Why women should not do recurve archery!

Johnh159

Member
There is nothing to stop ladies from shooting the Gents round (90,70,50,30).
bimble's comment was to highlight theadies scores for the gents round - although the MB score is 1118 not 1187.

Do archers feel that the differential is about right?
I expect it is when looking at the long rounds, it is.
When it gets shorter and arrow speed is less of a factor I'm not so sure?
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
If some of the scores required seem to be "not right"... does that mean the men are getting off lightly or the women are being penalised?
 

Johnh159

Member
My view is that for short rounds, especially indoor rounds there shouldn't be any differential at all.
At the elite level the gaps can be small , qualifying round at the worlds (70m), top gent 696, top woman 692.

Should the sport be mixed, say like the equestrian sports with men & women competing against each other?
 

LionOfNarnia

Supporter
Supporter
Wouldn't it be nice if we actually had some female voices in this discussion?

Until then, we're all just guessing what they might feel about this issue.

HOWEVER I think it might be useful to continue discussing whether there should be more age categories for all 'Seniors' - After all, juniors change every 2 years, the current system seems to believe that after 18 it's a level playing field for everyone, for life, which just ain't so.

I'd certainly favour *some* changes that recognise that the human body does start to degenerate (some more than others ;) ) certainly from (say) the mid-forties onwards. The Masters Games recognise this, with categories for each decade from 30 up to 70. With modern (computerised) technology there is no reason why AGB could not work out some kind of 'average' degeneration, and modify standards accordingly.

I'm also in total agreement that the qualifications should last more than one year. Personally I think that once one has achieved a standard (& bought the badge!) they should hold that for life - well until a higher one is gained, anyway.

If an Instructor/Coach only has to 'refresh' their qualification every three years it just seems inherently unfair that actual shooting standards only last a year.
 

jerryRTD

Well-known member
There should be check to make sure that you are still shooting at the level you attained last year, but it should be a single score.
 

Corax67

Well-known member
Reclassifying every year isn’t too much of a bind up to Bowman - if you shoot at that level then you will naturally pick up the required scores as you shoot club shoots throughout the year.

The problem kicks in with MB and GMB because of the need to chase record status competitions and becoming reliant as much on the vagaries of British weather as on your own ability as well as the costs incurred. I know I can shoot MB+ scores as I shoot early morning York’s now and again for fun at club (not too many others want to play at 7:30am) but I currently can not justify the costs required to attend record status shoots or justify the time away from my family.

I know the mentality is probably one of keeping everyone ‘honest’ in their score submissions but it is a pain.



Karl
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
I have often thought that the need to re-qualify each year damages archer retention in the sport. I mean, how many universities require you to re sit your exams each year or present a final year dissertation each year to maintain your degree 1st or 2/1? The work to achieve MB and especially GMB is a great as a degree, possibly harder than many degrees. I think this would help the sport recognise these achievements.
My other issue is that MB/GMB is not specific enough today with all the disciplines. Perhaps it would be more applicable to have, maybe for MB and GMB levels style specific classifications. At present MB is non specific enough as you could be MB at recurve and GMB at compound say.
My suggestion is to update the classifications to:
GMBc
GMBr
GMBb
GMBl
MBc
MBr maybe down to bowman. Bc, Br etc
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
With Flight you do retain your classification - only shot that far once, got the pretty winged badge, kept the GMF designation. However, the fact that it is in a particular classification (WU50R) would make it pretty unwieldy to apply across the board to all styles.
 

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
We have had this discussion before, but I can't be bothered to find it.
The scores are set purely based on the statistics of those competing in this country. Top 1% (I think it's still 1%) get GMB and 5% (again IIRC) get MB. This is revisited on a regular basis for revue.

It's as simple as that.

Less women shooting. They do shoot lower scores. For a variety of reasons. Some may be physical. Some may be the male domination in the sport. This may change in the future.

At the Elite end of things you really don't get a look in until you are well into GMB. It's regarded as a pretty low hurdle.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Reclassification every year??
I can see KidCurry's point of view regarding degrees. GMB could quite fairly be seen as equally difficult to achieve.
When I first started shooting I thought anyone who had reached MB was a hero and that was something no one could take away from you. I mean that in the sense that any archer who got their MB classification would always be able to say they were that good "once upon a time". It was like an honour from the Queen. You had earned it and kept it; as a reward.
On the other hand, if it is a mark of your current capabilities for use in a selection process; or something to prove your ability when you are shooting or chatting with others, I feel it needs to have a sell by date.
I can see the point in being able to keep the " title" long after your best shooting days are over; as a mark of respect, if you like. If you get there once; that is something to be proud of.
If you want to keep the classification as a mark of your " position" in the classification system; you need to keep on showing you haven't gone downhill.
To my way of thinking these are two different things and both should be able to exist independently of each other.
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
...your " position" in the classification system; you need to keep on showing you haven't gone downhill.
To my way of thinking these are two different things and both should be able to exist independently of each other.
I have always considered my handicap a better way of defining my current skill level as it includes all rounds, long or short, record status or not.
However, if classification is a mark of your current skill level, should I be banned from wearing my MB/GMB on my quiver even though I did not submit scores last year to regain it? Or is it acceptable to wear it as an historic badge of attainment? I've always been uncomfortable wearing badges but they sit in a box never seeing the light of day which is a shame.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
So, if the handicap is a better way of defining your skill levels( I cannot say it is or isn't, but it would seem to be) then should not the MB GMB classifications be based on archer's handicaps and not scores from X number of specific rounds? Who decided to select GMB or MB via a few scores? Why are the inroads to them separated?
It seems to me, that handicaps are all inclusive and aimed at letting even the humblest archers have some idea of where they are in the scheme of things.
The MB and GMB, from how they are achieved, would seem to serve a different purpose.
I am guessing now, but MB and GMB appear to be aimed purely at the old idea of "The long distances are the ones that separate the men from the boys!"
If you can get MB or GMB you are a " real" archer. You can show your badge with pride any time even if it was gained twenty years ago and never updated.
(I see nothing wrong with the badges being worn with pride long after they were earned.)
Having to update annually might be an extra ingredient so those who achieve them every year can be separated from the "one off" archers.
Separating archers for all sorts of reasons does seem to be a part of "how it is". I guess it is natural; competitive spirit coming out.
 

Hawkmoon

Member
Handicaps are a way of levelling the field so that a wide range of skill levels can take part in the same competition, classifications are an absolute level of ability compared to the whole GB archery community. Reclassification is needed as you are only a BM/MB/GMB for as long as you can shoot to that level, a few years ago there was a lot of discontent amongst the compound community as the scores for classification went up massively on two or three occasions and lots of archers could not get the new scores, well if you are not shooting in the top 1% then you are not a GMB (you may have been). I think the solution would be 2 badges one that you earn when you classify and wear as long as you are still classified and a second one that you wear if you have been classified but are no longer, maybe just a different shape.
 

LionOfNarnia

Supporter
Supporter
The idea of having two different systems, one for 'your lifetime best' & one for 'current level' seems eminently sensible & fair to me.

- I mean, no one would think it 'right' if military veterans were told they had to hand back their medals because they hadn't done anything heroic since, would they?

Generally, our sport should be seen as attractive to take up, and encouraging of 'staying the course'. As a relatively new (recurve) archer, I've found the current administrative situation to be FAR too complicated & 'hidebound' - perhaps as much a legacy of our 'history' as anything else.

As a social libertarian, I also find the idea that the higher levels are only achievable by those with the 'financial freedom' to attend suitable events around the kingdom to be a needless form of elitism, which I was unaware of until some of the posts above.

Does anyone know what 'other countries' do?

(I've always been a fan of adopting 'global best practices')
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
So, if the handicap is a better way of defining your skill levels( I cannot say it is or isn't, but it would seem to be) then should not the MB GMB classifications be based on archer's handicaps and not scores from X number of specific rounds? Who decided to select GMB or MB via a few scores? Why are the inroads to them separated?
Because it's possible to lower your handicap on all rounds (no matter how short*), but to achieve your MB/GMB you need to shoot an all day (12 doz) round at your maximum distance. So it's a very rough method to show that to get that score it wasn't a case a a handful of good ends, but a sustained effort. Hence the need to do it three times in a season. You are demonstrating you are at that level, not just a bit lucky.

My handicap is GMB however I can only regularly score MB scores, but I usually happen to put in one really good score at a club shoot that keeps my handicap low.

* - the Warwick is only 4 doz arrows, two at the longer distance, two at the shorter.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Handicaps are a way of levelling the field so that a wide range of skill levels can take part in the same competition, classifications are an absolute level of ability compared to the whole GB archery community.
I like your idea of two different badges... one for all time and one for now.
Scores create handicaps. Handicaps show skill levels .MB and GMB are measures of skill. Why can handicap levels not be used as MB and GMB pass marks?
I think Bimble's response adds to the way I think MB and GMB are for those who shoot the "big" rounds.
Doing the necessary three times in a season helps find people who aren't just a bit lucky, agreed. Doesn't the handicap system require three to start with and then keep adding more and more scores that are valuable.Does that not give a better picture of the archer's usual standard?
I'm not on either side of this discussion. I just think you get what you are measuring when you set down the rules of a system. What is asked for by the handicap and by classification systems are different. What you get as a result is different, too. As you'd expect.
The same could be said about the competitions that have to be attended. If you don't mind some good archers not being able to attend( for some reason) then you have to accept you may not be tapping into the best archers around.
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
Why can handicap levels not be used as MB and GMB pass marks?
Ahhh... they are. If you take an anal view of the HCs and the classifications you will see that the classifications are not an average, or some other mathematical extrapolation of entered scores alone, but manipulated by a human input. If the classification levels were done by score alone they would not correlate to handicap thresholds. However they do!

Examples...
Gents Rec York
GMB... 1146 H/C 22 exactly
MB.... 1065 H/C 28 exactly
B....... 913 H/C 36 exactly

Ladies Rec... Hereford
GMB... 1165 H/C 27 exactly
MB... 1091 H/C 33 exactly
b.......952 H/C 41 exactly So someone has deliberately set the classification to be the same as handicap thresholds. When I gave up shooting compound last year I had an 8 HC and was 3rd class.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Heehee! I can't have worded my response the way I needed to!!
I can see the correlation, but that doesn't mean an archer can be GMB with that handicap from shooting just shorter rounds. Or is there something else afoot? Something like, you can only reach H/C 22 if you are shooting rounds that are the longer ones?
 

little-else

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
If only it was true that the system was revisited on a regular basis, they scores needed for each benchmark have never changed in the time I have been shooting.
There are also some appalling anomalies as well. Look at the junior girls scores needed for say bowman U16- they are far higher than that required to the same round for senior ladies and this is worse when you look at longbow and barebow.
As far as I can tell the benchmarks were set using very limited data and insome case none at all, just extrapolation (or guesswork) and despite promises to review the scores required no-one has been there and done it yet. Handicap are bases on the theoretical spread of the arrows in a cone so you should get a certain number of hits in a certain scoring ring at a certain distance. Now if you look at things like bowman score for longbow 1440 the scores needed at the 50 and 30m compared to the bowman scores for the longer distance part when using the same benchmark fo LMG then you end up with county record scores just to keep up!

Apart from an overhaul of the marksmanship scheme the formula for the handicap scheme needs to be tweaked to fit in with real life shooting rather than just a model that ironically has the worst fit at the shortest distances. Take a short junior national for example. Enter a perfect score and you get a handicap of 26 and a classification of archer. Now as a third class compounder I can score this and apparently am the equal of a clubmate who is bowman in the world where only longer distances count for anything at all. Shoot a perfect score for a junior national and your handcap drops to 17 but get a red with one arrow and your handicap is 22. Score a UK record in a new national and your handicap is 22 and you have to shoot mare than 100 points over the existing record to get a handicap of zero but you would still only be a bowman

Of course none of this matters in a normal tournament but if you are running a tournament that has separate classes and distances aimed at ability then it does and we need something better than the existing system to conduct a tournament where handicaps are used (no I cant think of one but inter club and league shoots come to mind).

So my club organises a tournament specifically for 2nd class and below and we get almost zero entries. It may be the time of year but I suspect that the current classification scheme makes people doubt themselves and also punishes those of us who get older so cant shoot as well as we did but are held captive by that old classification
 
Top