World Cup finals, compound vs. recurve, distances etc.

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.
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
I must admit, I'm not a fan of the set system either, although I think it was done to increase viewing numbers. I think the compound 80cm face was chosen as an equivalent of a full face at 90m, so tougher than the recurve 70m full face but does not require as much space. I think the difference is due to too many shoot-offs if compounds shot sets. I would prefer to drop the set system.
 

Thorvald

Active member
To me the set system would not increase viewing numbers. It would actually rather make me not watch the recurve finals.

I would make compund shoot at 70 m, maybe still with a 80 cm face, to make it more difficult to them (it is too easy to shoot high scores and perfect 30's for them as it is now). Or maybe create a slighty bigger target face like maybe 90 cm or 100 cm, but not more - but maybe even keep the 80 cm, to make it more exciting to see if they can still make perfect rounds and to make it more difficult. I would not get them on 90 m.

And I would make recurve shoot at 50 m - maybe still on 122 cm face, to make the scores tighter and the matches more nerve wrecking. I don't think compound 80 cm face at 50 m is tougher than the recurve 122 cm face at 70 m. It is recurve who has the toughest conditions, because the bowstyle is not as precise as compound.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Things to remember was that in the past both compounds and recurves shot their matches at 70m, (and if you go back a little further both shot culminative scores).

The compounds were moved to 50m to make them seem more different from the recurve, and after some tinkering (such as the hit/miss targets - which were a terrible experiment sometime ~2011) were returned to culminative scores on an 80cm face*.

One of the advantages of the set system that is now used is, apart from letting an archer come back from one bad arrow, is that it increases the opportunities for upsets. If we were only interested in who was the best archer, we'd just shoot 1440s and not bother with short matches. The very nature of short matches allows a lesser archer to have some great arrows against to great archer who just puts in some below average ones. Over several dozen this wouldn't matter, after all you often see the same names at the top of the ranking round, but in a short match it can be enough.

Considering that the top recurvers can shot scores in the 340s at 50m on an 80cm face (the WR is 352 for men and 351 for women), I'd hate to think how boring watching them just shooting a 122cm at that distance would be...


* - which give similar scores to 70m on a full 122cm face
 

Thorvald

Active member
Aaah so recurve would actually also shoot on 80 cm target if it was on 50 m. I don't think that would be boring (but you're right - on 122 cm face probably yes). I still think it would be more interesting to let the archers shoot matches with cumulative scores, recurve on 50 m, compound on 70 m, both perhaps on 80 cm face.

Yeah I think I remember that compound before was at 70 m, and I remember also the hit/miss experiment, but that was long before I was getting interested to watch the videos of these matches.

I still don't get the fun in the set system. How are the set points calculated? And I still think the short matches are very interesting to watch and more intense - than to watch a full 1440 round - that probably not would get too many viewings...
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
they explain it at the start of almost every video stream. Both archers an end of shoot three arrows, highest score gets 2 set points (a tie earns each archer 1 point), the first to six set points win. If a match is tied after five sets (5-5) there is a single arrow shoot-off.
 

Stretch

Active member
I think it is mainly about differentiating the two disciplines in ongoing efforts to get compound archery accepted in the Olympics. If they are too similar then there is no chance of getting more medals allocated (yeah yeah despite the fact that a swimmer or runner can compete in loads of near identical events).

Recurve is about shooting enough good arrows to win.
Compound is about not shooting bad arrows at all. Outside the 10 is a bad shot.

Mind you I think someone did do a statistical analysis of set vs cumulative and a vast majority of matches had the same outcome.

The only thing I hate is closest to the middle shoot off. It is ridiculous that for 15 arrows it doesn’t matter where in the 10 or 9 your arrow is and then all of a sudden it is important. It is not logical other than the organiser at events not wanting to fall behind schedule with multiple shoot offs. Doing something because it is “better for the organiser” is rarely the best path in sport.

Stretch
 

Thorvald

Active member
#Bimble: Ok, I have not heard the explanation. But in general it is also a bit difficult for me to understand speach on tv, without subtitles. I tried the automatic subtitles on youtube when watching archery tv, but it was more disturbing than doing good (because it translated slowly). :) Now I understand the set system a little better and I'll see if I like it better now.

#Stretch: Differentiating recurve and compound; Ok I get that point. But as you say it is perhaps not a very good point. But in some way maybe, because the olympic comitee sees archery as archery, no matter what bow they shoot.

"Recurve is about shooting enough good arrows to win.
Compound is about not shooting bad arrows at all. Outside the 10 is a bad shot."

I don't know if I agree totally with the compound version, but in princip yes, because of the high level they have - and because 50 m compound is not difficult enough (for them).

Closest to the middle shoot off; Maybe I don't agree with you or maybe I do. I understand your point. I was sad that Mathias Fullerton did not win his shoot off, because his arrow was just a few mm farther away from the center than - was it Ned "Mr. Perfect". Yes, Ned's shot was a very nice shot - but so was Mathias' shot. They both deserved to win that shoot off and have another to find the winner. So perhaps I agree with you, if both scores 10, another shoot off, untill one of them loose (shoots a 9 for example). But I also understand it from organizer side a little, because that (could) take a bit time. But yes, maybe I agree that highest score in shoot off should win. Or: If one hits the X-10 and the other is outside the X-10 ring, but in the 10-ring, then the one in X-10 wins. In above example, both was in X-10 - so another shoot-off.

That is by the way another way to make compound finals a bit more difficult: To make X-10 count 11 points. Just a thought.
 

jerryRTD

Well-known member
One of t6he main reasons for the 50m distance was the availability of venues. that was suitable for TV. If you want to demonstrate a greater accuracy from compounds then both recurves and compounds but make the recurves shoot on a 80cm face and the compounds shoot on a 60cm face.
 

Thorvald

Active member
Well it looks like 70 m works great, so in princip why not let compound shoot 70 m and recurve 50? But I also get the point about greater accuracy and thus higher level of competition, since often 1 point is crucial. And 70 m is an old and traditional recurve distance.
 

Aleatorian

Member
if both scores 10, another shoot off, untill one of them loose (shoots a 9 for example). But I also understand it from organizer side a little, because that (could) take a bit time. But yes, maybe I agree that highest score in shoot off should win. Or: If one hits the X-10 and the other is outside the X-10 ring, but in the 10-ring, then the one in X-10 wins. In above example, both was in X-10 - so another shoot-off.

That is by the way another way to make compound finals a bit more difficult: To make X-10 count 11 points. Just a thought.
You've basically described the rules of the shoot off that were trialled last full World Cup season, i.e. Both shoot X's then the shoot off is re-shot, next arrow is closest to centre. However, this season they reverted back to Single Arrow Closest to Centre.

As for X equals 11's that's just quote the failed motion that was proposed at this years WA Congress, which was proposed for Qualification as well, it's intention was to break ties on the Qual Round, however stats analysis pretty much proved it wasn't fit for purpose and at the other levels of the sport, would also alienate grass roots archers and spectators, cos Maths isn't always a strong point
 

Thorvald

Active member
Yeah - because what is 15*11? If you got used to it, of course you'll know that it is 165 p. But I admit that 150, 300 and 360 is more "user friendly".

But if I am not mistaken, before they did count number of X-10's (for compound) and if both archers have same score, the one with most X-10's wins. But maybe they wanted the shoot-off, because it is more exciting and nerve wrecking both for the archers and for the audience - and thus more audience friendly.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Well it looks like 70 m works great, so in princip why not let compound shoot 70 m and recurve 50? But I also get the point about greater accuracy and thus higher level of competition, since often 1 point is crucial. And 70 m is an old and traditional recurve distance.
Though it does sound like what you're trying to do is the apparent groupings appear the same with compounds shooting more 9s, 8s, & 7s, and the recurves shooting tighter groups. But remember, we want them to appear different, to maximise the difference is the bowstyle's abilities. So the compounds are trying not to miss that ten ring, with the increasing pressure as the match goes on of one arrow possibly losing the match.... can they shoot a 10 to win!?!?!

Whereas with recurve you have the reward of shooting well with the ability of coming from 0-4 down to win. Where that early stray arrow might not mean the match is over before it's really got going. And considering that, on the international circuit at least, most recurvers can throw down occasional 29s and 30s, that means that there is always a chance. I mean, after shooting a qualifying score of 700 did anyone think that Kim Woo-jin was going to be knocked out in the second round of the 2016 Olympics by the 33rd seed?


As for shoot-offs; it use to be that we went to a third round of single arrow shoot-offs if the first pair and then second pair of arrows scored the same value, with only the third round being measured closest to the middle. This in turn was changed to just one round, which later on was changed to a second round if both archers shot a 10 (for the recurvers, an X for the compounders).

Unless you have agents at the target end, having to walk up to collect arrows, to walk back and shoot a second arrow does take time*. The argument can be made that if you found it unfair you should have scored more points during the match, or shot a better shoot-off arrow. Didn't Ki Bo-Bae apologise for winning the Olympic gold in 2012 with an 8 in the shoot-off?


* - because the rules state the shoot-off is decided by the scoring arrow closest to the middle, I have been to events with two longbows shooting off that has gone nearly ten rounds of single arrow shooting...
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Yeah - because what is 15*11? If you got used to it, of course you'll know that it is 165 p. But I admit that 150, 300 and 360 is more "user friendly".

But if I am not mistaken, before they did count number of X-10's (for compound) and if both archers have same score, the one with most X-10's wins. But maybe they wanted the shoot-off, because it is more exciting and nerve wrecking both for the archers and for the audience - and thus more audience friendly.
No.... if the round is a stand alone round (such as a 1440, or just a 720) Xs can be used to separate archers on a tied score, but if you're going into an elimination round WA rules stipulate that you ignore Xs (yes, it's stupid when they then talk about scoring 11 to split ties). So at a stand alone 720 two archers on 700 (52, 33) & 700 (52, 21) would be separated on Xs, but at a 720/H2H the rules state they're not.
 

Thorvald

Active member
Ahh ok, so this X-10 thing was and have perhaps never been in the finals. I just thought so, but it also makes good and perhaps better sense in the preliminary rounds.

Well I get your point with making compound and recurve appear like two very different "sports".

And to get back to the start - I just wondered a long time, why compound shoots at a shorter distance than recurve, because it does not seem logical. And it is not - really - it is mostly political I understand now. But aside from that it also has some advantages, with compound finals being more interesting to watch.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Well, I guess the problem with going longer (from 70m) was that it's not a distance that the women had ever shot, and it lowers the number of possible venues for events because they would have to fit in a 90m target.
 

Thorvald

Active member
I am not talking about going longer than 70 m. If anything I was (originally) wondering why recurve does not shoot at 50 m in finals and compound at 70 m.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
In a set system you cannot rest on your laurels (as they say ).
Every set is like a new competition; and the winner is the one who wins the most competitions.
Shooting scores means you shoot one competition and if you get a good lead you can afford a few mistakes.
If you make a bad start; you may catch up if you are up to the challenge.
A one arrow shoot off is like a single arrow competition after a huge number of sighters.
 

Big George

Supporter
Supporter
In the one competition I managed to do this summer I had a bad end in the qualifying (still can’t figure out how the arrows all suddenly starting dropping low). Went down by ~15 points which is hard to get back. Dropped me from challenging for the lead to finish in third place. I managed to be more consistent in the H2Hs and won so the current format worked for me. I look on the difference as the 720 is a distance race and the H2Hs a series of short sprints, it’s a different challenge to your mental approach
 

Stretch

Active member
I’m fine with both H2H formats. It does give people the opportunity to beat the person who can shoot 72/144 arrows perfectly - all you have to do is pull 9, 12, 15 or 16 great arrows out to win.

It becomes a little bit of a lottery in stronger or inconsistent wind. Match spans are too short for “luck” to not play a part.

Then one arrow shoot off is a lottery. It‘s not about precision, it’s about getting luckier on your good shot than your opponent. I hate that. Maybe more so with recurve… compound at 50m definitely has the capacity to maintain a dead centre impact. If the X is important they should record X through the sets/ends and award the match to the person who has been more consistently near the middle.

2p

Stretch
 
Top