Agreed.16 people have posted on this thread, a couple only once. That's not a lot of archers considering the numbers on the forum.
Some strong views, and that's good. Some opposite views from mine; and that's good too.
A few responses have pointed out that they like field shooting better than boring target shooting. I think it is good that they have found a type of archery they like. I know archers who liked the atmosphere at the club where I shoot but have gone over to field shooting because they like that more. Liking one type of shooting more than another does not make the one they like less, bad/wrong.
True, but it does seem to be an acknowledged cliche - there's 'some' truth there that everyone seems to agree with.Perhaps they found target archery stuffy, but that is not universal in target archery clubs.
But should that be the end to it?The nature of the actual shooting is different, but that is the way it is.
Why can't they exist together? I think the general 'feel' that a lot of people seem to get is that you're either a target or a field archer (with a few other disciplines as well - clout for example), but not both. Why the (albeit implied) segregation? I know that there ARE some clubs that offer/support/acknowledge the existence of the other disciplines, but why is that acknowledgement sometimes seen as 'dirty'? (by both sides - I'm doing my best to stay on this fence!).One is repetitive and the other isn't;
Also very true.we make our own choices even though we are sometimes restricted by what is available nearby.