I have a speculation (can't prove it). Since compounds and recurves compete separately there should be no comparisons. But most of the higher ups in World Archery are not archers and those who are are recurve archers. I suggest that ego protection is involved here. On an equal playing field, compound scores should be better than recurve scores but some people thing that denigrates recurve archery. So, the rules get changed. For a couple of years, compound archers had to hit the X-ring to score 10 points (it is still that way indoors). By having compounders shoot a different-sized target face at a different distance makes any kind of comparisons of scores impossible. (There is no good reason otherwise.)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.
The set system was invented so weaker archers could win. The Grand FITA schemes were so long, with so many arrows shot, that the weaker archers had no chance to win. So, with the set system, you can shoot a flat-out flier and recover from that. You can even score fewer points than your opponent overall and still win. And I thought the purpose of ta competition was to identify the best. Silly me.
And they are still using closest to the center arrows as tiebreakers, which is about the equivalent of flipping a coin as it is not skill based.