Longbow indoor classification

ghound

Member
Just read this on a well known Longbow shop webpage, anyone heard anything about it, suppose it really is time GNAS came up with there own scheme rather than someone else having to take the lead on it, surely they have enough indoor scores collected (national indoor and county indoor championships scores for about 10 years!) and are able to work a % to recurve score to come up with a classification?



For archers in the UK we have been talking with Shaun Jacobs about his new indoor badge classification scheme (we see GNAS/Archery GB still don’t recognise Longbows in the scoring system - why?)


We’ve been speaking with Shaun Jacobs here in the UK about his new badge scheme for the indoor season. Shaun came up with the idea around a year ago & it took him 6 months to get it off the ground. He found it crazy that there seemed to be awards for everything else except Indoor Classifications which he found quite disheartening as an archer. The badge scheme is based on the GNAS/Archery GB ABCDEFGH scoring system for indoor rounds. Demand has been so good that he had to treble the quantity of his initial manufacturing batch and has already had to place repeat orders. They are ?3 each plus P+P and I'm sure you'll agree that they look fantastic. Clubs and individuals can contact Shaun directly to place orders at [email protected]. All we need now is the powers that be to add Longbow scores to sit alongside recurves and compounds and the indoor season gets very interesting again!
 

Attachments

mk1

It's an X
Supporter
From talking to the Director of Ops at the weekend the classification system is due a review - he is well aware of the data needed around setting the longbow levels. Perhaps with the enthusiam there is now he'll get a representative set of data from longbowers

I think Shaun is very busy :D - good on him. The outdoor classifications are administered by the Clubs up to Bowman. Only Master and Grand Master bowman claims and badges are processed at HQ
 

ghound

Member
From talking to the Director of Ops at the weekend the classification system is due a review - he is well aware of the data needed around setting the longbow levels. Perhaps with the enthusiam there is now he'll get a representative set of data from longbowers

I think Shaun is very busy :D - good on him. The outdoor classifications are administered by the Clubs up to Bowman. Only Master and Grand Master bowman claims and badges are processed at HQ
Yes i think the sooner the better even if it's not perfect, give it a year, count the scores and tweak it accordingly, this way it will encourage more longbows to compete, and give even more data to work with, but to do nothing and the data will only slowly drip feed into the system and take a lot longer to compile any meaningful system, the top boffs at GNAS need to be proactive and lead the way,not the archers!
It's not really fair to expect longbows to compete against each other without a grading system, what incentive is there for an archer shooting 400 at a portsmouth to turn up and compete against an archer shooting 500? would it be allowed happen in recurve or compound, if so how many archers would turn up to the comp?
 

mk1

It's an X
Supporter
Yes i think the sooner the better even if it's not perfect, give it a year, count the scores and tweak it accordingly, this way it will encourage more longbows to compete, and give even more data to work with, but to do nothing and the data will only slowly drip feed into the system and take a lot longer to compile any meaningful system, the top boffs at GNAS need to be proactive and lead the way,not the archers!
It's not really fair to expect longbows to compete against each other without a grading system, what incentive is there for an archer shooting 400 at a portsmouth to turn up and compete against an archer shooting 500? would it be allowed happen in recurve or compound, if so how many archers would turn up to the comp?
But ( Ooo I've started a sentence with "but"!) the boffins are archers!! :D - they've just put themselves forward for the job - and I might as well get a plug in here - there are vacancies on the various committees - see page 19 of the Autumn Archery UK - if you have enthusiam and maybe a bee or two in yer bunnet or ome great ideas - why not put yourself forward for election. In the meantime, I'm quite sure the current encumbants mught well appreciate a pointer or two.

It's not really fair to expect longbows to compete against each other without a grading system, what incentive is there for an archer shooting 400 at a portsmouth to turn up and compete against an archer shooting 500? would it be allowed happen in recurve or compound, if so how many archers would turn up to the comp?
I take your point , however there are usually only one or two at my local shoots - so quite good odds for getting the trophy :stirthepo
 

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
The current indoor classification not only counts longbows as recurves, but it seems juniors don't shoot indoors either as unlike the outdoor classifications juniors are adults. In a way I can sort of see why i.e. in a sense its such a short range why should there be any difference between adults and juniors. But with some younger juniors using very light bows with small draw lengths it could be a challenge to get a decent score.
 

Mike47j

Member
Converting the current scores to handicaps and plotting a graph I get:

Untitled-1.jpg
According to David Lane's paper each handicap step represents the same increase in archer's skill. So from beginner (100 handicap) to H needs a big increase in skill, compared to the step from H to G which is only a small step. (Very small for ladies compound.) Then almost even improvements up to B and then a smaller step to A.

It would make more sense if the steps were even all the way up, and the top was below the ArcheryGB record for each bow type, and not above as it is for barebow and longbow.

If the handicaps needed are based on the outdoor levels, say senior MB level for indoor B. Making the handicap steps even ends up with a handicap table of:
A B C D E F G H
Gents Compound416284052647688
Ladies Compound1021324455667789
Gents Recurve1828384959697990
Ladies Recurve2333435262718190
Gents Barebow3745536169768492
Ladies Barebow4451586572798693
Gents Longbow4955616874818794
Ladies Longbow5662677378848995

which converts to scores of:

Portsmouth Scores A B C D E F G H
Gents Compound583565548520468378242110
Ladies Compound574558540507450356225104
Gents Recurve58756753749242532520196
Ladies Recurve57755452047240130018590
Gents Barebow54151046841033223814777
Ladies Barebow51447943237029220712971
Gents Longbow49245440434026418611867
Ladies Longbow44740334928621915510262

ArcheryGB records for Portsmouth are:
Gents Compound594
Ladies Compound587
Gents Recurve597
Ladies Recurve593
Gents Barebow580
Ladies Barebow569
Gents Longbow547
Ladies Longbow510
 
M

Moose

Guest
Never understood why indoors the compound scores are different for ladies and gents


Moose on the loose
 

Will Spalding

New member
Converting the current scores to handicaps and plotting a graph I get:


According to David Lane's paper each handicap step represents the same increase in archer's skill. So from beginner (100 handicap) to H needs a big increase in skill, compared to the step from H to G which is only a small step. (Very small for ladies compound.) Then almost even improvements up to B and then a smaller step to A.

It would make more sense if the steps were even all the way up, and the top was below the ArcheryGB record for each bow type, and not above as it is for barebow and longbow.

If the handicaps needed are based on the outdoor levels, say senior MB level for indoor B. Making the handicap steps even ends up with a handicap table of:
A B C D E F G H
Gents Compound416284052647688
Ladies Compound1021324455667789
Gents Recurve1828384959697990
Ladies Recurve2333435262718190
Gents Barebow3745536169768492
Ladies Barebow4451586572798693
Gents Longbow4955616874818794
Ladies Longbow5662677378848995

which converts to scores of:

Portsmouth Scores A B C D E F G H
Gents Compound583565548520468378242110
Ladies Compound574558540507450356225104
Gents Recurve58756753749242532520196
Ladies Recurve57755452047240130018590
Gents Barebow54151046841033223814777
Ladies Barebow51447943237029220712971
Gents Longbow49245440434026418611867
Ladies Longbow44740334928621915510262

ArcheryGB records for Portsmouth are:
Gents Compound594
Ladies Compound587
Gents Recurve597
Ladies Recurve593
Gents Barebow580
Ladies Barebow569
Gents Longbow547
Ladies Longbow510
Wow this would be a great start, Shame it's not started yet after 18 months.
 

pete1968

New member
While I see your point, Iam assuming that the table is based on single spot targets. Also what about the other 7 indoor rounds?
I'm sure if you were to put a complete package of proposed classifications for all the rounds, using triple spots where used in the current classifications. Archery GB would be more willing to implement the changes.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 

ben tarrow

Well-known member
While I see your point, Iam assuming that the table is based on single spot targets. Also what about the other 7 indoor rounds?
I'm sure if you were to put a complete package of proposed classifications for all the rounds, using triple spots where used in the current classifications. Archery GB would be more willing to implement the changes.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Pete, I think you missed the word "just", as in "I'm sure if you were JUST to put a complete package of proposed classifications" etc etc
I wonder how much time and effort went into producing that which has already been achieved.
I'm sure the OP could JUST do that over lunch and then wonder what on earth to do this afternoon :)
 

castlee

New member
Ditto this for barebow! I made E classification for indoors recently, and none of the gent barebow shooters in my club have managed to do better than a D. Can't even imagine how frustrating this must be for longbowers.
 

Harold's EyeIt wasn't me

Member
Fonz Awardee
Really interested to see this conversation. DNAA have proposed a Longbow classification system that includes scores for Juniors and gets rid of the boring ABCDEFGH system in favour of Colours and a brand of "Blaze Classification" see post here under 'Target Archery' or the DNAA website under 'Leagues'.
See Blaze Information ? Durham & Northumberland

Note that the scores are above the scheme discussed above but as for comments above can be adjusted after a year or so of 'real' data collection - it's a 'starter for ten'
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I think that this is a brilliant idea and hope that clubs take it up. If they do then it will be possible to lobby AGB to adopt it (with tweaks if they are found necessary) but I have serious concerns that wont happen becuase the current doctrine is all about getting someone to shoot well enough to win an olympic medal and nothing should interfere with that. Old men playing with sticks can get to the back of the queue.
Now we have lost Sport England funding it would be a good time to reconsider the ethos of AGB and ask the members individually (as you get a distorted view via club secretaries) what they want and take that into account when setting aims and priorities. So, if your scheme shows it is a success tell everyone about it and get that converted into action elsewhere.
 

Harold's EyeIt wasn't me

Member
Fonz Awardee
Little Else - Thanks for the support..

I don't regard however Longbow as being "old men playing with sticks". I am deadly serious about Longbow being a credible part of our sport from juniors through the whole age range. I would love to see a Longbower standing on the line at the Olympics - I say that as an example of my approach to my discipline and yes I know that won't happen due to the differences in technology but we have to recognise that Longbow is a credible discipline within our sport.

That is not to say we should not have the whole range of archery enjoyment in our discipline - social, internal club level competition between colleagues etc. but we have to also promote the discipline as a serious form of competitive archery. That is what the DNAA scheme is trying to do. It is part of a wider approach to promoting the discipline.
 

mk1

It's an X
Supporter
While aapplauding your enthusiasm for supporting longbow archers who appear to be the poor cousins in our archery world, can I say that the committee who you wish to lobby are volunteers elected by you - the membership - and as I have found are open to any suggestions for improvements.

AGB lost UK Sport Olympic funding - not Sport England funding - clearly your club secretary has been keeping you up to date :)

I think that this is a brilliant idea and hope that clubs take it up. If they do then it will be possible to lobby AGB to adopt it (with tweaks if they are found necessary) but I have serious concerns that wont happen becuase the current doctrine is all about getting someone to shoot well enough to win an olympic medal and nothing should interfere with that. Old men playing with sticks can get to the back of the queue.
Now we have lost Sport England funding it would be a good time to reconsider the ethos of AGB and ask the members individually (as you get a distorted view via club secretaries) what they want and take that into account when setting aims and priorities. So, if your scheme shows it is a success tell everyone about it and get that converted into action elsewhere.
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
I wish we had a club secretary, we currently have an unfilled vacancy but hopefully that will change next month. We have a good few longbow archers where I am, some of them very good at it as well but that doesnt translate into getting things done that are not in the GNAS rulebook. In another post I said that we are starting a club 252 scheme but despite it nor being a GNAS round and nor are the WA rounds they are still shot under an interpretation the old and inapplicable rules because that is the way a couple of people want it so that is that.
I am a great believer in if someone approaches a committee to say that they want such and such organised then great- go ahead and start it and it will be supported. If the people asking for something to happen are always reliant on someone else the organising every aspect of their recreation then they misunderstand the roles of committees and the idea of clubs in general (I prefer inclusivity to exclusivity). However, from my previous involvement in other sporting governing bodies I also know how difficult it is to get somee good idea moved to the top of the agenda when you have different levels of the organisational structure such as club, county, region and then national committees all having to say yes to that idea.
The same applies to the dissemination of the ideas as well, journal? web site? letter? email? filtering back down through counties and clubs? whichever you choose will not be in favour of some people and things like facebook , twitter and other instant social media will always miss a lot of people
AGB made it perfectly clear what sort of people they want as reps and they are people who are not representative of the membership as a whole. That doesnt mean that the pople who took up that gauntlet dont have legitimacy if they were already members but it means you are always fishing in a small pool when looking for talent. You will see similar problems with Trade unions, the membership by and large want certainty and as easy a life as the moderm working world allows but the full time officers tend to be drawn to TU's because of politics rather than a true passion for their membership's aspirations.

Now, the perception of what a typical longbow archer is like is again partially down to history and partially down to how things are still currently run. I sued to shoot historic arms (made or designed before 1918). Some people were into the history aspect of the arms, others just liked making them go bang by making their own ammunition as many calibres havent been in production for many decades. I liked to get as much precision out of them as possible and that in itself is a historical journey and the parallel with longbow shooting is the use of modern technology in aspects of their construction and use that would have been used had they been available at the time. By this I mean the sort of bows we use (laminates) and the type of glues used for fletching arrows rather than changing things massively to create somehting that didnt exist in any form but calling it "authentic". Some poeple will then say that "old so and so made the best bows but he has been dead for 50 years and all his bows are now broken so whatever you use and whatever you score doesnt count". Well, I want to make that type of attitude as redundant as Watneys red barrel and make people look upon longbow as another aspect to be savoured every bit as much as other forms of archery and overhauling the handicap and classification systems is a much needed step towards that end. We have a couple of juniors who have recently taken up longbow but the anomalies of the classifaction system means that it is harder for them to progress as far as recognising those milestones compared with recurve or even barebow. Changes to this have been put forward but nothing has ever changed
So, yes, we do need others to get our voice heard
 

Yew Selfbow

Active member
While aapplauding your enthusiasm for supporting longbow archers who appear to be the poor cousins in our archery world, can I say that the committee who you wish to lobby are volunteers elected by you - the membership - and as I have found are open to any suggestions for improvements.

AGB lost UK Sport Olympic funding - not Sport England funding - clearly your club secretary has been keeping you up to date :)
Come off it Muriel .. who are you trying to kid .... they don't give a #### if it aint Olympic
 
Top