# Archery stays in Olympics



## TJ Mason (Mar 25, 2004)

The vote on which sports to drop from the Olympics has taken place, and archery's OK. Baseball and softball have been voted out.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/articles/PA_SPOA20649841120804466A?source=PA Feed
http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/news_story.asp?ID=129912


----------



## TJ Mason (Mar 25, 2004)

Horse's mouth link:
http://www.olympic.org/uk/news/olympic_news/full_story_uk.asp?id=1417


----------



## Clickerati (Mar 20, 2005)

TJ Mason said:


> The vote on which sports to drop from the Olympics has taken place, and archery's OK. Baseball and softball have been voted out.
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/articles/PA_SPOA20649841120804466A?source=PA Feed
> http://www.tsn.ca/mlb/news_story.asp?ID=129912


Great for archery, but OH NO for baseball and softball. I know a lot of people in Baseball Softball UK will be very sad. They've been working very hard to increase the sport's popularity in the UK and form a national team.

Maybe we should recruit them to archery!!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I am glad baseball and softball are gone-big team sports really shouldn't be in the olympics IMHO. Soccer (football) ought to go too especially since the world cup is a bigger deal. basketball too. I would keep real volleyball in because it doesn't have a major platform other than the olympics. Get rid of beach volleyball since its a venue for has been real volleyball athletes and is a skill duplication. Same with rythm gymnastics. Synchronized swimmng I would get rid of as well


----------



## Pete731 (Aug 9, 2002)

I agree with you Jim C!!

Good thing for our sports, now we have to proove to the world that it can be fun to watch if we have a adequate tv coverage!

How can I learn on a sport I don't know because nobody is showing it.


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

Diito Jim. I see volleyball exactly how you see it, 6 on 6 is the real game, 2 on 2 beach is a dumbed down made for TV for people to wear bikini's sport. 

With baseball and softball gone, what will take it's place? I'm pushing for Rubgy myself.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Agree with JimC on every point. In particular, basketball was embarrassing last year, largely due to the team we (USA) sent.

Relieved and greatful archery remains. I feared it wasn't popular enough.

Dave


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

I really love mountain biking but I just don't see it as an Olympic sport. And beach volleyball? field hockey? synchronized swimming? beach volleyball? Gimme a break!


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

hkim823 said:


> Diito Jim. I see volleyball exactly how you see it, 6 on 6 is the real game, 2 on 2 beach is a dumbed down made for TV for people to wear bikini's sport.


What's wrong with girls in bikinis??   

What sport???


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

I would guess the athletes in the above mentioned sports are wondering why archery is still in the Olympics . . . :teeth:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Matt Z said:


> I would guess the athletes in the above mentioned sports are wondering why archery is still in the Olympics . . . :teeth:



softball was just added so it has no tradition. as to athletes, I would bet the athletic condition of olympic archers is actually better than softball players

squash should be the next sport added-incredible demands on stamina (the former world champ Jahangir Khan was the fittest man ever tested in England-fitter than the tour de france winner, sebastien Coe and Steve Ovett [perhaps the two greatest middle distance runners in olympic history]) quickness and strategy-

it is played on all continents-World champions or world #1's have come (in the last 20 years) from South Africa, France, Egypt, Malaysia, Australia, England, Pakistan, India, and Canada with strong players from Brazil, Sweden, Germany, Mexico, USA, Ireland and Scotland-the old soviet bloc is about the only place where it isn't strong-yet


----------



## Tropicalfruitmo (Mar 17, 2005)

I get the impression that they are looking at income vs. expense in taking out sports. Taking out baseball and softball will save a lot of money because those are two expensive venues to build with few spectators. Sychro swim uses the same pool as swimming, so that's no extra expense and does have a following, so it gets butts in seats. Ditto with Rhythmic Gymnastics. Beach volleyball may be stupid, but it gets air time as well as spectators. I think archery was safe because: 1. We don't need a sport-specific venue and 2. We draw pretty well in Europe.


----------



## phatbowman1 (Apr 27, 2005)

how bout COMPOUND ARCHERY!!!!!


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

phatbowman1 said:


> how bout COMPOUND ARCHERY!!!!!


Here we go again (LOL). If I remember correctly, the last time this one lasted for about 5 pages!

Dave


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

phatbowman1 said:


> how bout COMPOUND ARCHERY!!!!!



why-what athletic skill does compounds bring to the table that recurve archery is lacking? why would anyone prefer watching compounds over recurve? its not going to happen. To do so, archery would have to be withdrawn from the olympics and petition to be reinstated as a new sport-meaning far more spectator friendly sports like Squash would be competing against it.


----------



## barico (Nov 21, 2004)

Recurve is more popular globally than compound archery. Making the olympics compound would be replacing a minority sport with an even smaller minority sport. Not clever if raising archery awareness is on your list of priorities.


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

*Be honest!*

What would happen to Recurve freestyle if archery were dropped from the olympics?


----------



## hkim823 (Oct 6, 2004)

rchr said:


> What would happen to Recurve freestyle if archery were dropped from the olympics?


Good question. I'd like to believe who enjoy target archery would continue to enjoy shooting the recurve style of archery. And it's true that even though the US market is compound heavy, the rest of the world still shoots a recurve.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2005)

rchr said:


> What would happen to Recurve freestyle if archery were dropped from the olympics?




Thats easy nothing. Archery was here before the Oylmpics and will be here after. Do you think Baseball will die now that it has been booted, I doubt it


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Those of us who believe in shooting true "bows" will continue to do so, whether or not they are used in Olympic competition.

Traditional archery in the U.S. has never enjoyed so much support as it has today.

John.


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I love this topic I have even sent email to FITA asking why they aren't pushing to get the compound in. I know we are the black sheep but we are were archery is heading and it is going all over the world. The Koreans have even started shooting a compound. 

The people who says it takes a more athletic person to shoot a recurve well good luck with that. If you judge a person how they look or what body fat they have to say they are a athlete or not just shows everything. Jerry Rices was said to be to slow and not big enough well he is one of the greatest athletes we have ever seen glad we didn't Just judge him on that. Shaq is a big man and he is one of the biggest athletes out there. I will tell you that I have played all kinds of sports with the other archers I travel with, and I would think you might be surprised who could play another sport or who couldn't. So does that make them a athlete or not?

Now let me list some of the sorry excuses they use.

1. They aren't as hard to shoot. 
2. They aren't shoot all over the world
3. The US just wins all the time. 
4. If we put the compounds in the might take archery out of the games 
5. The other country's don't have the hi top end bows like the US has

Now let me tell you what I think of all of these 

1. They are better for the starter because they are more consistent than a recurve. Bad thing we wouldn't want any new people in our sport.
2. They are growing fast and I think that if we had all of the recurve people pay there way to the worlds the numbers of recurves wouldn't even be close to the number of compounds that pay there way now. Just a little note most country's pay there recurves to go and not compounds.
3. Well I think that at the last 9 only 2 Americans have won golds in the individual.Well in the recurves don't count how many the Koreans have won.
4. Didn't we just go yes we survived they didn't get rid of us well maybe we should try something that help stop that.
5. When was the last gold in the games won with a wood arrow and not a high tech recurve with carbon arrows and carbon limbs? I bet some of the people in the little country's have those type bows two.

I think that people who think a recurve class would last if it wasn't in the games is just crazy. They would lose money that the country's give them and well when was the last time you heard a recurve shooting for the kind of money a compound does? I don't want a recurve to go but I think that we should all respect each other. 

Reo


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Wow Reo. That response is truely disappointing from a caliber shooter as yourself. I know you are jaded from prior response in regards to the compound, but I would have to disagree with you. 

Sometimes I feel the word association of 'Olympic Recurve' is it's biggest problem. It would be like calling a compound an 'IBO Compound'.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

> I don't want a recurve to go but I think that we should all respect each other.


Reo, is that rant (disregarding punctuation and grammer) your idea of respect for recurve shooters?



Limbwalker, Ditto!

Dave


----------



## centerx (Jun 13, 2002)

Well even high caliber archers can have there opinions… Reo's not the only one disappointed that they can not be in the Olympics … He's just chooses to express his dissatisfaction and why he thinks "traditional" excuses have no merit..

Right to wrong it's nice to here peoples opinions especially ones with talent and experience .. GT comes of a little harsh at times but without him sharing his stories and opinions the archery world would be just a little smaller 

It's already been stated that Compounds would be considered a new venue and it would have to be voted on.. Kind of like beach volleyball .. Different type of volleyball then what's currently in the Olympics so a vote was needed….

Compounds do not share the same international respect as they have in the US consequently since it's more of a political issue then a practical one as to how a vote would go ( or the process of even getting it to a vote) little hope for there entry can be had without risking what is already there. 

I have been told that Archery would have had to been withdrawn from the Olympic venue and then reintroduced for a vote for remittance with the compound provision. If true how does "regular" volleyball stay in and beach volleyball get added for example. Why can compound admittance not be voted on as an addition as would seem to be the case with other sports…

The Olympics are about money and politics and the compound bow does noting to influence either one…. So it's out .. The arguments REO mentioned are from archers not anybody who really has clout to decide on the matter as far as I can tell . Those that have clout only decide on two thing .. Money and politics want compounds?? .. Don't argue merit argue money


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Whatever we here in the US might think of compounds in the Olympics, there is still one indisputable fact: compounds still are not nearly as popular in the rest of the world as in the US. While compound participation does seem to be growing ex-US, until they take a considerably larger share of the worldwide target archery participation than extant today, it seems unlikely that FITA will consider them for inclusion in the Olympics. When and if they do command a larger *worldwide* audience share, perhaps we will find them in the Olympics -- if archery of any shape, form or fashion manages to stay in. Which is not a sure thing, in and of itself.


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

*compounds are a growing breed*

I have not been to as many tournaments all over the world as some others here. But I have shot in about 4 different countries and because of always being told that compounds numbers don't even compare I was curious and asked the other competitors. The answers have always been the same. In Europe I was told that there were 1000's of compounds but because they are not recognized as an olympic style they are not even counted. In Mexico and other South American countries same answer they are growing steadily and with the participants in the compounds starting to outnumber the recurve shooters. In Mexico (a third world country) Compounds now outnumber the recurve shooters by 20 to 1. The numbers in Europe I could not tell you but according to the people I shot with compound shooters are also growing to very large numbers.
From reading the thread here it sounds like compound shooters in Europe alone are a rare sight and nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Those of us who believe in shooting true "bows" will continue to do so, whether or not they are used in Olympic competition.
> 
> Traditional archery in the U.S. has never enjoyed so much support as it has today.
> 
> John.


True bows? How so? Tell me how a oly recurve is a trad bow?

Sorry Limbwalker. 

Maybe this is why Matt Z and Dave T.

This kind of attitude, whether you mean it or not is why people don't flock to the recurve here in the U.S. Funny I don't ever sense that attitude from the other countries around the world. Just ours.

I like all bows as well as many others, but what is happening here is like how the fly fishers look at the bait casters and spinners. It sticks in some people craw.

I have lots of friends who shoot trad (which oly recurve is nowhere near) and I get along with them fine, I have shot their bows. But there are however, so who think it is the only way and nothing else is even archery, including the oly recurve.

I think trad archery is cool, but I won't look down on other types just because I think it is cool. Some day I will do all that stuff wooden arrows and all. It would be a fun way to hunt and a challenge. But I will never look down on other types. I will shoot it all.

That attitude does exist in this forum and don't try to deny it.

You know what? I don't really care if archery is in the olympics. If it was gone from there, it would still survive. It isn't like archery is the highlight for the viewers you know. Maybe competition would change a bit along with the orgs around the world, but it wouldn't die. It has been around a very long time and has been part of competitons almost as long as it has been for hunting and fighting with.

Maybe all this ranking stuff for money for teams etc. would go away if it was gone and archery competition would be more about winning or trying to win if it wasn't there. 

Why not compounds? You shoot the same target right? What would be so bad? Compound archery is growing around the world you know. Europe and other places have some very good compound archers.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

oldreliable67 said:


> Whatever we here in the US might think of compounds in the Olympics, there is still one indisputable fact: compounds still are not nearly as popular in the rest of the world as in the US. While compound participation does seem to be growing ex-US, until they take a considerably larger share of the worldwide target archery participation than extant today, it seems unlikely that FITA will consider them for inclusion in the Olympics. When and if they do command a larger *worldwide* audience share, perhaps we will find them in the Olympics -- if archery of any shape, form or fashion manages to stay in. Which is not a sure thing, in and of itself.


Good post reliable, you did that without looking down your nose at wheelies. You have my respect.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

rchr said:


> I have not been to as many tournaments all over the world as some others here. But I have shot in about 4 different countries and because of always being told that compounds numbers don't even compare I was curious and asked the other competitors. The answers have always been the same. In Europe I was told that there were 1000's of compounds but because they are not recognized as an olympic style they are not even counted. In Mexico and other South American countries same answer they are growing steadily and with the participants in the compounds starting to outnumber the recurve shooters. In Mexico (a third world country) Compounds now outnumber the recurve shooters by 20 to 1. The numbers in Europe I could not tell you but according to the people I shot with compound shooters are also growing to very large numbers.
> From reading the thread here it sounds like compound shooters in Europe alone are a rare sight and nothing could be further from the truth.


Exactly!!!


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Matt Z said:


> Wow Reo. That response is truely disappointing from a caliber shooter as yourself. I know you are jaded from prior response in regards to the compound, but I would have to disagree with you.
> 
> Sometimes I feel the word association of 'Olympic Recurve' is it's biggest problem. It would be like calling a compound an 'IBO Compound'.


So if he was a high caliber recurver instead, would you still disagree??? 

Reo can state his opinion here too. He has shot recurve as well you know.

I think you are right about the word association though. That is a good observation.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> True bows? How so? Tell me how a oly recurve is a trad bow?


Ivory,

To anyone who knows my archery roots, this statement should come as no surprise. If I have to explain to you the difference between a recurve bow and a compound, then you just don't get it, and probably never will.

I am not "looking down" on anyone, esp. those who are skilled with the use of the compound. For example, Reo is someone who I truly admire. His ability with a compound is something to be appreciated, and is no less than that of any world class recurve archer. It is not an either-or argument in my mind. Just different tools, that's all, and a different set of skills to master those tools. 

Compounds are wonderful tools. I hunted with one for years, and my son hunts with one now. They serve a very useful purpose, but they are not bows in the traditional definition, and I think you know that.

Arguing about this issue is like arguing about religion or abortion. I've found that there is very little point in it.

And I do not have to be dressed in buckskin and leather in order to shoot a bow that meets the "traditional" definition. Unfortunately, that's a stereotype that is all too common these days.

John.


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Ivory - I respect Reo's opinion just as much as others. I was just surprised in the manner that he chose to display that opinion. That's it, nothing to do with recurve or compound. I grew up shooting compound and have the upmost respect for them as I shoot with many currently 

Great comments John, and I am not just saying that because he shoots recurve.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

can someone answer my question? what athletic skill does a compound bring to the olympics that is lacking with recurve archery? compounds are more popular in the USA because of bowhunting and because instant gratification, especially in recreational activities has no real downside. I am glad people can buy a compound or crossbow and become accurate enough with a bow to hunt ethically in fraction of the time it takes to learn how to shoot a recurve or longbow.

I note that more than a few former recurve gurus-like James Loesch and Steve Gibbs noted that with heavy business demands, they could still be competitive with a compound.

I just don't see what a compound adds to the olympics and I have yet to hear anyone even attempt a convincing argument

we don't let scoped air rifles or scoped small bore rifles in the olympics-no red dots on the free pistols


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Ivory,
> 
> To anyone who knows my archery roots, this statement should come as no surprise. If I have to explain to you the difference between a recurve bow and a compound, then you just don't get it, and probably never will.
> 
> ...


I know where you are coming from John, I do, but the oly recurve is just as sophisticated as a compound and you know that. The main difference is the cam and idler wheel. I know what definition you are using. I wouldn't call them traditional still. To me, there is traditional and modern archery. I consider what you shoot a modern recurve, not a traditional one.

I am not accusing you of an attitude. I am speaking in general on this site. You know it exists.

I was putting you on the spot about your def of trad and true. No pun intended. 

The attitude part was mainly towards the ones posting after you, one in particular and his name doesn't start with a M.  Read some of their posts again. Just because we have a different opinion we shouldn't be ridiculed. We shouldn't be knocked about our typing skills along with it.

Reo makes some very good points. Some don't like change and attack it. I work in a company were change is constant. To remain status quo is to stagnate and die. Archery is the same way.

This is what field14 has been blathering on about.  

My opinion about why recurvers don't want compounds in the olys is because it is the only stage they have left to themselves. If compounds were in, the other countries would be the same way ours is today. The last bastion of recurve archery would fall. The paradigm would shift. People would go to where the competition is. Why do you think I am shooting compound?? There isn't enough competitors around here that shoot that style of recurve.


Jim,

There really isn't anything they add. They require the same skill.  It doesn't take a superb athletic specimen to shoot either. You know that. True, a recurve needs more practice to keep that edge than a compound does, but it is the same set of skills that are needed. There are just more areas that need constant practice in order to be consistant.

Don't give me that compound is easier stuff. It is different not easier. I see people with pie plate groups at 20 yards with a compound. I doubt they could do much worse with a oly recurve. YOu need skill and techique for BOTH to shoot at a high level.

I know when I shot a curve, it wasn't harder. Different maybe, but my groups were not a whole lot different at 20 or even further out with a recurve than with my compound. Heck, it has a sight on it for goodness sakes. 

People make things harder than they should and that holds them back.

A more athletic person has more of an advantage because of heart rate, recovery etc. Just like golf, you don't really need to be athletic to play well, but being in shape really helps at a high level. This pertains to any kind of archery.

You want to know what a compound would add to the olympics???? A gold medal for the USA.   (pun intended)

Jim,

With all the great archers we have in this country, if they all put down the compound and pick up the recurve, we would still have a lot a great archers and the recurver guys wouldn't be alone anymore. They wouldn't be the only great shooters of the curve and you know it.

Competitors go were the competition is. The olympics isn't the archery mecca here in the US. Other shoots are. It is moreso in the other countries and that is why more shoot the curve there.

They don't need scopes on the guns for the distances they shoot.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Thanks-you are right-it adds nothing and takes away several important skills. Yes, the guys who win compound train their butts off. The people who win recurve train their butts off. There are more people training in the world to win recurve. Given that, I believe the top of the recurve heap doesn't work harder than the top of the compound heap but there probably is a bit more talent. Flaws that destroy your ability to win in recurve might not keep you from winning compound-like inability to master a finger release but in terms of work and mental discipline I agree with you

When I started shooting IPSC and bullseye, really really good eyesight was a big advantage. lots of guys with the requisite mental discipline and work ethic couldn't compete with the boys with 20.10 vision. Along came the red dot sights-more guys could play. did that make the sport more competitive or less? a question that will never be answered. some top compound guys could never ever beat MIchele or Park or Van Alten. however, those top recurve guys might never beat Cousins or Freeman with a compound no matter how hard they trained because the advantages they have in recurve wouldn't help them in compound where mental discipline is paramount and in recurve a consistent release and relaxed form is something some guys never obtain.

watch slo motion tapes of Darrell Pace or some of those Korean ladies. then watch the form of great but not the greatest-like Rod White, etc. big difference. Watch slo motion tapes of the top compounds-even the very good compounds-I can't see the same disparity as I did watching a tape of Darrell compared to a world class but non world medalist


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

I'm sorry if you took it as rude I just wanted to answer all the things that would be said as to why a compound shouldn't be in the games. I shot recurve and I will tell you that it takes the same work and practice to be good with one or the other. The Athlete thing kills me I think it is the biggest reach and if you think a recurve shooter is any more of a athlete than a compound shooter you don't know how much work a top shooter does with one or the other. 

As for my grammar I'm not the best with it I can't hardly type,but I think people who use that as something to say about someone trying to put someone down is a great person.I love archery of all kinds and my piont is one type of archery is not any better then the other but we have been told forever how little work it takes to shoot a compound and I would say I can't name 5 top shooter that work any harder with one type over the other. 

I think compound in the games would be good for the sport. Why do we fight against it why not for it we all shoot archery. I don't wish for recurves to go out I wish for more archery in the games must be a bad thing.





Reo


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Reo said:


> I'm sorry if you took it as rude I just wanted to answer all the things that would be said as to why a compound shouldn't be in the games. I shot recurve and I will tell you that it takes the same work and practice to be good with one or the other. The Athlete thing kills me I think it is the biggest reach and if you think a recurve shooter is any more of a athlete than a compound shooter you don't know how much work a top shooter does with one or the other.
> 
> As for my grammar I'm not the best with it I can't hardly type,but I think people who use that as something to say about someone trying to put someone down is a great person.I love archery of all kinds and my piont is one type of archery is not any better then the other but we have been told forever how little work it takes to shoot a compound and I would say I can't name 5 top shooter that work any harder with one type over the other.
> 
> ...


I am curious Reo-how would compounds in the olympics be good for the sport-because from what those who know tell me we aren't going to have both versions in the games. Now if I had my way, I would certainly pick compound archery to replace olympic drill team (AKA rhytm gymnastics) water ballet (aka synchro swimming-sorry if you makeup counts in the score it should not be in the games) or trampoline

I can see your point if both events would get in without diminishing the field of recurve archers


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

Ivorytooth said:


> My opinion about why recurvers don't want compounds in the olys is because it is the only stage they have left to themselves. If compounds were in, the other countries would be the same way ours is today. The last bastion of recurve archery would fall. The paradigm would shift. People would go to where the competition is. Why do you think I am shooting compound?? There isn't enough competitors around here that shoot that style of recurve.


Thats a great "Americanised" opinion. Unfortunatley your opinion or the americanised opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans in Europe, Asia, etc. Where lots of people shoot recurve archery. There is an elegance to recurve that compound will never have. No offence to any compound competitors. 

I shoot both compound and recurve and I can tell you it takes alot more to shoot a recurve. You have to have the strength and endurance to shoot a recurve. You have to have a stick-tooitiveness when it comes to gaining any sort of skill with a recurve.

If Olympic archery were that easy. If recurve were that easy. We'd see alot more compound archers switching to recurve. Ask Marcus about his wife and see what he says. She shoots both.

I was happy that Archery stayed in the Olympics. Enough said. I shoot recurve because I want to go to the Olympics. I don't shoot compound in the hopes that compound archery will some day become apart of the Olympics. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Lastly, if compound archers want to be in the olympics so badily, pick up a recurve and stick with it until you've made it.


Dylan


----------



## FtCPhill (Jun 24, 2005)

MerlinApexDylan said:


> Thats a great "Americanised" opinion. Unfortunatley your opinion or the americanised opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans in Europe, Asia, etc. Where lots of people shoot recurve archery. There is an elegance to recurve that compound will never have. No offence to any compound competitors.
> 
> I shoot both compound and recurve and I can tell you it takes alot more to shoot a recurve. You have to have the strength and endurance to shoot a recurve. You have to have a stick-tooitiveness when it comes to gaining any sort of skill with a recurve.
> 
> ...


Couldnt have said it better myself. Great post Merlin!


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

r,



> In Europe I was told that there were 1000's of compounds.


 Could be true, who knows? But, Europe, from all the numbers that I see, 1000's of compounds would be in comparison to 10,000's of recurves.



> In Mexico and other South American countries same answer they are growing steadily and with the participants in the compounds starting to outnumber the recurve shooters. In Mexico (a third world country) Compounds now outnumber the recurve shooters by 20 to 1.


I don't mean to sound snide, but 20 to 1 sounds far out there and could use some clarification. For example, are we talking target archers only? If so, I really doubt that number. On the other hand, if Mexico has a large hunting population rather like the US and the 20 to 1 is total archery population, then 20 to may well be accurate. 

Like I said, my impression (and I repeat, these are my impressions only) is that compounds are growing in popularity. It would really help with perspective if anyone that has real data on these numbers would post it.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Tooth,

Whatever gave you the idea that I was anti-compound? In point of fact, I'm not anti-anything when it comes to archery (except for closed minds). Admittedly, I shoot recurve and have no interest -- at the moment -- in shooting a compound. But at some point in the future, I really hope to take up traditional, which is, I believe, the 'purest' form of archery, having the minimum of 'attachments' and the least influenced by technology. And besides, there is just nothing prettier than a nice wood-grain stick bow! Watching those guys in the traditional portion of the Outdoor Nats is just fantastic.

Bottom line: IMHO, archery has something for almost everyone at almost every stage of life. Those that belittle one aspect or discipline over another are either just being silly or have some other hidden (or maybe not so hidden) axe to grind.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

Reliable,

I never thought you did. That is why I respect what you say. You are posting well.  Keep up the good work. 

Merlin,

It sounds like you are speaking from your own experience young man. It doesn't mean it is harder for all just because it is harder for you.  You are giving an opinion of what you think. Don't confuse it with fact.

One other thing. It is my opinion, not Americia's. Why do you do that? I never stated it was America's and I don't speak for America. I speak for myself. Dude, you have to get off this Americanized thing, really. You have much to learn about many things young grasshopper.  You bias towards your neighbors bleeds through. 

I think if there was no archery in the olympics, there wouldn't be as many recurvers out there. Some would switch and shoot for money. I am not saying recurves would die out. The ratio would change.

Jim,

You really think some of the top recurvers have more talent?? Just because someone doesn't shoot one or the other doesn't mean they don't have talent. Sure there are things you can get away with shooting a compound, but if you can, you don't have to learn to eliminate them. That doesn't mean that same shooter can't use his same talent to master a recurve. You are saying he is predisposed by shooting a compound to make the same mistakes with a curve? A good archer can shoot any bow well I believe. Sure they have to eliminate some of the things they have shooting a compound, but they could do it if they switched to get better.

My opinion is that if the top compounders switched, they would be just as good or better than the curvers we have now. You can't say they don't have the talent if they don't shoot it. Talent is talent. Skill is skill. Dedication is dedication. Drive is drive. These guys could learn to shoot one and be great at it. I believe just the same for the top recurvers. I think they could switch and be among the best compounders too.

WHY? They both have the desire, talent, drive and skill to learn to do it..period.

They didn't pick a compound or a recurve because they couldn't shoot the other well. They have their own reasons, none of which are bad.

Ok, I would discuss more, but this spottie has a 3D shoot to go to and enjoy. Camping with my trad friends in beautiful Stanley, Idaho. They still love me even though I shoot a colored bow with what ya ma callits on it.   I still love them even though they hit dirt sometimes.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

Tooth, try it. I'd like to know your opinion after you've shot a target recurve.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

Ivorytooth said:


> Merlin,You bias towards your neighbors bleeds through.


If it were about bias, why would I agree with other americans on this matter?

I think I put that pretty simply.


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

Jim if what you want is what a compound has to offer was the number of tens shoot. At the Atlanta Olympics the crowds would almost boo when Justin shoot a nine and go crazy when a ten was shoot.A person in the crowd said how cool it would be if he could shoot more tens and had no real ideas about archery just there to watch the games. Just like any thing people like scoring. Tiger and other pros don't use old wood clubs and leather balls because the public wants to see the best scores they can. If they didn't do what the public wants they wouldn't play for the money they do. I thought that the games were about the crowd sizes and sponsors which is all about the public.

This is just knowing sports and I'm a sports fan. I love to watch anyone do great performances in there sports. I think that we need to open up and see what would happen because I we are not looking to improve our standings in the games. This will make us watch our back to see if we are still in the games and not helping them grow.

Reo


----------



## stodr (Sep 4, 2002)

Jim C I think the sport they are looking to add first is Rugby.

I saw an explanation of why they could not get rid of the rythmic gymnastics and swimming. It is because when the governing bodies added them they attached them to swimming and gymnatics as a whole group. So they would have to get rid of swimming and gymnastics they readmit certian parts.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Reo said:


> Jim if what you want is what a compound has to offer was the number of tens shoot. At the Atlanta Olympics the crowds would almost boo when Justin shoot a nine and go crazy when a ten was shoot.A person in the crowd said how cool it would be if he could shoot more tens and had no real ideas about archery just there to watch the games. Just like any thing people like scoring. Tiger and other pros don't use old wood clubs and leather balls because the public wants to see the best scores they can. If they didn't do what the public wants they wouldn't play for the money they do. I thought that the games were about the crowd sizes and sponsors which is all about the public.
> 
> This is just knowing sports and I'm a sports fan. I love to watch anyone do great performances in there sports. I think that we need to open up and see what would happen because I we are not looking to improve our standings in the games. This will make us watch our back to see if we are still in the games and not helping them grow.
> 
> Reo


Reo-I don't know how much clay target experience you want but frankly, most people find 16 yard trap or 12 G skeet boring because just about anybody who is any good shoots 100 straights. Now Olympic trap-where almost no one cleans the round is more exciting IMHO to watch. I have watched tons of OR rounds-shot in a few myself and I really don't see the spectator value to be any different.

besides, Ms Park and some of the really top recurve men are hitting tens at 70M at almost the same if not even with most of the compound shooters


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

stodr said:


> Jim C I think the sport they are looking to add first is Rugby.
> 
> I saw an explanation of why they could not get rid of the rythmic gymnastics and swimming. It is because when the governing bodies added them they attached them to swimming and gymnatics as a whole group. So they would have to get rid of swimming and gymnastics they readmit certian parts.



you are right and that was noted earlier by someone else on the board. I hear its going to be squash which I believe has more merit than rugby but then again, if I ran things, stuff that is based purely on judging would be gone even though the 15 year old girls in leotards draws alot more viewers than some pure sport like weightlifting, greco roman wrestling, fencing, tabletennis and rowing


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

*That wasn't my question*

As for the numbers that I mentioned in Mexico, well my wife is from Monterrey, Mex. We visit there a few times a year. I am pretty much responsible for the growth archery had in that area. I used to travel all over that country to shoot and sell equipment at the tourneys. Anytime we go down there and I visit with friends, they are usually shooting FITA 1440 distances for practice. Even then the attendance to the FITA tourneys are dwindling but they come out of the woodwork for the 3D. (As for me I enjoy 3D and do well at these but prefer to shoot more arrows at a spot.) Remember Mexico just surprised the hell out of everybody at the world champs in the compound division in both the male and the female division. The individual women placed second and in the individual men placed 4th When I first started going to Monterrey in 1989 there were about 8 to 10 compounds. The rest were recurves. I started selling them equipment including recurves (Hoyts and Yamahas). But for every recurve I ever sold I probably sold 20 or 30 compounds. Today sadly if 2 people show up with a recurve you got them all.

The question I posed was what would happen to Recurve Freestyle if the Olympics dropped archery. That was all, don't twist my words. Lets face it the olympic dream is a great incentive, just shooting the same style as the olympics is a great influence. Very few will ever become an olympic archer but if that option is gone only the very true purists freestyle recurvers will remain what will happen in twenty years when they are gone?

One more thing a few years ago while shooting the Indoor Nationals (Southern Region) when Vic Wonderle was still attending Texas A&M and he was already an accomplished and respected archer Vic shook my hand and congratulated me and commented "That little ten is tougher than I thought" Vic shot well and he shot in both the Mens recurve and the Mens Compound andhis score was only a few points behind mine. He won the Mens Recurve divison. Vic said it in a manner that I think alot of recurve shooters share and that is that if you shoot a compound with a scope and a release it shouldn't be that hard. But it was nice to hear such an great archer as Vic recognize my styles challenge. I respect and admire Vic very much and he is an accomplished archer with whatever bow you put in his hand. So when he says something like that it means something.

Rchr


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I don't wish for recurves to go out I wish for more archery in the games must be a bad thing.


Eggsactly, Reo. I agree with that statement. More archery, period. It's not an either-or thing.

If we can have 3 diciplines of cycling, two styles of volleyball, and God-only-knows how many diving or swimming events, then why in the hell can't we just add compounds to the archery event and have both? Double the amount of archery. I can't see where it would cost the hosts a whole lot more money. Once the archery venue is set up, how many diciplines could compete at little or no extra cost? Much more than say, adding an indoor cycling venue, or an outdoor volleyball venue.

But I'm afraid those who say that the girls in skimpy clothing win are correct. The Olympics are just a performance anymore. Not sport. If that were true, we'd still be shooting a Double FITA.

John.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Reo posted a sarcastic put down of recurve archery and then ended it with:


> ... I think that we should all respect each other.


I didn't see much respect in his post and called him on it and now I'm the Adam Henry. Oh, and I agreed with Limbwalker.

OK, you win. I was wrong. Compounds rule and will take over the world. I'm old enough, maybe I won't be around when the recurve is finally delagated to the dust bin of history.

By the way, there was no "traditional archery" before the introduction of the compound. There were target recurves, sights, stabilizers, etc. To say a target recurve, even of modern manufacture isn't traditional is to ingore the facts. There I go, being an Adam Henry again!

Dave


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

*Dave T*

If you long for field archery, you should come to Texas sometime. I am proud to say Field Archery is alive very strong and well.

Rchr


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Eggsactly, Reo. I agree with that statement. More archery, period. It's not an either-or thing.
> 
> If we can have 3 diciplines of cycling, two styles of volleyball, and God-only-knows how many diving or swimming events, then why in the hell can't we just add compounds to the archery event and have both? Double the amount of archery. I can't see where it would cost the hosts a whole lot more money. Once the archery venue is set up, how many diciplines could compete at little or no extra cost? Much more than say, adding an indoor cycling venue, or an outdoor volleyball venue.
> 
> ...


hmmmm would vic and John in speedos or spandex bodysuits pull in the chick viewers  

ever see Sante's catalog John?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Oh Geez Jim, you didn't have to go there did you?!? ha, ha, ha.

I've seen Vic in his skivvies, and It ain't prime time material. I'm sure he'd say the same of me! ha, ha, ha.

Nope, haven't seen the catalog.

John.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Jim C said:


> can someone answer my question? what athletic skill does a compound bring to the olympics that is lacking with recurve archery?


This is a poor argument - I could ask almost the same question about curling in opposition to say, fast-ice-skating, hockey, or whatever, but still curling is an olympic sport... There are so many olympic sports on ice only, where some of them don't take more than 10% of skill of other ice sports, but there they are...
Now, I'm not familiar with all the disciplines, but I'm sure something can be done for compounds. Personally I'd invent something like non-static maps, or moving objects - this would be way different than shooting an 80cm target from 50 meters, and would require special skills to be developed... But there should be a place for compounds in olympic-archery and in 10 or so years I'm convinced CU will be in...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dado said:


> This is a poor argument - I could ask almost the same question about curling in opposition to say, fast-ice-skating, hockey, or whatever, but still curling is an olympic sport... There are so many olympic sports on ice only, where some of them don't take more than 10% of skill of other ice sports, but there they are...
> Now, I'm not familiar with all the disciplines, but I'm sure something can be done for compounds. Personally I'd invent something like non-static maps, or moving objects - this would be way different than shooting an 80cm target from 50 meters, and would require special skills to be developed... But there should be a place for compounds in olympic-archery and in 10 or so years I'm convinced CU will be in...



if its a poor argument refute it. the fact is that compound archery while mentally as demanding, does not ADD additional physical requirements but rather eliminates several of the most important aspects of recurve target archery. You are comparing curling with say speed skating which are two different sports, not two versions of the same.

Reo said the number of TENS which really is not responsive but at least an attempt to say what compound archery would add. My brother lives in Manhattan-knows very little about archery. His wife has never been around archery at all. They saw some of the 2003 WTC's. They, and their then 5 year old daughter noted that the recurve archery was so more graceful to watch.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Eggsactly, Reo. I agree with that statement. More archery, period. It's not an either-or thing.
> 
> If we can have 3 diciplines of cycling, two styles of volleyball, and God-only-knows how many diving or swimming events, then why in the hell can't we just add compounds to the archery event and have both? Double the amount of archery. I can't see where it would cost the hosts a whole lot more money. Once the archery venue is set up, how many diciplines could compete at little or no extra cost? Much more than say, adding an indoor cycling venue, or an outdoor volleyball venue.
> 
> ...


This I agree with totally. And I wish we were still shooting a Double FITA! Compoud AND recurve, for that matter.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Jim C said:


> if its a poor argument refute it. the fact is that compound archery while mentally as demanding, does not ADD additional physical requirements but rather eliminates several of the most important aspects of recurve target archery. You are comparing curling with say speed skating which are two different sports, not two versions of the same.
> 
> Reo said the number of TENS which really is not responsive but at least an attempt to say what compound archery would add. My brother lives in Manhattan-knows very little about archery. His wife has never been around archery at all. They saw some of the 2003 WTC's. They, and their then 5 year old daughter noted that the recurve archery was so more graceful to watch.


Well then, how about shooting different types of air-riffles, guns, etc. Let's say its more difficult to shoot an air-gun, then they should ban air-riffle competition out of olympics. I mean, if I go by your analogy, it's way easier to hold and shoot an air-riffle (because you're holding it with both hands) than air-gun. Still both of them are olympic disciplines, and both are barely watched by wider audience no matter if they're a live or a tv coverage. 
SO what does the riffle add to gun shooting? 
- Nothing, except more equipment, more and more people shooting it - sounds familiar?


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> This I agree with totally. And I wish we were still shooting a Double FITA! Compoud AND recurve, for that matter.


I too like the double FITA, but do it in reverse order, shortest to longest. Talk about the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.

tom


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dado said:


> Well then, how about shooting different types of air-riffles, guns, etc. Let's say its more difficult to shoot an air-gun, then they should ban air-riffle competition out of olympics. I mean, if I go by your analogy, it's way easier to hold and shoot an air-riffle (because you're holding it with both hands) than air-gun. Still both of them are olympic disciplines, and both are barely watched by wider audience no matter if they're a live or a tv coverage.
> SO what does the riffle add to gun shooting?
> - Nothing, except more equipment, more and more people shooting it - sounds familiar?



your analogy doesn't work-I was a former member of the USST in skeet. I also shot air rifle at an expert level. What your analogy would be is saying in addition to having an air rifle event we have another event that allows an air rifle with an electronic dot sight or a telescope on it

air rifle and small bore rifle are very different-air rifle allows no palm rests and is shot purely in standing position while the free rifle is shot in three positions. there is also a pure prone event-in other words all three rifle events require very different skills

compound doesn't require any additional skills-indeed several less


----------



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

> if we can have 3 diciplines of cycling, two styles of volleyball, and God-only-knows how many diving or swimming events, then why in the hell can't we just add compounds to the archery event and have both?


Simple, because the IOC sport commission is on record (letter) stating that it does not consider use of a compound bow to be in the spirit of non-mechanical competitive sport as they see it.

"Too mechanical" was their assessment. One might make a case for compound/fingers, but of course there's no such FITA division.

In other words, as far as the IOC is concerned, a compound is to archery what a motorcycle is to pursuit bike or a Wellcraft Scarab is to sailing.

Not saying if it's right or wrong, just stating the facts. As has been said repeatedly, there's not a chance compound will be in the Games in the competitive lifetime of anyone who could post on this subject today. 

Still, some like to tilt at windmills...


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

TomB said:


> I too like the double FITA, but do it in reverse order, shortest to longest. Talk about the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. tom


ABSOLUTELY! If there was any single change in FITA I could make, that would be it! 
Shortest distances first, Longest Distances last. MUCH bigger scoring swings at the longer distance, allowing for quite a bit more suspense and "come-from-behind" possibilities.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> in the spirit of non-mechanical competitive sport as they see it.


GT, thanks for that explanation. And I have to say that I see their point as well. Kinda like adding motorboats to the sailing/rowing events eh?

Okay, if too mechanical is too much, then let's add barebow. Now wouldn't that be interesting! 

One observation that many of my non-archer friends and relatives have made is that they would prefer to see simpler forms of competition vs. more technical ones. I have personally been told by many people I know that they are glad we use recurve bows and release the string with our fingers. And many of those wonder why we are even allowed to use a sight!

John.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

Dado said:


> This is a poor argument - I could ask almost the same question about curling in opposition to say, fast-ice-skating, hockey, or whatever, but still curling is an olympic sport... .



Curling takes a ton of skill. The mental preperation, the understanding of the ice surface and how it changes, the weight you throw the rock at, angles of shots.. curling is not as easy as it looks. It is very much a sport or a game that is deserving of the winter Olympics. 

If ice dance is in the Olympics, curling definitely should be.


----------



## archeryguyca (May 30, 2005)

TexARC said:


> ABSOLUTELY! If there was any single change in FITA I could make, that would be it!
> Shortest distances first, Longest Distances last. MUCH bigger scoring swings at the longer distance, allowing for quite a bit more suspense and "come-from-behind" possibilities.


FITA rules allow you to shoot the FITA Round starting at the longest OR the shortest distance, we used to do it all the time up here (Western Canada), but it didn't prove popular

Cheers

Al


----------



## TexARC (Mar 5, 2003)

Al - we too tried it last year (or was it the year before?<G>) and had no complaints, but since every one is "used to doing it the long first,", resistance to short first is ingrained for some reason. 
By the time you get to 30 meters, it often is mathematically impossible to make a change in leaders because well, shooting at 30 is so much easier than 70. A crummy end at 30 meters is making a 27, yet a 54 at 70 is pretty good stuff. <G> 
It would sure make for more interesting changes on the leaderboard at the end of the FITA. 

I wonder why the long-first became the defacto accepted standard?


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

At the risk of agreeing with Limbwalker again - and taking him down with me by association - I would love to see "Barebow Recurve" in the Olympics. Now that would be a challange!

Dave


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Jim C said:


> your analogy doesn't work-I was a former member of the USST in skeet. I also shot air rifle at an expert level. What your analogy would be is saying in addition to having an air rifle event we have another event that allows an air rifle with an electronic dot sight or a telescope on it
> 
> air rifle and small bore rifle are very different-air rifle allows no palm rests and is shot purely in standing position while the free rifle is shot in three positions. there is also a pure prone event-in other words all three rifle events require very different skills
> 
> compound doesn't require any additional skills-indeed several less


Ok great - I admit I'm an amateur in all these sports, but you're constantly pushing the fact that compound archery doesn't bring anything more demanding to olympic archery - Is this some kind of rule in the olympic comitee? I mean - ok no1 here is claiming that it takes more skill to shoot compound (even though I doubt any of you recurvers could beat Dave Cousins last month in Madrid) but like some1 here said - why wouldn't we all just shoot barebow? - That takes even more skill than shooting olympic bows with those fancy sights and $1000.00 worth of X10's, etc...

Admit or not, you have to accept that many sports change with modern technology, and compound is a next step in archery. If any of you watched last summer olympics you must have noticed that those swimmers that wore newly developed swimming suits (that slide/glide through the wates more easily) easily won their competitions).

And finally, you recurvers shot fingers, - most compound people shot mechanical aids, and only the ignorant ones are punching the triggers or consciously rotating their BTs... You asked what does compound add to archery - it adds skills of using BT or Trigger release - even though I shoot fingers, I learned, after reading a lot of topics here, that mechanical releases also require specific skill. 

SO, yes compound can add to olympic archery - and it adds more to archery than, say, Beach Volleyball adds to Volleyball (both obviously Olympic Sports).


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Dado,

Most of the answers to your questions are in this thread.

Yes, we should shoot barebow in the Olympics, but we'd still use the x-10's.

Since you agree compound doesn't require more demanding skills than recurve, it would be silly to to change to a discipline that doesn't add a new skill.

Technology moving forward... There's a fundamental difference between technology moving forward and adding a brand new aid. New swimsuits are the same as going from x7's to x-10's, that's an advance in the materials used. Going from finger release to a release aid is putting an engine on a sailboat. No one is interested in taking bicycles out of the Olympics to put motorcycles in. Motorcycle racers are athletes too, but the Olympics are not about being that mechanical.

Compound adds the skill of learning how to use a release aid? Release aids are not an additional skill, they take away the skill needed to have a consistent finger release. That's why it's so much easier to learn to shoot decent groups with compound. But of course, even if I trained for years with a compound and release aid, Dave Cousins would still pound the hell out of me. 

It would be great to have both compound and recurve in the Olympics, but it's the IOC's games, they are in charge of their games, so they get to run them however they want. And they don't want the games to get any bigger, they don't want any more athletes. They want sports where the athletes skill is more important than the mechanical device.


----------



## oldreliable67 (Mar 24, 2003)

Barebow in the Olympics? Absolutely!!! Better yet, tradional archery with wooden arrows, and all the rest. Archery like it was when the Olympics were still the Olympics! Now that would be a sport of Olympic stature!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dado said:


> Ok great - I admit I'm an amateur in all these sports, but you're constantly pushing the fact that compound archery doesn't bring anything more demanding to olympic archery - Is this some kind of rule in the olympic comitee? I mean - ok no1 here is claiming that it takes more skill to shoot compound (even though I doubt any of you recurvers could beat Dave Cousins last month in Madrid) but like some1 here said - why wouldn't we all just shoot barebow? - That takes even more skill than shooting olympic bows with those fancy sights and $1000.00 worth of X10's, etc...
> 
> Admit or not, you have to accept that many sports change with modern technology, and compound is a next step in archery. If any of you watched last summer olympics you must have noticed that those swimmers that wore newly developed swimming suits (that slide/glide through the wates more easily) easily won their competitions).
> 
> ...



this is truly funny. mechanical releases require additional skill compared to fingers

lets see-give a korean 1350 recurve shooter with no training in a BT release a carter and see how they do 

I know how they will do-I watched Pace shoot 60X with a stan many years ago. somehow I don't see someone who has only shot a release shooting even a 290 NFAA game without any practice

I am still waiting what athletic skills a compound adds to archery over a recurve


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

*Jim C*

No one ever said they were going to add anything, yet you keep asking the same thing. Like I asked before what will happen to the freestyle recurve if it is eliminated from the olympics. 
The reason I ask this is simple. A few years ago, right before an olympic event somebody sent out a poll, I think it originated in Central America of all places. The representing body of that country wanted to prupose the compound bow at the olympics to the IOC. If I remember correctly the question was posted in English, French and that countries home language Spanish. They were asking if people were in favor of the compound bow being in the Olympics or not. They said that once they had the results they would post them in their website. They did. People from all over responded of course most of them were from the U.S. The numbers went somthing like 81% in favor to 17% against and 2% did not care. 

What really amazed me and cought my attention was the reason given by some very known recurve shooters why the compound shouldn't be in the olympics. The reason they gave almost unanimously.

"If compounds are allowed into the olympics the recurve bow will be eventually eliminated." I don't know if anyone else noticed this response but it caught my attention. That sounds like not letting someone compete because they will beat me.

Believe me or not but if I remember correctly this happened right before the Atlanta games.

I don't want the recurve bow to be eliminated from the olympics, I started archery with a recurve bow and for years thought that compounds were ugly until I shot one.

If you dont have an answer, thats ok. Please don't answer with another answer.

Rchr


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

If recurve bow archery was dropped from the Olympics, 3-D archery would disappear in a flash. 3-D would vaporize instantly.

What is the point of your question? Do you want someone to say recurve archery would disappear? It won't, things wouldn't change much at all among recurvers. The 20 or so full-time recurve archers in the world might have to become hobbyists like the rest of us, but that's about it. Korea would drop archery and pick a different Olympic sport to focus on. There will always be people who prefer the style of recurve archery. That's the neat thing about people, different people like to do different things. We are not all going to do just one style of archery.


----------



## stodrette (Jun 19, 2002)

As long as hunting is alive and well, 3D archery will be just fine. I don't know if anyone noticed, but traditional archery is also alive and well. Just back from the WBHC in South Africa. Any guesses what group had one of the highest attendences? yep- after FU(freestyle Unlimited), it was the traditional guys and gals.

So drawing some kind of parallel between archery as an Olympic sport and the health of the archery game is ludicrous!


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2005)

>--gt--> said:


> Simple, because the IOC sport commission is on record (letter) stating that it does not consider use of a compound bow to be in the spirit of non-mechanical competitive sport as they see it.
> 
> "Too mechanical" was their assessment. One might make a case for compound/fingers, but of course there's no such FITA division.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

I still don't see an answer from any of you recurve hard-core supporters (and hardcore compound haters) an explanation what does BEACH VOLLEYBALL add to Volleyball in the olympics?

I can think of, oh well - it adds fun, more opportunity to show-off on the beach, less teamwork - less hardwork - less training... Wait, it actually detracts from volleyball. :shade:


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

...and besides there are skills in compound archery that don't rely solely on mechanical aids. Judging yardage, for example, is one of them. So let those olympic recirve shoot whatever known distances they're shooting, and invent a field-like olympic category for compound. Make it a bit more difficult (more up/downhill targets) with totaly unmarked distances and there you have it; Recurve stays popular, compound gets its own piece of cake - everybody happy 


It just takes a lil' bit of good will - and finally you recurve guys don't seem to get that compound - not recurve, is a part of archery that will be gaining more and more people into this sport. How many times have you seen people cope with bad recurve results and finally frustated quit the sport - that wouldn't have happened if they had started with compound...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dado said:


> I still don't see an answer from any of you recurve hard-core supporters (and hardcore compound haters) an explanation what does BEACH VOLLEYBALL add to Volleyball in the olympics?
> 
> I can think of, oh well - it adds fun, more opportunity to show-off on the beach, less teamwork - less hardwork - less training... Wait, it actually detracts from volleyball. :shade:



I never thought beach volleyball belonged in the olympics. the sad fact is that the olympics has become driven by TV revenues and a sport that features some very attractive girls in bikinis and guys in swim trunks gets viewers. If leotards were required FITA uniforms it would only help the viewership of the archery event

btw everything you say about beach volleyball is true. It has no business in the olympics anymore than two on two street basketball belongs there or five man flag football and other "pick up" variations of the real sport but the fact is MONEY is what counts


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

rchr said:


> No one ever said they were going to add anything, yet you keep asking the same thing. Like I asked before what will happen to the freestyle recurve if it is eliminated from the olympics.
> The reason I ask this is simple. A few years ago, right before an olympic event somebody sent out a poll, I think it originated in Central America of all places. The representing body of that country wanted to prupose the compound bow at the olympics to the IOC. If I remember correctly the question was posted in English, French and that countries home language Spanish. They were asking if people were in favor of the compound bow being in the Olympics or not. They said that once they had the results they would post them in their website. They did. People from all over responded of course most of them were from the U.S. The numbers went somthing like 81% in favor to 17% against and 2% did not care.
> 
> What really amazed me and cought my attention was the reason given by some very known recurve shooters why the compound shouldn't be in the olympics. The reason they gave almost unanimously.
> ...


open polls mean nothing. its like those polls people post on hunting sites about crossbows. I know all the anti xbow groups tell their people to vote multiple time as does the pro xbow groups. 

The point I made is what counts to the IOC-what additional athletic skills does a compound offer and the fact is IT DOES NOT. that is not bashing compounds-its a FACT. if that question cannot be answered positively then we can ask-what is inherent in Compound archery that would increase VIEWERS, (IE MONEY $$$$$$$$$)-again the answer is ZERO. compound archers aren't somehow more telegenic than recurve archers. The art of shooting a compound bow is not going to attract viewers who would not watch recurve archery

IT is a DEAD HORSE-archery suffers from two perceptions as a sport

1) the athletes really are not athletes
2) the sport is not particularly attractive to the average coach potato TV sport enthusiast

compounds will not help perception #1 and may well make it worse
compounds will not change the second perception-reality

thus there is no argument in substituing compound archery for recurve archery or cutting the recurve field in order to add wheelies


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Jim C said:


> I never thought beach volleyball belonged in the olympics. the sad fact is that the olympics has become driven by TV revenues and a sport that features some very attractive girls in bikinis and guys in swim trunks gets viewers. If leotards were required FITA uniforms it would only help the viewership of the archery event
> 
> btw everything you say about beach volleyball is true. It has no business in the olympics anymore than two on two street basketball belongs there or five man flag football and other "pick up" variations of the real sport but the fact is MONEY is what counts


Well you forgot to mention that beachvolley, besides the mentioned "qualities", also has quicker scoring and thus is more dynamic than regular volleyball (which untill few years back had even stranger scoring system) - and seems more fun to watch and be broadcasted.
None of the archery disciplines have that, but compound does have an attracting note to those who try themselves in archery. So, do you agree that people who just punch the trigger and hit a 10 ring with far more less effort than those who try recurve, are more likely to stick with archery, and someday influence more and more people to join in?

Would you rather have like 10.000 people join some kind of compound archery (with prospects of sometime switching to more demanding recurve or barebow) per year, or like 100 of them to stick with recurve? (Let's say we're talking about Eeast cost of the USA or Eeast Europe, or North Africa, or wherever...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dado said:


> Well you forgot to mention that beachvolley, besides the mentioned "qualities", also has quicker scoring and thus is more dynamic than regular volleyball (which untill few years back had even stranger scoring system) - and seems more fun to watch and be broadcasted.
> None of the archery disciplines have that, but compound does have an attracting note to those who try themselves in archery. So, do you agree that people who just punch the trigger and hit a 10 ring with far more less effort than those who try recurve, are more likely to stick with archery, and someday influence more and more people to join in?


not at all-I have attended our state shoot for 8 years running now and the guys who were winning the recurve when I started are mostly still the guys on my target while every year we see a bunch of new compound shooters-and an absence of the ones we had the year before

I can name the guys who won FITA indoor titles for the USA in compound starting in 91 and most of them aren't even competing anymore. The recurve team from 91 all still shoot avidly.

easy come easy go is what comes to mind when I think of compound versus recurve


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Jim C said:


> not at all-I have attended our state shoot for 8 years running now and the guys who were winning the recurve when I started are mostly still the guys on my target while every year we see a bunch of new compound shooters-and an absence of the ones we had the year before
> 
> I can name the guys who won FITA indoor titles for the USA in compound starting in 91 and most of them aren't even competing anymore. The recurve team from 91 all still shoot avidly.
> 
> easy come easy go is what comes to mind when I think of compound versus recurve


Oh well, I must be wrong then - I based it on my experience with people who found compound fascinating... I shoot highly amateur for fun, and of course compound. But I do intend to buy myself a recurve (not like in near future, but once I improve my form for compound, the recurve seems like a logical next step).


----------



## Reo (May 23, 2002)

Jim, Think about what you are saying that the same people win all the time in the recurve division at the nationals. That shows that the talent is really lacking. Were in the compound people come and go because when was the last time one person could win everything with a compound. Don't get me wrong I would like that I might make a few dollars.

The deal about learning to shoot a release is not that easy. The other reason we have so many come and go is the release causes people to get target panic and they just give up. It is a hard thing to learn and stay consistent with it. I do know some Olympians who have won at the games that could not shoot a release. I saw them miss a target at 10 yards so it must be you just pick it up and it shoots. So what does that say that they aren't as good. It is a different talents you have to work hard at it even as hard as any finger shooter has to do to stay consistent with his fingers.

I know this is a no win with some people to tell them that it is no easer to shoot. It is just more consistent like a center-fire gun verses a flint lock. I think that any person that would just think about it would never use that motor boat comparison. I think that is way off you might compare a bike with gears and clip peddles to a bike with one gear and no clips. When I last shoot there was nothing powered holding my bow back at full draw. There wasn't a motor holding my bow up to aim it. The flat out is the problem and why we are thought to be to mechanical because some one used that type thinking.

Reo


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Reo,

I think more like a bicycle with a single gear vs. running.

Regardless, either dicipline requires the same amount of skill and preparation to be at the top level. Even motorboats would eventually draw out the most prepared, best trained competitors. That's not really the point.

I think the Olympics are about traditional human competition, with a minimum of gadgetry. Unfortunately for those who prefer the compound, their choice of equipment simply doesn't fall within the model of Olympic competition. 

There are other major competitions that celebrate and encourage the use of technology. I am right now watching the Great Outdoor Games, and they just covered the incredible technology used in the archery event. Some folks love the technology, some don't. But the Olympics in particular, simply aren't about technology. Some things need to be that way. Tradition is more important to some than others.

John.


----------



## Brad Rega (Oct 31, 2002)

Actually, compound archery does fall within the guidelines for the Olympics and its technology does not have anything to do with it not being in the Olympics. It more has to do with adding another 128 athletes to the games, on which there is now a cap on the number of athletes. Not to mention that most countries can not make up a full competitive compound team, especially on the womens side.

not to do with my post, but it has to do with the thread topic, here are some statistics on archery at the olympic games. it starts on page 87. something I found suprising was that the world championships were actually aired in 88 countries. archery averaged 10 hours a day on tv for the athens olympic games. Thats news to me! the Olympic committe knows ticket sales are low and TV coverage is low but yet keep it in the programme. Perhaps it is due to the low cost of setting up the event and that 88% of FITA's revenue comes from the Olympic games. Without the Olympics there may be no FITA.http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_953.pdf


----------



## Jim Hutchinson (Jul 21, 2003)

I agree with Reo and Brad.You guys better get rid of clickers,sights,carbon limbs,and x-10 arrows or you might be considered high-tech.Oh yeah go back to a wood riser also.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

inside out hoyt said:


> I agree with Reo and Brad.You guys better get rid of clickers,sights,carbon limbs,and x-10 arrows or you might be considered high-tech.Oh yeah go back to a wood riser also.



Yeah...

Btw did you guys know that soccer balls are filled with a tiny % of helium, which brings more consistency in the ball flight.
But as helium is less heavier than air, then they had to compensate with electronically measured tin dots (small balls) attached in the inbetween part of the two layers in the ball. That took a lot of measurments and modern physics and electronics - and soccer is becoming more and more prominent on the olympics.
In any case, compound community will eventually overwhelm the archery commitees and thus get us compounders in the olympics...


----------



## Brad Rega (Oct 31, 2002)

1 Olympic Sports included in the Programme of the Olympic
Games:
To be included in the programme of the Olympic Games, an
Olympic sport must conform to the following criteria:
1.1 only sports widely practised by men in at least seventyfive
countries and on four continents, and by women in
at least forty countries and on three continents, may be
included in the programme of the Games of the
Olympiad;
1.2 only sports widely practised in at least twenty-five
countries and on three continents may be included in the
programme of the Olympic Winter Games;
1.3 only sports that adopt and implement the World Anti-
Doping Code can be included and remain in the
programme of the Olympic Games;
1.4 sports are admitted to the programme of the Olympic
Games at least seven years before specific Olympic
Games in respect of which no change shall thereafter be
permitted, subject to paragraph 6 below.
2 Disciplines:
2.1 A discipline, being a branch of an Olympic sport
comprising one or several events, must have a recognised
international standing to be included in the programme
of the Olympic Games.
2.2 The standards for the admission of disciplines are the
same as those required for the admission of Olympic
sports.
89 In force as from 1 September 2004
Chapter 5
The Olympic Games
2.3 A discipline is admitted to the programme at least seven
years before specific Olympic Games in respect of which
no change shall thereafter be permitted, subject to
paragraph 6 below.
3 Events:
3.1 An event, being a competition in an Olympic sport or in
one of its disciplines and resulting in a ranking, gives rise
to the award of medals and diplomas.
3.2 To be included in the programme of the Olympic Games,
events must have a recognised international standing
both numerically and geographically, and have been
included at least twice in world or continental
championships.
3.3 Only events practised by men in at least fifty countries
and on three continents, and by women in at least thirtyfive
countries and on three continents, may be included
in the programme of the Olympic Games.
3.4 Events are admitted not later than three years before
specific Olympic Games in respect of which no change
shall thereafter be permitted, subject to paragraph 6
below.
4 Criteria for Admission of Sports, Disciplines and Events:
4.1 To be included in the programme of the Olympic Games
any sport, discipline or event must satisfy the conditions
specified by this rule.
*4.2 Sports, disciplines or events in which performance
depends essentially on mechanical propulsion are not
acceptable*.
In force as from 1 September 2004 90
Chapter 5
The Olympic Games
4.3 Unless the IOC decides to the contrary, a single event
cannot simultaneously give rise to both an individual and
a team ranking.
4.4 Sports, disciplines or events included in the programme
of the Olympic Games which no longer satisfy the
criteria of this rule may nevertheless, in certain
exceptional cases, be maintained therein by decision of
the IOC for the sake of Olympic tradition.
5 IFs’ Notice of Participation in the Olympic Games:
The IFs governing the sports included in the programme of the
Olympic Games must confirm to the IOC their participation in
the respective Olympic Games not later than at the time of the
IOC Session which elects the host city for such Games.
6 Waiver of deadlines for admission or exclusion of sports,
disciplines or events:
The deadlines set forth in paragraphs 1.4, 2.3 and 3.4 above may
be waived, in order to allow changes in the programme of the
Olympic Games under the following conditions:
6.1 For the admission of sports, disciplines or events, a
deadline may be waived by decision of the competent
organ of the IOC, with the approval of the IF governing
the sport concerned and the OCOG of the edition of the
Olympic Games concerned.
6.2 For the exclusion of sports, disciplines or events, a
deadline may be waived by decision of the competent
organ of the IOC if the IF governing such sport does not
comply with the Olympic Charter or with the World Anti-
Doping Code. In addition, measures and sanctions
according to Rule 23 may apply.
91 In force as from 1 September 2004
Chapter 5
The Olympic Games
7 Competence as to the Admission or Exclusion of a Sport,
Discipline or Event:
The admission or exclusion of a sport falls within the
competence of the IOC Session. A decision to include or exclude
a discipline or event falls within the competence of the IOC
Executive Board.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Dado said:


> In any case, compound community will eventually overwhelm the archery commitees and thus get us compounders in the olympics...


Recurve archers ARE NOT somehow keeping compound archers out of the Olympics. It is the IOC the controls the Olympic games. IT IS NOT PERSONAL. These compounds in the Olympics threads are always the same. Please make a sincere effort to understand what others are saying.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

inside out hoyt said:


> I agree with Reo and Brad.You guys better get rid of clickers,sights,carbon limbs,and x-10 arrows or you might be considered high-tech.Oh yeah go back to a wood riser also.


No problem. That really wouldn't change things for us much.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

TER said:


> Recurve archers ARE NOT somehow keeping compound archers out of the Olympics. It is the IOC the controls the Olympic games. IT IS NOT PERSONAL. These compounds in the Olympics threads are always the same. Please make a sincere effort to understand what others are saying.


Sorry but I think it is personal - When the new head of FITA was named, he said he would see what and how to deal with compound archery - in terms of recognizing that it is growing more and more, while all the big heads of archery are actually all ex. or active recurve shooters who look down on to us compounders. SO yes - it is personal, and not just that, it is hypocritical.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

TER said:


> No problem. That really wouldn't change things for us much.


Lol unlikely - by this you're saying that either you can't shoot well at all with recurve, or you're not realizing that your score would drop at least 50% if you took off your sight, clicker and kisser button...


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Dado said:


> Lol unlikely - by this you're saying that either you can't shoot well at all with recurve, or you're not realizing that your score would drop at least 50% if you took off your sight, clicker and kisser button...


LOL, actually I know exactly what I'm talking about. When I first learned to shoot, I did it recurve barebow, and I did it very well. I know my score would drop some, but it wouldn't be 50%. Since I actually do it, I know barebow shooting is not fundamentally different from Olympic style recurve. If you think I'm a liar, as you seem to be implying, just ask and I will PM you my "credentials," if that is important to you.


----------



## bigdawg (Feb 26, 2003)

I don't mean to get involved in this at all, but do you think you can come close, or even break 1300 without all of those items?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dado said:


> Sorry but I think it is personal - When the new head of FITA was named, he said he would see what and how to deal with compound archery - in terms of recognizing that it is growing more and more, while all the big heads of archery are actually all ex. or active recurve shooters who look down on to us compounders. SO yes - it is personal, and not just that, it is hypocritical.



You want to shoot archery in the olympics-shoot an olympic bow. Reo tried for a while and you have to give him alot of credit for it. Butch Johnson-one of the most successful pros in PAA history did it and made four olympic teams and won two medals.

When I was shooting skeet I had choices-shoot the easier american game where there was a fair amount of money, weekly tournaments within 50 minutes of my house or try to make the olympic teams shooting the harder international game where money, sponsorship, and tournaments were much harder to find. I chose the latter. I never heard guys like Robert Paxton or Todd Bender whining that their game wasn't in the olympics-they knew if they wanted to make the olympic team they had to give up the lucrative american skeet circuit and shoot the international game. Some like Mike Schmidt or Robert Schuley had the talent to win on both circuits. Most didn't


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dado said:


> Lol unlikely - by this you're saying that either you can't shoot well at all with recurve, or you're not realizing that your score would drop at least 50% if you took off your sight, clicker and kisser button...



there is a point to that? I still haven't heard anything about why compound archery in the olympics adds anything to the game. It seems that what we have are people who want to shoot the olympics but realize they couldn't do it with a recurve but they might do it with a compound. Isn't that the entire point of the argument?


----------



## bigdawg (Feb 26, 2003)

I don't think its "can't do it with a recurve". I know I want to compete in the olympics, but have invested too much into compound, money and time to get where I am, and don't know If I can redo all of that again with recurve. I know that is a lot of peoples points. What about a recurve shooter who has invested a lot of money and time to this sport, but can't cut it at all, you still see them going with the sport, not switching to compound. Oh, I also think I saw a name at the worlds, who used to be a top compound shooter, who shot pretty decent at the worlds this year as a recurve, and what about erika anear from australia, she does both at a world level. So, not going to say we can't do it, a lot of us might not want to do it yet. I bet if Dave Cousins wanted to throw away being worlds best for a while, he could come back and turn some heads with a recurve.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

bigdawg said:


> I don't think its "can't do it with a recurve". I know I want to compete in the olympics, but have invested too much into compound, money and time to get where I am, and don't know If I can redo all of that again with recurve. I know that is a lot of peoples points. What about a recurve shooter who has invested a lot of money and time to this sport, but can't cut it at all, you still see them going with the sport, not switching to compound. Oh, I also think I saw a name at the worlds, who used to be a top compound shooter, who shot pretty decent at the worlds this year as a recurve, and what about erika anear from australia, she does both at a world level. So, not going to say we can't do it, a lot of us might not want to do it yet. I bet if Dave Cousins wanted to throw away being worlds best for a while, he could come back and turn some heads with a recurve.



at the US field nationals in 03 I heard DC say-so much talent wasted on a compound  

MY PREDICTION-Cousins makes a SERIOUS run for the 08 or 12 Olympic team.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Jim C said:


> at the US field nationals in 03 I heard DC say-so much talent wasted on a compound
> 
> MY PREDICTION-Cousins makes a SERIOUS run for the 08 or 12 Olympic team.



3 years, and we'll see...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dado said:


> 3 years, and we'll see...



DC has as much talent in archery as anyone I have seen. I have it on good authority (a guy whose word I can bank on) that DC can shoot near 1300 FITA with a recurve

worldwide-I think the top FITA recurve guys tend to have the most talent by in the USA there are lots and lots of good compounders and there is alot of talent in that group. I have no doubt that if compounds didn't exist and if all these fellows shot recurve, our world medal situation in recurve would be a bit higher. Koreans have tremendous training regiments but we have a talent advantage due to the more diverse and larger nation iMHO


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Clint Freeman has shot 1320+ Recurve in the past.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Marcus said:


> Clint Freeman has shot 1320+ Recurve in the past.


wasn't he a top recurve archer for australia before switching over?


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Dado said:


> Sorry but I think it is personal - When the new head of FITA was named, he said he would see what and how to deal with compound archery - in terms of recognizing that it is growing more and more, while all the big heads of archery are actually all ex. or active recurve shooters who look down on to us compounders. SO yes - it is personal, and not just that, it is hypocritical.


FITA does not run the Olympics, the IOC does. FITA asks the IOC what it can do in the Games and then does as it is told. Because the IOC is in charge of its Olympics.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

bigdawg said:


> I don't mean to get involved in this at all, but do you think you can come close, or even break 1300 without all of those items?


No. I implied nothing of the sort. I said of course, my scores would be lower, but not by 50%, as Dado claimed.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

TER said:


> No. I implied nothing of the sort. I said of course, my scores would be lower, but not by 50%, as Dado claimed.


Oh fine geeez - do you have to take 50% so literally? The point is if you shoot decent with all that equipment, without it you'll have to loose some points, and it definitely isn't only by 0.5%...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

I agree that without the Olympics FITA would be gasping...in the UNITED STATES...however in Europe and on the other continents, I'm not so sure.

The USA has too many other "venues" for archery and virtually ignores the Multi-Color FITA style faces..excepting Vegas and several States that shoot the 900 round or American, or the EASTON round.

MOST USA shooters are oblivous to the fact that there are over 70 different rounds that can be shot on the FITA face! Much worse.....MOST Americans don't care and aren't interested...they want to practice ONE or TWO rounds and that is ALL...so sad the FITA multi-colored face is so under-utilized in the United States....

Just try sometimes to get American shooters to shoot something "new" during the indoor season while they are "preparing" for either Vegas or the NFAA Nationals...they will NOT change their routine and try something new...they might try the new thing right after the NFAA Nationals...but don't even try it before...the tournament or round will be a FLOP, with little to no attendance....American shooters are ONE-DIMENSIONAL (that includes many of the 3-D shooters as well..they shoot 3-Ds and little else) and tunnel visioned when it comes to their archery...very little diversity in the tournament circuit in the USA.

I also tend to disagree that someone will MASTER the recurve and be a top contender for an Olympic Gold Medal in only three years....I find that hard to grasp....especially based on the experiences and training regimens published by the KOREANS....

I believe several top compounders have TRIED to make the Olympic team for recurves more than once and fell short....some are still trying...others gave it up and went back to compounding.

field14


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

You make the assumption that Cousin Dave has not yet practiced with a recurve. A little bird said otherwise  

remember when Michelle Ragsdale starting shooting recurve a "few months" before the 99 Oxford nationals where she was second and set the then US record at 60M

do people really thing MR was a novice to recurve at that time?


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Jim C said:


> wasn't he a top recurve archer for australia before switching over?


No Clint was a top world class compounder (1385 range) before going recurve for a few years and then changed back again. After he changed back he broke 1400. The recurve helped him get into the next level. 

I really really suggest strongly that anyone who believes that recurve archery is a low participant sport only in the Olympics due to coruption that you get overseas and attend some major FITA events. It's not like that at all in other countries. 
Australia struggles with Women Compounder numbers and in Europe recurve reigns supreme. At my club most start with recurve and have no interest in compound despite us having some of the best compounders in the country. 

As for compounders not bein able to shoot recurve without the fancy gadgets, BS. The problem lies more in the time it takes to learn finger pressure and scapula movement plus strength building rather than being unable to hit things without a scope. 
However I believe that if you take a 3 year compounder at a high level (1350) and put them up against a decent level recurve they will catch that recurve within a few months of taking up recurve.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Dado said:


> Oh fine geeez - do you have to take 50% so literally? The point is if you shoot decent with all that equipment, without it you'll have to loose some points, and it definitely isn't only by 0.5%...


Well, jeez, how am I supposed to take it? You said "at least 50%," that means more than 50%.

Like I said, I'd lose some points, I never said 0.5%, so I guess we agree I'd lose somewhere between 0.5% and 50%. I must be getting desperate to find some common ground...


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Marcus said:


> No Clint was a top world class compounder (1385 range) before going recurve for a few years and then changed back again. After he changed back he broke 1400. The recurve helped him get into the next level.
> 
> I really really suggest strongly that anyone who believes that recurve archery is a low participant sport only in the Olympics due to coruption that you get overseas and attend some major FITA events. It's not like that at all in other countries.
> Australia struggles with Women Compounder numbers and in Europe recurve reigns supreme. At my club most start with recurve and have no interest in compound despite us having some of the best compounders in the country.
> ...


So very true... Seems that recurve shooters are too snobbish about their sport, and thus unable to admit to themselves that compound is both demanding and not so "under"skilled when compared to recurve...


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Dado said:


> So very true... Seems that recurve shooters are too snobbish about their sport, and thus unable to admit to themselves that compound is both demanding and not so "under"skilled when compared to recurve...


I don't think that. I respect the top compound archers in the world just as much, exactly as much, as I respect the top recurve archers.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Dado said:


> So very true... Seems that recurve shooters are too snobbish about their sport, and thus unable to admit to themselves that compound is both demanding and not so "under"skilled when compared to recurve...


\

sure its demanding-the mental pressure is very very tough. However I HAVE NEVER Heard a top compound guy say he was switching over to recurve because he couldn't handle the demands of compound archery. I have met several top recurvers who switched to cmpound because they claimed they didn't have the time to stay competitive in recurve. James Loesch and Steve Gibbs are two who were publicly quoted as saying this in interviews in various archery related publications/

I am curious Dado-why did you choose a compound?


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Dado said:


> So very true... Seems that recurve shooters are too snobbish about their sport, and thus unable to admit to themselves that compound is both demanding and not so "under"skilled when compared to recurve...


Actually I wouldn't say that. Some are snobbish, but then they usually are not very good either. (the type who put down the 1350+ compounders but struggle to break 1150 recurve)

I've been lucky enough to shoot with some of the world's best recurvers and quite frankly they are very down to earth and very very accurate. 
Here is a simple fact though

Just becuse you can shoot 1300 compound doesn't mean you could with a recurve
If you can shoot 1300 recurve you can do it with a compound

However 1300 recurve is good, it's not good with a compound. 

Another good point is that there are very few compounder's with form you could watch all day. Most have ugly form (illustrated at the Worlds) while many of the worlds best recurvers have excelent form. Barnes, Cuddihy, Matt Grey you could watch all day. Park from Korea (1405) is simply awesome to watch. Like clockwork.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

There have been several posts here that refer to the recurve shooters "snobbery" and other nasty beliefs and attitudes. Having read this entire thread most of the nasty comments have come from what I have to assume are compound shooters, about those who shoot recurves.

Guess that's where the old saying about the pot calling the kettle black comes from (LOL).

GT explained very clearly why there are not now and probably won't be compounds in the Olympics. The IOC said no! That may be unfair, not right and just horrible but it remains a fact. Why all the accusations about how bad the recurve shooters are treating the compound shooters?

Dave


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Dave T said:


> Here we go again (LOL). If I remember correctly, the last time this one lasted for about 5 pages!
> 
> Dave


You called it days ago, Dave. :beer: These discussions are always the same. :sad:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TER said:


> You called it days ago, Dave. :beer: These discussions are always the same. :sad:



yep, you never see a post explaining factually what substituting wheel bows will ADD to the Olympics

Marcus-who knows of what he speaks-point about form is exactly what my sister in law said to me watching the WTC in NYC a couple years ago. Recurves-graceful, compounds not nearly as much. why-form flaws are far more fatal to winning in recurve archery.

anyway I am done with this until someone can answer the question I posted at the beginning of this thread


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Jim C said:


> yep, you never see a post explaining factually what substituting wheel bows will ADD to the Olympics
> 
> Marcus-who knows of what he speaks-point about form is exactly what my sister in law said to me watching the WTC in NYC a couple years ago. Recurves-graceful, compounds not nearly as much. why-form flaws are far more fatal to winning in recurve archery.
> 
> anyway I am done with this until someone can answer the question I posted at the beginning of this thread


Jim,

Stop being coy, you've always known the answer to your question is keeping the scope clear in bad weather. :wink:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

TER said:


> Jim,
> 
> Stop being coy, you've always known the answer to your question is keeping the scope clear in bad weather. :wink:



I guess you must have seen that answer I got a year or two ago when I posted this same question. The funny thing is that the guy truly believed that made compound archery tougher than recurve

I suspect that if recurves could use a scope (just what a recurve archer needs-aiming harder as gt noted  ) and I could use my ultra elite, carter release but only my beiter aperture I could actually beat Vic and Butch every once in a while rather than losing to them by say 130 points in most fitas


----------



## kiwibowpro (Apr 24, 2003)

And just to add a perspective from a small country in the South Pacific.
Target compound use is definitely on the rise here in New Zealand and has been for several years. We do have a lot of target recurve shooters as well, but only about 2 of them have ever made the effort to raise their ability to Olympic level in recent years. Most of the recurve shooters out this way just aren't good enough.

Our best compound shooter - Kenny Rogers, (Hoyt ProElite) has been the only New Zealand archer to attend the last 2 world champs, no recurve shooters even bothered to try and qualify --- so why shouldn't Kenny have the opportunity to shoot at the Olympics.

Perhaps now that James Easton is no longer on the Olympic committee Compound might get a better profile!!!!! 

We also have a huge number of Bowhunters shooting compound, and a lot of them shoot 3D/Field etc as well.

I'm with Reo !!!


----------



## Rchr (Jul 3, 2003)

*You see what you want*

Well Jim C keeps retreating to the same thing. When I asked my question it was to see what other options there are. But people get apprehensive. I for one do not care if they add another division to the next tournament. But when the converstation goes anywhere near the compounds and the olympcis it becomes very defensive. Instead of saying yeah they should allow them into the olympics it is oh no, never in my lifetime. If you were not so insecure I am sure your position would be very different.
When I mentioned the poll the last thing I intended for you to concentrate on was the numbers. Of course it was what you chose to see. The reason I mentioned it was because of the responses they gave. If you didn't see it go back and read it. 
If the addition of the compound would indicate the extinction of the F. Recurve I can understand why it would be better for the compound not to be included. 
Like stodrette said the compound has many venues in which it is alive and well and growing. 
When you say that the IOC makes the decisions it is true, but it also depends on FITA for advice on making its decisions.
I am not trying to convince anyone just trying to see the reasons why?


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

I'll be straight foward. They shouldn't add them to the Olympics. If a compound shooter wants to go to the Olympics. Pick up a recurve. Simple as that.

If you feel recurve is that easy.


----------



## bigdawg (Feb 26, 2003)

nobody ever said recurve is that easy, we are trying to say that compound is not that easy either. Maybe to say pick up a compound and break 1300 is easy, but to be competative is not easy. It takes just as much time and effort as compound. Pick it up and shoot 1400 with it, or even 1390's...not easy, but that is what it takes to be competative. With recurve it is shoot 1330 to be one of the better ones..... I just finished watching the great outdoor games today, and if they want to make it tv friendly, thats the way. You know, even what they did with the worlds was good too. Archery can be tv friendly, it is up to the tv people to make it that way. And that is what olympics are concerned with. Whether they let it in or not, i don't care, I will continue to shoot either way.


----------



## Miika (Jun 29, 2003)

kiwibowpro said:


> Our best compound shooter - Kenny Rogers, (Hoyt ProElite) has been the only New Zealand archer to attend the last 2 world champs, no recurve shooters even bothered to try and qualify


Really? When was NZ Qualifiers, then? Hmm...And BTW, NZ had an Archer in Sydney and one in Athens. Not a bad accomplishment from a Small Nation with no official coaching programs. NZ also had 1 more spot for Gents and 1 spot for Ladies in Athens, but decided not to send them.



kiwibowpro said:


> Perhaps now that James Easton is no longer on the Olympic committee


Damn, and I thought Jim is IOC Vice President...


----------



## TJ Mason (Mar 25, 2004)

Oh goody gumdrops, another useless compounds-versus-recurves spat. :angry: Personally, I'm glad to see archery in the Olympics. I don't give a monkey's about the bow type.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Jim C said:


> I am curious Dado-why did you choose a compound?


Well to tell you the absolute truth, I came back from a vacation where they had archery in hotel. Now, before the war when I was a kid, we used to make lots of arrows and bows (by just cutting branches and wood) and we had a lot of fun playing with them. I even tried to make something that remotely looked like a recurve, since there was (and still isn't) no archery clubs around here. (when I say around here, I mean the whole country)

So, 9 years after the war (last year), people started to earn more and more money, so was I, and I decided to give it a try since this hotel-archery heated me up. At that point (less than year ago) if you asked me the difference between compound and a recurve I wouldn't be able to say a single thing. Naturally I found this place, posted a topic explaining my situation and asking what were my choices as an absolute starter that will be working on his own, gathering all/any info, tips, about form and equipment only on the internet (mostly archerytalk)...
I don't recall anyone suggested that I should start with a recurve. Doh, I didn't like the idea of too many gadgets around, so I started shooting fingers, and still do.

Almost a year passed and I found out that there are, in the whole country, two guys that own a bow, and they shoot like once a month (and are some 200 miles away). The next archer in my town, after me, became my girfriend - which is obviously self-explanatory - we got her a small kids/female bow, the Alpine Micro. She on the other hand liked the idea of a release, so we got her one.

What I did so far is that I've built my own range - measured fita distances *so far for 18,25,30 and 50 meters*, bought 'Core Archery' book, and ever since this winter/spring I'm trying to execute shots as consistently as I can using rhomboids, trying to build form good enough not to be last on the board on the FITA tournaments next year, that are pretty regular in two bordering countries (Serbia and Croatia).

------
So, if you think that it is perfectly ok that some1 could've managed the recurve all by himself, then I guess I ain't ambitious enough...


----------



## stodr (Sep 4, 2002)

Jim C said:


> your analogy doesn't work-I was a former member of the USST in skeet. I also shot air rifle at an expert level. What your analogy would be is saying in addition to having an air rifle event we have another event that allows an air rifle with an electronic dot sight or a telescope on it
> 
> air rifle and small bore rifle are very different-air rifle allows no palm rests and is shot purely in standing position while the free rifle is shot in three positions. there is also a pure prone event-in other words all three rifle events require very different skills
> 
> compound doesn't require any additional skills-indeed several less


Jim C you are reaching the skills to shoot are the same. That is the same arguement you are using against Compounds. One uses a palm rest one doesn't, ahh one uses a release and a peep one doesn't. They shoot different positions. Well if that mattered I bet it wouldn't be hard to shoot a different format for compound. Explain to us the difference skill used in air rifle vrs small bore, don't use different format because it that can be done with compounds, and don't use different equipment since you know recurves and compounds are no the same.

I will not begin to argue that compound is harder or is not easier to pick up. But I guarentee you that if I had shot for the last 15 years with a recurve I would probally be in the same skill level / peer group I am with a compound I just probally got there faster with a compound. Also when I started shooting I did not know what OR shooting was and there was no where to find out. I would say if the IOC dropped Archery Recurve it would be mostly dead in the US, when all the current die hards stopped shooting. I am also guessing that when all those countries that would lose their funding for archery if the sport was dropped there would be a significant drop also, especially somewhere like Korea.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

fair enough on the rifle stuff but a red dot or telescope removes one of the skill requirements-as does a release or a peep sight removes one of the skill requirements. That is why someone trained on iron sights can transition to a red dot far quicker than the other way around just as world class recurve shooters can attain world class compound technique far faster than the other way around (as the Korean girl who beat Zorn at a world collegiate games proved a couple years back)


----------



## stodr (Sep 4, 2002)

Jim C said:


> fair enough on the rifle stuff but a red dot or telescope removes one of the skill requirements-as does a release or a peep sight removes one of the skill requirements. That is why someone trained on iron sights can transition to a red dot far quicker than the other way around just as world class recurve shooters can attain world class compound technique far faster than the other way around (as the Korean girl who beat Zorn at a world collegiate games proved a couple years back)


Agreed


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Jim C,

Good point....agreed!

field14


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

MerlinApexDylan said:


> Tooth, try it. I'd like to know your opinion after you've shot a target recurve.



I have tried it.  It wasn't really harder to shoot, but harder to be consistant. Since I only shot one for a limited time, I didn't have time to get consistant. It was easier than I thought it would be. Listening to some of you guys, I thought it would be alot tougher. The bow I was using wasn't set up for me and I couldn't take advantage of having a drawing wall (clicker). With the bow I was using, I am positive I could have shot a 270 something vegas if the owner let me play with the sight some.  I shoot my compound almost the same way as I do a recurve. 

I would love to have a clicker, bow set up for me and sighted in and play with it some to see how fast I could learn to shoot better scores.

I have said, I am going to buy one someday. I would be more inclined to buy one if I could get one a a reasonable amount of time.

When I do, I will be asking some questions to you experts on the curve to see what I need to get for a good fit and setup.


This is a good thread, interesting. I am glad most see it as adding compounds, not switching to them.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Tooth,
You HASTA try fingers and recurve for a longer period! It is so much FUN and such a challenge.

I had never shot fingers and recurve RIGHT handed until earlier this year...I was shooting what I consider TERRIBLE scores...but was having more fun than I've had in a long time.

I even piddled with STRINGWALKING and ended up shooting 2 points HIGHER stringwalking than my personal best so far with a SITE! Learning the "crawl" and how to maintain it was so much fun...but I only did this INDOORS at 10, 15, 20, and 27 yards, too.....

Then, if you wanna learn what BACK TENSION really feels like what what a REAL explosion off the shot is....put a d-loop on that puppy and shoot with your release aid...you will LEARN in about 30 shots what muscles to use to maintain PROPER back tension and get a REAL explosion off the shot....you won't pull no recurve and hold it by using your arm and upper shoulder muscles, like many are doing with their high letoff compounds.

field14


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

field14 said:


> Tooth,
> You HASTA try fingers and recurve for a longer period! It is so much FUN and such a challenge.
> 
> I had never shot fingers and recurve RIGHT handed until earlier this year...I was shooting what I consider TERRIBLE scores...but was having more fun than I've had in a long time.
> ...


I know, I know.  I shoot BT.  I wish I knew where I could borrow one for a few months. No one around here has extras I don't think. It would make buying one much easer if I borrowed one and shot great scores with it. 

I haven't been practicing at all. Drawing elbow has tendonitis. Been just competing, no practice what so ever. 

I think I could pick up recurve shooting almost as fast as I picked up the compound. It has been a very fun 18 months learning archery.


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

Ivorytooth said:


> I have tried it.  It wasn't really harder to shoot, but harder to be consistant. .


I can throw a baseball just like Randy Johnson, just not as consistant or fast.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

toxoph said:


> I can throw a baseball just like Randy Johnson, just not as consistant or fast.


but could your fastball obliterate a pigeon


----------



## Matt Z (Jul 22, 2003)

Tox - that is hilarious!  

I have a friend that shot recurve every since I've known him, he was a decent shot with a 270 indoor (NFAA, and he shot as a hobbiest). One day he grew tired of his mediocre scores and picked up a compound. Within 6 months he shoots to count spots and I'm guessing that he maybe shoots 1 more night a week than before mostly because his body can take it. Which someday, I will be in that boat as well.  

For the elite or even the dedicated, recurve vs. compound is a total wash. For the average joe, compound is the fastest way for instant gratification.


----------



## Ivorytooth (Jan 22, 2004)

toxoph said:


> I can throw a baseball just like Randy Johnson, just not as consistant or fast.


LOL! That is pretty good! You must be in the journalism profession because you took that out of context. You choose just to quote that sentence alone. 

I think you know what I meant.  I didn't have a clicker etc.  But I am tough, bring it on. 

Some of you are very good for motivation.


----------

