Thorvald
Active member
Hi.
I am currently watching the World Cup Finals from Yankton on Youtube, during lunch break etc. and after that I'd watch the World Championships. So don't reveal anything about winners, because I am not finished with either...
But one thing I have long been wondering: Why is compound shooting on shorter distance (50 m) than recurve (70 m)? That does not make any sense to me. It should be the other way around, I think. But does anyone know the reason? I have a few ideas to why, but let me see first if anyone actually knows why.
Then another thing I saw, is that there is a difference in how scores are counted in compound vs. recurve. In compound, the one with highest score from 15 arrows wins the match. That I understand and that I think is the most fair way to it. But in recurve, they count set points and you cannot see how much their total score is. First off, I don't understand the set points. Secondly - if I am not totally mistaken - the one with most set points wins. But the one with most set points does not necessarily shoot the highest score at the 15 arrows. That is not fair I think. And thirdly - why there is this difference? Why does recurve not simply count points and that's it? As it is now, recurve matches is not quite as exciting to watch, as compound matches - to my opinion. Because I don't understand who shoots the best - I don't understand who wins or who has a change to win. And also because recurve plus the longer distance makes the shooting much more variable and much less accurate. So in general they are not shooting as tight matches as in compound.
I am currently watching the World Cup Finals from Yankton on Youtube, during lunch break etc. and after that I'd watch the World Championships. So don't reveal anything about winners, because I am not finished with either...
But one thing I have long been wondering: Why is compound shooting on shorter distance (50 m) than recurve (70 m)? That does not make any sense to me. It should be the other way around, I think. But does anyone know the reason? I have a few ideas to why, but let me see first if anyone actually knows why.
Then another thing I saw, is that there is a difference in how scores are counted in compound vs. recurve. In compound, the one with highest score from 15 arrows wins the match. That I understand and that I think is the most fair way to it. But in recurve, they count set points and you cannot see how much their total score is. First off, I don't understand the set points. Secondly - if I am not totally mistaken - the one with most set points wins. But the one with most set points does not necessarily shoot the highest score at the 15 arrows. That is not fair I think. And thirdly - why there is this difference? Why does recurve not simply count points and that's it? As it is now, recurve matches is not quite as exciting to watch, as compound matches - to my opinion. Because I don't understand who shoots the best - I don't understand who wins or who has a change to win. And also because recurve plus the longer distance makes the shooting much more variable and much less accurate. So in general they are not shooting as tight matches as in compound.