252 Visually Impaired awards

ieuan_johns

New member
Hello all, we run a very successful 252 scheme and have several VI archers who would like to join in. however we have no idea what scores they should be trying to achieve as I can't find any suitable direct comparison.

Is anyone else already doing this? If so what scores are you using? Failing that does anyone know of any award scheme that allows for comparison of VI and non-VI archers side-by-side that I can use as a basis?
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
If the impairment levels are different amongst the archers, I expect the allowances would vary accordingly.
Archers with normal vision are compared for allowances, by how well or badly they shoot. That is determined after shooting three rounds. No allowances are made for short guys or weaker ones or short draw lengths. It's not about what they "should" score; it's about what they do score.( averaged)
To my way of thinking your VI archers could all be given the chance to shoot three rounds and use their scores( averaged) to give each one a handicap allowance.Without using charts, you could compare their scores against a score of 252 and make the difference their allowance.
To make things more equal, you might compare their scores to the average of the archers taking part in 252 scheme; and use that to work out an allowance.
What scores they should be trying to achieve, isn't a known quantity ,any more than a beginner's score would be.
I feel there should be no mystery about handicap allowances; make your own and you know how you did it and that it is fair.Every archer taking part can see the fairness,too. At the end of the day, we do not know how the scores are effected by the impairment. A low score could mean very poor eyesight or very poor form, or both.
 

ieuan_johns

New member
Sorry Geoff but that isn't what I'm asking for at all.

We already understand the Handicap system, we use that already for certain shoots and the VI's shoot in those happily, but the 252 badges are a different system of FIXED scored to aim for in the same way that classifications are. There is literally no point if the score for one VI archer to achieve a 252 at a certain level is different to another as that is not what the swards are for, they literally ARE about what they "should" score to be at a certain level of achievement and treating VI archers differently to non-VIs in this scheme would be disrespectful.

What we want is a way to set a sensible equivalent set of fixed scores that they can use in the same way so they can be included in all the clubs achievement schemes.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Ok I see what you mean.
I know that we use a different score for longbow archers. The thinking must be that it is unreasonable to expect them to shoot 252 just like recurve archers. My guess is that the longbow score was thought out bearing in mind what average or better longbow beginner archers can score.I am unaware of any charts or data that says what it must be.
Do all your VI archers use the same aiming system? Tactile sights for example?
 

Harold's EyeIt wasn't me

Member
Fonz Awardee
This is a great question and makes me think why it hasn't been discussed before??

Possibly the originators of the 252 scheme may have some info how they arrived at the Compound, Barebow and Longbow numbers that may allow a VI number to be agreed.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I will try to find out where our longbow score came from. It could have been a club decision, based around the archers we have and the scores they are reaching.
As it is an incentive then there is no point in the score being so high that very few attain it; or so low that everyone shoots it with ease. Also, as it is a distance based progression; if the benchmark is set too low, the archers go to a longer distance sooner but eventually have to start improving to progress further.
 

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
I will try to find out where our longbow score came from. It could have been a club decision, based around the archers we have and the scores they are reaching.
As it is an incentive then there is no point in the score being so high that very few attain it; or so low that everyone shoots it with ease. Also, as it is a distance based progression; if the benchmark is set too low, the archers go to a longer distance sooner but eventually have to start improving to progress further.
Out of interest what are your longbow score requirement? Ours is 164 up to 60yds, 126 at 80yds and 101 at 100yds. Though this may be being reviewed as to get these you have to shoot to MB level, whilst 252 for recurves is BM level and 280 for compound is 1st class level.

What you could do, is work out what Bowman score is doing a St. George round for an VI archer, and then divide that by 3, rounding up.
 

Geophys

Member
The 252 score is an average of 7s per arrow, the neatest solution would be to try either 5s per arrow (180) or maybe 3s per arrow (108). Trying it out with your VI archers and seeing what looks to fit their score levels best would be the only way to find the correct bespoke solution
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
This could be wrong, but I understood the 252 scheme to follow the idea of averaging 7 per arrow. I believe the thinking was that at that rate, the archer getting 252 would be hitting the boss far more often than not and that would put them in a position to try a longer distance. A few goes at the longer distance, and they reach/better 252 and are ready to shoot the next distance up. I thought the idea was to try and give beginners an incentive without letting them over stretch their abilities and end up looking for arrows where the mushrooms grow. I also thought it would progress to 60y and possibly stop there; to allow archers to shoot well known rounds.
Perhaps the scheme was set up with recurve in mind but I can't see why compounds need better scores than 252, in order to demonstrate the ability to get arrows consistently in the boss. I appreciate that compounds are easier to shoot in many ways, but sticking at 252 just means they more quickly reach the longer ranges. (safely) The higher score , if that option is used, simply holds them back, perhaps to the same progress rate as recurves.
I appreciate that longbows are not so easy to shoot with, and holding those archers to 252 would be almost a life sentence. I am not being rude about longbow archers.
If the 252 scheme is designed as I have said above, then the VI archers will need a different pass mark; as do the longbow archers. If longbows shoot 164 or 180 and those scores allow the scheme to work, so progress is not too slow, then that seems fine to me. If some get through the first distances quickly, then the longer ones may hold them up for a while; or not depending on how good they are.
It makes sense, I feel, to find out what the actual archers are scoring now and base the pass marks on that.
over quick progress is not much of an issue ,I feel. Stuck at 20y for a year might be, though. Perhaps the time any particular archer stays at one distance needs to be monitored so help can be offered before interest is lost.
( I am not saying that clubs are not monitoring this but it could happen that archer X is making little progress and seems unable to get past the first gate)
 

ieuan_johns

New member
My understanding of the 252 was yes it is 7 per arrow for recurves and then adjusted based on the differences for each bowstyle roughly in line with the AGB classification system. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a parrallel system for VIs. It was probably originally designed to prove as a decent barometer of level before moving up in distance but I think most clubs who run the scheme quickly find it takes on a momentum of it's own, which is why there are now awards up to 100 yards (we have one person who attained this, barebow!).

Geoff - Yes both of our regular VI's use the tactile aiming system. The problem with using the scores they currently attain is we have only two of them, which is in no way a big enough pool to judge from and it's further clouded by the fact that one has represented GB and the other is a relative novice. Both have said that they wouldn't feel using their own scores as a barometer would be particularly fair an the other and would rather we looked for a scheme that offered relative comparisons of VI and non-VI to work from.

Ravens_Eye - That is the problem, I don't think there is a VI Bowman classification, VI's do not appear to be represented in the standard AGB classification system, or if they are then I can't find any mention of it. Messages to AGB have unfortunately not been replied to.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
When the original 252 scheme was adjusted for different bow styles using the classification system as a benchmark, I think it added a kind of "official" status to the whole scheme. But I don't think the 252 scheme is meant to be that official. I don't think it is meant to be so prescribed or rigid.
I feel it is an aid, to be used by those clubs who feel the need. Clubs do not need to use it.
There was no such scheme when I started shooting, I made progress at my pace and others made progress at theirs. The 252 scheme would have added a structure or plan, to the distances we shot, restricting some to shorter distances until they reached a certain standard. The archers around me, more or less told me when I was ready to shoot 100y. They encouraged me to have a go. I felt I was being " looked after" by wiser heads than mine.
The 252 scheme can encourage and also restrict. It can also take away some of the human contact/interaction. Archers can be left to get on with their own shooting until they reach the pass mark. The scores show when that has happened.( It may not be like this at every club, but it is a possibility)
I think the idea of 252 was a way of restricting the over adventurous from shooting too far. It gave a reading that could be accepted and removed the need for someone to intervene and tell the archer in question that they should not shoot so far.
So what would be a fair score for a VI archer that could be accepted by them? They both use tactile sights so in that sense they are shooting the same bow and sight system. One is a novice( the 252 system was aimed at novices, I feel.) The other has represented GB, (I don't think the 252 scheme was aimed at that level of archer.)
I think the club needs to look at its own use of the 252 scheme and decide what it is they want from it. It may be popular with everyone, but what is it for?
Is it to encourage archers by offering a goal that keeps extending them? Is it to restrict the over adventurous so less danger from overshoots?
Why are different bow styles given different scores to reach? Is that to allow all bow styles to reach the longer targets within a similar time span?
 

ieuan_johns

New member
In terms of what the club wants for it that's been pretty much decided by those taking part, it's far more meaningful to most of them than simply a gauge of progress, it is an achievement in and of itself to strive for in the same way that Rose badges are for a more senior archer, so whatever the original intention, this is now what it is, hence the wish from archers of all types (and levels) to get involved.

There is a big gap between the early progress awards (available all at 20 yards I believe) and other schemes such as the AGB classifications, Dragon badges etc. and the early rounds of the 252 plug this nicely. In reality it's probably unnecessary for the better archers as they have other badges to shoot for already but people seem to enjoy using the same scheme as others and of course the VIs don't have any at all at present that don't rely on personal handicap.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Yes, indeed,the 252 scheme can generate its own personality, if that makes sense. Every club may have a different view of the scheme despite using the same numbers.
I have been looking at the classification scores required for 3rd and 2nd class as they will be next on an archer's list, I suppose.
Having ploughed through all sorts of rounds, I found no real pattern, so chose to look more carefully at the Western round as it uses 60 50 y.
I put together the scores for recurve, barebow recurve, longbow and compound and included male and female.
There are some interesting patterns, of sorts.
If we assume that a R/C male archer getting 252 at 50y could get 500 for six dozen, that equates to third class on a Western. A female would get second class with ease.( does the 252 scheme differentiate?)
Barebow recurve requirements for third class are roughly 1/3 the score of a R/C with sights. That would equate to 88 required on a 252 scheme( 3 dozen)
I would consider the VI archer as being at a disadvantage compared to the barebow recurve archer. I don't think the tactile sight is as easy to use as an arrow point; but that is just my thinking, I have no evidence.
Longbow archers getting 3rd class would require 65 for 3 dozen on a 252 scheme. I have shot with only one VI archer using a tactile sight and he would have been capable of reaching the recurve barebow scores.
My guess is that the VI archers could have a score for their part in the 252 scheme, based on these figures and with some consideration for their impairment in comparison with the recurve barebow and longbow scores. After all, the current scheme started off with a fairly basic idea. If the score agreed is a little high or low how will anyone know? 252 is pretty low for some beginners and a struggle for others. But that's normal.
 

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
I think the club needs to look at its own use of the 252 scheme and decide what it is they want from it. It may be popular with everyone, but what is it for?
Is it to encourage archers by offering a goal that keeps extending them? Is it to restrict the over adventurous so less danger from overshoots?
Why are different bow styles given different scores to reach? Is that to allow all bow styles to reach the longer targets within a similar time span?
I believe they are given different scores to reach, so that a measure of skill set can be reached at a similar level for each bow type. Shooting 252 with a compound would be much easier than with a longbow. I believe some clubs use the system to let their archer know that their ability has reached a level that they can now move on to the further distance (though some archers put this limit on themselves rather than instructed to).

Regarding the differentiate question, the 252 system doesn't seem to differentiate between men women or juniors for the bow types the scores are what they are. Though when I looked into the scores compared to the classification system the ladies scores at 80yds (for recurve) will be BM level score. Now being this is usually the furthest distance ladies shoot you could argue that the score at 100yds has been set for the gents to be within the BM bracket, so when the ladies start shooting beyond the standard longest range the score at 100yds equates to an MB score.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Raven's_Eye, yes there is differentiation for different bow types and rightly so, I feel. But that is a way of making things fair for all bow types if that is what the club wants. If the club wants each archer to reach a standard at a distance so that they are hitting the target and not wasting club time searching for lost arrows then the same score is required for everyone. I am not saying that is the right way to go, but whatever the club wants should be known and used in all cases.
The men and women thing is also a subject for discussion if the VI archers are wanting a valid score for use in 252 scheme. As is the bow type, and age.
I believe the classification system is based on lots of data from lots of archers and judgements made by expecting a very small percentage to reach the highest levels and increasingly larger percentages attaining the lower levels. If the VI archers want something that is a realistic measure of their skill, there is going to be a lot of work needing to be done to collect and organise the data. As it seems the work has not already been done, I am suggesting a reasonable alternative so they can join in now.
 
Top