# Shaft Size Poll in General Archery Discussion



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

Why no inside out scoring?

It must be remembered that it is a very good option with ample merit, and it needs to be considered.

You would use the existing 40 cm, but have traditional scoring, X 10 9 8 7 6

Other than the simple fact that it will create a greater spread in the scores, it will also make it to where everybody would use the same set up for indoors and outdoors. My $.02


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

voxito said:


> Why no inside out scoring?
> 
> It must be remembered that it is a very good option with ample merit, and it needs to be considered.
> 
> ...



Not to say "I/O scoring" might not have merit, However,

I/O scoring is a *separate subject *and should not and IMHO, cannot be a PART OF THIS POLL. I mentioned that at the beginning of the thread...SEPARATE ISSUE...and is VERY problematical....moreso than setting a limit. I could go on about the "Problematical" parts and there are MANY of them, concerning I/O scoring...but this is NOT THE THREAD FOR I/O scoring discussion.

field14:tongue::wink:


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

That's okay. I was just wondering why it wasn't included as an option for the mass public to vote on, that's all. I voted on the 9.3mm, same as FITA and NAA since there is no option for inside out.

But what are the "problematic" parts. I'm visuallizing a tournament with I/O and it runs the same as one does now. The way it is now, it either touches or doesn't touch, just like it would with inside out.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

voxito said:


> That's okay. I was just wondering why it wasn't included as an option for the mass public to vote on, that's all. I voted on the 9.3mm, same as FITA and NAA since there is no option for inside out.
> 
> But what are the "problematic" parts. I'm visuallizing a tournament with I/O and it runs the same as one does now. The way it is now, it either touches or doesn't touch, just like it would with inside out.


SOME, actually quite a few, (but not all) TOP END shooters want to jump on the inside out bandwagon, thinking it would solve everything as a near sure fire means of stopping the arms race...>WILL NOT HAPPEN.

In addition, you say it is in or out....Just think for a moment from a tournament chairman's and planning standpoint....as in LINE JUDGES and target face usage.

1. Line Judges: If you think there are a lot of "line calls" now...just wait until it costs a POINT, and not just a "tie-breaker"X, or as in Vegas in championship, simple bragging rights. Take a POINT away on an I/O basis, and I'll guarantee you that the number of "line judging calls" will explode! That means two things: MORE LINE JUDGES will be needed (more volunteers to try to get), and then MORE TIME spent haggling and scoring and ogling arrows...and "what do you think"...which means LONGER LINE TIMES...and longer times between shooting lines scheduling....

2. Guaranteed increased costs for target faces...anyone coming close to a line edger...or shooting a hole even slightly off center...is going to change the face...and GUARANTEED, if they are using even 9.3mm....MANY are going to change faces every end or two..MORE INCREASED COSTS.

Now, lets talk about the average archer and mid-level...Some THINK that the mid-level shooter shooting 50X will drop to about 45X or so...think again...we score for fun I/O X, and also regular scored X's....the TOP GUNS...yes, they lose a couple with I/O...but the average Joe is cutting lines to 7th heaven! Many "lose" 10, 15, or even more X's per round if they score 'em I/O and regular....

Then comes the separation between PRO and JOE in X-count and score...it will widen and the Joes are NOT going to go for that. It is bad enough as it is.

IMHO, you shouldn't score I/O for the PROS and let the Joes score "normally". NFAA tried that with the EXPERT ROUND on Fridays at the NFAA outdoor years ago...and the PROS weren't happy, because they weren't shooting PERFECT on the expert field round, but the Joes were shooting PERFECT on the animal round. That and the TIME DIFFERENCE for the Pros to shoot.

Another problem: LET DOWNS and the TIME LIMIT...there are going to be MORE let-downs and the time limits are going to be pushed...thus increasing line times again.

Then comes the "let-down rule" concerning how many letdowns a shooter can have of any particular shot. I"ll guarantee you that we will see much discussion on THAT RULE and to change it. To me, I don't care if a shooter lets down 6 times on a shot...but he had better have 'em all shot in the 4-minute or 2 1/2 minute time limit INDOORS. I think the "3-letdown rule" was railroaded into existence by someone in power that got beat by a shooter than let down several times on many shots during the tournament...and it paid off in a HIGHER SCORE....INDOORS...they still have the time limit...so what is all the fuss with having BOTH?

There is more, but this post is already too long...We have to think about the integrity of the game (size limits), the future of the indoor game (size limits AND Inside-out scoring), The LOWER scores and X-counts that would surely come from I/O scoring (not so much for pros) that the Joes and beginners would suffer, and probably the DECLINE in the number of competitors at the events. The game, when done properly with NORMAL scoring is tough enough already...but inside/out would create a debacle, IMHO.

field14


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

Many good points, there still is my way of seeing the issue though:

But you know, most people would shoot small diameter arrows if there was inside out scoring, cutting down on the target damage. Nobody would be bringing in their fatboys for that shoot. Definately there'd need to be more line judges, no doubt. But that would be a good thing, if there were enough to volunteer. It either touches or it doesn't, if somebody's being a little b**** about it, even with today's scoring, what can you do about it?

I will tell you right now, I am a JOE shooter. I can't shoot 55xs, even on a good day. But if somebody is gonna come to a shoot and get their little feelings hurt because they didn't shoot 60Xs needs to stay at home away from those that came for the fun of competing. If you can't have fun without shooting 60Xs with I/O you need to rethink why you shoot archery in the first place. 

I want everybody to score I/O, not just the pros.

I think anybody should be able to let down to their heart's desire. I let down a good bit, I need it. Shooting a FITA outdoors I once didn't get to shoot an arrow one end. Sure it made me mad, mad at how stupid I was, everybody got their 6 off, why couldn't I? Stupidity on my part for time mismanagement.

I in no way can challenge your point that I/O would make it harder on everybody, no way. But keep in mind, there'd still be the flight system, so the not-so-good shooters would still have their place in the ranks.

If you really want to know, I have no doubt in my mind that more people see it the way you do. I have no faith in I/O ever being used in major competitions. Like you said, it would discourage too many people, and the decline in numbers is one of the biggest problems in the archery world of today in America. But if I was running the show, I/O would reign.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Voxito,
Well stated on your previous post.

You did say, "But if I was running the show, I/O would reign".

I think that I/O has a place....but not for the entire enchilada of a tournament for EVERYBODY shooting in that event. I am FOR the I/O scoring after two completed ends in a SHOOTOFF...and there are people still tied at that point. Then, go ahead with I/O until the "last man/woman/cub/youth/young adult/senior/PRO, or whatever is still standing. The I/O scoring used by the WAF and the NFAA for indoor shootoffs for ties is fine, and it works well, IMHO.

BUT again, I'm NOT for "I/O" scoring for then ENTIRE TOURNAMENT.

field14


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

And again, "if I was running the show", tie breakers would be games of h-o-r-s-e with trick shots :darkbeer: , panel of judges too for taking off a letter if you got some style :wink:, that'd be the actual amfs class.

Thank you for the discourse, I was quite enlightened to the faults of the inside out scoring system. In a perfect archery world though...


----------



## bhtr3d (Feb 13, 2004)

To solve that inside out rule would be easy...might be a little costly in the start but, just as they do in indoor match air rifle shooting. The scoring rings are controlled by a computer. 
With the advancement of lazers, There should be or possible break-thru way of imposing lasars onto the rings and well since the computer does not have a care as to who is shooting it will not be swayed in its call.


----------



## DRFrance (Feb 4, 2006)

*vote and tell us*

Simple thing to do is take a vote among all the shooters regarding arrow size attending our next major event through registration (to ensure 1 vote per person).

We would all like to please settle this issue. Tell us what the popular result is. Make it the rule. That is how we will all shoot.

Otherwise someone could suggest another shooting class for super size or super fast arrows (then those issues about extra costs and special target butts can be addressed and catered to for those particular shooters). "Fling what you bring" or whatever "outlaw" type of class.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

DRFrance said:


> Simple thing to do is take a vote among all the shooters regarding arrow size attending our next major event through registration (to ensure 1 vote per person).
> 
> We would all like to please settle this issue. Tell us what the popular result is. Make it the rule. That is how we will all shoot.
> 
> Otherwise someone could suggest another shooting class for super size or super fast arrows (then those issues about extra costs and special target butts can be addressed and catered to for those particular shooters). "Fling what you bring" or whatever "outlaw" type of class.


that would account for about 1% of the members of the NFAA - I would rather see the issue be raised through the directors so we hear from everyone not just the couple hundred who travel to Hartford


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

I agree that it would take MORE than ONE "major event" to get a decent representative sampling of the "vote." The "major eventS' (note the PLURAL) isn't a bad idea, however....as long as the poll/questionnaire are IDENTICAL in wording, approach, and procedure used to get the data...and NOBODY interferes in the process and distribution of the results.

However, if EACH AND EVERY STATE....had the same "questionnaire" and ONLY NFAA members in each state would take the time to fill it out and return it, then EVERY director would get some semblance of feedback from their constituents....Those that don't send in the questionnaire...tough beans for them for not voting/answering the questionnaire.

But to allow ONE SMALL SAMPLING set, i.e., those that attend the ONE major event to determine how the entire vote falls would be an injustice and a poor representative sampling because such a low percentage would be present at any ONE major event.

Now...to do this at Hartford, Redding, NFAA Outdoors, AND each state too....would surely give a more representative sampling...and sure, SOME would get two or three votes, but NOT ALL.

The return from state by state polling with the same questionnaire would be low...but it is better than nothing...and also gives the directors the guidance they need, stops the "members" from saying they weren't contacted, and at least makes the members feel like they aren't being shanghaied into believing BOGUS numbers that were perhaps pulled out of a hat....our from a "dry well."

I feel confident that a LIMIT will be put into place, and whatever that limit is, the majority will adhere to it...or they won't be competing. The few we lose that wanted UNLIMITED will be miniscule, and cheaper in the long run.

As far as a Mega-shaft division....I'd be completely opposed to that...there are already too many divisions as it is.

field14


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

At my state indoor, we had one form to register for the state and one to register for the sectionals. What if somewhere on the state registration form there was this questionaire regarding shaft size? Every possibility explained in detail, so there could be confusion on the matter and the decision could be finalized and put into effect the next year. I'm sure more people cummulatively shot the indoors in their respective state than all shooters combined at a single national shoot. This would solve the problem of the innaccurate representation.

Here's how that would work:
We had a super huge turnout of 13 people at our state indoors, and only 5 of us shot the sectionals. Those 13 that actually showed up would be the only people that actually cared either way on the ruling of this issue, so say if every person that shot the state indoors had a vote, this would be a very accurate sample of the NFAA's members. *The ones that don't come to shoot shouldn't deserve a vote on the issue*; I know of some members that subscribe just to support the organization and to get the magazine, they barely ever shoot. I believe this would put an end to the matter.


----------



## 2fingers (Feb 2, 2006)

the problem with voteing at the state is our state(wisconsin) turned away hundreds of people that wanted to shoot but there was not room. And many would of joined the nfaa.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

field14 said:


> I agree that it would take MORE than ONE "major event" to get a decent representative sampling of the "vote." The "major eventS' (note the PLURAL) isn't a bad idea, however....as long as the poll/questionnaire are IDENTICAL in wording, approach, and procedure used to get the data...and NOBODY interferes in the process and distribution of the results.
> 
> However, if EACH AND EVERY STATE....had the same "questionnaire" and ONLY NFAA members in each state would take the time to fill it out and return it, then EVERY director would get some semblance of feedback from their constituents....Those that don't send in the questionnaire...tough beans for them for not voting/answering the questionnaire.
> 
> ...


Field, I hear you saying that the rank-and-file members need to be heard and I agree 100%. That said, if I hear from 20 or 200 people in WA, the majority will win and we only have 1 vote in WA so it won't matter much if we get tons of feedback at the state level. I think the directors did a good job this year and if things go as they did this year - after all the facts are in - I think we will end up in the same place.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

SuperX said:


> Field, I hear you saying that the rank-and-file members need to be heard and I agree 100%. That said, if I hear from 20 or 200 people in WA, the majority will win and we only have 1 vote in WA so it won't matter much if we get tons of feedback at the state level. I think the directors did a good job this year and if things go as they did this year - after all the facts are in - _I think we will end up in the same place_.


Egads, I hope not to take what is in red above..>LITERALLY...or we have gained nothing...being right back here talking about implementing shaft size limits!:wink::tongue:

It is hard telling how much influence the membership will have, how much the retailers/wholesalers will have, "the diamond's" influence; the involvement of bow/arrow manufacturers, the councilmen, and finally the directors themselves. All we can do is make ourselves heard, respond to the polls (if any) that are sent out, and talk to our directors on a regular basis...to insure accountability and action is taken to finalize something...and not let 18%...those wanting ZERO LIMITS have their way.

Now if 85% say "NO LIMITS"...then I guess those wanting them are in the minority and will have to let the majority rule...but always remembering...the squeaky wheel gets the grease...and that "squeaky wheel" might NOT always be in the majority!

field14


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

field14 said:


> Egads, I hope not to take what is in red above..>LITERALLY...or we have gained nothing...being right back here talking about implementing shaft size limits!:wink::tongue:
> 
> It is hard telling how much influence the membership will have, how much the retailers/wholesalers will have, "the diamond's" influence; the involvement of bow/arrow manufacturers, the councilmen, and finally the directors themselves. All we can do is make ourselves heard, respond to the polls (if any) that are sent out, and talk to our directors on a regular basis...to insure accountability and action is taken to finalize something...and not let 18%...those wanting ZERO LIMITS have their way.
> 
> ...


I meant after we review the information for next year's meeting, we will likely vote a shaft limit - not that we would be where we are today which is in limbo.  Of course that depends on what the members want

Easton isn't the only one giving their input, the other manufacturers are as well. You seem to blame "the diamond" for doing something wrong but in my opinion the only manufacturer who tried to influence this decision was Gold Tip by having their representative shooting 5/8" shafts and trying to force a limit by that absurdity. Before Tim did this, there was little to no interest in limits... makes one go Hmmmm... maybe there is a business reason for Gold Tip to try and singlehandedly affect the rules of the NFAA? Who are you, the worlds loudest proponent of limits, sponsored by??? Another Hmmmm? 

By all means talk to your director but you're right - majority rules. Nobody had data on what the majority wanted last meeting, that is another piece of information that we need to make the right decision.


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

SuperX said:


> That said, if I hear from 20 or 200 people in WA, the majority will win and we only have 1 vote in WA so it won't matter much if we get tons of feedback at the state level.


That's terrible everybody doesn't get to shoot. I can't even imagine an event like that, every shoot here you even get to pick your spot on the line there's so few shooters.

But back to the way this should be resolved.

1. There most certainly should not be an electoral college system of voting put into effect on this matter. Every vote should count, not just the majority of one state getting that state's vote. Every voice is heard, no just the one with the most people speaking. And there should be no "diamond" influence on this matter, every NFAA member that participated gets an equal vote.

2. The concept of percentages should also be tossed out, and cold hard numbers replace it. Out of the options, say five different solutions to this problem, there should be an irrefutable number of votes for each option. Then, the total of votes each option are added, nationwide, and compared to the totals of the other options.

That way, there will be 10,000 votes for one option, and 479 for another, etc., and the option with the most votes is made law. 

There could also be a clause added to this law, instating another vote will take place in ten years (or 5, whatever) and the people could decide again.


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

voxito said:


> That's terrible everybody doesn't get to shoot. I can't even imagine an event like that, every shoot here you even get to pick your spot on the line there's so few shooters.
> 
> But back to the way this should be resolved.
> 
> ...


Think of it as being like congress not like the presidential election. States are given votes based on the number of members and the directors cast those votes on behalf of the members. It isn't feasible to have all members vote on every issue.

There is no diamond influence on the directors -we get our feedback from the states members and nothing else matters. If any manufacturer wants to give input it can be listened to but it isn't going to change the way the members want to vote unless the members are the ones being influenced.

Before there was an easton donation this issue of shaft size came up and it was not approved. That is without your "diamond influence" of the donation. Now we have Gold Tip trying to manipulate the rules to make a point of insisting on a shaft size limit. That extreme situation caused an agenda item to be raised without membership input and the directors voted - somewhat emotionally if you ask me - to restrict size. If you want to talk about undue influence, don't forget to talk about all sides of the issue. The directors voted to give the matter additional consideration and they were very much in agreement on this. 

We should all give it time and drop the rhetoric a couple notches, there is no way a decision will be made before next year.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

SuperX said:


> I meant after we review the information for next year's meeting, we will likely vote a shaft limit - not that we would be where we are today which is in limbo.  Of course that depends on what the members want
> 
> Easton isn't the only one giving their input, the other manufacturers are as well. You seem to blame "the diamond" for doing something wrong but in my opinion the only manufacturer who tried to influence this decision was Gold Tip by having their representative shooting 5/8" shafts and trying to force a limit by that absurdity. Before Tim did this, there was little to no interest in limits... makes one go Hmmmm... maybe there is a business reason for Gold Tip to try and singlehandedly affect the rules of the NFAA? Who are you, the worlds loudest proponent of limits, sponsored by??? Another Hmmmm?
> 
> By all means talk to your director but you're right - majority rules. Nobody had data on what the majority wanted last meeting, that is another piece of information that we need to make the right decision.


Crystal,

I understand your loyalty to your sponsors...Hoyt & Easton....BUT.....

As far as I know, Tim G. did the 5/8" diameter thing ON HIS OWN...and GT wasn't really involved in it....the point was made....quite dramatically. Also, as far as I've been able to find out...the OTHER arrow manufacturers didn't raise the devil over the original 9.3mm rule that was rescinded either....

The INTEGRITY and PROWESS of indoor archery is on the line...without some limit...there are going to be those with 3/4", 1", 1.125" shafts until someone puts their foot down...Many years back, someone in a FITA shoot was using 1" shafts to compete...and within days of that...FITA/NAA established the 9.3mm LIMIT on shaft size.
Commercially available isn't enough. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if you were using 0.425" shafts and someone came in, because there was "no rule" about it, with 1.125" diameter shafts and blew everyone away score-wise (along with blowing some other things away as well) , and on and on and on. What SHOOTING prowess is involved with a 5/8" or a 1" or a 1.125 inch shaft...other than BRAWN? You can miss by an inch and still score a 10...what SKILL is that? Almost touch the gold and sneak in a "10" with that fat of a shaft, what SKILL is that?

We all KNOW FOR A FACT, that not 'everyone' is even able to shoot 2712's out of their setups...those with the highest poundages and longest drawlengths, again have more of a chance than those with low poundages and shorter drawlengths...and WITHOUT LIMITS...it will definitely favor those who can shoot the LIMIT on poundage, and have long drawlengths...>You and I with our piddly poundage and measly drawlengths could never get Tim's 5/8" diameter arrows to go for us...so why should the FEW have all the 'marbles' in their side of the court?

However, with SOME LIMIT, whatever the MAJORITY decides we have and ending point to the arms race...and instead of the FATTEST SHAFTERS winning...those with the most prowess and forgiving setups are back in the hunt again.

As I've said many times on this thread...makes not a difference to me if the majority wants a 0.425 max size limit or 9.3mm....but it is sure obvious from the results of BOTH POLLS....that PEOPLE WANT A LIMIT to shaft size...I don't think that 15% wanting NO LIMITS quite makes for a majority, now does it? Or has majority math changed?

Probably better get on the case of the 85% that WANT LIMITS...instead of singling me out...but I have broad shoulders, and carry a bottle of duck oil in one back pocket....so...bash away.

Then come the IBO, ASA, and the Lancaster's shoot...and probably several others that CAPPED the shaft size at....0.425 maximum....and in 2008, I know of at least two other indoor events that WILL CAP the shaft size at 0.425 and stay there until the arms race is settled.

Crystal, you said above: "_Before there was an easton donation this issue of shaft size came up and it was not approved_"... I don't think you quite have facts straight for 2008:
Seems that the ORIGINAL VOTE at Vegas in 2008...the directors supposedly voted according to the direction of the MEMBERSHIP and the 9.3mm rule was put in (overwhelmingly, or so I was told by several directors, something like 46 to 2), effective 1 June, 2008. THEN....after some "goings on"...and it was NOT the CARBON arrow manufacturers griping...the vote was "rescinded"....sure seems that SOMETHING had a huge influence to get a LEGAL VOTE rescinded...by whatever means. So...you are saying before "the diamond" donation...no approval...then "diamond donation" and 9.3mm gets approved....then after diamond donation....9.3 gets rescinded and NO LIMIT on shaft size is re-established....funny, but how do the carbon arrow manufacturers ever get into YOUR scenario?

Then, of course there is this interesting poll here on AT in THIS general forum where 77% of those responding WANT a LIMIT of 9.3mm. The other part...one with NO LIMITS and inside-out scoring makes up....about 23%....
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=650423&page=2

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

field14 said:


> Crystal,
> As far as I know, Tim G. did the 5/8" diameter thing ON HIS OWN...and GT wasn't really involved in it....the point was made....quite dramatically. Also, as far as I've been able to find out...the OTHER arrow manufacturers didn't raise the devil over the original 9.3mm rule that was rescinded either....
> 
> Tim and gold tip go hand in hand for better or worse. He works for them it isn't like he is just an uninterested 3rd party.
> ...


It may surprise you but I am a 9.3mm supporter - I just dont like the implications you and others make about the integrity of the directors, the decision, the NFAA leadership and Easton. 

This is a graceless age regards,


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

field14 said:


> Crystal,
> 
> I understand your loyalty to your sponsors...Hoyt & Easton....BUT.....
> 
> ...


I need an aspirin regards,


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

You said,

"We should all give it time and drop the rhetoric a couple notches, there is no way a decision will be made before next year."

And you are probably right in the last half of the sentence. I can tell you from experience, however....that "dropping the rhetoric a couple of notches" is EXACTLY what "they" want. Many probaby are hoping this will just up and fade away as time passes...and things will just simply be dropped.

I'm not afraid of fat shafts either...but I'm also well aware of the other implications of "fat shaft" technology over the years...when 24's and 25's first came out, FEW were WINNING with them....until it was figured out how to get them to work.

Trust me...Tim G. KNOWS what the flaws are on those 5/8" shafts...and he WILL get them to work....he admits freely that HE caused those misses and NOT those arrows...but with "tweaking"...those "things" can be much more forgiving.

Now, tell me...out of the 15 at Vegas in that shoot-down...how many were NOT shooting at least 26 diameter or BIGGER...we know the WINNER was shooting 27's. How many of the top 10 at Vegas were shooting SMALLER than 25's?

At the National Indoor, I heard Chance had a 60X round with 59X inside out...but that hasn't been confirmed. Of course they KNEW IN ADVANCE that during the shootoff...INSIDE OUT was going to be used quickly...I don't know the details on the top 10 shooting 27's or 9.3mm...or whatever...but, I heard that in the inside out portion...it was 4 inside out to win it, 3 inside out for 2nd place, and 2 inside out for 3rd? When TO and when NOT TO use the fattest shafts?

I'm only a proponent of establishing a LIMIT...because the indoor game, if the arrow sizes continue to be UNLIMITED will become OBSOLETE...the prowess will be gone...it simply isn't right to be able to miss the middle by 1" and still get the highest value INDOORS...let's get the SHOOTING back into the game and not HOW BIG A HOLE YOU CAN PUNCH INTO THE TARGET to score well.

People have become SPOILED ROTTEN in being duped into thinking you can BUY a score...it is time to get them SHOOTING the score and not "buying" it. It is time to take and STOP the "select few" that get the stuff and have it perfected well before the masses can get it. For example....NOBODY could get the 27's for the IOWA tournament...but yet...a SELECT FEW had them for MONTHS in advance....and had them figured out and ready to pounce at Iowa. R&D is one thing...but popping them on everyone when NOBODY ELSE has them....well...Tim proved his point...and yes, he didn't WIN any tournaments with them...>YET....

Wonder if Brand"XXXXXXX" will indeed have their 1" carbon arrows in the hands of someone at Hartford or not? Rumor has it....

field14


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Crystal,
You said: "The inside out scoring is (in my opinion) the dumbest thing that could be proposed - every time we have made the target tough - field in the 90's and Vegas "mini" target - the participation has DROPPED. Not to mention that inside out scoring is orthoganal to size limits. If you want to see everyone shooting skinny arrows, just force everyone to shoot a 1-spot and make them stick all 3 or 5 arrows in the same bullseye."

Do you want all he** to break loose? Egads...but in most aspects of this, I couldn't agree with you MORE! Spot on! (pun intended).

All arrow manufacturers would be really happy if everyone had to shoot single spot targets with 3 or 5 arrow ends...all arrows into ONE bullseye...they'd make a mint from people buying up arrows by the dozens...due to robin hoods, shaft splitting, and with carbons, impact damage. Of course, I think "injury rates" would sky-rocket with people "wearing their carbon arrows" in their arms and hands! And insurance rates would climb too.

Imagine the "headache" "they" are having over these polls and our STEPPED UP REHETORIC...SOME have given or more exactly TRIED to give some "tail-feather clippings" to a few of us for what we've said....but their scissors are much too dull, hahahaha:tongue::wink:

They still cannot infringe on our right to an opinion...we just gotta cross the "T's" and dot the "I's"....and keep those ducks in a row.:wink::tongue:

field14


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Spin, spin, spin Field. I know what this poll states. No limit or 23's. I'm for a limit, stated it earlier, but could not vote per the options available in this specific poll. Haven't heard you touting the fact that > 50% of the respondents in your General poll want to use arrows that are at least 26xx in size....when presented with more options than "no limit" or "23" :wink:!

Just trying to keep this real, hence the reason I suggested revising the poll in the first place, so varying opinions could be heard; not just those in favor of no limit or a 23 limit.  If those were the only choices I had, then I'd also be in full support of a 23 limit.

Interesting also that a person would use 5/8" shafts now to prove a point on limits and yet last year when there wasn't even talk of anyone going commercially above a 26 that same person used similar arrows and didn't mention any worthy cause as being the rationale. 

fyi, also took FITA a little more than a few days to create the 23 limit, like approximately 1yr if memory serves, from the time the gentleman tried to use his over-sized arrows at a World Championships.....wasn't allowed to use the over-sized arrows at the tournament per the tournament director's perogative (undue bale damage I believe was the determining factor?), however, 25's and 26's were still allowed to be used through that tournament in the spring through early the following winter -- possibly 4/1 or 3/1 of the following year?

>>--------->


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

*This is not a PRO issue - let's take this to another forum*



field14 said:


> You said,
> 
> "We should all give it time and drop the rhetoric a couple notches, there is no way a decision will be made before next year."
> 
> ...


We're in the wrong forum regards,


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Spin, spin, spin Field. I know what this poll states. No limit or 23's. I'm for a limit, stated it earlier, but could not vote per the options available in this specific poll. Haven't heard you touting the fact that > 50% of the respondents in your General poll want to use arrows that are at least 26xx in size....when presented with more options than "no limit" or "23" :wink:!
> 
> Just trying to keep this real, hence the reason I suggested revising the poll in the first place, so varying opinions could be heard; not just those in favor of no limit or a 23 limit.  If those were the only choices I had, then I'd also be in full support of a 23 limit.
> 
> ...


The poll that gives 27's OR 23's as the ONLY TWO CHOICES...is NOT the one I devised...but the one on THIS side of the forum in the Professional archers' part....

The one I devised has given several variables for a reason...to eventually pare it down from the 5 to the two most prevalent...and from those numbers AND the numbers on the poll on the Professional forum, those wanting NO LIMIT are positively in the minority by an overwhelming margin!

In the PROFESSIONAL forum's poll...78% want 23's...I did NOT, I repeat, I did NOT start this particular poll. TwoBears started that poll: http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=650423

Mine is in the General Discussion area...

And just once again....15.38 a definite minority are wanting UNLIMITED shaft size...

Those wanting 0.425 Permanently: 24.28%
Those wanting 26 diameter permanently, which is SMALLER: 13.94%
Those wanting 0.425 BUT DOWNSIZING to 9.3mm over 1-2 years: 12.98%
Those wanting 9.3mm 33.41%

SO...combining the 0.425 and DOWNSIZING to 9.3 and the 9.3 mm together: 46.39%

26's are out of the matrix since they are SMALLER than 2712, so can't count those on either side...

So that leaves a "possible" combination of those Wanting NO LIMIT with the 2712's permanently, or 39.66%. _My guess is that when offered the choice of either 2712 (0.425) permanently OR 9.3 mm, those that USED TO want NO LIMITS, will slide to the 2712's permanently side of the issue_...

spin, spin, spin..it still comes down to a "split"...but those wanting NO LIMIT AT ALL...are positively in the minority by an overwhelming margin.

Jeff, YOU SAID ABOVE: "_yet last year when there wasn't even talk of anyone going commercially above a 26_ You have this stretched a ton out of proportion...LAST YEAR, very early on, a VERY VERY SELECT FEW...were USING 2712's and testing them, and getting them prepped for use at the IOWA PRO AM, and use them they did, too when NOBODY ELSE COULD GET THEM...
...SO, why shouldn't Tim have used the mega-shafts at IOWA...he KNEW that people were showing up with 2712's...so why not some "oneupmanship" for a change? the 5/8" diameters LEGAL TOO, and still are....much to the chagrin of the majority of shooters!

Spin it how you want...but if these polls..BOTH OF THEM...are any indicator, which IMHO, they definitely are a pretty good indicator....people are favoring towards the 9.3mm size limits...and AWAY FROM....the current NO LIMITS AT ALL to shaft size.

Crystal.
Many of us had already known well in advance that Tim wasn't going to shoot his mega-shafts at Louisville..he, like the rest of us, was well aware that the shootoffs went "inside-out" and at that point...for SHOOTOFF inside outs...the mega-shafts are a huge disadvantage...while you might miss by 3/4" and still catch an X....you obviously cannot miss by that margin and get an "inside-out" X....one would be "brain-dead" to use a mega-shaft under those circumstances.

Yeah, I know....then score everything inside out and the "problem goes away"...and so do MANY MANY MANY "average joe" shooters too....when the game becomes TOO difficult...as you yourself indicated eariler, "the tournouts at tournaments drop."

It is always wait until later...and then "things have cooled off" and people become lacadaisical...and before you know it....we are back here again this time next year....and still have NO LIMITS on shaft size...in spite of these two polls indicating that a MINORITY would be in control if NO LIMITS continue...and the 85% MAJORITY are on the outside looking in and wonder why "their vote and voices didn't mean diddly."

Which is part of the problem...especially after a vote was rescinded...and nobody really has been told ALL the reasoning behind it...only bits and pieces and a lot of that hearsay....very few anymore figure that what input they had mattered anyways...EXACTLY what the minority want to happen...play right into their hands...

We know the game all too well...of "special interest groups"....Make a rucus, hit 'em hard...let 'em stew...they will figure eventually that it isn't "worth the fight"...so then those in the MINORITY end up getting their own way in the long run..and the MAJORITY PAY ALL THE BILLS...sound familiar? illegal immigration, illicit drugs, terrorists, and on and on and on....Hit 'em often enough and hard enough...and they'll give up....

Well, about time the tables were turned...and guess what..>SOME of those "special interest" people in archery are squirming just a bit...and getting shown that they are NOT the dominating force they thought they might be.

field14


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

What it comes down to is this, and its really simple.

MY HOPES are that enough "people" see this information and glean from it.

MY HOPES are that "those in control" clearly see that some sort of "poll" of their MEMBERSHIP in EVERY STATE is in order so that the membership of each state can have the option of LETTING THEIR VOICES BE HEARD.

MY HOPES are that the DIRECTORS...somehow....take the time to design a poll like these or similar to them that DO NOT FORCE A PRE-CONCEIVED AGENDA based upon how that director or councilman FEEL THEMSELVES about the issue...but rather, they design a poll that is HONESTLY put together that gives RELIABLE data that covers the issue in a fair manner.

MY HOPES are that the voices of the members are heard AGAIN...and whatever they say is how the vote goes....

MY HOPES are that the DIRECTORS and NFAA leadership...also include in that poll...WHAT THE MANUFACTURERS HAVE HAD TO SAY...so that the membership has that insight, and isn't just voting for their own interests and their HEARTS...but rather voting with KNOWLEDGE and INTEGRITY...and not vote to hold an advantage or "not rock their little world topsy-turvey".

MY HOPES are that the MINORITY accept the changes (we all know that deep down they won't intitially, at least), and LIVE WITH THEM, whatever they may be.

27, 26, 9.3mm...don't much care, as long as the MEMBERSHIP is able to get the FACTS up front and that the membership, not special interest, has the final say...thru their directors on the final outcome. 

IT is all about getting INVOLVEMENT of the MEMBERSHIP...and not putting the directors in the position of it being thought that they "didn't vote the way "I" wanted them to", thus making the membership feel that their vote(s) didn't mean diddly.

field14

field14


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

SuperX said:


> It isn't feasible to have all members vote on every issue.


I think it is. Each participant of a state's indoor has a poll on their entry form and gets to pick one option on the shaft size vote. The person/people who get(s) these forms will keep a tally on the number of votes for each option. They will show these results at the national voting, and add them to the votes of all other states. This is a foolproof method and the most accurate way of representing the masses and determing the solution.



SuperX said:


> If you want to see everyone shooting skinny arrows, just force everyone to shoot a 1-spot and make them stick all 3 or 5 arrows in the same bullseye.


That is the last thing that should happen. Too much target and target face wear, unless you're barebow or a kid, but I'm not saying they can't stack em in there. I'm no pro and I shoot recurve, and I can still bust plenty of nocks at twenty on a good day. I always shoot three spots and I usually shoot a five spot. I didn't this year and blew the swage out of a 2312. I'm all for the 23XX limit, unless inside out is an option.



field14 said:


> MY HOPES are that the DIRECTORS...somehow....take the time to design a poll like these or similar to them that DO NOT FORCE A PRE-CONCEIVED AGENDA based upon how that director or councilman FEEL THEMSELVES about the issue...but rather, they design a poll that is HONESTLY put together that gives RELIABLE data that covers the issue in a fair manner.


That is exactly what I am proposing. What's more reliable than every *participating* member of the NFAA indoor circuit casting a single vote on the issue?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

"What's more reliable than every participating member of the NFAA indoor circuit casting a single vote on the issue?"

Having as many PAID MEMBERS, that for whatever reason are unable to attend the "indoor circuit"....an "ATTENDANCE VOTE" does NOT include those at Locally sanctioned events, leagues, State events, and Sectional events...and THOSE VOICES NEED TO BE HEARD TOO...not just a "participation award cuz you can spend the big bucks to hit the "circuit"...making only those with BIG BUCKS the ones that have all the say so. THAT IS NOT RIGHT EITHER..

ALL PAID NFAA MEMBERS have a RIGHT to vote...or at least have a right to be given the OPPORTUNITY to vote....if you only give those ballots to those rich enough to attend the BIG CIRCUIT EVENTS...then you have a MINORITY ruling again, and the VOICES OF THE MASSES, those supporting the NFAA thru their membership, and/or participation in OTHER SANCTIONED events as having a say-so too. NFAA BOWHUNTERS also should have a say...they pay their dues just like everyone else.

Of the 1,700 at Vegas...how many were PAID UP, UNITED STATES NFAA members? ////Nobody knows for sure....but should ALL of those get a vote on shaft size? PROBABLY SO..but...so should the rest of the PAID UP NFAA MEMBERS that aren't there too.

Louisville is a great start, since you must be a paidup NFAA member to compete for awards....BUT...the majority of paid up NFAA members do NOT attend that tournament either. are you saying that paying your dues to the NFAA does NOT give you a right to a say on this issue and that unless you shoot a major event....keep your mouth shut?:tongue::wink:

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

I didn't say a big tournament, and I said specifically "state indoor", at the top of my last post and all my other posts on how to solve the issue. That's where the most shooters go, I didn't go to vegas or louisville, but I like indoor as much as anybody.

I said "those participating" in indoor shoots because I don't think a person who is a member just for field shooting deserves to vote on an issue that doesn't pertain to them. I also said "those participating" to exclude the people who are members only to support the organization or to have a magazine subscription. They don't need to vote because they don't shoot anyway and probably don't have any knowledgable experience to have a valid opinion.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

voxito said:


> I didn't say a big tournament, and I said specifically "state indoor", at the top of my last post and all my other posts on how to solve the issue. That's where the most shooters go, I didn't go to vegas or louisville, but I like indoor as much as anybody.
> 
> I said "those participating" in indoor shoots because _I don't think a person who is a member just for field shooting deserves to vote on an issue that doesn't pertain to them._ I also said "those participating" to exclude the people who are members only to support the organization or to have a magazine subscription. They don't need to vote because they don't shoot anyway and probably don't have any knowledgable experience to have a valid opinion.


There, I strongly disagree...that it "doesn't pertain to them" if they shoot field....SHAFT SIZE LIMITS pertain to the entire gamut of NFAA games...and YES...I've seen FIELD SHOOTERS shooting 2213's, 2315's, 2317's, 2413's,2512's and 2613's, so....it PERTAINS to them...

This is, afterall, the National *FIELD* ARCHERY Association...so therefore a person shooting FIELD has as much say and someone who ONLY shoots....INDOORS. Same rules apply across the board...indoors or outdoors.

You do NOT choose ever to "exclude" ANY member of an organization, IMHO...they PAID their dues, they are a member in good standing, and therefore...they have the same right to that vote as you do. Put the shoe on the other foot...as an INDOOR shooter...they don't have "any knowledgable experience to have a valid opinion." so, therefore they would have NO SAY about rules of the field archery game...or anything past 20 yards? HOW LUDICROUS! The SAME RULES APPLY across the board...indoors or out.

Wrong scenario, and the exclusion of anyone from "voting" is akin to oligarchy, or maybe even anarchy. What a way to attract new members and keep the ones we already have.....egads.

field14


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

I thought the poll was just for indoor arrow restrictions. You'd have to be shooting some serious draw length or weight to shoot a tuned 2613 80 yards, and in the wind, I shoot accs for field and the wind is enough to play with me shooting those, that's crazy shooting shafts that big for field. I'd love inside out, but I guess I'll have to settle for the 2312, like a fatboy, that's big enough; if you need shafts bigger go back home and practice.



But can you really not see my point on participants being those only allowed to vote? 

The retired shooter still gets to vote? He hasn't shot in ten years! What does it matter to him what everybody shoots, he doesn't compete anymore.

What about that guy who buys a magazine subscription just for the Bob Ragsdale's Tips, Bernie Pellerite's Articles and Terry Wunderle's advice, he gets a vote too? That guy that does't even shoot anywhere besides his backyard and he gets to decide what arrows I can or can't shoot?

There's no telling what other scenarios there are, but I still don't think every paid member needs to vote on this issue. That's like the presidential election. Are you saying the guy that didn't register gets to vote, just because he technically is a citizen? It isn't that hard to register, but he didn't participate in the system, he doesn't deserve to choose my president. The person that calls themself a member and doesn't even shoot does not deserve a vote.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

voxito said:


> I thought the poll was just for indoor arrow restrictions. You'd have to be shooting some serious draw length or weight to shoot a tuned 2613 80 yards, and in the wind, I shoot accs for field and the wind is enough to play with me shooting those, that's crazy shooting shafts that big for field. I'd love inside out, but I guess I'll have to settle for the 2312, like a fatboy, that's big enough; if you need shafts bigger go back home and practice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no "calling" one-self a member...if they PAY THEIR DUES, they ARE a member, and that entitles them to a vote...they have "registered" by paying said dues.
You wanna an exclusive "club"...you either shoot X number of tournaments a year...or you have no say? Get real.

The rules of the NFAA...with regard to shaft size, or whatever...are continuous...INDOORS and OUTDOORS...it flat doesn't matter....if a guy shoots "un-tuned" 2613's and only shoots 350 on a field round...he is STILL shooting...regardless. The SAME rules apply; doesn't matter whether they (those 2613's) work or not; Maybe said person is just plain happy that those arrows get to the target.

Who is going to decide HOW MANY "shoots" or "shots of arrows" a PAIDUP MEMBER has to shoot a year to "qualify" for a vote under YOUR system? YOU alone?

field14:zip:


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

No, not me alone decide. Simple observation decide. You no shoot, you no vote. That it. Need picture?

The only number of tournaments you have to shoot to get a vote is only one. You say it's not realistic to take away the vote of a person that doesn't shoot? Please understand that if you don't even go to a shoot at all, why in the world would it matter to you what arrow restrictions are decided upon? *There is no way it makes sense to allow them a vote*, as far from unrealistic as it gets, bud.

I think it's great this also applies to outdoor. Until tonight I thought it was only indoor, but since it goes for field too, I want inside out even more. That would definately help out on the animal rounds. Sure the bonus spot is there, but that's still too easy for the top pros to hit. Inside out would put a spread in the ranks real quick.


"If for any reason you cannot be registered for your state indoor shoot, but do plan to shoot this year, please call your state rep to cast your vote" will be printed on the membership renewal form and on the website. The shooters that have multi-year or lifetime memberships that still cannot go to a state indoor will do the same. This will be all over the magazine, no paid member will be left out, unless they CHOOSE not to participate.

That's how my system works. It is overly simple to me, but then again I'm not as not as closed-minded as most.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Hey Tom, sorry about the poll mix-up. I knew your poll was in the General section and included the different size options, forgot the poll here in the Pro section was not. But still just want to point out the flaw in the poll in this section and any deductions made from the results which I believe you were quoting in one of your recent threads. "No limit and inside out scoring" vs "23 limit", results from this, imo, don't clearly state preference for a 23 limit since many who vote this way could be doing so because they do not want to score inside out, or they do want a limit but the poll as written doesn't offer up any other choice except 23....so 23 is what got voted for. Or else those who want to see a limit, but have the limit set at 26 or 27 just didn't vote, in which case you're not getting a clear picture of what the members really want, just those whose opinion matches the poll. I think your poll does a better job of painting a picture of what archers want, at least those of us who hang out on AT anyway. I agree, hopefully the Directors will similarly solicit responses from their respective states so this information can be brought to next year's meeting. Just an fyi, not fair to toss out those voting for a 26 limit in your poll . By my last reckoning, slightly > 50% still want 26's and larger.

Regarding the reference to the 5/8" shafts, sorry, I was counting last fall as part of this year yet since that is when the "new" indoor season pretty much began. When I said "last" year I was referring to the '06-'07 indoor season. During '06-'07 on at least one occasion Tim had brought out his new arrows (in fact, if I recollect the UT Open in '06 specifically tried to introduce a size limit just before the event in response to Tim's new arrows). Definitely before Easton had introduced the 27's, even for the select few to test. In other words his use at that time was not in response to another company coming out with a large arrow, nor did I hear him eschewing the need for limits at that time either as the reason for shooting them. Unlike this season when he brought the big arrows out again. My perception anyways. Just to clarify my comments above.

>>------->


----------



## 2fingers (Feb 2, 2006)

CHPro said:


> Hey Tom, sorry about the poll mix-up. I knew your poll was in the General section and included the different size options, forgot the poll here in the Pro section was not. But still just want to point out the flaw in the poll in this section and any deductions made from the results which I believe you were quoting in one of your recent threads. "No limit and inside out scoring" vs "23 limit", results from this, imo, don't clearly state preference for a 23 limit since many who vote this way could be doing so because they do not want to score inside out, or they do want a limit but the poll as written doesn't offer up any other choice except 23....so 23 is what got voted for. Or else those who want to see a limit, but have the limit set at 26 or 27 just didn't vote, in which case you're not getting a clear picture of what the members really want, just those whose opinion matches the poll. I think your poll does a better job of painting a picture of what archers want, at least those of us who hang out on AT anyway. I agree, hopefully the Directors will similarly solicit responses from their respective states so this information can be brought to next year's meeting. Just an fyi, not fair to toss out those voting for a 26 limit in your poll . By my last reckoning, slightly > 50% still want 26's and larger.
> 
> Regarding the reference to the 5/8" shafts, sorry, I was counting last fall as part of this year yet since that is when the "new" indoor season pretty much began. When I said "last" year I was referring to the '06-'07 indoor season. During '06-'07 on at least one occasion Tim had brought out his new arrows (in fact, if I recollect the UT Open in '06 specifically tried to introduce a size limit just before the event in response to Tim's new arrows). Definitely before Easton had introduced the 27's, even for the select few to test. In other words his use at that time was not in response to another company coming out with a large arrow, nor did I hear him eschewing the need for limits at that time either as the reason for shooting them. Unlike this season when he brought the big arrows out again. My perception anyways. Just to clarify my comments above.
> 
> >>------->


Very well said jeff!!:tongue:!!Also there is nothing stopping the pro's from having a size limit different than the rest of the classes. There is another problem, the only shoots the size limit will affect is nfaa shoots. Vegas,iowa and any other shoot can still have no size restrictions. If you shoot other than the nfaa shoots are you going to switch from arrow to arrow depending on the shoot?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

:zip:


2fingers said:


> Very well said jeff!!:tongue:!!Also there is nothing stopping the pro's from having a size limit different than the rest of the classes. There is another problem, the only shoots the size limit will affect is nfaa shoots. _Vegas,iowa and any other shoot can still have no size restrictions._ If you shoot other than the nfaa shoots are you going to switch from arrow to arrow depending on the shoot?


Yes, Iowa, Presley's, Lancaster's, Kansas City....CAN choose to leave it UNRESTRICTED....but....
Lancaster's took the first step WITH A SIZE LIMIT this year....and I know of at least ONE that will follow suit in 2008 with a SIZE RESTRICTION and NOT go with 'unlimited" shaft size. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if IOWA also went with a size restriction...but that is their call...I can't imagine Iowa would go UNLIMITED, however, in light of what happened to two of their bales in early 2008 If there isn't a size restriction at Iowa, then I would "suspect" the scoring will be inside/out to try to stop the mega-shaft usage....

_*Right now, the NFAA/WAF is the ONLY major organization that does NOT have a size restriction!*_
One Can't shoot ASA with anything larger than 0.425, can't shoot ANY NAA/FITA with anything larger than 2315, can't shoot IBO with anything larger than 0.425...and many clubs are already imposing restrictions too...I'd imagine the Utah Open will also have a size restriction...although that shoot is sponsored by Easton, so who knows?

Guess that may well "show a trend" with regard to HAVING size restrictions, and NOT going "unlimited" on size. So, those wanting no limit on shaft size, MIGHT just end up in their own little world of their backyards. 15% at the most...and most of them will "knuckle under" and shoot the largest shaft allowable once a restriction is in place.

Are you going to shift from arrow to arrow depending upon the shoot...Well, if a person is SMART....they will go with WHAT WORKS. 
However, if they WANT TO SHOOT...ABSOLUTELY...they WILL change arrows from shoot to shoot. Many of course will shoot the largest size that will become legal...which is fine.

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## 2fingers (Feb 2, 2006)

field14 said:


> The poll that gives 27's OR 23's as the ONLY TWO CHOICES...is NOT the one I devised...but the one on THIS side of the forum in the Professional archers' part....
> 
> 
> And just once again....15.38 a definite minority are wanting UNLIMITED shaft size...
> ...


"26's are out of the matrix since they are SMALLER than 2712, so can't count those on either side" <--------------??????? 


Why do you count out 26xx how many people voted for this as the limit because thats what they have and dont want to buy 27xx. if you throw out someones vote just to read the pole the way YOU want its not a fair poll.

So lets add all the ones that want the 27xx for a year or 2 to the people that want 27xx. you can read a poll many ways.


----------



## Blue X (Dec 22, 2007)

Income-cost = poffit
You already had a shoot. you know how many people are going to be shooting it. you know the target damage. You know how much you want to make from the shoot.

It looks like a simple business decision to me. Do the math and make a price.

Why try to get every body against one another. We all liked your shoot last year Mr.Field 14 why not keep it that way. It seemed to me you had a whole different disposition when you were trying to pursuade all of us to come out last year. Matter of fact you were the only reason I went to start with. I wanted to help you because you seemed like a very nice guy. It was probally the best shoot I ever went to. And I knew I wasn't going to win anything but I drove 12 hours and spent $500 to help you any way. I payed you $75 to shoot 106 arrows. Thats .71 cents a arrow and them blocks retail for $600 , so after 845 arrows it is paid for. You had like 1272 arrows shot at each target and that is 427 arrow over the breakeven cost and at .71 thats $303 dollars. You made $303 dollars off each target butt.(I know ya'll didn't pay retail) It looks to me like the old wearing out the target is a bad battle plan. Mainly because it don't hold water.

I am not sure I want to come back if I will have to hear a bunch of grouching about how things should be done. I hear that at home all the time, and is probally the biggest reason I leave the house in the first place.

They still sell skinny arrows if you want to shoot them go buy them. It ain't my fault recurves and seniors can't store enough energy to get flight out of a big shaft. I would venture to say if the vote was twenty years ago you would be on a different side. 

If I was going to wage a war I believe I would make my battle plan before I sounded the battle cry. I would say you would find more support by not acting like we are all doing something wrong if we shoot a large arrow. I would of voted for inside out scoreing, but not now. I am glad you enlightened me about all I was about to give up.

Line cutting to me is only a side effect of shooting a fat shaft. My bow is near 100% efficient. My $600 sight is taking less of abuse. String ossiliation is almost non existant. Arrows are tougher and 18 will last me all season. The arrow absorbs all of the energy and leaves none in my string or cables this makes them last longer. I have to do less tuning and less practicing because I am not always shooting in a new set up. When I get home I'm a lot nicer fellow to my family because my hobby seems more relaxing and leaves me more stress free.

Mr. Dorigatti 
Simply do the math and make a price.
Blue X


----------



## Blue X (Dec 22, 2007)

*My math was off, sorry*

I would like to take this time to appoligize to field 14 for my mistake. 

Instead of the $303 dollars I came up with it was actually apx $80 proffit. Field 14 PM'ed me with more information and afterward I see I was off on my mathmatical calculations. 

For that I am sorry. Blue X


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Blue X said:


> I would like to take this time to appoligize to field 14 for my mistake.
> 
> Instead of the $303 dollars I came up with it was actually apx $80 proffit. Field 14 PM'ed me with more information and afterward I see I was off on my mathmatical calculations.
> 
> For that I am sorry. Blue X


That is GROSS money...and doesn't include the costs of running the tournament...target faces, bleacher rentals, special awards, awards, scorecards, pencils, and a myriad of other things. It is amazing to break down the costs of the items against the "take". Ain't huge money in running a quality shoot....but perhaps the "profits" aren't always purely MONETARY either....
It does NOT clearly reflect any "monetary profit" made on the tournament for sure!

At least not directly from the shoot itself...but you get people into the store and range...and those people bring friends, and...well you get my direction of thoughts.

QUALITY of tournament vs. Quantity of shooters...if you don't have the volunteers or space to handle 300-600 shooters...then trying to do that woudl drop the QUALITY of the shoot because you are short-handed, etc...and that isn't what a tournament should be all about, IMHO....

This year's Presley's Midwest Open has potential, IF( and it is at this time a big "IF") those that said they are going to follow thru...indeed DO follow thru, to have an even larger payout in the Championship Division than last year. Of course, the more Championship Shooters that sign up in each division, the bigger the pot for said division...:wink::tongue:

Last year's shooters will have an early registration opportunity before the registration becomes open on the first-come, first-served basis. More details later.

Now...back to the shaft size issue.

How many of your state's NFAA directors have begun to send out "polling information" to find out your thoughts about SHAFT SIZE?

The Illinois Director has already done so!

Any other states?

field14:wink::darkbeer::darkbeer:


----------



## DRFrance (Feb 4, 2006)

*settling the issue*



SuperX said:


> that would account for about 1% of the members of the NFAA - I would rather see the issue be raised through the directors so we hear from everyone not just the couple hundred who travel to Hartford


The dedicated minority who participate generally set the trend like the saying goes, "10% do 90% of the work." If you don't attend and participate then a new rule won't likely affect you anytime soon so you will have time to adapt. We are much better off to work on ways to meet at these events and work together on such updates to keep with the times to promote our sport.

Here is the feeling of what we discussed informally while shooting before we all listed our "ballot" opinions on the back of our scorecards (which was a very good idea to ensure a fair represented decision and some cards were not filled out because some just did not care).

Most of us "through the grape vine" prefer a 9.3mm or 2315 rule for the Championship/Pro Classes only. All amateur classes could continue to have the opportunity to experiment with their own arrow sizes they prefer for their own advantage and shooting style. 

This does NOT mean that this will become THE RULE. Just our opinions were heard and some good ideas discussed informally.


----------



## DRFrance (Feb 4, 2006)

*one more thing*

Next time you are at a shoot,
be sure to thank the range officials and personnel for their help in making these events possible. In fact, why not do this at every shoot you go to? 

Tell them how much you appreciate their effort and how much fun you had.


----------

