Olymipic Compound ...

Rabid Hamster

Well-known member
Ironman
as well all know, compound isnt in the olympics (IIRC) because its too "similar" to recurve. Not sure how all the sailing or rowing events differ but lets let that slide for a minute.
reading the Bow International this month theres an article on the subject which mentions a radical (if as yet under explored) solution to overcoming the sameness to recurve.

the solution? ... using the urban park constructed for 3 v 3 basketball, bmx and skateboarding as a setting for an urban field shoot!

this is pretty out there given the other two ideas are 50/60m or even indoor but you have to admit ... it is pretty fascinating. My favourite setting for the pro archery series supported by Alternative Archery is Fort Van Lier where a WW1 fort is shot off, into, over, through and out of!

You have to love the idea of an urban field course even if the danger of an equipment failure/terrible cut on a 45' uphill shot to a target on a roof gives you the shivers and mental image of a carbon express nano on a ballistic path into a spectator area.

Anyone else like the idea? (of the urban field shoot, not the ballistic nano! :duck:)


http://www.fortengordels.be/forten/fort-van-lier although you will need to drop it into chrome translate
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
I don't think that compound should be in the Olympics (and I'm a compounder). I think there are a lot of uintended consequences.

The problem with field shoots is to have spectators you need space and openness. And to hold a field course you need a much larger space than provided by a skateboard park.

I remember seeing photos from a few years ago of a field shoot that was done in Scandinavia in a disused (soon to be demolished) swimming pool.
 

Rabid Hamster

Well-known member
Ironman
did say that they hadnt really thought it through and yes space would be an issue and safety needs to be considered ... but come on, it is intriguing!
would be easy to televise with a flying cam just like in the NFL. it would be completely different from recurve and would take the sport in a completely 'new' direction.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Or you get something like funding... you've doubled the number of archers on the Olympic squad, but you can bet that the funding received won't be doubled, so you've effectively halved the amount of money spent on each of them.

I can't believe they dropped field archery for the compounds at the World Games... barebow & recurve still do it, but compounds are now 720/H2H :zzz:
 

Whitehart

Well-known member
I think one of the biggest hurdles is how do you explain to the IOC that you want to increase participation by 128 archers when they are already struggling to keep athlete numbers down. Then the next question is how wide spread/representative is compound archery around the globe - anyone can run 100m.

There is a wider question about compounds - numbers shooting this discipline are down, even in the USA it is down between 25-35% as fathers no longer take their kids hunting as they themselves were too busy on consoles when their fathers tried to get them out of the house so do not know what to do.

What do people think of:
The WA50 round & H2H?
Cost of entry in getting the equipment compared to other disciplines
Support and back up within clubs
Overall perception of compound archery.

The biggest growth are E sports where you can make a living in front of a screen so perhaps we need some cool console archery games.......
 

Rabid Hamster

Well-known member
Ironman
a lot cheaper to buy a compound than a sailboat! :rotfl:

re the esports .....
I am playing a 1st person survival game called the forest at the moment. You can craft a self bow and arrows (theres a hoyt gmx in the game! its arrows are xx75 with bullet/field points oddly).
you can also craft a target. first thing I did after setting up a base, made myself a field course. Theres no fast call as anyone on the course is a cannibal intent on eating me OR its my lunch.
 

AndyW

Well-known member
In principle I love the idea, in practice as an olympic event I can't see it happening in a field form. I may be crucified for this but televised archery is little more than niche and it's never going to have the viewing figures of the mens 100 so where would the cash/will come from? Field is even more foreign to the general public but if they can televise golf and make it "interesting" it's obviously doable.
Realism aside, I would love it to happen.
 

LionOfNarnia

Supporter
Supporter
There are plenty of 'sports' that I would be happy to see replaced in the Olympics - Synchro Swimming & Rhythmic Gymnastics just to start the ball rolling ;)
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
As sport is becoming more and more professional.,then it has to make a profit. That means appealing to the spectators. I think your wish to see some sports replaced, is likely to happen because the non profitable ones will be got rid of. You may well get your wish; if that coincides with theirs.
 

Lammas

Member
Yes, commercial viability is an important point here. It is already boring enough to watch olympic recurve sessions on TV. I'm archer, too, and also shoot compound. I can't see a tremendous interest of most compound manufacturers - a look at their lineup suggests they make their profits with hunting bows.
And, if I might dare to mention it - the olympic organization(s) were quite riddled with corruption in the last years & decades.
 

LionOfNarnia

Supporter
Supporter
It is already boring enough to watch olympic recurve sessions on TV.
Are you trippin'?

With modern camera & graphical technology, the H2Hs are one of the most exciting sports events out there!

I only wish they weren't over so quickly.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi Lammas,
This subject has been discussed many times on here. There are always mentions of "changing the format of archery competitions to make it more interesting for spectators".
I think club level archers might look at their own clubs and see if there are changes that could be made in order to keep more of their members.
If they do that, I feel they will find that archery at club level is about what the members want. Archery at club level isn't a spectator driven sport; it's driven by the archers and how/what they shoot.
Joining the professional side of archery is not something that many will expect to do; specially those who start archery in their 70's 60's 50's
I think that spectator archery is for others, not clubs. Imagine the effort it would take, to get a compound field event added to the Olympic menu. Would that effort be worth it, and worth it to whom?
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
H2H's are interesting, that is true. We do a knockout sometimes at the end of a round. Arrow furthest from the middle has its owner dropped from the event until there are two left. We all want to see who wins.
How many clubs do H2H as standard practice? Is it because its breaks the monotony of shooting the same way too often?
If archers like shooting arrows, they will keep coming back. If they like a bit of a change now and again, there could be a few more staying in their clubs.
When archers reach the stage where they no longer enjoy shooting arrows, they will probably leave, or possibly try to work for the club in other ways.
 

Lammas

Member
... Archery at club level isn't a spectator driven sport; it's driven by the archers and how/what they shoot.
...
Imagine the effort it would take, to get a compound field event added to the Olympic menu.
I think the important question is - what drives the olympic commitees (IOC and NOKs) ???
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I think clubs are important and how they operate. There are a lot of club archers. Sometimes, just a little help can make a big difference.
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
I think the important question is - what drives the olympic commitees (IOC and NOKs) ???
Probably commercial interests and watchability, if that's a word
I don't watch big money sports as I tend to think that when big money is involved the sport loses its identity. I would be happier if the Olympics went back to a few track events and a few field events, but where's the money in that. Come to think of it sports seemed to be better before the invention of carbon fibre and Sports Direct :)
 

Lammas

Member
Yes, but:
Football is also a large TV business - nothing new, I guess. But olympic football leads a rather shadowy existence. The international organization (FIFA) has it's own world cups, much higher valued in this sport.
Car racing, like F1, is not even olympic. Yet it is a huge TV event as well. I don't know of any efforts to make it olympic, they seem to be happy without.
My point is - there are things in play that are not related to the sport itself.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I see what you mean. I mentioned tv because it has changed some sports from played at local level for fun to highly organised and highly paid. Darts snooker among others. I cannot see archery making regular TV . It did once in a series of programmes when several sports people took part in several different sports against each other in all of the selected sports. We watched all of the sports because we connected with the people taking part and wanted our favourite to win .
TV showed us famous people competing or we would not have had any favourites. In some ways tv had already helped to make them famous.
Some sports are exciting to watch even played by unknown players. Most of those sports involve speed of movement and clear skills. Running jumping football matches etc etc. Archery does not excite in the same way.
 

Lammas

Member
Running jumping football matches etc etc. Archery does not excite in the same way.
I agree, it excites only the adepts. Like chess matches.
I do watch archery events occasionally. The last Vegas shooting was one occasion. But more than one hour I can not stand, usually.
Without a cultural background (forget the UK and Korea for a moment), there is few motivation for young folks to get into the sport.
Hunting OTOH (where it is allowed) promises a material reward.
Understandibly, manufacturers concentrate on the field that promises most customers and most profit. I'd be interested to know how many target bows the large compound manufacturers sell, compared to the hunting rigs. The amount of models hints to roughly a 1/10 ratio.
And the "startup investment" to get the IOC considering collaboration seems relatively high ...

Just my two cents.
I don't need compound to be olympic, albeit it would be nice.
I gonna shoot anyway, but 3D and not target.
 
Top