# What do you use to figure out what the cut should be



## ramboarhunter (Jun 5, 2006)

Learn to use the proper form when shooting uphill or downhill then you don't have to worry about cuts.
Keep everything LEVEL with your shoulders and BENT at the WAIST.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

I look at the target....it's fairly easy to figure out when you need to cut a yd or two. Which is usually all your going to have to cut 98% of the time.


----------



## tomd922 (Nov 3, 2009)

ramboarhunter said:


> Learn to use the proper form when shooting uphill or downhill then you don't have to worry about cuts.
> Keep everything LEVEL with your shoulders and BENT at the WAIST.


This is not correct. 

I use the scientific calculator on my phone.

Enter the the angle of the shot in deg. Up or down hill is the same. Then hit COS (cosine). Multiply this number by the actual yardage and you will have your number.


----------



## bopo2 (Dec 7, 2008)

ramboarhunter said:


> Learn to use the proper form when shooting uphill or downhill then you don't have to worry about cuts.
> Keep everything LEVEL with your shoulders and BENT at the WAIST.


I don't agree with this but that's me.i look to see if the target is over my head or under my feet @ the given distance and make my guess


----------



## ramboarhunter (Jun 5, 2006)

If you keep your shoulders level the same as shooting on level ground and BENT at the waist to raise or lower the bow you don"t need to worry about cuts.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

ramboarhunter said:


> Learn to use the proper form when shooting uphill or downhill then you don't have to worry about cuts.
> Keep everything LEVEL with your shoulders and BENT at the WAIST.


That's not even remotely close to correct.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

ramboarhunter said:


> If you keep your shoulders level the same as shooting on level ground and BENT at the waist to raise or lower the bow you don"t need to worry about cuts.


lmao if you think that's true or correct then you have never shot a course that has cuts....

Shooting out of a treestand or up or downhill at an animal to make a kill shot....sure it will work fine. If you think just doing that and hitting an X or even a 5 is gonna happen on a target when there is a cut be it 2 yds or 6 yds unless you just get super lucky and your bad shot landed good. Your crazy or VERY inexperienced in field. 

Better tell Jesse that he didn't really need to cut any yardage on those courses in Europe this summer....


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

Here we go using these toys again, Why can't you guys ever learn to shoot up and down hills without using these toys it is a disgrace to field shooters, What a joke 

that has been made out of field archery.


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

I practice with a Range Finder that has an inclinometer AND Archers Mark for iPhone (which has an inclinometer and does the math) when I am shooting with a sight. The more I see and verify, the better I get at seeing/making good decisions without the aids. I think technology speeds up the development. 

I trust no unknown stakes (when practicing). I measure everything I can (with MY finder) to keep the control group accurate. The only problem I have with the aids is when the usage slooooows down a shoot.


----------



## rogersaddler (Feb 4, 2009)

Here is a video with Jessie talking to bowjunky about his set up. towards the end of video he talks about what he uses to figure out the cut for field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUjTtiMTDvM&feature=youtu.be


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

rogersaddler said:


> Here is a video with Jessie talking to bowjunky about his set up. towards the end of video he talks about what he uses to figure out the cut for field.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUjTtiMTDvM&feature=youtu.be


Was good info when you could by them.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Whatever happened to practicing in all sorts of footing conditions and sidehills, etc? Whatever happened to practicing and learning how YOUR bow shoots by intentionally mis-setting the sight to "learn" your impact points. Whatever happened to intentionally practicing "bad footing" by use of a slant board to simulate the uphill and down hill, toes up, toes down positioning of your feet...so that you know how YOU react to those situations? Nope, most people practice ONLY for "score" and aren't ProActive enough to practice for WHEN the conditions are less than ideal.

It won't do you a squat of good to have the scientific "cut" if your form is screwed up and/or you haven't practiced in those situations! You'll spend all that time figuring this out, set the sight, and still get your "4" or worse! Jesse and those upper echelon shooters already have a pretty danged good idea of the cut before they even go into the electronic doo-whoppies to CROSS-CHECK what their experience is telling them.
Then, they have practiced the footing and off kilter situations and have that mastered so that the "cut" will do them some good.

It is highly likely that even then, since they know their tendencies with a particular type target or footing condition...that the calculated by the electronics may well DIFFER from what cut they know from practice and experience that they set the sight for.

Too many people are depending upon the electronics and gadgets and never really practicing under the conditions that exist out on "cutable" targets and courses...they are going in half or even more than half blind, due to lack of "ProActive Practice."
If you don't have the form mastered, all the electronics and "cuts Calculations" ain't gonna help you much, if at all.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

and just how is one supposed to practice cuts and angles when your club course is as flat as a pool table?

i use a rangefinder for a) establishing distance against my club course and b) for the angle and cut because i have so little access to an uneven course due to time and availability to practice the secondary skills. the closest uneven course to me is just over an hour and a half away.....with no traffic.

i shot 'maybe, 3 full rounds of field this summer and practiced maybe another 3 IR rounds in between in our shooting season. i just dont have the time these days.

i am thankful that an indoor range near me is open 6am to 5pm. gives me the time to shoot after my shift and not cut into my sleeping schedule.


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

field14 said:


> Whatever happened to practicing in all sorts of footing conditions and sidehills, etc? Whatever happened to practicing and learning how YOUR bow shoots by intentionally mis-setting the sight to "learn" your impact points. Whatever happened to intentionally practicing "bad footing" by use of a slant board to simulate the uphill and down hill, toes up, toes down positioning of your feet...so that you know how YOU react to those situations? Nope, most people practice ONLY for "score" and aren't ProActive enough to practice for WHEN the conditions are less than ideal.
> 
> It won't do you a squat of good to have the scientific "cut" if your form is screwed up and/or you haven't practiced in those situations! You'll spend all that time figuring this out, set the sight, and still get your "4" or worse! Jesse and those upper echelon shooters already have a pretty danged good idea of the cut before they even go into the electronic doo-whoppies to CROSS-CHECK what their experience is telling them.
> Then, they have practiced the footing and off kilter situations and have that mastered so that the "cut" will do them some good.
> ...


Why do you assume that no one practices all of the aspects of the game? If this were the case, would anybody be any good?


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Archery Power said:


> Here we go using these toys again, Why can't you guys ever learn to shoot up and down hills without using these toys it is a disgrace to field shooters, What a joke
> 
> that has been made out of field archery.


Why can't you whining old heads stop *****ing all the damn time about this stuff? 

I know how to shoot up and downhill....I also know how to shoot on sidehills. 

I know how to figure cuts without a rangefinder....but if I want to use one. Then I will. 

If the game is such a disgrace to you then shoot your own range with your Jennings T Star and old pin sight and nail and a hook with your aluminum arrows.... Because the other new equipment must be to high tech for you as well. 

Must take you and f14 forever to get to the range in your horse and buggy.


----------



## mag41vance (Mar 13, 2008)

Brown Hornet said:


> Why can't you whining old heads stop *****ing all the damn time about this stuff?
> 
> I know how to shoot up and downhill....I also know how to shoot on sidehills.
> 
> ...


 Easy Darrell; now breath slowly............now doesn't that feel better. :wink:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

rock monkey said:


> and just how is one supposed to practice cuts and angles when your club course is as flat as a pool table?
> 
> i use a rangefinder for a) establishing distance against my club course and b) for the angle and cut because i have so little access to an uneven course due to time and availability to practice the secondary skills. the closest uneven course to me is just over an hour and a half away.....with no traffic.
> 
> ...


It is called a slant board and you can quickly make one out of wood. You can use this in any direction to simulate your footing positions for uphill, down hill, toes up sidehill and toes down sidehill, and at least learn how your form is affected and the body positioning and what the poor footing does to YOU and how much.

As far as assuming "nobody" practices this stuff intentionally...that isn't what I said. The top shooters DO practice this stuff and they practice it a lot, too. It is the mid-level and the wannabees that DO NOT PRACTICE the "bad" situations and haven't a clue on how to deal with the elements, including up and down and side hill...because they are too busy practicing under as perfect conditions as they can muster, always setting their sites dead on, and almost always practicing for SCORE...

So, anyways, ProActive Practice for field shooting, if you really want to get "good" at it is very, very important. Shooting the same ole range in the same ole order day in and day out, week in and week out is not only boring, it can become counter-productive. So, Build yourself a slant board, practice for the things that WILL happen and take the opportunities when they arise...even on you flat as a pancake home course...with ingenuity and ProActive foresight, you can simulate a lot of what is on the other courses you may shoot out there.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## bopo2 (Dec 7, 2008)

Brown Hornet said:


> Why can't you whining old heads stop *****ing all the damn time about this stuff?
> 
> I know how to shoot up and downhill....I also know how to shoot on sidehills.
> 
> ...


Lmao!!!!


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Brown Hornet said:


> Why can't you whining old heads stop *****ing all the damn time about this stuff?
> 
> I know how to shoot up and downhill....I also know how to shoot on sidehills.
> 
> ...


That's pretty good and I get the point---but the guys shooting T-Stars were mostly using scopes, and either Failsafe or Stan releases.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

TNMAN said:


> That's pretty good and I get the point---but the guys shooting T-Stars were mostly using scopes, and either Failsafe or Stan releases.


AND, shooting in the site marks, cuz computerized site tapes were a thing of the future. The closest thing we had was a calculator based system for getting site settings, which worked, but ONLY if you had a danged good 20 and and even better 65 yard setting, and did NOT "round off" on your numbers.
Interestingly enough, we still managed to shoot into the mid-to upper 550's...with that "antiquated equipment" and on the current field and hunter faces and scoring, too.
Rangefinders and clinometers? Nope didn't have anything like that. Just good ole "ProActive Practice" and experience. Managed to get in the full 28 targets in well under 5 hours, even on some pretty rough courses, too.

Go ahead and use the technology it could help...but only if you know how YOU handle the ups and downs and sidehills...and only if your FORM holds up well enough to what the computer says your cut is...and you can execute that shot.

By the way, don't run down the Jennings t-Star...I got my butt kicked soundly by a person shooting an OLD Jennings T-star with dacron string, steel cables, and old springie rest, and a rope around the string Stanislawski release aid, and an old 4X Stanislawski scope and a Killian CHek-It site. He shot a pair of 278 halves to my 277/276 halves. I was shooting "modern equipment" for the time with a full fast-flite system. However, I was indeed shooting a Magna-site, Killian-Chek-It site with a TR bar on it, off a springie rest with aluminum 1714 arrows, and a FailSafe II pinky trigger release, rope around the string and an eliminator button below the nock of the arrow.

These were shot on the Presidential course on Sugar Hill at Watkins Glen.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## JMJ (Jul 17, 2008)

rogersaddler said:


> Do you use a app for your phone or a range finder with a built in inclinometer that tells you what the cut should be or do it the old fashion way and glass the target and take a guess. I use the old fashion way


A range finder with a built in inclinometer.


----------



## SteveID (May 6, 2008)

These threads always get completely dumped on. Apologies to the OP for having to wade through everyone's ranting.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Optical spectrometer and experience.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

Brown Hornet said:


> Why can't you whining old heads stop *****ing all the damn time about this stuff?
> 
> I know how to shoot up and downhill....I also know how to shoot on sidehills.
> 
> ...


Sure you do, That why we see your name at the top at all the NFAA National championships.

You hang in there and one of these days we will see your name at the top of the leader board

if enough of these high tech toys will help you get there. But I don't see you making it any other way.

But don't say you have been there because I have seen your scores.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

field14 said:


> It is called a slant board and you can quickly make one out of wood. You can use this in any direction to simulate your footing positions for uphill, down hill, toes up sidehill and toes down sidehill, and at least learn how your form is affected and the body positioning and what the poor footing does to YOU and how much.
> 
> As far as assuming "nobody" practices this stuff intentionally...that isn't what I said. The top shooters DO practice this stuff and they practice it a lot, too. It is the mid-level and the wannabees that DO NOT PRACTICE the "bad" situations and haven't a clue on how to deal with the elements, including up and down and side hill...because they are too busy practicing under as perfect conditions as they can muster, always setting their sites dead on, and almost always practicing for SCORE...
> 
> ...




explain how this is different than shooting indoors?


----------



## Peter1337 (Sep 30, 2013)

Eyeball it.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

rock monkey said:


> explain how this is different than shooting indoors?


We aren't discussing INDOOR shooting on this thread. However, back in the day when we were shooting recurved bows with fingers or release aids, the target heights from the floor weren't as restricted and regulated as they are now. Thus, the top target could be up there pretty high; especially for shorter persons such as myself, so YES!, we did have "CUTS" for when we shot the top target indoors, and then when we switched to the bottom target at the half-way point, we'd reset our bow sights for this. I well remember sometimes that top target was almost the body positioning of shooting a65 or 70 yarder outdoors! So few that are still actively shooting these days remember the top target problems incurred INDOORS...feet level, but top target up at or above your head height 6 ft or more above the floor. Even few have ever experienced shooting a recurved bow with a ledge style or rope spike release aid and holding the full poundage at full draw either.

Slant boards can really help you out for learning how YOU react to poor footing conditions, since you can move up and down the slant board, or increase the slant to simulate front or back foot higher than the other or the toes up/toes down situations so common on OUTDOOR field or 3-D courses.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## bopo2 (Dec 7, 2008)

field14 said:


> We aren't discussing INDOOR shooting on this thread. However, back in the day when we were shooting recurved bows with fingers or release aids, the target heights from the floor weren't as restricted and regulated as they are now. Thus, the top target could be up there pretty high; especially for shorter persons such as myself, so YES!, we did have "CUTS" for when we shot the top target indoors, and then when we switched to the bottom target at the half-way point, we'd reset our bow sights for this. I well remember sometimes that top target was almost the body positioning of shooting a65 or 70 yarder outdoors! So few that are still actively shooting these days remember the top target problems incurred INDOORS...feet level, but top target up at or above your head height 6 ft or more above the floor. Even few have ever experienced shooting a recurved bow with a ledge style or rope spike release aid and holding the full poundage at full draw either.
> 
> Slant boards can really help you out for learning how YOU react to poor footing conditions, since you can move up and down the slant board, or increase the slant to simulate front or back foot higher than the other or the toes up/toes down situations so common on OUTDOOR field or 3-D courses.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Just how high were the indoor targets to require a cut @20yds?


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

'back in the day' people wore burlap underwear. doesnt make it a better time period or one i want to revisit.

there is NOTHING in the rules to limit or prevent their use. as long as it doesnt say you cant, why not take advantage of the benefits? it doesnt take a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to figure out how long it takes to use one. point and click, look at the sight chart and set your sight. takes longer to look at your sight chart than it does to use a rangefinder.


some of us like to shoot to relax and better our personal bests. not everyone "HAS TO" shoot to win every time all the time.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

bopo2 said:


> Just how high were the indoor targets to require a cut @20yds?


I'm 5'8", and it did depend upon the indoor range we were shooting in. If the top targets to the "dot" were only shoulder height, then it wasn't a problem. However when they got to where the center of the top target was head height for me, then I would have to "cut" about a yard to yard and a half to shoot the top target and when I switched to the bottom target, then I was back "on" again....as long as I remember to move the sight, that is, haha.

So, obviously, it depended upon how tall you were/are. My oldest brother at the time was shorter than I am, and his "cut" was worse. The reason for the cut was because we were "pushing" the bow uphill and literally pushing the shot out the top...so "cut" the yardage to compensate. Bending at the waist wasn't as effective with a recurve bow because the weight was being gained as you drew the bow back to full draw and we had no letoff...only poundage gain up until full draw position and beyond that for the miniscule amount to make the clicker go off and then to loose the arrow.

Like I said, those head height or top targets indoors could be akin to shooting a 70 or 80 yarder outdoors.

I remember that for ME, the #2 target on Casper Mountain, a really severe 40 yard uphill with a flat stance but steep uphill required me to shoot it for 36 yards with a recurve (1969-1972), but only cut it three yards to 37 yards with my compound with 50%-56% letoff some years later (1986-1990). 70" bows with the recurved bows, and 48" ATA with those particular compounds.

Hey, if you think you NEED the electronics, use 'em...but I'm still saying that if you DEPEND upon them to cure what ails you, you are barking up the wrong tree.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## nock tune (Jul 5, 2009)

If your not cutting yards on a steep up or down hill shot your the people I want in my group!


----------



## knarrly (Dec 21, 2004)

Archery Power said:


> Here we go using these toys again, Why can't you guys ever learn to shoot up and down hills without using these toys it is a disgrace to field shooters, What a joke
> 
> that has been made out of field archery.


Hornets post pretty much nailed it.

The person who is the best shooter wins anyhow no matter what toys are used so why whine about them? If you don't want to use them great, just don't snivel and whine, they're not what wins the shoot


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

some of yall sound like a bunch of whinin dogs at the dawn of the release age or when compounds were just getting popular. it's like a bunch of chewies makin excuses for not shooting the big round target game.

it is what it is. some of you preach to shoot with a rangefinder a lot and often and set your sights to it. learn it's quirks and work around/with them. bring the cut side of their use and all of a sudden it's the red-headed step child? make up your mind.

dont like em?, dont use em. at the end of the day all that matters is score. no extra points for style, brand or budget. you still have to make the shot.


----------



## FoggDogg (Jul 9, 2002)

Experience. I never leave the house without it. 😉


----------



## bopo2 (Dec 7, 2008)

field14 said:


> I'm 5'8", and it did depend upon the indoor range we were shooting in. If the top targets to the "dot" were only shoulder height, then it wasn't a problem. However when they got to where the center of the top target was head height for me, then I would have to "cut" about a yard to yard and a half to shoot the top target and when I switched to the bottom target, then I was back "on" again....as long as I remember to move the sight, that is, haha.
> 
> So, obviously, it depended upon how tall you were/are. My oldest brother at the time was shorter than I am, and his "cut" was worse. The reason for the cut was because we were "pushing" the bow uphill and literally pushing the shot out the top...so "cut" the yardage to compensate. Bending at the waist wasn't as effective with a recurve bow because the weight was being gained as you drew the bow back to full draw and we had no letoff...only poundage gain up until full draw position and beyond that for the miniscule amount to make the clicker go off and then to loose the arrow.
> 
> ...


Wow a yard to a yard and a half is a big cut @20yds ! Gonna set up my Olympic bow and give this a try sounds interesting


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I shot stick bows with fingers and triggers and the cuts and adds were no different. Yes, there were occasional targets that required an add, like a long uphill. Compounds never an add, even in the fps range of 220 to 229 range. Since I cannot still shoot the weight as then, I consider 245 fast nowdays. The fastest I ever had was a High Country Supreme at 312 fps.

Anyway, back to the subject of cutting 1.5 yards on a high indoor target. I have shot indoor ranges where the top target was maybe at the top of my head and it is just something you have to get used to. I would practice in my basement from a kneeling position. Between kneeling to shoot high targets and standing to shoot low targets and a sanding block, I was able to find the best tiller. Stick bows did not have tiller adjustment then. A stick bow needs some positive tiller that is best with a top limb that is weaker and not just backed off with a tiller bolt. I was never afraid to sand a top limb to make it a little weaker.

A slant board is good to practice bad shooting positions and a small tapered block of balsa wood is great for leveling your lower foot on a bad position or on the side of a hill. There is a difference in uphill and downhill cuts required on the same target with a bad standing position compared to a good one.

But wait, maybe the incline rangefinder will figure that for you also or at least an app for an Iphone5. Fourteen year olds and their toys! WOW!

I do own an Archers Choice Max rangefinder with slope correction.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

FS560 said:


> I shot stick bows with fingers and triggers and the cuts and adds were no different. Yes, there were occasional targets that required an add, like a long uphill. Compounds never an add, even in the fps range of 220 to 229 range. Since I cannot still shoot the weight as then, I consider 245 fast nowdays. The fastest I ever had was a High Country Supreme at 312 fps.
> 
> Anyway, back to the subject of cutting 1.5 yards on a high indoor target. I have shot indoor ranges where the top target was maybe at the top of my head and it is just something you have to get used to. I would practice in my basement from a kneeling position. Between kneeling to shoot high targets and standing to shoot low targets and a sanding block, I was able to find the best tiller. Stick bows did not have tiller adjustment then. A stick bow needs some positive tiller that is best with a top limb that is weaker and not just backed off with a tiller bolt. I was never afraid to sand a top limb to make it a little weaker.
> 
> ...


Of course the inclinometer will "figure" the cut for you...but if YOU aren't prepared and know how YOUR form change (the footing or the body angle) reacts to the situation...that "4" or worse is still waiting for you from a FORM error that you know nothing about...and will blame the "target" for being "off" or the inclinometer....oh, but wait...that is akin to the excuse many 3-Ders use when they shoot 6" right or left..."I musta guessed the wrong yardage." Foiled again.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Bingo!!!


----------



## Strodav (Apr 25, 2012)

Honestly, I'm trying to figure out why there is so much controversy over solving a simple math problem that our ancestors have been solving for 10,000 years. Why would you rather guess given the tech built into smart phones, that most people have anyway. If you don't want a smart phone, buy a rangefinder with angle compensation. If you don't like anything that takes electricity out on the range and you really want to go old school, get an adjustable protractor, level and a trig table book. They will all give you a better answer than guessing. If none of those are good solutions for you, see how far your first arrow is off, then adjust for the next three. What am I missing?


----------



## bopo2 (Dec 7, 2008)

Strodav said:


> Honestly, I'm trying to figure out why there is so much controversy over solving a simple math problem that our ancestors have been solving for 10,000 years. Why would you rather guess given the tech built into smart phones, that most people have anyway. If you don't want a smart phone, buy a rangefinder with angle compensation. If you don't like anything that takes electricity out on the range and you really want to go old school, get an adjustable protractor, level and a trig table book. They will all give you a better answer than guessing. If none of those are good solutions for you, see how far your first arrow is off, then adjust for the next three. What am I missing?


I've been trying to figure this out as well . I think some just don't like to give in to modern technology but they will hunt and peck on their new laptop to voice their opinion on how they don't like all the new changes in archery and how easy it is now.just my personal observation


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

I've been shooting for 35 years. For every archer that glamorizes the good ol days, and the scores that went with them, I'll offer, Broadwater = clean. Today's numbers are better. The Bar has been raised. Technology is an element.

You can't move forward STUCK! Embrace and integrate.


----------



## rogersaddler (Feb 4, 2009)

I didn't mean to start any arguments even though I know that does happen on AT. I was just curious how you figured out what the cut should be if any. I shot with a guy this year that had range finder with a inclinometer and what it showed and what I cut was different. I guess if you do use something like that you would need to play with it to see how it works for you. I guess that I'm old fashion and just do it the old fashion way. But however you do it is your choice


----------



## Strodav (Apr 25, 2012)

Sorry, didn't mean to unload if it sounded like it. I think you have to ask what your goals are. Is your goal to shoot the best scores you can staying old school, or shooting the best scores you can? I know up and down hill shots caused me to bring my hunting range finder along on field shoots, but showed that I was pulling shots right on up hill shots. After talking to the better shooters they recommended a sight with 3rd axis adjustment if I really wanted to increase my scores, so ended up changing to a Spott Hogg IT with 3rd axis adjustment - expensive, but shooting the best scores I can in Bowhunter class is my goal.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

Why do we have up and down hill shots if we can not look at the angle of the target and in our mind figure out how much cut needs to be made

without all of the high tec. toys. If we have high tec. toys to give us the yards to set our sights to why don't just shoot all level or flat land targets.

To me this is how the game should be played, look at the up or down targets and figure in your mind what the cut should be without tec. toys.

It has took something away from the sport.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

If you're so worried about something being lost from the sport then shoot one of the divisions which do not allow any written memorandum or electronics.

-Grant


----------



## wolf44 (Mar 31, 2009)

I don't normally do this but...

if you talk like that to people at the field range no wonder field archery is dying. you sound like those guys that i see at the range from time to time that like to give people that shoot an open class set up a hard time with all their "thingymabobs" hanging off their bow. I'm assuming you shoot traditional with arrows that you made with feathers off of birds that you killed and trimmed? don't like the rules, don't play, but don't berate a group of people that like to use their "tec toys"

can I look at a target and pretty much figure what the cut should be....yup
would I rather know the exact angle and either figure it out on my calculator or punch it into archers mark so I know the exact horizontal distance...yup, I don't like to miss
do I shoot 27/64ths arrows inside...yup
do I have some 22s set up for fita...yup
until the rules change I will use everything I can to help me win, get over it



Archery Power said:


> Why do we have up and down hill shots if we can not look at the angle of the target and in our mind figure out how much cut needs to be made
> 
> without all of the high tec. toys. If we have high tec. toys to give us the yards to set our sights to why don't just shoot all level or flat land targets.
> 
> ...


----------



## SteveID (May 6, 2008)

Archery Power said:


> Why do we have up and down hill shots if we can not look at the angle of the target and in our mind figure out how much cut needs to be made
> 
> without all of the high tec. toys. If we have high tec. toys to give us the yards to set our sights to why don't just shoot all level or flat land targets.
> 
> ...


Hmmm... So you want to shoot FITA Field?? It's been really successful here in the states.... oh wait... no it hasn't.


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

wolf44 said:


> I don't normally do this but...
> 
> if you talk like that to people at the field range no wonder field archery is dying. you sound like those guys that i see at the range from time to time that like to give people that shoot an open class set up a hard time with all their "thingymabobs" hanging off their bow. I'm assuming you shoot traditional with arrows that you made with feathers off of birds that you killed and trimmed? don't like the rules, don't play, but don't berate a group of people that like to use their "tec toys"
> 
> ...




You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. You have 4 or 5 regulars here that spew hatred at anyone that does things different than them. Whether is outlawing equipment that they themselves don't use to eliminating every class that they do not shoot in. Anyone who was thinking about trying field archery that read this forum would find another pastime.

Luckily, the local field archery crowd are completely the opposite, welcoming and encouraging any and everyone who want to come out to play. Maybe that why Florida has the second largest NFAA membership and growing steadily.


----------



## Paradox (Nov 7, 2002)

SteveID said:


> Hmmm... So you want to shoot FITA Field?? It's been really successful here in the states.... oh wait... no it hasn't.


And those guys aren't just looking at the target and guessing the cuts either. 

Before F14 whips out his "I shot a 557 one time" story.....a 557 with mid 60's x's doesn't wash in pro class anymore. At that point you're about 35-40 points behind first place. And nobody is gonna just guess the cut and send a scout on the first arrow.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

SteveID said:


> Hmmm... So you want to shoot FITA Field?? It's been really successful here in the states.... oh wait... no it hasn't.


WA/FITA Field is growing every year, NFAA is dying. That is despite WA/FITA Field being the redheaded stepchild of the WA/FITA world. So I fail to see your point really.

-Grant


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

grantmac said:


> WA/FITA Field is growing every year, NFAA is dying. That is despite WA/FITA Field being the redheaded stepchild of the WA/FITA world. So I fail to see your point really.
> 
> -Grant


I just looked at the attendance records for the last 6 years here in Florida. Fita field has half the attendance of the Nfaa field and that ratio is consistent for all 6 years. 

As for the national championships Fita field had a whopping 68 people show up while The NFAA had 326 for Darrington which is about the average for that site and 499 for the PA site which is also about the average.

NFAA membership was up 4.5% from 2012 to 2013.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

Paradox said:


> And those guys aren't just looking at the target and guessing the cuts either.
> 
> Before F14 whips out his "I shot a 557 one time" story.....a 557 with mid 60's x's doesn't wash in pro class anymore. At that point you're about 35-40 points behind first place. And nobody is gonna just guess the cut and send a scout on the first arrow.


I agree with you on this one that a 557 will not cut it in todays shooting in the pro division but, however

Field 14 scores was shot with a wheel bow and 50% break off and shooting around 217 fps without the

use of scopes, and most likley the release was not as good as todays releases are also these scores

was shot with alum. arrows. Then in the late 70's and early 80's there was not near as many 550's shot as they are today

because of the high tec. equipement. And I also realize that modern day compound shooters will use anything

that is out there for them to use to produce as high of a score that they can achive. That has become the name

of the game. But Field 14 for sure used to shoot thoses scores that he said he shot.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

wolf44 said:


> I don't normally do this but...
> 
> if you talk like that to people at the field range no wonder field archery is dying. you sound like those guys that i see at the range from time to time that like to give people that shoot an open class set up a hard time with all their "thingymabobs" hanging off their bow. I'm assuming you shoot traditional with arrows that you made with feathers off of birds that you killed and trimmed? don't like the rules, don't play, but don't berate a group of people that like to use their "tec toys"
> 
> ...


If you feel like you need the high tec. toys and over sized arrows 27/64 to produce a high score

then that is the way you should go.


----------



## SteveID (May 6, 2008)

grantmac said:


> WA/FITA Field is growing every year, NFAA is dying. That is despite WA/FITA Field being the redheaded stepchild of the WA/FITA world. So I fail to see your point really.
> 
> -Grant


My point wasn't specific to one localized region, but FITA Field as a whole across the nation. The post below yours proves my point. For the record, I would prefer FITA Field over NFAA Field. But, I know a few of the guys in Washington who shoot that, and I'm pretty certain that your Safari shoots draw a much bigger crowd than a FITA Field.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

SteveID said:


> My point wasn't specific to one localized region, but FITA Field as a whole across the nation. The post below yours proves my point. For the record, I would prefer FITA Field over NFAA Field. But, I know a few of the guys in Washington who shoot that, and I'm pretty certain that your Safari shoots draw a much bigger crowd than a FITA Field.


I speak primarily from the perspective of a recurve archer, for us FITA field is a much more active community. Likely because every second person to show up doesn't get their own class.
I like NFAA field format (but not as much as FITA), the excess of classes is garbage.

Safari is good fun though.

-Grant


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Archery Power said:


> I agree with you on this one that a 557 will not cut it in todays shooting in the pro division but, however
> 
> Field 14 scores was shot with a wheel bow and 50% break off and shooting around 217 fps without the
> 
> ...


Thanks for the support! First, let's clear something up...I was NOT shooting in the Pro Division when I was shooting my best, I was shooting in the "Open" division.
Yes, there were a handful of 557's and an awful lot of scores 553+. The 557 I'm most proud of and will always remember...because it "should" have been a perfect 560, was on a tough uphill/downhill course in NW PA (Oil City, to be exact). I shot an "18" on a 28 fan, and a "19" on....one of the 14 yard shots on the 15-14. Those three arrows were barely out; less than a wall thickness of my 1714's..but all three were out LOW, and I knew it when the shot broke! The fault was NOT in the equipment, the release, or anything else. The fault was ALL mine. I should definitely have had the 560 that day. My x-count that day was in the upper 80's for that hunter round. The day the 560 got away....and I let it happen! GRRRRR 

The other 557's involved 19's on 3 targets...and I didn't deserve to shoot even the 557, having gotten "lucky" and caught some low ones I didn't normally "catch". Obviously, there was no chance of a 560 on the days of the 552+ scores, etc. I remember shooting a 554 in a tournament and getting 4th place, too; and shooting 552 and not placing at all (more than once). Turn around and shoot a 548 and WIN, only because those that had beaten me before simply had an off day...

*You ain't won crap until your competition has shot their best and you shot that one point or more better; always remember that!
*
The release aid? I purchased a pair of them in 1984; The Fail Safe II by Dean Pridgen. I set both of them up with pinky trigger, and they are still pristine today, too; and still set up to shoot with pinky trigger. They both shoot fine off of a d-loop in spite of being designed to shoot with the rope around the string. The gate is narrow to get the loop into, AND, the gate isn't cut to work with a d-loop, so d-loop wear using the release is problematical, but still doable if I choose to do so.
My best scores of my life were shot between 1986 and 1999 when I had some serious medical problems (triple bypass and subsequent intentional tremor that took out my fine twitch muscle control in my left hand and arm).
The bow was a ProVantage Carbon Plus with Force Draw wheels on it, a Killian Chek-it site with TR Bar and a 6X Magna-Site (two of which I still have today and they are as clear as the more expensive ones out there today!!), 10 oz BPE springie rest, and yes, 1714 X-7 Aluminum arrows with 7% NIBB points and GLUE-ON Henderson Nocks. The marks were "calculated" using the best 20 and 65 yard settings I could get, and then I used the "calculator-based system" to get the rest of the site marks and placed them onto a placard.
The method is outlined in my Book, "ProActive Archery", Chapters 32-36. Guess what folks? The calculator system...is as good as OT2 and AA when done correctly!
So much for High tech "giving you" much...It comes right down to "Garbage in = Garbage out" and those settings are only as good as you are in establishing the numbers you give the computer (or the calculator). You all would enjoy those Chapters mentioned about site settings, but also would enjoy Sections 4 and 7 as well.
Those mid to high 550's were being shot with the "old technology" and the SHOT IN site marks more than many of you newbies realize. The FIRST EVER 560 in National Competition was shot by Terry Ragsdale (after several years of some 558's and 559's) using shot in site marks and since the "cut charts" and other technologies weren't in existence then, well.....'nuf said.

I"m not at all saying that you should use them if you know how or can learn how; what I am saying is that you should never DEPEND upon them thinking the techno-toys will just magically jump you from the 530s into the 550's overnight...won't happen! If you don't have the form and know how to get those accurate marks...techno toys won't help much. If you don't have the knowledge of how YOU react to uphill, downhill, toes up, toes down, etc....the cuts won't help you much. If you don't shoot in the wind and intentionally make it a point to learn impact points, the techno toys won't help you much either, if at all.

Yes...USE the toys...but simply put...do NOT depend upon them to buy you those 540s and 550's overnight just by plugging numbers into a computer. It is the SHOOTER a lot more than you are willing to admit.


----------



## screemnjay (Nov 2, 2008)

field14 said:


> I"m not at all saying that you should use them if you know how or can learn how; what I am saying is that you should never DEPEND upon them thinking the techno-toys will just magically jump you from the 530s into the 550's overnight...won't happen! If you don't have the form and know how to get those accurate marks...techno toys won't help much. If you don't have the knowledge of how YOU react to uphill, downhill, toes up, toes down, etc....the cuts won't help you much. If you don't shoot in the wind and intentionally make it a point to learn impact points, the techno toys won't help you much either, if at all.
> 
> Yes...USE the toys...but simply put...do NOT depend upon them to buy you those 540s and 550's overnight just by plugging numbers into a computer. It is the SHOOTER a lot more than you are willing to admit.


Preach!!!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

ramboarhunter said:


> Learn to use the proper form when shooting uphill or downhill then you don't have to worry about cuts.
> Keep everything LEVEL with your shoulders and BENT at the WAIST.


Here is a great demo from Dave Cousins on how important the cut is.








Cuts are important for me being a Recurve shooter, bigger margin for error. Pretty flat where I live so hard to shoot angles and keep those confidence levels high, we have some towers on our course but it's still not enough, IFAA 2010 Worlds in Dahn and this years Europeans in Hungary both very steep courses, spend the first 2 days figuring out the angles, cost me first place both times, The Recurve Bowhunter German who beat me in Hungary his home range is Dahn course, he shot those steep hills great, a well deserved win for him.


----------



## rogersaddler (Feb 4, 2009)

Dave did make a good point about glassing the target to see what the tendencies are for how the target shoots whether it shoots on the left side or the right side. Thats one of the ways I judge what I should cut off based on what my arrow drops beyond what I have my pin set for.


----------



## archerpap (Apr 24, 2006)

Inclinometer and AAPalm


----------



## huteson2us2 (Jun 22, 2005)

I also shot in the 60s with a recurve and a rope and spike. I also had a T-Star in the early 80s, but I have kept up with the times and used an inclinometer and a Carbon Element to shoot Darrington this year because I practice on a flat range in Arizona and Darrington has some steep hills. 

Because of my age, I have to shoot with people like Field14 and believe me, it's no fun trying to explain to old people in your group why things have changed. Sad part is that I am the only one in my retirement community that still drives on the freeway. But I have already found myself getting upset with the NFAA because of all their stupid changes. So I guess it's time to put my GPS away and bring out the old maps and find some shortcuts that are a couple of miles shorter but takes twice as long to get there because that is what we old people do beside complaining about how we did things in the good old days.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

huteson2us2 said:


> I also shot in the 60s with a recurve and a rope and spike. I also had a T-Star in the early 80s, but I have kept up with the times and used an inclinometer and a Carbon Element to shoot Darrington this year because I practice on a flat range in Arizona and Darrington has some steep hills.
> 
> Because of my age, I have to shoot with people like Field14 and believe me, it's no fun trying to explain to old people in your group why things have changed. Sad part is that I am the only one in my retirement community that still drives on the freeway. But I have already found myself getting upset with the NFAA because of all their stupid changes. So I guess it's time to put my GPS away and bring out the old maps and find some shortcuts that are a couple of miles shorter but takes twice as long to get there because that is what we old people do beside complaining about how we did things in the good old days.


TECHNOWEENIE!!!!!


:lol3: just kiddin


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

huteson2us2 said:


> I also shot in the 60s with a recurve and a rope and spike. I also had a T-Star in the early 80s, but I have kept up with the times and used an inclinometer and a Carbon Element to shoot Darrington this year because I practice on a flat range in Arizona and Darrington has some steep hills.
> 
> Because of my age, I have to shoot with people like Field14 and believe me, it's no fun trying to explain to old people in your group why things have changed. Sad part is that I am the only one in my retirement community that still drives on the freeway. But I have already found myself getting upset with the NFAA because of all their stupid changes. So I guess it's time to put my GPS away and bring out the old maps and find some shortcuts that are a couple of miles shorter but takes twice as long to get there because that is what we old people do beside complaining about how we did things in the good old days.


Don't have to explain how or why things have changed to me, I know how to USE the techno-toys if I have the inkling to as a "AID" and not depend upon them to bail me out...

You people get on me about this, when all I'm saying is that I'm fine with you USING the "techno-toys"...but it is something that you should not DEPEND upon to cure all that ails you. 

Most shooters initially would be better served by spending the money to get some quality coaching, develop your form, and then invest in and "use" the toys...but dependency upon techno-toys to catch you up to those that have been around the block many times ain't gonna get you 'there.'
Funny...that in the "old days"....even in the 1990's, field and hunter rounds were completed in under 5 hours most of the time...but now a daze people are taking 6, 7 or 8 hours...to do the same thing? So it is the _current shooters_ that are taking twice as long to do the same thing....and it has gotten longer in the past 10 years or so...well after the target change in 1976.

While the upper crust scores "MIGHT" be up some, they haven't climbed all that much, if at all. The upper crust also is not "depending upon" the techno toys to cure all that ails them. You ain't gonna buy the scores with the use of techno-toys. That is all.
USE them, fine...but don't DEPEND upon them as the magic bullet. Like everything else...you gotta learn how to "use" the techno-toys to your advantage...and how YOU in unison with your equipment react to the ever changing conditions. 
field14 (Tom D.)

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Paradox (Nov 7, 2002)

field14 said:


> Don't have to explain how or why things have changed to me, I know how to USE the techno-toys if I have the inkling to as a "AID" and not depend upon them to bail me out...
> 
> You people get on me about this, when all I'm saying is that I'm fine with you USING the "techno-toys"...but it is something that you should not DEPEND upon to cure all that ails you.
> 
> ...



6-8 hours for a field round? So I'll ask you to show your work. Where are all these field shoots that are taking 6-8 hours?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Paradox said:


> 6-8 hours for a field round? So I'll ask you to show your work. Where are all these field shoots that are taking 6-8 hours?


Simple...read the threads concerning the NFAA Outdoor Nationals over the past 4-5 years...Some people said that due to the ranges at Darrington...they were out on the course 8 hours for 28 targets. One pro in particular was talking about the use of the toys and other things...and some other Pros don't seem to have a problem with 6-8 hours on the course...because the courses are "tough."
Most local shoots don't have the problem of the 6-8 hours...but over 5 hours can be common.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Paradox (Nov 7, 2002)

So hearsay. Were you there? The 8 hour day at Darrington was not due to the use of "toys".


----------



## Paradox (Nov 7, 2002)

So let me get this straight Tom. You complain that field archery takes too long. You complain that anyone who uses "toys" (the inference that smacks of condescension). You complain that field archery takes all this work, including the black magic that you must conjur to shoot sidehills, uphill and downhill. You beat the drum about how Terry Ragsdale shot in all his marks for his perfect 560....so using a sight program must be taking the easy way out.

Why on earth would anyone who reads your posts who's never done this before even want to step foot on a field range if they think the people they will encounter will all be like you?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Paradox said:


> So hearsay. Were you there? The 8 hour day at Darrington was not due to the use of "toys".


Hearsay you say?...You'd better read the frickin' threads about the Nationals for the past several years...Darrington, Mechanicsburg, even Yankton...COMPLAINTS of taking way too long...7 hours or more from people that WERE THERE at those sites and did take that long to get their 28 targets done. Every year when the threads discuss the National Outdoor tournament people are complaining about the long hours out on the course. Don't have to be there to see the writing on the wall.

I agree that the use of the techno-toys weren't the ONLY thing causing the slow play, but their use sure contributed to the length of time...as complained by a top PRO in one of the threads about Darrington. The complaints are by those that were there, so get off MY case and after reading the threads...get on the case of those complainers that were there...and state clearly concerning the ridiculous amount of time spent on the courses.
By the way, the biggest complaints come from people outside of field shooting...mostly 3-Ders, that complain that "field shooting takes too long"...but those same people are perfectly fine with 3-3 1/2 hours to shoot TWENTY shots at a 3-D event...so that they can be with their friends and chat...etc. But if FIELD shooters take even 4 hours for 112 shots...then according to these 3-Ders, that is TOO LONG! Hypocrites? Yep.
But you all do what you all will do regardless. When you are winning, then 7-8 hours on the course is just fine...but when you aren't winning, then that same amount of time is too long? Can't have the cake and eat it too.
This crap of "it is a NATIONAL title on the line, so I NEED to take the extra time" doesn't hold water, really. Of course, there has always been "slow play" on field or any venue when people take inordinate amounts of time to shoot, this includes when we were shooting 56 field targets in one day, too. SLOW PLAY has and always will be a problem..until a ROUND TIME LIMIT is re-established.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Paradox said:


> So let me get this straight Tom. You complain that field archery takes too long. You complain that anyone who uses "toys" (the inference that smacks of condescension). You complain that field archery takes all this work, including the black magic that you must conjur to shoot sidehills, uphill and downhill. You beat the drum about how Terry Ragsdale shot in all his marks for his perfect 560....so using a sight program must be taking the easy way out.
> 
> Why on earth would anyone who reads your posts who's never done this before even want to step foot on a field range if they think the people they will encounter will all be like you?


The bigger problem is in my prior post...the 3-Ders chime in that FIELD shooting takes to long...even if it is at 5 hours. (They are CORRECT in that FIELD shooting takes too long if it goes to 6, 7, or 8 hours to shoot 28 targets, and I can agree with them there).
So the 3-Ders which number more than field shooters right now keep pressing the issue about how "quick" 3-D is, only ONE arrow per target...and being done in 2-3 hours (for TWENTY SHOTS) and bad-mouth field shooting to the point that _potentia_l field shooters want no part of it.
I don't COMPLAIN that field archery takes all this work, I speak but the truth. Field shooting, to be good at it DOES require work. So does 3-D shooting, indoor shooting, or any other venue...you of all people should know this and not try to turn the tables.

Why would they want to shoot field after reading the threads about how long it takes to shoot a 28 target round at Darrington, Mechanicsburg, or Yankton either? Don't blame me for the complaints of others!

One thing for sure, if they shoot with "people like me" they wouldn't be on the course for no 6, 7 of 8 hours to get 28 target shot; at least not through any fault of mine, that is.
There isn't "black magic" involved in the sidehills, uphills, and downhills. There is simply common sense and ProActive Practice...and there isn't any dependency on the techno-toys to cure the ails. If you don't know how YOU react to those situations...all the angles, dangles, clinometers and computer programs on the planet aren't going to improve your scores...and may well hurt you more than help you.

I never said the tape programs are the "easy way out"... I use OT2 and AA AND my calculator based system to establish my site marks and I don't do it in a helter skelter fashion by any means. You had better WORK at getting those numbers you put into the system and get them right; otherwise all you have is a bunch of near useless crap that makes the use of the other techno-toys even worse.

Must be pick on field14 day again...but hey, I have my duck oil in one back pocket and the Prep H in the other, and forgot more about field shooting than a lot of you will ever know.
Do it your way; you will anyways.


----------



## Paradox (Nov 7, 2002)

field14 said:


> Hearsay you say?...You'd better read the frickin' threads about the Nationals for the past several years...Darrington, Mechanicsburg, even Yankton...COMPLAINTS of taking way too long...7 hours or more from people that WERE THERE at those sites and did take that long to get their 28 targets done. Every year when the threads discuss the National Outdoor tournament people are complaining about the long hours out on the course. Don't have to be there to see the writing on the wall.
> 
> I agree that the use of the techno-toys weren't the ONLY thing causing the slow play, but their use sure contributed to the length of time...as complained by a top PRO in one of the threads about Darrington. The complaints are by those that were there, so get off MY case and after reading the threads...get on the case of those complainers that were there...and state clearly concerning the ridiculous amount of time spent on the courses.
> By the way, the biggest complaints come from people outside of field shooting...mostly 3-Ders, that complain that "field shooting takes too long"...but those same people are perfectly fine with 3-3 1/2 hours to shoot TWENTY shots at a 3-D event...so that they can be with their friends and chat...etc. But if FIELD shooters take even 4 hours for 112 shots...then according to these 3-Ders, that is TOO LONG! Hypocrites? Yep.
> ...


It was slow play, but rangefinders were not the issue. Terrain (only one archer at a time due to lane width), age, and a lot of talking rather then shooting is what caused the 8 hour round. And it was only one range and more specifically a group or two of shooters. All the rest of the archers had a normal paced round.....even the ones with rangefinders. 

Rangefinders with inclinometers actually speed up the game. Why? Because those that used a non-incline capable rangefinder, a inclinometer, and a cut chart took a lot longer; especially on walk-ups. Now you just point and click as quick as it takes to glass the target.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Paradox said:


> It was slow play, but rangefinders were not the issue. Terrain (only one archer at a time due to lane width), age, and a lot of talking rather then shooting is what caused the 8 hour round. And it was only one range and more specifically a group or two of shooters. All the rest of the archers had a normal paced round.....even the ones with rangefinders.
> 
> Rangefinders with inclinometers actually speed up the game. Why? Because those that used a non-incline capable rangefinder, a inclinometer, and a cut chart took a lot longer; especially on walk-ups. Now you just point and click as quick as it takes to glass the target.


So, the next obvious question is simple: WHY aren't the "slow players" being dealt with, as in nailed for it, and if the slow play continues, points deducted from their scores? Do that ONCE and those slow players would wake up! A time limit for the completion of the round has worked in the past; it will work now, too. Give 'em 6 hours MAX to have the score cards turned in, and enforce it, regardless of WHO those people are that abuse it.

Yes, that is exactly how my rangefinder/inclinometer works...but I only use it when I question my "gut feeling/experience/target read" and then it is to verify. It isn't real often that my experience/gut feeling/target read is very far off, but yes, it has happened. Next thing, however is important...you have to be able to hold steady enough, know your original settings are spot on, and also know how YOU handle the bad terrain; otherwise the rangefinder/inclinometer reading is next to useless, and you'll get a "4" or worse anyways, ha.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Paradox (Nov 7, 2002)

field14 said:


> So, the next obvious question is simple: WHY aren't the "slow players" being dealt with, as in nailed for it, and if the slow play continues, points deducted from their scores? Do that ONCE and those slow players would wake up! A time limit for the completion of the round has worked in the past; it will work now, too. Give 'em 6 hours MAX to have the score cards turned in, and enforce it, regardless of WHO those people are that abuse it.
> 
> Yes, that is exactly how my rangefinder/inclinometer works...but I only use it when I question my "gut feeling/experience/target read" and then it is to verify. It isn't real often that my experience/gut feeling/target read is very far off, but yes, it has happened. Next thing, however is important...you have to be able to hold steady enough, know your original settings are spot on, and also know how YOU handle the bad terrain; otherwise the rangefinder/inclinometer reading is next to useless, and you'll get a "4" or worse anyways, ha.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Good question: slow play should be dealt with. In my days of ASA there was a few times that we were concerned we wouldn't get our cards in by the time limit, which got us to speed up. A round time limit rather than an end or arrow time limit would be good if considerations were made for lane width, terrain and current weather conditions. The tournament director could make that judgement call and announcement at assembly each morning.

From my experience, the slow play isn't from guys with the gadgets, its from the senior shooters (yes, I did just say it). And not cause they can't get around the range as quick as the younger folks....its because they don't shoot four across when they can (even when reminded that they should), and they do a lot of talking rather than shooting.

And it's not "pick on F14 day". My issue is that you always take the extreme of the argument rather than what normally happens. Eight hour field rounds? Sure, they happen...but it's not the norm. Don't like people relying on technology? That's part of the game now...if someone wants to start an agenda item to outlaw them by all means go for it. And if someone's rangefinder takes a dump during the round and they can't figure the cut....well I guess they've been warned.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

Paradox said:


> Good question: slow play should be dealt with. In my days of ASA there was a few times that we were concerned we wouldn't get our cards in by the time limit, which got us to speed up. A round time limit rather than an end or arrow time limit would be good if considerations were made for lane width, terrain and current weather conditions. The tournament director could make that judgement call and announcement at assembly each morning.
> 
> From my experience, the slow play isn't from guys with the gadgets, its from the senior shooters (yes, I did just say it). And not cause they can't get around the range as quick as the younger folks....its because they don't shoot four across when they can (even when reminded that they should), and they do a lot of talking rather than shooting.
> 
> And it's not "pick on F14 day". My issue is that you always take the extreme of the argument rather than what normally happens. Eight hour field rounds? Sure, they happen...but it's not the norm. Don't like people relying on technology? That's part of the game now...if someone wants to start an agenda item to outlaw them by all means go for it. And if someone's rangefinder takes a dump during the round and they can't figure the cut....well I guess they've been warned.


I don't know aything about the ASA and don't care very much, and don't know how long it took to shoot at the nationals at DA. Wash.

but, I do know that the master senior division had finished way before the pros all showed up with their score cards at Mech. PA at the nationals

Because the reason I know this a lot of the master seniors were doing most of our talking at the picnic area next to the score board

after we had finished shooting by at least 1 hr, before the pros came in off of the range. Now i don't know and don't care if they were using tec. toys

are not but it did not have any thing to do with how long it took to shoot 28 targets, did not matter if the tec toys were used or not.

And also what you are saying no talking on the range. That sounds like a asa shooter.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

Paradox said:


> Good question: slow play should be dealt with. In my days of ASA there was a few times that we were concerned we wouldn't get our cards in by the time limit, which got us to speed up. A round time limit rather than an end or arrow time limit would be good if considerations were made for lane width, terrain and current weather conditions. The tournament director could make that judgement call and announcement at assembly each morning.
> 
> From my experience, the slow play isn't from guys with the gadgets, its from the senior shooters (yes, I did just say it). And not cause they can't get around the range as quick as the younger folks....its because they don't shoot four across when they can (even when reminded that they should), and they do a lot of talking rather than shooting.
> 
> And it's not "pick on F14 day". My issue is that you always take the extreme of the argument rather than what normally happens. Eight hour field rounds? Sure, they happen...but it's not the norm. Don't like people relying on technology? That's part of the game now...if someone wants to start an agenda item to outlaw them by all means go for it. And if someone's rangefinder takes a dump during the round and they can't figure the cut....well I guess they've been warned.


I don't know aything about the ASA and don't care very much, and don't know how long it took to shoot at the nationals at DA. Wash.

but, I do know that the master senior division had finished way before the pros all showed up with their score cards at Mech. PA at the nationals

Because the reason I know this a lot of the master seniors were doing most of our talking at the picnic area next to the score board

after we had finished shooting by at least 1 hr, before the pros came in off of the range. Now i don't know and don't care if they were using tec. toys

are not but it did not have any thing to do with how long it took to shoot 28 targets, did not matter if the tec toys were used or not.

And also what you are saying no talking on the range. That sounds like a asa shooter.


----------



## rock monkey (Dec 28, 2002)

so.....you're trying to tell me that if i range the target 4 times, i get a 20? dont even have to shoot, draw the bow or load an arrow, i get a 20? sign me up for that game.


as much as you ruling class geezers want to argue AGAINST using available and legal technology, you still keep leaving out the part where YOU STILL HAVE TO SHOOT THE TARGET

some of us dont have uneven courses to practice cuts on. sure, we can practice uneven footing but you're still shooting a flat course. no amount of uneven footing practice can simulate up/downs/angles. using a rangefinder with angle compensating is better than going in unprepared.

it takes me less time to range the target, look at my marks card and set my sight than it does some to glass it, glass it, glass it and glass it again.

as someone said earlier you still have to shoot the target. nothing has changed in the 30+ years for me as an archer. equipment has improved and become more stably consistent but the archer still has to do their part.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Paradox said:


> Good question: slow play should be dealt with. In my days of ASA there was a few times that we were concerned we wouldn't get our cards in by the time limit, which got us to speed up. A round time limit rather than an end or arrow time limit would be good if considerations were made for lane width, terrain and current weather conditions. The tournament director could make that judgement call and announcement at assembly each morning.
> 
> From my experience, the slow play isn't from guys with the gadgets, its from the senior shooters (yes, I did just say it). And not cause they can't get around the range as quick as the younger folks....its because they don't shoot four across when they can (even when reminded that they should), and they do a lot of talking rather than shooting.
> 
> And it's not "pick on F14 day". My issue is that you always take the _extreme of the argument rather than what normally happens_. Eight hour field rounds? Sure, they happen...but it's not the norm. Don't like people relying on technology? That's part of the game now...if someone wants to start an agenda item to outlaw them by all means go for it. And if someone's rangefinder takes a dump during the round and they can't figure the cut....well I guess they've been warned.


Yes, that is because if allowed to continue, the "extreme" as you call it becomes the HABIT and the normal!! Used to be under 5 hours, then because people started taking longer, the norm became 5 hours, then nearly 6 hours...and now look at where it is headed. The supposed "FEW" that are abusing this by taking 7 or 8 hours need to be nipped in the bud, otherwise their extreme WILL become the norm.

Many years in industry and the classroom taught me a lot, and once something "out of line" is let go often enough, it becomes the norm and it is next to impossible to regain control back to what it should be.

I would well imagine that there are those out there that use or depend upon the techno-toys so much that if their unit(s) do take a dump on them, they'll want to claim an "equipment failure"...and pee and moan and raise all sorts of dickens to try to get an equipment failure for electronics failure! It has probably happened, but what was done about it, we likely won't ever know.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## rogersaddler (Feb 4, 2009)

I have never used one. But it would seem to me that if you don't know how to shoot those shots with poor footing that all of the technology in the world isn't going to do you any good. Like Field 14 said make a board to practice poor footing after seeing some of posts about doing that earlier in the year I made one. since I don't have a field course within 150 miles of me and haven't shot one in 10 years until this year it sure helped me out. Thanks Tom for the idea. The two field shoots that I did shoot in I won both of them and the board did help. Neither one of the courses was flat. The first one I won was the Great lakes sectionals and the second one was Michigan's state field and hunter. I shoot in the BHFS division


----------



## gcab (Mar 24, 2010)

field14 said:


> Yes, that is because if allowed to continue, the "extreme" as you call it becomes the HABIT and the normal!! Used to be under 5 hours, then because people started taking longer, the norm became 5 hours, then nearly 6 hours...and now look at where it is headed. The supposed "FEW" that are abusing this by taking 7 or 8 hours need to be nipped in the bud, otherwise their extreme WILL become the norm.
> 
> Many years in industry and the classroom taught me a lot, and once something "out of line" is let go often enough, it becomes the norm and it is next to impossible to regain control back to what it should be.
> 
> ...


Good lord what does you whining and moaning about you thinking it takes people who enjoy shooting too long to shoot have to do with how someone calculates the cut based on the OP's original question? Unreal


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

gcab said:


> Good lord what does you whining and moaning about you thinking it takes people who enjoy shooting too long to shoot have to do with how someone calculates the cut based on the OP's original question? Unreal


Thing is...I"m not alone with the complaining about being out on the course 6 or more hours while a FEW hold up the entire show.
They won't whine while they are "winning", but the second that things go wrong, then cry, cry, cry. Amazing is the hypocrisy involved. FIELD takes too long at 5 hours, let alone 6, 7, or 8 for 112 shots...but the same 3-Ders what whine about field taking too long...don't bat an eye about taking 3 -3 1/2 hours for TWENTY shots at a major 3-D shoot....or even 2-4 hours for TEN shots at an IBO shoot.
Then, They find out here that some folks were out on the course EIGHT hours to shoot field...and that simply "certifies" that FIELD indeed DOES take too long!
At this point we field shooters are our own worst enemies by NOT taking care of the few that really push it way too far with regard to time on the course at the Nationals! Sometimes "shooting through" simply pushes you up against yet another slow group and sooner or later EVERYONE suffers for the slow-pokes' refusal to give consideration to others. 

They don't hesitate an instant to nail Pro GOLFERS for slow play...and penalty strokes have been give out, too. The PROS put on their pants the same as everyone else. So do the "Seniors" that allegedly held up the show at Darrington and other places. 

Yes, the thread did migrate away from the OR question...but...DEPENDING upon the "cuts" and the techno-toys is still very applicable. Knowing HOW to use the toys is really more important than using them. Rhythm out on a field course is quite important, and I wouldn't doubt that some people use these "toys" as a means to help disrupt the rhythm of the group and those same people unknowingly disrupt their own rhythm (serves them right). Way more to field shooting that dependency upon "toys" to solve the problems when the shooter hasn't a clue HOW to adjust to the other variables out there.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## mag41vance (Mar 13, 2008)

Finding the cut for me includes this:
1.)Glass the target to see if there is an impact pattern.
2.) Take my stance, and draw the bow, and settle in on my guess as where to aim.
2b) if I notice a cramping in my shoulder/back beyond what I can tolerate, I let down, adjust my stance then add about a pin diameter to my previous guess.
3.) If at full draw on my first arrow, I feel comfortable with my guess, hold , and form, I launch my sacrificial arrow.
4.) Based on where the arrow scored and my execution during that first shot, I tweak my guesses.

One thing I have noted; 
over the years, I have Higher impacts on uphill targets rather than the downhill targets, even though I apply what I feel is more cut on the uphill sets. That probably has to do with form / stance.


----------



## rogersaddler (Feb 4, 2009)

mag41vance said:


> Finding the cut for me includes this:
> 1.)Glass the target to see if there is an impact pattern.
> 2.) Take my stance, and draw the bow, and settle in on my guess as where to aim.
> 2b) if I notice a cramping in my shoulder/back beyond what I can tolerate, I let down, adjust my stance then add about a pin diameter to my previous guess.
> ...


Thats pretty much how I do it too. Mag41vance
When I'm out on a field course shooting I don't care how long it takes the group I'm with or how long it takes anyone elses I'm out there to have fun enjoy the scenery and the company I'm with even if I have never met them before. As a general rule archers are a great and friendly group of people to be around. So whats your hurry


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

rock monkey said:


> some of us dont have uneven courses to practice cuts on. sure, we can practice uneven footing but you're still shooting a flat course. no amount of uneven footing practice can simulate up/downs/angles. using a rangefinder with angle compensating is better than going in unprepared.


It's a problem, 200m is the highest point in the whole country and they use that hill for Ski jumping lol, we build towers on our Field courses to simulate up/down shots but still not really enough, having the techno gadgets helps me keep in the competition and most of the time I just use it in practice, once I understand and trust my bow cut I can shoot with more confidence without relying on the gadgets. 

As for time limit, there is no such rule in IFAA on the time limit, so for the moment we have to respect the slow shooters (I'm not one of them). I'm starting to enjoy WA Field/3D more because they have time limits it make it fair for *everybody*, at the moment I don't think it's fair that one shooter can hold up another but taking 20 plus min to shoot 4 arrows, I've seen it done.

Every year at WFAC/EFAC Steve Kendrick says that if you're not finish by a certain time you will get zero score, how can he enforce this, no such rule in the IFAA.


----------

