Compound Targets

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
Random thought just popped into my head, which I'm sure some of you have already had before and may have been discussed before.

We all know that by nature compound bows are a more accurate bow type compared to recurve/longbow. Before anyone starts moaning I'm aware it takes a lot of skill to shoot competitively with compound and this isn't what the topic is about.

Because already the compound has a smaller 10 ring for indoors, having that smaller 10 ring throws the 9 ring bigger and disproportionate to the other colours. Would it not be an idea then to reduce the size of the whole target? I know this would mean that only compounds could shoot on that target, and it's another target for clubs to have to buy etc.
But wouldn't it also lower the scores, which if you think about it could be a good thing. the national indoor record for a FITA compound unlimited is 597, and for a Portsmouth is 594, as you can see these are near perfect scores, the Worcester record is a perfect score. So would it not make sense to reduce the target sizes to make things harder.

Now before grumbling happens other sports have done similar things e.g. javelin has actually increased the standard weights because the throwers were getting closer and closer to the max available range.

Looking at the records http://www.archerygb.org/tools/documents/TargetIndoorDetailedApr2011-[11535].pdf It maybe an idea to reduce the target sizes anyway as recurves are getting close to perfect scores as well.

As I say, a random thought, but what are people's opinions?
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
I must admit the tiny 10 ring and oversized 9 ring are a bit odd. As many compound archers already shoot 3 spot faces anyway I don't really see a problem. Although interestingly I shoot much tighter on the smaller FITA face than I do the Portsmouth face as I expect others do, and I doubt scores would come down much.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I can see what you are getting at, but it can be looked at this way; most good compounders hit 10's and 9's. You could say the, that all they need is the golden area from the current target faces. The fact the 9 is bigger than an 8 makes it easier for some archers to get closer to 570. Getting past 570 requires more 10's in most cases and the 9's are "expected".
 

Stash

New member
Not understanding why you think this is a good idea, other than to change something just for the sake of changing it. Nothing wrong with what we have right now, not a safety issue as in your javelin example. Downsides would be the loss of many years of results and records, hundreds of thousands of printed targets gone to waste, and keep in mind that a smaller gold has been tried, at Vegas one year, and was universally hated. Besides, a perfect FITA18 round has only been scored once in a record status event. Not like it's an issue to have several dozen people tied with perfect scores like in the NFAA/IFAA round.
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
Does anyone know if there is a county record for a Portsmouth of 600. I think the UK record is 594, and our Kent record is 595. I suspect if it was shot more often at RS a 600 would have been shot some time back. I would like to see it kept for a bit longer to give me a chance at a 600 .:eek:ptimist:
 

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
Not understanding why you think this is a good idea, other than to change something just for the sake of changing it. Nothing wrong with what we have right now, not a safety issue as in your javelin example. Downsides would be the loss of many years of results and records, hundreds of thousands of printed targets gone to waste, and keep in mind that a smaller gold has been tried, at Vegas one year, and was universally hated. Besides, a perfect FITA18 round has only been scored once in a record status event. Not like it's an issue to have several dozen people tied with perfect scores like in the NFAA/IFAA round.
It wouldn't be changing something for the sake of changing something. A perfect FITA rarely happens that's fair enough, but looking at the records they are close to perfection, though not a safety issue like the javelin the principal of rearing a pre-set maximum is the same. With the precision of bows being increased more perfect scores aren't probably far off. Perfect Worcester scores are from my understanding a common occurrence.
As I mentioned I was thinking of making the rest of the target proportionate to the smaller 10 ring. Did those that hated the smaller gold at Vegas give reasons for hating it or was it because they were shooting more 8s then 9s?

Also those targets wouldn't be wasted as it wouldn't be an over night shift if it did occur but would give some lead time, or introduce it as a different round that would eventually be adopted as the main rounds, so wouldn't be needs to scrap records.

@Kidcurry: Issue of grouping or space in the gold wasn't what I was getting at. The point was really that since compound archers already have to shoot at a smaller 10, but none of the other colours are reduced wouldn't it be more of an idea to reduce the other rings to a size more proportionate to the smaller 10 ring.


As I mentioned at the start this was just a random thought.
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
@Raven's_eye... I think you may see a new regularised face in the not too distant future. As I said I'm not keen on the out of proportion 9 ring for myself. I mentioned grouping simply because reducing the Portsmouth face so everything is in proportion with the current 10 ring would, I suspect, see Portsmouth scores, at the top end, go up not down. If the Portsmouth 10 ring is reduced I suspect people will just shoot FITA's instead.
Infact I think I will print some regularised Portsmouth faces and see if my scores go up:D .
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
I would keep with the status quo as the issue only becomes a problem when you have to have numerous countbacks or shoot-offs to decide the winning person. For most people the consistency of the target between bow styles and distances allows them to compare and compete on an equal footing. I also agree about how the size of the aiming mark makes a psychological difference due to how the eye and brain register things so you would end up having to resize all of the target faces if you do this for one competition or bow style.
Change for the sake of it is never a good idea and we dont have a problem at the moment.
 

Stash

New member
As I mentioned I was thinking of making the rest of the target proportionate to the smaller 10 ring. Did those that hated the smaller gold at Vegas give reasons for hating it or was it because they were shooting more 8s then 9s.
Bit of both. Archers had a hard time aiming at a smaller gold, and they really objected to lower scores. The new target lasted just one season.

Also, remember the ill-fated hit/miss FITA round they tried one year?

You have to consider who and what WA is concerned with. First, they want archery to be viewed as exciting, and having shootoffs that go to the wire 150 to 149 is a lot more watchable than seeing someone take a 5 point lead early in a match which would happen more often when top scores were 130ish out of 150.

And look at it from the perspective of a world class archer who regularly shoots 146-147-148. This person would not want to regress to the point where scoring a perfect round was impossible. The whole goal (especially in compound) is to shoot perfect.

Perfect Portsmouth and Worcester rounds are irrelevant - nobody outside the UK shoots them so WA doesn't care. Same as the NFAA/IFAA indoor round.

Interesting to discuss, but it all boils down to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
 

jerryRTD

Active member
It does not matter if there is a prefect score shot or not ,because as most compound archers will tell you a percect score for the round will not win the competition. Its the head to head that decides the winner. So the small tens and big nines are not important.
 

Thorvald

Active member
The thought is interesting - and it is interesting because in the Danish Archery Magazine someone mentioned something similar. See this link, page 23. But it was not exactly the same he was wondering about. He is asking: Why is it possible to achieve better scores with bad shots (bad grouping) and worse scores with good shots (better grouping). He is also saying that the 9 color is bigger than the other colors. He says "that it is nearly impossible for an arrow that gives points, to give less than 9 points. This is a disadvantage both for the good archer and for the not so good archer. If one shoots good series, it gives lower scores than if one is lucky to get good results with bad series. As example in a shoot I had 2 arrows that didn't touch the recurve 10, but the rest was in or just around the 10 - and it gave 574 p. In another event I had a bad day, where I had 10-15 arrows that went out close to the 8 ring, but that day I got 575 p." In above link the picture at the top shows a far better archer than the one in the bottom, but still he gets less points than archer no. 2.

I understand what he - and you - means, but I am not sure I agree totally (probably because I don't shoot perfect scores - my best so far is 542 p. with compound on 18 m). In above example the best archer would be the one who is able to shoot the compound 10 totally away. Yes, if the 9 ring was similar smaller, you would get less points, because you could have more 8's - but that would mainly hurt the not so good archers. Because the really good ones, already hit the compound 10 most of the time. One in my club has 596 p. as personal record (set during training). And not long ago one from Denmark shot 600 p. at a International competition (was it not one from Denmark or who was it?).

I dream about to get up to 550 p., but that won't be before next indoor season I think - and it would be difficult, if the 9 ring was smaller.
 

Mark31121

Member
Ironman
Thanks for the translation Thorvald - it's a very good point. I've had similar ends myself when shooting compound, getting them all (only three arrows) in the recurve 10 but just outside the inner 10 and following it with one in the inner 10 and the others towards the 8. The first feels like a better achievement, but the latter scores better...
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
It would lower the scores... but not of the people who are already shooting those high 590 scores because their 9's are just only out of the 10 ring. Unlike, let's say, some of my 9's which might be an 8 on a smaller target...

Because already the compound has a smaller 10 ring for indoors, having that smaller 10 ring throws the 9 ring bigger and disproportionate to the other colours. Would it not be an idea then to reduce the size of the whole target? I know this would mean that only compounds could shoot on that target, and it's another target for clubs to have to buy etc.
But wouldn't it also lower the scores, which if you think about it could be a good thing. the national indoor record for a FITA compound unlimited is 597, and for a Portsmouth is 594, as you can see these are near perfect scores, the Worcester record is a perfect score. So would it not make sense to reduce the target sizes to make things harder.
 
Top