guys who doesn't completely replace his bows every 2 years - I keep them literally until they don't work anymore or they get stolen/destroyed. So I regularly hit that "planned obsolescence" feature that's built into every compound bow that most other compound shooters never run into. Usually stuff at the limb tips, but sometimes the limbs themselves, or problems keeping things bolted onto it, etc.

If you get into string making, that makes the "archery shop" problem even worse, since making a proper set of strings/cables for a compound can take a couple days. Basically a morning or afternoon making them, than a couple days with them sealed in a bag to let them relax. Then getting them on the bow, getting the peep sight aligned, shooting them in, etc....

Well you get the drift .

When I got back into archery this time around after losing all of my equipment in an incident about 2 years ago, I faced having to get back up to speed on compound again from scratch. I got as far the bow and a new release aid, and only then realized I was still almost 1000 bucks away from being able to press my bow safely and build high quality strings and arrows for it.

I just decided ok I've had it. I want to shoot, not be an archery shop for 1000's of bucks.

So I'm back to struggling with OR. I have my older bow right now that's still kind of functional to use until my new one comes in. But after that, all I'll have to do is make a string about every couple years and cut a few aluminum arrows from time to time....

lee.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

lees said:


> Exactly. And the time spent not on the shooting line working on your shot expands dramatically when your bow is discontinued after only a year on the market. And the manufacturer develops amnesia about it right at the very moment you need support/parts for it the most a few years down the road when you encounter a problem. Yes, they all do, don't believe em when they say they support them forever. Entire investment in your favorite bow -> gone.
> 
> I'm one of those weird guys who doesn't completely replace his bows every 2 years - I keep them literally until they don't work anymore or they get stolen/destroyed. So I regularly hit that "planned obsolescence" feature that's built into every compound bow that most other compound shooters never run into. Usually stuff at the limb tips, but sometimes the limbs themselves, or problems keeping things bolted onto it, etc.
> 
> ...


Pretty sure the focus has been out three years...the new model shares the same cam system...not much else to go wrong


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> But I guess I wasn't clear about what this thread is about. It's about whether WA sticking with 18 and 70 is a good long-term plan for growing the sport (as they say is their strategic goal), and if so, for how long?


I would appreciate it if we could stay on this topic, please. 

Kindly start another thread to talk about your personal equipment.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

stick monkey said:


> Pretty sure the focus has been out three years...the new model shares the same cam system...not much else to go wrong


Mine is the Focus XL, which I believe was new for 2020. The new one has a different riser, different limb pockets and probably different limbs. Currently unknown if the parts in the limb tips are exactly the same - maybe some are but maybe not. They also switched away from the floating yoke system to a fixed yoke system with something made out of plastic, I believe, at the yoke, but it's not known if the old floating yoke system (if you preferred it) will fit and work correctly on the new model and....

Well, you get the idea ....

Lots of ifs and maybes and who knows whats every time the manufacturer forces a bow out of production and a new one into the market every 2 years at most and often yearly.

An ILF OR, OTOH.... you literally only have to buy the handle and accessories once and never again unless you lose it or break it somehow. Training limbs are $99 a set from Lancaster and, unlike old compound limbs which are worthless, can be resold to another beginner after you "outgrow" them... ILF has been around long enough with no changes that the future of them is much brighter than anything on a compound bow.

Well, you get the idea again... 

lee.


----------



## stick monkey (Mar 9, 2015)

You can still get 7-800 from someone in the classifieds...I suggest you sell sooner than later or it will be worth 6-700... it's the nature of the beast which is compound archery...not right but that's what people in the market are willing to pay for used stuff...if everyone held out a little bit for 50-100 more instead of reducing 50-100 then the used market might be friendlier for the seller...but that won't ever happen


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> We changed to 70m exclusively what, 15 years ago? Will it still be relevant in another 15 years? What will WA do to make sure it's holding the audience's interest?


To answer to your questions:

1. Yes, it will be relevant in another 15 years because shooting an Olympic Rig is equivalent with shooting 70m.
2. Will do nothing because if they will change something, the equivalence above will no more be true.

Think about 70m and OA as you think about Trojan Horse. Nobody looks at Trojan Horse as a sculpture but as a deceiving object. 
This 70m shooting became "traditional" and they don't want to break the tradition.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I've always considered myself a fan of target archery ever since taking it up in 2003, but frankly watching basically the same archers shoot the same distance over and over and over again is getting a bit boring.
> 
> And I'll be honest, shooting the same two distances year after year is as well. I can always go shoot something else, but as a fan and consumer of target archery, I guess I'd like to see something different. Maybe they alternate the WC format from 70m to the four distance FITA? Not sure what the answer is, but just like (here I go again with the golf analogies) there are "horses for courses" in pro golf, I'd like to see different formats that challenge the archers in a unique way from one event to another.
> 
> ...


I know I get a little bit tired of it. I'd like to see a 3-Bow format where the competitors have to shoot recurve, compound, and barebow.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

lksseven said:


> I know I get a little bit tired of it. I'd like to see a 3-Bow format where the competitors have to shoot recurve, compound, and barebow.


Because archery isn’t expensive enough


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Because archery isn’t expensive enough


All medalists get a percentage off divorce attorney fees.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

lksseven said:


> I know I get a little bit tired of it. I'd like to see a 3-Bow format where the competitors have to shoot recurve, compound, and barebow.


I'd rather mix formats. Day one outdoor or indoor target (depending on the season), day two field, day three an experimental round (changed distance, target face, or scoring -- testing proposed round changes or just mixing it up). Top 16 based on aggregate scores across all three days. Finals would be shootouts in one of the formats, randomly selected.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Draven Olary said:


> To answer to your questions:
> 
> 1. Yes, it will be relevant in another 15 years because shooting an Olympic Rig is equivalent with shooting 70m.
> 2. Will do nothing because if they will change something, the equivalence above will no more be true.
> ...


How long was the Four-distance format the standard format in national and international competition?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> How long was the Four-distance format the standard format in national and international competition?


30 years.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Because archery isn’t expensive enough


The OP's launch wasn't about affordable. It was about sustained interest levels for WA audiences in viewing and participating, and additional wrinkles to further/encourage that.

I see a lot of interest and participation in 3-Gun competitions all over the country. Fortunately, my interest in watching 3-Gun competitions doesn't compel me to 'have to get outfitted for it'. (see ryan B.'s comment above!).

I'd love to see world classers have to go from one end recurve to another end compound to another end barebow.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> 30 years.


And how long has one 70m distance been the 'format'?

I guess my notion is that traditions are sacrosanct until the power wielders decide something else is now 'the format'.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

John, that's interesting about the chicken. I always just assumed the 122cm yellow size was approximately the kill zone of the average male torso (the bow being a weapon and all). In the same vein as the bullseye being 51" high (isn't that correct?) because it is the approximately centerpoint of the average male's torso (again, warfare informed). But a 'chicken' is much more whimsical - I like it!


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

lksseven said:


> The OP's launch...was about sustained interest levels for WA audiences in viewing and participating, and additional wrinkles to further/encourage that.


There were “3500 watching” the men’s recurve live stream on YouTube, and there sure was a lot of chatter going on for the last two days. Mostly mindless drivel of course, but there were a LOT of people watching.

Curiously, few Americans.

Lots of Brazilians, Mexicans, Indians, Koreans (based on the names and flags being posted). One Polish cretin yesterday who kept going on about Hitler for some reason. 🙄 And a few religious nutjobs.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> I don’t know what the number actually means, but there was a “3500” posted st the top of the live chat during the men’s recurve live stream on YouTube, and there sure was a lot of chatter going on for the last two days. Mostly mindless drivel of course, but there were a LOT of people watching.
> 
> Curiously, few Americans.
> 
> Lots of Brazilians, Mexicans, Indians, Koreans (based on the names and flags being posted). One Polish cretin yesterday who kept going on about Hitler for some reason. 🙄 And a few religious nutjobs.


"few Americans" .... well, football is in full swing (and baseball races coming down to the wire - St Louis Cardinals have won 16 in a row!). College football expecially tends to give most Americans temporary tunnel vision (also known as mono-synapticism  )


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

lksseven said:


> I'd love to see world classers have to go from one end recurve to another end compound to another end barebow.


This sound more like an Archery Triathlon with the Super Archer as final title. Interesting as idea, but I don't see a compound champ downgrading to barebow even if I can see a barebow champ upgrading to compound. The recurve shooter can do all 3 and can get proficient in less amount of time compared with a compound archer. The event might fire up some but I doubt it will be a big exodus from the compound pool toward this new format.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Draven Olary said:


> This sound more like an Archery Triathlon with the Super Archer as final title. Interesting as idea, but I don't see a compound champ downgrading to barebow even if I can see a barebow champ upgrading to compound. The recurve shooter can do all 3 and can get proficient in less amount of time compared with a compound archer. The event might fire up some but I doubt it will be a big exodus from the compound pool toward this new format.


"downgrading" to barebow? "upgrading" to compound? Curious why you would say it that way.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

Sighting system. A compound shooter has a sight and a peep sight. The barebow has just a "sight".


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Draven Olary said:


> Sighting system. A compound shooter has a sight and a peep. The barebow has just a "sight".


So I would think that moving from compound (with so many aids) to barebow would be upgrading. I'm curious why you chose those terms.


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

Naturally we tend to be result oriented in whatever we are doing. If I think the 3 types of archery from the point of view results, the compound accuracy is top of the list, the recurve is 2nd and the barebow is 3rd in line. Will take a while for someone who was used to hit the X to adjust to less. How are they saying: if you miss an x you are a loser with compound, but if you hit the gold you are a winner with the barebow?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Draven Olary said:


> Naturally we tend to be result oriented in whatever we are doing. If I think the 3 types of archery from the point of view results, the compound accuracy is top of the list, the recurve is 2nd and the barebow is 3rd in line. Will take a while for someone who was used to hit the X to adjust to less. How are they saying: if you miss an x you are a loser with compound, but if you hit the gold you are a winner with the barebow?


I suppose that's the common mentality these days. Not much room anymore for the idea that challenging oneself with fewer aids has value. Making and using tools is what separates us from the rest of life on this planet. It's probably in our DNA to be attracted to tools that make things easier for us.

I watched yesterday as a barebow archer stacked 6 arrows into the 10 ring at 50 meters. He's only been shooting barebow a few years now. I think in 10 years there will be a lot of people who are shocked at what can be done with a target barebow rig. If anyone is paying attention to the world class shooters, they would probably already be shocked.

I would agree that if someone becomes proficient with an OR rig, the chances of those skills transferring well to compound and barebow are pretty high, and the reciprocal is not necessarily true.

I teach a lot of beginners and have for decades (like many of you here) and I absolutely hate to see a beginner start with a compound because they will usually be dependent on those accessories the rest of their life.


----------



## Fly2High (Feb 25, 2019)

John and others,
I am a repeat beginner archer several times over so I can only offer my knowledge from this perspective. I am sure it is not perfect and I offer it only as food for thought from someone who is very competitive by nature but has not yet competed in archery. Maybe someone who is looking 'up' is different from those looking 'down'. What I mean by this is that I am gaining again in interest and competition while others seem to be losing it.

As far as can WA sustain the current 70M I tend to think of it like this. As long as there is a reasonable number of new archers to counter the number that leave the sport, the single distance will survive. If the number of participants is going up, then there is nothing to worry about. Sure, each individual needs to decide for themselves how long an activity is of interest but that doesn't impact a sport until there are fewer new participants than departures. What is our current trend? If we are stable or improving, are we looking for a steeper climb? What makes a competition more interesting or desirable to attend?

As for making a competition of interest, I would like to ask what is a competition testing? What skills can we add if any so as to make a new format challenging? To me a competition is a test to show attained skill level in an activity. In archery, you can test mental acuity, wind speed and its impact, distance, strength, endurance, composure under pressure and I am sure there are others. With fixed distance, you take out the skill of distance estimation. All the stabilization added to a OR allows the affect of (I will guess here so do not dwell on this) strength and precision ability to be diminished some since they help improve that (at the bare minimum). They tighten the groups making the challenge of longer distance less challenging. I would think that as technology improves, an archer's precision will improve requiring longer and longer distances. I think barebow is the logical progression that many seek not only for its reduced cost (somewhat) but it makes a shorter distances more challenging even at a fixed distance. It also opens up venues that would otherwise not be capable of offering competition and it allows some of us to practice those distances in our own yards. I feel barebow adds tuning to the list of tested skills to some degree since you do not have a sight and will rely on the selection of arrows and their length but this is only slight. All disciplines require arrow tuning but I think for a beginner or intermediate, you can get away with less arrow tuning with a sight adjustment alternative. I understand for a pro, everything would matter and is done.

Since Field and 3D add back in testing of yardage estimation, what testing would you add to make some form of archery more challenging to the seasoned archer? These are already offered formats. If targets were moved to random distances, I would think the first shooter would reveal too much for the second not making it as fair a competition. Might be over thinking this since I am not competition experienced. I am just trying to think if there is an advantage of going second in a variable distance event. As it is, even in fixed, the guy going second can get a wind read and determine somewhat of an arrow flight impact from the first shooter so I am not so sure if adding in variable distance would offer enough of an advantage. 

You could add some testing of athleticism outside of the strength required to draw a greater poundage. I would not mind seeing a biathlon with archery. Doesn't need to be on skis but could be running/jogging or biking so as to make it a summer sport. I am sure an accelerated heartrate would really throw an archer off. Unfortunately that would limit the sport to younger archers and I would suspect archery is sought for being ageless. 

How about testing multi - disciplines but with a single bow? I like a biathlon where it would be the combination of fixed distance and say field. Let's see how many are good at more than one discipline within archery. Do not care which two (or three for that matter) just that it requires a single bow to keep costs down for the entire tournament. 

The downside of changing the current format is generating interest without impacting existing activities since I would not expect the changeover to be like a light switch. How many years would it change to swap? Since this would need to be a global decision, how many countries will need to offer new formats? Would revenue be lost with some existing fixed 70M losing archers (driving up individual costs) while the new format might garner new interest? You would have to host more competitions increasing the number of venue days per year. Maybe you could offer both so some archers will attend the 70M and the new format. Not sure how many can afford increasing the number of events attended. I know in other activities, some like to compete against the Gods of a sport. If they need to reduce the number of events they attend so as to open time for the new format, that too might reduce attendance as the pros change what they attend. It is always great for a new guy to shoot alongside a seasoned pro and get a little star struck. I might event ry a particular format if I knew a particular pro was known to be in attendance in advance. I have also seen competitions in other activities fold because those pros changed their mind or could not attend and event.

Would the cost of changing formats impact archery too much? Would we lose more attendance until the new format fully replaces the old? What if the new format requires changes in equipment? Isn't there enough complaints about the cost of entry already so that this might drive archers away all together? I guess we are back to how many take up the new format vs the number who leave. Can we gain enough to offset our losses by changing formats? Is changing formats only going to appeal to those who are worn out with the current offering more than add new archers to the competition? I guess the question this brings up is can more competitors be gained by preventing archers from leaving vs the effort to gain new competitors? Changing to an existing popular format might help hold both. Not sure. 

I think archery is a rather small community and it is easier to lose interest than to gain in it. I myself started shooting in my teens, left just before college, picked it up at the tail end, dropped it again (after 8 years of shooting) for 15yrs only to pick it back up now. For me, I have never entered a competition in part I have not been aware of them. Only now have I gained an interest in competing but have not acted on it ... yet. It is too easy to be intimidated by the level of proficiency seen on YouTube and other televised events. As a repeat beginner, not seeing progress makes it too easy to find reasons not to compete. As a hunter, I was happy to have 9 in groups out to 40 or 50 yards knowing I tend to keep my shots well inside that distance.

My final question of thought is from where are we going to pull archers into the 70M fixed or a newer format in the first place? We are not the largest community and it only seems that Hollywood has been able to increase our numbers. It is also up to us to keep them but how? How do you take a simple repeatable activity and make it interesting. We are almost akin to bowling. What did they do? They added the Rock and Bowl stuff to try to pull in a younger crowd. What are we doing to pull in younger archers as a community in general? Living in liberal NY, archery and any weapon activities are four letter words. It is very challenging to increase numbers when there is an air of resentment towards any lethal activity.

I think another aspect that makes an activity fun is when you have a chance to win. I have done an activity called discus launched gliders where a person throws a glider by a wingtip and has several flight durations to achieve in a window of time. While the field was unable to make a time, the activity was fun. once pilots started reaching perfect scores or gaining crazy altitudes, interest waned by many. I think some left because a little luck and some skill use to get a pilot to a podium. Now, only hours of practice, strength training, lots of time and some case, a lack of old age got you to the podium. The people who could not put in the time commitment, were of elevated age, finances, etc. left the competition. I see archery paralleling this. I think barebow has interest because the cost could be lower and the skill to keep hitting 9s or better has yet been achieved. Throw a few Tiger Woods, ok, Brady Ellisons out there at all the regional events and you might instead turn some away. What I refer to by Brady or Tiger is the time and financial investment as well as the natural skill. The rest of us mere mortals might enjoy in watching but will refrain from competition knowing we either have not yet attained that level or fear never will. Why would someone enter an event where there is no chance of winning. Do we need more levels of competition so a beginner can have a chance. Is there a novice, intermediate and pro level? Sorry about my ignorance on this. I would not be surprised if there is. 

So is it the format that brings attendance or something else? What is offered for the mortals or demigods at the competitions? Do they offer lectures on how to improve? What does the average guy who gets eliminated in the preliminary rounds get besides pulling out the measuring device and comparing genitals? Is the competition a social event? I am so grateful so many of the seasoned guy in AT have responded to my feeble threads and helped steer me in the right direction but I wonder for the cost of attendance, what does the average Joe get out of it besides a score card or a chance at shooting alongside a pro? In a day where discretionary money is harder to come buy and so many other activities are vying for those few funds, what would make me part with my hard earned cash and attend a competition? Before I go, I know I will only partake in the prelims and maybe marvel at what I might never be able to attain and be reminded of what top skill is like.

Just remember, before you beat up on anyone on these forums, think about who is listening because those are the people who determine if a sport or competition exists or not. All the top guys in the world will not matter if the average guy who goes to a competition only to be eliminated in the prelims stops attending. I think it is too easy to drive down attendance and ruin a competition with some of the comments that get said in forums like these. Also a community that is welcoming and helpful is required but a few poorly chosen words can drive several from our ranks and not just the seasoned pros but also those just gaining interest. Imagine where all of you would be if the community sentiment was too competitive and rather negative. Would you want to join in those activities? I would love to know if any correlation to 70M attendance or any archery competition for that matter can be tied to a overall sentiment change in forums, local clubs etc. I think we need to be careful when responding on a forum because all skill levels read them and when we respond to someone we need to ask ourselves what skill level would ask a question such as this and take that into consideration. Also, just because you may direct a question at a pro, think about how the new guy or average Joe might react to an argument between top archers. Would you want to join their activities and desire to join their ranks one day? This is not directed at anyone so do not read into this. There have been a couple of postings that I have found in these forums that make me question how helpful comments such as those can be to a competition, club or community. If we want to have a format survive we must first be able to tolerate each other, be helpful to others in the community and be somewhat positive.

I think if we can grow our community, any competition will garnish followers and competitions such as 70M fixed will continue. 

So to tie it all together, 18M and 70M will survive IF we can replace those leaving with more archers that have left, make a competition challenging (possibly on new and interesting levels), think about the cost for the average Joe and their experience at the event and grow our community by making archery fun and inviting since we are all ambassadors for the sport every time we post. If these things do not happen, I fear for more than just 18 and 70M. 

I will put on my flame suit now. Have at me. I hope this little fish can swim in your big pond for a little while before getting eaten. If you have gotten to this point, I thank you. I hope it might inspire some positive direction or at least gets archers thinking.

Thank you,
Frank


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Still not seeing any actual EVIDENCE presented to indicate that this 18 and 70m situation is actually facing impending doom. Anything like statistics showing a definite trend (not related to COVID) in reduced participation in WA target events worldwide.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Still not seeing any actual EVIDENCE presented to indicate that this 18 and 70m situation is actually facing impending doom. Anything like statistics showing a definite trend (not related to COVID) in reduced participation in WA target events worldwide.


I didn't see anyone attempting to build a case, so that probably explains why you're not seeing any evidence. Calm down man. This is a discussion. We're sharing opinions and speculation here.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

John, would you kindly in the future read only the text of what I write, and not infer any unintended enunciation or emotion? I have noticed that you tend to exhibit a strong tendency to do that in your responses to some of my posts. I’m not a Tapatalk-slamming phone puncher. I almost always attempt to formulate my written posts to also reflect any underlying subtext, should it be pertinent.

I am in no way uncalm. I merely made a comment that reflects my uncertainty that this matter actually is an issue of concern, and that I am unaware of any factual data that so indicates. Same as with the Barebow in WA Target matter. I don’t deny that such data exists, but I would find such statistics, if accurate, fascinating to examine. 

Opinions are fine. But if one expresses an opinion on a public forum, one should expect to be challenged to discuss the reasons for that opinion.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> John, would you kindly in the future read only the text of what I write, and not infer any unintended enunciation or emotion? I have noticed that you tend to exhibit a strong tendency to do that in your responses to some of my posts. I’m not a Tapatalk-slamming phone puncher. I almost always attempt to formulate my written posts to also reflect any underlying subtext, should it be pertinent.
> 
> I am in no way uncalm. I merely made a comment that reflects my uncertainty that this matter actually is an issue of concern, and that I am unaware of any factual data that so indicates. Same as with the Barebow in WA Target matter. I don’t deny that such data exists, but I would find such statistics, if accurate, fascinating to examine.
> 
> Opinions are fine. But if one expresses an opinion on a public forum, one should expect to be challenged to discuss the reasons for that opinion.


Stash, not every opinion has to be based on hard evidence. 

Also, you confuse questions with opinions - basically doing to me what you are accuse me of doing to you - inferring something that doesn't exist from a simple question.

The simple question here is how long can/will/should WA continue with the single distance format? That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

My "opinion" is that some archers, myself included, find it boring after a while. And some archery spectators, myself included, find it boring to watch after a while. It's simple human nature to wonder (and then ask, if you dare to these days on AT) whether anyone else feels the same way. I say dare to because I was jumped on from the very beginning of this thread for nothing more than wondering out loud. 

I had a couple conversations about this thread over the weekend. The take home is that had anyone else started it, probably nothing much would have come of it. But the fact that I started it had the sharks circling early for whatever stupid reason. I finally put Tony on my ignore list because I couldn't write a thing here that he didn't immediately follow with a reply contradicting me. Don't make me put you on that list too.

If you disagree with my opinion, I don't care whatsoever. But if you think it's someone's "job" to post evidence that they find a format boring, you're going to be waiting a long time. Because I said so, is sufficient evidence in this case, because it is merely an opinion. Nothing more. 

Back to the original question (which a few have been able to suss out of this discussion) - I have to agree with Frank above who suggests that WA will stick with those single distances until they have a reason to change. I guess I'm curious when that will be. 

Again - 30 years FITA and now 30 years single distance...


----------



## Draven Olary (Jun 12, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> I suppose that's the common mentality these days. Not much room anymore for the idea that challenging oneself with fewer aids has value. Making and using tools is what separates us from the rest of life on this planet. It's probably in our DNA to be attracted to tools that make things easier for us.
> 
> I watched yesterday as a barebow archer stacked 6 arrows into the 10 ring at 50 meters. He's only been shooting barebow a few years now. I think in 10 years there will be a lot of people who are shocked at what can be done with a target barebow rig. If anyone is paying attention to the world class shooters, they would probably already be shocked.
> 
> ...


It is more like an objective way of seeing things. The "proposal" has 2 steps:
1 Try to convince existing compound, recurve and barebow shooters to start cross training in the archery types they don't practice <---- this is where the 'downgrade' / 'upgrade' will impact with individual idiosyncrasies
2 Develop an entire system where a beginner starts with barebow and moves to recurve and finally to the compound <---- archery technique first, evolution of tool after.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Stash, not every opinion has to be based on hard evidence.


When did I ever suggest that was the case? 

Someone expresses an opinion. I ask “why do you feel that way?” “I dunno. I just do.” 

However, if you’re trying to convince someone who doesn't currently hold that opinion to join with you, presumably with the goal of initiating or effecting a change of some sort, don’t you think it would be a valuable tool to be able to provide rational justification that supports that opinion?

And, in my mind, “rational justification” is best based on a logical argument supported with factual evidence. I’ve heard the former, now I want to hear if there’s any of the latter. 

Nobody proffering an opinion is under any compulsion to present either (eg. “A&E”), but the presentation of more and better of both offers better odds of convincing others that your quest is worthy,

So, if they interest me, I question opposing or new opinions. If anyone answers, great. If not, then I likely will remain unconvinced.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

Stash, I find it interesting to read your posts. You make very clear explanations and if you do not, you say so. On the other hand, some people are very, very passionate (and heavily opinionated) in what they believe, so they will continue to push their narrative, even if there is evidence to the contrary. The inference of 30 years of "evidence" makes me remember when I looked at US results for the men in archery years ago. For over 20 years, almost all US men made two world championship events and that was it. They were outshot by the younger archers and replaced, essentially. For those interested, look it up. So, concluding, as some do, my second championships was going to be my last one, I figured I would enjoy it. Who knew that a couple of us broke the chain and continued on for several more championships. If I followed the logic that is given on this discussion and retired, I would not have earned 4 more individual WC medals and 6 more team WC medals. Keep thinking the way you do. (I know, you don't need to be told, but I thought I would put that out there!) 

Also, I recall Denise showing facts and figures about the low numbers of barebow at the US National Target Championships, but it never deterred them to continue to scream on the mountain tops about how they were so big and going to take over the world! Their numbers are small, even in the US. However, if those who believe that BB is huge and keep stating it, most archers will start to believe it, sort of like some political actions of today. Now, of course, this is my opinion, so I don't need facts to back it up. After all, that is what others do....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> When did I ever suggest that was the case?
> 
> Someone expresses an opinion. I ask “why do you feel that way?” “I dunno. I just do.”
> 
> ...


I didn't feel I was trying to convince anyone.

Just asked a question and then offered my opinion.

I think this thread has run it's course now. It was poisoned/led astray from the get-go anyway.

I would respond to Rick's comments if I knew what he was trying to say. I think his main point was to support you because he's mad at me (again) right now. LOL

Why these threads always have to turn personal and why some people get so defensive when others simply ask questions is just beyond me.


----------



## FerrumVeritas (Oct 9, 2020)

Rick McKinney said:


> Stash, I find it interesting to read your posts. You make very clear explanations and if you do not, you say so. On the other hand, some people are very, very passionate (and heavily opinionated) in what they believe, so they will continue to push their narrative, even if there is evidence to the contrary. The inference of 30 years of "evidence" makes me remember when I looked at US results for the men in archery years ago. For over 20 years, almost all US men made two world championship events and that was it. They were outshot by the younger archers and replaced, essentially. For those interested, look it up. So, concluding, as some do, my second championships was going to be my last one, I figured I would enjoy it. Who knew that a couple of us broke the chain and continued on for several more championships. If I followed the logic that is given on this discussion and retired, I would not have earned 4 more individual WC medals and 6 more team WC medals. Keep thinking the way you do. (I know, you don't need to be told, but I thought I would put that out there!)
> 
> Also, I recall Denise showing facts and figures about the low numbers of barebow at the US National Target Championships, but it never deterred them to continue to scream on the mountain tops about how they were so big and going to take over the world! Their numbers are small, even in the US. However, if those who believe that BB is huge and keep stating it, most archers will start to believe it, sort of like some political actions of today. Now, of course, this is my opinion, so I don't need facts to back it up. After all, that is what others do....


You brought barebow into this for no reason. Did you get lost? 

There is a difference between “biggest“ and “fastest growing.” I provided numbers in another thread (where it was relevant) about the latter. The question about how sustainable the growth is is an open one. The relative competitiveness of barebow archers and their desire to attend prestigious tournaments is another one. 

I do find it interesting that many, yourself included, seem to be against fostering growth in barebow. One would think that growth and participation in any division is good for USA Archery. My membership dues spend just as well as someone shooting compound or recurve. I understand the need to limit the number of competitive divisions, although 3 hardly seems like too many. I think the number of age categories is a bigger logistical problem, and that reducing them would be less likely to drive people from the sport.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

FerrumVeritas said:


> You brought barebow into this for no reason. Did you get lost?


Barebow was introduced into this thread several pages back, and not by Rick.


----------



## Rick McKinney (Mar 4, 2008)

FerrumVeritas said:


> You brought barebow into this for no reason. Did you get lost?
> 
> There is a difference between “biggest“ and “fastest growing.” I provided numbers in another thread (where it was relevant) about the latter. The question about how sustainable the growth is is an open one. The relative competitiveness of barebow archers and their desire to attend prestigious tournaments is another one.
> 
> I do find it interesting that many, yourself included, seem to be against fostering growth in barebow. One would think that growth and participation in any division is good for USA Archery. My membership dues spend just as well as someone shooting compound or recurve. I understand the need to limit the number of competitive divisions, although 3 hardly seems like too many. I think the number of age categories is a bigger logistical problem, and that reducing them would be less likely to drive people from the sport.


Actually, you assume that is my opinion, which it is not. I have stated many times I support all disciplines. I helped barebow archers win World and National titles and even set a few world records. I currently work with many barebow archers, as well as compound and recurve. I just feel that many of you believe that bb will take over and that will never happen. There are three disciplines and at this stage two are very strong world wide. BB was the largest and strongest 60 years ago. It is now third largest unless we start counting traditional which I have no idea of their numbers but they do have rather large events. Enjoy what you shoot without saying you are the best. I guess that is all I am saying. Increase your numbers, have fun and encourage all disciplines. Other than that, carry on! As for the two distances, there are actually 3. You forgot 50 meters which includes bb and compound. There are reasons that these distances have survived. We used to have a 25 meter indoors and WA still offers it, but it is hardly used. Field archery is stable but it is doubtful that it will increase unless they find a way to use less land. All sport is more of a financial convenience as the most important issue. In other words, the money has to be there for it to use a facility or make one. I had the opportunity to talk with the NBC sports Canoe and Kayaking person who told me the cost of using the white water for Kayaking. They have them, but few and far between. Archery is lucky to be able to use farmland and even some soccer fields, but eventually the soccer fields will probably be nixed due to archers leaving arrows in the ground. I hope you enjoy your shooting.....without prejudice.


----------



## ArchAnon (Feb 27, 2018)

FerrumVeritas said:


> Because archery isn’t expensive enough


Let's have a "claiming" division like in horse racing.

Set a dollar-value on the equipment. For example:

Any participant OR SPECTATOR at a match is allowed to buy any match participant's equipment for not less than $XXXX.

If the claiming competition is a $500 shoot, before the match anyone can hand you $500 and you MUST agree to sell them your gear at the end of the match, or you can't shoot.

Of course... who would sponsor such things? The idea that participants stay under a budget is terrible in the eyes of sponsors. Plus it would reduce desire for the "next great thing that will get you extra points". It will never fly.







limbwalker said:


> "downgrading" to barebow? "upgrading" to compound? Curious why you would say it that way.


Whichever one rewards the participant the most is an "upgrade".

Reward can come in any way the participant prefers. Money, happiness, adoration of the crowds, 'likes' on social media.....

If you switch to it and the reward goes up, it's an 'upgrade'.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick McKinney said:


> Actually, you assume that is my opinion, which it is not. I have stated many times I support all disciplines. I helped barebow archers win World and National titles and even set a few world records. I currently work with many barebow archers, as well as compound and recurve. I just feel that many of you believe that bb will take over and that will never happen. There are three disciplines and at this stage two are very strong world wide. BB was the largest and strongest 60 years ago. It is now third largest unless we start counting traditional which I have no idea of their numbers but they do have rather large events. Enjoy what you shoot without saying you are the best. I guess that is all I am saying. Increase your numbers, have fun and encourage all disciplines. Other than that, carry on! As for the two distances, there are actually 3. You forgot 50 meters which includes bb and compound. There are reasons that these distances have survived. We used to have a 25 meter indoors and WA still offers it, but it is hardly used. Field archery is stable but it is doubtful that it will increase unless they find a way to use less land. All sport is more of a financial convenience as the most important issue. In other words, the money has to be there for it to use a facility or make one. I had the opportunity to talk with the NBC sports Canoe and Kayaking person who told me the cost of using the white water for Kayaking. They have them, but few and far between. Archery is lucky to be able to use farmland and even some soccer fields, but eventually the soccer fields will probably be nixed due to archers leaving arrows in the ground. I hope you enjoy your shooting.....without prejudice.


The most arrows I ever saw in the ground were at the 2015 Olympic "trials that weren't the trials" when the DOS didn't heed several warnings by locals to temporarily suspend shooting in order to allow a severe Texas summer storm to pass through. Then they spent longer dealing with protests than it would have taken for the storm to pass over. LOL

Curious why you would say BB was the largest 60 years ago (1950's)? I assume you mean before takedown bows and sights were common on recurves?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Regarding the numbers for barebow archers (since we're completely derailed now)...

Denise Parker in 2014 - "barebow archers are welcome to shoot the same distances as recurve archers." (meaning either 70M or the four-distance 90/70/50/30 meter FITA round).

Also Denise in 2014 - "there just aren't enough barebow participants to justify a division."

LOL

Then Brady opens his mouth in support of barebow, a committee is created, a BB-specific round/format is introduced and "all the sudden" barebow numbers at nationals explode from 2015 to 2021 until they occupy half the field.

Funny how all that happened.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

ArchAnon said:


> .... The idea that participants stay under a budget is terrible in the eyes of sponsors. Plus it would reduce desire for the "next great thing that will get you extra points". It will never fly.


Not what you were talking about, but this reminds me of the Invictus Games (Toronto, 2017) which included a “novice” archery division, in which the archers were supplied with inexpensive recurve bows and arrows, all identical. My club actually acquired all this equipment after the Games and uses it for their instructional classes.

Another example would be NASP.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Not what you were talking about, but this reminds me of the Invictus Games (Toronto, 2017) which included a “novice” archery division, in which the archers were supplied with inexpensive recurve bows and arrows, all identical. My club actually acquired all this equipment after the Games and uses it for their instructional classes.
> 
> Another example would be NASP.


That actually sounds like a lot of fun. I sometimes do wish we had "stock bow" tournaments akin to stock car races.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

18 metered out? I think BB make 18 M shooting far more exciting than OR because of the challenge-- maybe more TV coverage of BB might stimulate the interest. 70 M aaaah maybe a bit too far but 50 M possibly. Maybe inclusion of BB into those event more might solve two problems- being metered out i.e. boring? and getting more people into the sport but certainly it would make it more interesting-- well to me....and since the center of the universe is....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

woof156 said:


> 18 metered out? I think BB make 18 M shooting far more exciting than OR because of the challenge-- maybe more TV coverage of BB might stimulate the interest. 70 M aaaah maybe a bit too far but 50 M possibly. Maybe inclusion of BB into those event more might solve two problems- being metered out i.e. boring? and getting more people into the sport but certainly it would make it more interesting-- well to me....and since the center of the universe is....


18m on a 40cm face is pretty ideal for barebow really. I'll be honest. A good barebow archer won't be that far behind a good recurve archer at that distance. Maybe 20-30 points max. 

50 on a 122 is the right place for barebow. I fought it for a long time (Rick and I wanted 60) but I can see the logic in 50 now. It's more inclusive and still a good challenge.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I’m sure that around the year 2050, some old guy will complain that 50m barebow is boring...

But by then it’ll probably be some sort of virtual e-game instead of an actual bow and arrows.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> I’m sure that around the year 2050, some old guy will complain that 50m barebow is boring...
> 
> But by then it’ll probably be some sort of virtual e-game instead of an actual bow and arrows.


Fascinating.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Hey, it’s an unsubstantiated opinion. I’m allowed. I’m not asking that anyone agree with me.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> Hey, it’s an unsubstantiated opinion. I’m allowed. I’m not asking that anyone agree with me.


Well, if you weren't playing Wii archery 10 years ago with the rest of us, I don't know what to say...


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I was, actually. I liked flying around that island, busting balloons.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Stash said:


> I was, actually. I liked flying around that island, busting balloons.


Okay, you get points for that.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)




----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Don’t ask me about DS.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I got the Wii archery for my kids. I swear.


----------



## onyxz (Aug 7, 2015)

This is a pretty fair question, especially considering the pivotal stage of growth our sport is in right now. We're seeing Olympians who first picked up a bow after watching the Hunger Games... wild stuff. That giant surge in interest, and the large investment in programs/facilities that followed, has settled into something reliable, and it's interesting to think where this generation will go in the next ten, twenty, thirty years...

I'm not sure I have a great answer, but I do think about this a lot with respect to increasing scores. What's going to happen when more and more of the elite field regularly shoot 700+? Or, as crazy as it might sound, what happens when someone someday scores a 720? It seem impossible now, but so did a 900 recurve at Vegas.

Changing/adding different target sizes or distances would be the easy option, but imo it would feel unsatisfying. If we're talking just target (obviously the spike in BB interest is its own whole thing), as others have mentioned I think field is where WA can hold attention. Yeah there's not enough international competition right now or participation from top class shooters, but I can see that changing over time with more investment. Plus, there's really no limit. Courses can be tweaked, modified, incorporate different and unique challenges, and really be endlessly diverse over time. Hell, if we truly, desperately needed a challenge, I'd be partial to seeing some moving targets one day 😂 Single distance shooting could still be considered the "classic" event, with higher expectations. 

Another consideration is that, while shooting at a high level obviously requires different skills in field than target, there's no real barrier stopping competitors within a discipline from expanding. That's also why while there are serious obstacles preventing barebow and compound from being included in the Olympics, I can see recurve possibly adding a field event. The qualification process would have to change, but it could be open to the same competition pool. Similar to how athletes in other sports can qualify for a variety of different races/events, archery can become a multievent sport without necessarily increasing the total number of competitors. And the same way the set system made watching the sport more engaging, I imagine an Olympic-level field tournament would do a lot for viewership too -- at least help us get on par with golf (pun 100% intended).


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

Stash said:


> I’m sure that around the year 2050, some old guy will complain that 50m barebow is boring...
> 
> But by then it’ll probably be some sort of virtual e-game instead of an actual bow and arrows.


Did you mean in the year 2525?? They wrote a song about that.


----------



## NMB (Aug 27, 2021)

Fly2High said:


> John and others,
> I am a repeat beginner archer several times over so I can only offer my knowledge from this perspective. I am sure it is not perfect and I offer it only as food for thought from someone who is very competitive by nature but has not yet competed in archery. Maybe someone who is looking 'up' is different from those looking 'down'. What I mean by this is that I am gaining again in interest and competition while others seem to be losing it.
> 
> As far as can WA sustain the current 70M I tend to think of it like this. As long as there is a reasonable number of new archers to counter the number that leave the sport, the single distance will survive. If the number of participants is going up, then there is nothing to worry about. Sure, each individual needs to decide for themselves how long an activity is of interest but that doesn't impact a sport until there are fewer new participants than departures. What is our current trend? If we are stable or improving, are we looking for a steeper climb? What makes a competition more interesting or desirable to attend?
> ...


Frank's post is pretty long, but I agree with his point that the welcoming atmosphere of the archery range is what draws a lot of us beginners. Is the attrition from intermediate archers getting bored and leaving? It seems like fixed distances with relatively simple rules is more conducive to getting novices to try the sport. I also agree with the several posters who point out that us low skill archers are this sports equivalent to spectators. I'd rather shoot than watch, with my own personal goal of making a certain score or not being last.

-NMB


----------



## spruis (Jan 15, 2015)

limbwalker said:


> I've always considered myself a fan of target archery ever since taking it up in 2003, but frankly watching basically the same archers shoot the same distance over and over and over again is getting a bit boring.
> 
> And I'll be honest, shooting the same two distances year after year is as well. I can always go shoot something else, but as a fan and consumer of target archery, I guess I'd like to see something different. Maybe they alternate the WC format from 70m to the four distance FITA? Not sure what the answer is, but just like (here I go again with the golf analogies) there are "horses for courses" in pro golf, I'd like to see different formats that challenge the archers in a unique way from one event to another.
> 
> ...


I was when they started this farce. Including the rules that provide so little time that letdowns are no longer allowed and "closest to the center" one arrow shoot offs (determined by random factors, not skill).

If you want to make the shoot-offs more exciting to watch, line all 72 "winners" in the Ranking Round on a filed with 36 targets. Line the archers up in order and then have six arrow shoot-offs, 1&2, 3&4, etc. Just score, no "sets." After the shoot-offs, the winners step toward the #1 position and the losers step away one notch. And then you shoot again. Repeat, say, 20 times. Allow the crowds to get involved as they do in team rounds. Imagine the excitement as one countries archer moves step by step up the ladder. Imagine the dismay as one counties archer falls step by step away from a medal.

After the prescribed number of repetitions, #1 gets gold, #2 gets silver, and #3 gets bronze. Archers would need to learn to shoot with a commotion going on. Various countries can focus on their own archers. And the ridiculous lose and go home aspect is out. Currently if the last ranked archer beats the #1 archer, they inherit the #1 spot in the bracket, not just a simple win. And the #1 archer is gone with no way back.

So, there are other schemes and there is no reason the Ranking Round or the shoot-offs could not involve multiple distances. To simplify things during shoot-offs, ties could go to the higher ranked archer, which would make the RR scores even more important.

Or . . . or . . . there are many other options but we are currently letting telegenicity at an event that occurs once every four years dominate our sport.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

This thread was never about a search for new formats. That topic has been beaten to death, and will continue to be, here on AT for years. It is about how much longer WA can/should/will maintain the current single distance formats and whether that might affect viewership or participation.


----------



## woof156 (Apr 3, 2018)

Stash said:


> I’m sure that around the year 2050, some old guy will complain that 50m barebow is boring...
> 
> But by then it’ll probably be some sort of virtual e-game instead of an actual bow and arrows.


played on a cell phone projection..


----------



## Giannis_A (Feb 15, 2021)

I'm intermediate recurve... got me a lot of arrows to get there but:

It's still not boring to watch the top guys shoot (great pointers for individual form discovery and experimentation).
It's also not boring to watch the venue setups (great info there too from an organisational perspective).

If I want to improve apart from training it is good to study the individual players shot style, mental state, equipment etc and then experiment on what I see (if it fits). The fixed distances at the olympic style venues provide a uniform measuring reference.

As for the visuals of the sport I really enjoy the shot cycle close up. A wealth of info on how the archer executes the shot can be found for the discerning eye.


----------



## Lindy (Nov 7, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> I've always considered myself a fan of target archery ever since taking it up in 2003, but frankly watching basically the same archers shoot the same distance over and over and over again is getting a bit boring.
> 
> And I'll be honest, shooting the same two distances year after year is as well. I can always go shoot something else, but as a fan and consumer of target archery, I guess I'd like to see something different. Maybe they alternate the WC format from 70m to the four distance FITA? Not sure what the answer is, but just like (here I go again with the golf analogies) there are "horses for courses" in pro golf, I'd like to see different formats that challenge the archers in a unique way from one event to another.
> 
> ...


Yes, I am 70+ years old and never liked shooting the single distance i.e. BORING!! . I was always a fan of the 90, 70, 50 , 30 meter distances. I do shoot the club NFAA field course on a regular basis which adds a little variety to our shooting. My guess is World Archery was (is) trying to make the sport more spectator friendly. BTW I am wired a little bit differently than most. I could shot arrows in practice for hours. Yes, I'm a little crazy. Just LOVE archery.


----------

