What do MB and GMB stand for/represent?

ArcheryFox

Active member
Before anyone gets smart, yes I know it is (Grand) Master Bowman.

I recently got around to read the latest edition of ArcheryUK, and saw that they are asking for feedback from AGB members on the classifications (page 58).
One thing that struck me in particular was that there was a suggestion that the MB and GMB classifications might be opened up to 720 rounds.

This got me thinking - aside from defining the nation's 'top' archers, I have always been brought up as both a junior and a senior to see the MB and GMB classifications as representing a mastery of archery across a range of distances, including long distance, and the ability to sustain this excellence across a 12 doz round.

I realise that there are more and more 720 rounds every year, and that the national tour is a 720 round, but I wonder if such a change might devalue the meaning of the award and what it stands for at present.

Of course, this is just my personal interpretation following those that brought me up in archery, so I would be interested to hear what other people see these awards as representing.


Footnotes:
The (G)MB has also had clearly defined criteria as being a 12 doz round including the longest distance. If the 720 were to be added it opens a whole can of worms regarding other rounds such as the St. George/Albion/Windsor, National, Western which could be argued to meet the same criteria as the 720.
Further there is the question of setting the scores, as it is relatively common that archers shoot a higher handicap scores at closer distances.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
don't forget that the format of the Masters was changed this year (though not shot) to not include anything other than 720/H2H, so joins the growing series of most boring weekends in the world.
 

ArcheryFox

Active member
Yes, and personally I was a little disappointed (and surprised) to receive this year's invitation and not see any rounds that celebrated what the classification represented (as I see it).
I'd much rather chug through a 1440 with my friends than a 720 and whatever a Lowlands Shootdown might be.

I know a number of others in local clubs were disappointed with the changes with some even not planning to attend, especially LB/BB archers, but it is quite easy to have your own echo chamber with these things, so I wondered if this was a view of the community as a whole or not.

I imagine there will be a divide between those who chase 720s for international representation/training and us other everyday archers who enjoy a day out on the weekend, but with the discussions in the recent AGB membership fees thread it does make me wonder at how some changes to the amateur scene are being pushed through to benefit the international squads without really consulting or remembering who funds much of the body at the end of the day.
I'm trying not to get too political so as to have a conversation, but I do have opinions on this - I was equally disappointed when the rankings system changed, as it became harder for the normal archer with a job to see how they compared to the rest of the country without lots of travel and competition fees. As a keen field shooter it also felt like it was moving more towards having to choose one discipline or the other if you wanted to excel echoing the divisions that it also creates between bowstyles. Rankings is a debate that has been and gone, however, and I fear the new system is here to stay - and hey, I'm sure some people like it.
 
Last edited:

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
The longer distances and the more arrows shot does favour the archers with good form and lots of stamina.
As the distances reduce and the number of arrows, it favours the archers with very consistent form, and possibly stronger concentration.
If I follow that down, to indoor shooting the nerves of steel seem to be most important; alongside impeccable form.
I can see why the older rounds had their attraction in the days when I started archery.
It seems the newer rounds mirror the way lives have changed. Cars have power steering so anyone can drive without developing muscles like Popeye.
 

olis

Supporter
Supporter
It would be a real shame to lose the gold standard that is the 1440/York(Hereford) as the proper test of Archery.
You don't need to get great scores to still enjoy the achievement of a full days archery as an intermediate shooter and AGB recognise this with the star and rose awards. For any normal club archer that's the archery heights.
That said, there is a traditional pressure to shoot the longest distances and I think Bowmen should be obtainable without having to shoot 90m/100yards.
 

Mark2

Active member
AIUK Saviour
For years I have argued the restriction to MB and GMB should not be distance. I started shooting when there was no Bowman, but MB was 33 h/c and GMB was 27 H/C. They were always 12 doz rounds but I think then you had to shoot 4 rounds at club, not three at record status shoots (someone correct me, it was a long time ago). BUt it was changes and people bitched but people get use to it.
I think 3 rounds at 12 doz shot at record status shoots is great. I do struggle with the B/MB being 100yds/90m for men. Some male archers cannot reach 100yds for various reasons, likewise women can sometime struggle to reach 80yds. They may be able to shoot the back leg off a gnat at 80 yds or 60yds, but physically not reach the longest distances. Consequently they never reach Bowman, let along GMB. Are they any less skilled because they can't reach 100yds?

The handicap system is designed to equal out the skill levels at different distances. So why limit the classifications to distance? I'm sure some people will say the h/c system doesn't take into account the wind, but I would argue more MB/GMBs are shot on "no wind" days than when its blowing Force 6. Does that mean the scores on windless days can't count to MB/GMB? Of course not.

Now for the 720. Part of the skill of an archer is managing distance changes. That's why I think the 12 doz distance or 4 distance is part of the skill set. Notice I say SKILL, not strength. It would be a shame to see this diminish.
However I do sympathise with clubs that can only book their field for half a day. They can really struggle to train for the 12 doz rounds.

I think the whole system is in need of review, not just the question the 720 round raises. That is only the tip of the iceberg.
 

Mark2

Active member
AIUK Saviour
... and AGB recognise this with the star and rose awards. For any normal club archer that's the archery heights.
You still have to shoot the longest distance eg 100yds for senior men. If they are physically incapable or reaching 100yds, but at 60yds can shoot sub 10 handicap, they will never be any better than 2nd class and never receive a rose or star.
 

ArcheryFox

Active member
Thanks for the input everyone!

Geoff and Mark - I think good form is the foremost ingredient to excel at all ranges, with stamina of lesser importance - after all there is usually significant overlap between the best both indoors and outdoors.
We do not have the same classifications indoors, which comes back to my original question of what they stand for or represent as seen by the general archer. If it was accuracy we could just have everyone shoot 20yd and be done, but I think it is deeper than that, I think it does exist to reward a specific skillset, namely endurance and accuracy at a variety of distances.

It would be a real shame to lose the gold standard that is the 1440/York(Hereford)
It is one of my fears in all this that such a move would be yet another nail in the coffin for the fast-disappearing Y/H and 1440.
If the 720 is easier to get the scores on, people will chase these rather than 1440s.
I have been known to enjoy the odd 720, but I like to have variety, and I know there are plenty who would agree (see Bimble's quip about a world of 720s above).

I think Bowmen should be obtainable without having to shoot 90m/100yards.
Consequently they never reach Bowman, let along GMB. Are they any less skilled because they can't reach 100yds?
I think there could definitely be a case made for making bowman accessible on a 720 round.
Ladies can achieve it already, so it does not seem unreasonable to open this to gents as well as an intermediate step.

For years I have argued the restriction to MB and GMB should not be distance
Even if the classifications were made available off a 720, this is still the longest distance for ladies (recurve and longbow at least), so why should it not also be required of the Men (note - I also think the changing distance is important to MB)?
Compounds would shoot 50m, but I expect most archers who can get MB with a compound at 50m could also reach 70m reasonably.

The handicap system is designed to equal out the skill levels at different distances. So why limit the classifications to distance?
While this is how it is often quoted, the truth is more complicated than this.
Whilst the handicaps represent the same 'size' of group as distance varies, they do not account well for the additional arc that the arrow travels and other environmental effects. There is an effort to include this in their 'dispersion factor', but it is not a particularly great representation.
The same archer who shoots a variety of rounds will typically shoot a higher handicap at shorter distances - compare your indoor and outdoor handicaps to see. This is why, even under the existing classification system the York/Hereford is perceived as 'harder' to get the scores on than the 1440. This opens up a whole can of worms as to what the suitable scores would be on closer rounds if everything continues to be based on handicaps.

That's why I think the 12 doz distance or 4 distance is part of the skill set. Notice I say SKILL, not strength. It would be a shame to see this diminish.
I absolutely agree with this! The ability to sustain performance to excel across changing distances is what the award means to me.
This is what I see mastery of our sport as being.


In relation to a few of these points in general I would argue that if you excel at the 720 rounds then the reward is to be selected to represent your country/nation (admittedly a smaller pool), and that the (G)MB classifications are reserved to represent something different to this (sustained performance across a range of distances, including the longest).

Whilst long distance can be hard, I believe that the vast majority who are reaching the levels of performance required to achieve the MB classifications are also capable of shooting the distances. They are not something we do in our first year of shooting, but take time and effort to work up towards.
 
Last edited:

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
I must admit shooting 12 doz, as I get older, it's not the 150 arrows it the standing up all day that knackers me now. But I think there should be a couple of long distance 12doz and maybe a couple of 720s as an alternative to a third 12doz.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
If we consider athletics, and running in particular; some of the all time greats are those who had world records at more than one distance.
Sprinters sometimes get golds at two distances. Some of the longer distance runners can mange three distances at the highest level. Imagine the runner who could win sprints and marathons!
I see something like that "admiration" in the York. And that admiration spills over into MB and GMB status.
I think there is something about shooting 100y/90m that looks back to the use of arrows in battle. Perhaps that's why the York round gives most shots at 100y.
The 1440 round is a bit more mathematical in its approach, even reducing target size at shorter ranges.
To me, they serve slightly different purposes; they appeal to different archers. Nice to have choices.
 

Whitehart

Well-known member
With todays equipment and aging ACE & x10 arrows there are few excuses for archers not to be able to hit 100yrds/90m and Ladies 80yrd/70m.

To be good at the longer distances you have to practice them a lot.

Archers chasing MB/GMB are not your average club archer they shoot 3 plus days a week to maintain form and many do gym work and even warm up before shooting.

They are the more serious archers in the UK and that is how it should be, these badges have to be earned and mean something even if they have made the badges look ordinary and messed around with the Masters.

The Koreans still see the 1440 as the ultimate test of ability (for the reasons mentioned above) and their National Championships are based on it.

The trouble in the UK is that you can get more ranking points shooting a 70m H2H than a 1440, so it has been devalued. There are no ranking points for a York although IMO being harder than a 1440 to post a good score - you shoot 6 doz at 100 yards which defines your day is now just shot for fun and personal achievement.

I do see though that the world is moving to making events quicker, shorter and more exciting as the field bunches up more - in all sports, so I guess it will come in eventually. I guess it will also help clubs with grounds and overshoots as space becomes even more of a premium.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I do see though that the world is moving to making events quicker, shorter and more exciting as the field bunches up more - in all sports, so I guess it will come in eventually. I guess it will also help clubs with grounds and overshoots as space becomes even more of a premium.
I think most things are getting faster or possibly more impatient. Life is lived at a faster pace these days, so perhaps archery needs to keep up.
Or; perhaps it is "more serious" archery that wants to speed up while the club level archers just want to enjoy their time shooting arrows at a slower pace.
 

ArcheryFox

Active member
I think most things are getting faster or possibly more impatient. Life is lived at a faster pace these days, so perhaps archery needs to keep up.
Or; perhaps it is "more serious" archery that wants to speed up while the club level archers just want to enjoy their time shooting arrows at a slower pace.
Whilst the olympics and world cup is far better to watch as H2H than a double 1440, I think it is suited to a particular group. Whilst I have shot head to heads and can appreciate the exhilaration, they are also quite pressured and have a very different vibe to the all-day-score based competitions. When you say 720 competitions are 'quicker', a full 720+H2H still takes all day like a 1440, it's just that the shooting feels faster in the moment. It can also involve a lot of sitting around for anyone who isn't a gent recurve whilst the first flights take place. But I digress; I didn't start this thread primarily to debate what the best rounds are.

I think all rounds have their place in the world of archery and were developed for a reason - the 720 H2H is the way international matches are going and are more exciting to watch, but when doing the sport themselves many club archers enjoy a more relaxed day of shooting, knowing what they are there for and sitting in their tent with companions.

So I guess in relation to the points you make I am wondering what we want to be expected from an MB/GMB level archer.
Is it the same definition of 'top' that sees you perform well under pressure to make a national team or the national series finals, or is it something to reward other aspects of the sport (varying distances, endurance) and keep alive variety and recognition for these other skills?
 
Last edited:

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
...these badges have to be earned and mean something even if they have made the badges look ordinary and messed around with the Masters
I think that's my biggest disappointment with the MB and GMB badge. It used to look like it represented the value of what was achieved and looks good on the wall. Now it looks like it came with a packet of cornflakes.
1591348235959.png 1591348572119.png

and given the work involved in obatianing it I think it should be awarded for each discipline, not just the first one it was obtained in.
 
Last edited:

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Whilst the olympics and world cup is far better to watch as H2H than a double 1440, I think it is suited to a particular group.
I appreciate that some would wish archery to be exciting to watch. It could be shown on TV and the world is its oyster then, like soccer, snooker, darts etc etc.
Archery as a spectator sport would be like watching a short loop of film repeating over and over. I would put it in the same group as a watching needle threading; or knitting. Tennis is great to watch live or on tv but imagine just seeing the serves and not even the returns.
For me, archery is something to enjoy doing; I can't watch archery for more than a couple of minutes.
For club archers, MB is probably a dream and most archers never reach it. A few archers know someone who is MB, and that makes that person a local hero. Archers talk about him/her with pride. GMB's are far rarer and from what I have experienced, only known about by someone who knows someone else who knows the GMB archer.
It is almost a stage to reach rather than a level to maintain. I realise some do stay at that level for several years, but reaching it once can be enough for some; and they ease off afterwards. It is more than just good shooting and a lot of effort.
To my way of thinking MB and GMB are similar to cars with good 0-60 times.
In my days as a new driver 10 seconds to 60 was the standard to reach. The world has moved on , but the cars that reached it in my day are still up there in my mind, today.
Those who gained their MB at 100y may feel they had to be better archers than any who can claim it for 70m and nothing beyond that.
The 70m MB's may disagree.
But was Usain Bolt a better runner than Jesse Owens? The stop watches say yes. But the playing field isn't exactly level even if the tracks were.
As entertainment.... Usain Bolt miles ahead!!! Jesse Owens in Berlin??? Excitement; oh yes! Drama? Certainly!
Time has given us a chance to watch them both.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
But was Usain Bolt a better runner than Jesse Owens? The stop watches say yes. But the playing field isn't exactly level even if the tracks were.
As entertainment.... Usain Bolt miles ahead!!! Jesse Owens in Berlin??? Excitement; oh yes! Drama? Certainly!
Time has given us a chance to watch them both.
Of course, while the tracks might be level, they wouldn't have been equal... Usain Bolt would not have been able to hit the times he has on the sprint tracks that Jesse Owens had to run on. Modern running tracks are designed to improve performances (and reduce injury) so you can't even really compare times to deicde whom might be the better sprinter...

The increase in the 720/H2H is partly driven by the attempted to make archery TV friendly with the short match system, even though it might throw up anomalous results, such as at the Rio Olympics when the #1 seed Kim Woojin (who'd shot a 700 in qualifying) was beaten by the 33rd seed Riau Agatha (660) in the second round. In a longer match Kim would probably have pulled something together and would have won, but the match was over in 12 arrows.

And with the popularity of the 720/H2H rounds on the international scene it is hardly surprising that there has been an increase in the popularity of the round by the those that have to prepare international archers. You want them to have as much practice at the rounds and conditions that they might find when they are representing their countries.

Then you have the relative ease of holding such tournaments. Bosses are set out at one of two distances and they're not moved all day. There is no hanging around at the end of the day as the winners are known.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi Bimble. Yes, My point was that times can't really be used. It is relative to all sorts of factors.
It's the same with MB shot at 100y and MB shot at 70m. One is better than the other but some may prefer one to the other. Time has changes archery just as it has changed sprinting.
Sprinting has always been exciting though; even watching kids at school sports is exciting despite the speeds being slower than adult sprinters.
Archery as a spectator sport? It doesn't naturally lend itself to spectators getting excited.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Archery as a spectator sport? It doesn't naturally lend itself to spectators getting excited.
which is why format is important. If you're after 'the "best"' archer, you'd probably want a round like the 1440, but if you're after a spectator sport, you're probably looking at the H2H match system.

Quality of archery also makes a difference to spectator interest. Two high quality archers are always more interesting to watch battling it out. Watching me shooting blues at 70m isn't as interesting as watching someone good shooting 10s...
 

ArcheryFox

Active member
Quality of archery also makes a difference to spectator interest. Two high quality archers are always more interesting to watch battling it out. Watching me shooting blues at 70m isn't as interesting as watching someone good shooting 10s...
Oh, I don't know...
I think we both probably remember a very exciting 3 rounds of longbow one arrow shoot off one year that had the entire field on the edge of their seats waiting for a winning 'thud'... :D

To round back to the topic, however, the new suggestions aren't relating to H2H matches, rather to the 720s.
But this makes me wonder, if the 720 is seen predominantly as a slave to the H2H for providing an initial ranking, is it serving a different purpose to the 1440/Y-H and what achieving the top classifications means on those rounds where the 'best' (for a given definition of this word that we are debating) archer will come out on top (see the 2016 Olympic anecdote about Kim Woojin above).
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
which is why format is important. If you're after 'the "best"' archer, you'd probably want a round like the 1440, but if you're after a spectator sport, you're probably looking at the H2H match system.

Quality of archery also makes a difference to spectator interest. Two high quality archers are always more interesting to watch battling it out. Watching me shooting blues at 70m isn't as interesting as watching someone good shooting 10s...
I think that you are right, but it is not always the case. Watching school sports can be extremely exciting when there is an interest in the competitors.
I think this is one aspect that good tv presentation does well. They show us the people within the event as well as the event itself.
We can see their efforts and anguish or elation. We feel for them.
It can be the same at club level when archers get together and simply challenge one another to a best of six arrows or something.They are all involved. TV can "involve" spectators as if they are friends of the athletes.
 
Top