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

Steve Ruis

Supporter
Supporter
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 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.)

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.
 

Thorvald

Active member
Well, I guess both the recurve system and the compound system has their pro's and con's. And another system, would have it's pro's and con's. I guess it is difficult to make a system, that is both 100% audience friendly, 100% archer friendly, 100% organizer friendly and 100% trying to get compound accepted at the Olympics, friendly. It would probably in every case be a compromise. So in that sense, maybe the present system is good enough - a good compromise.

I like to watch the H2H matches. Maybe mostly the compound matches. Not 100% sure why. Maybe because I shoot compound, maybe because the accuracy adds a thrill, maybe because it is a bit easier to follow the point system.

The one arrow shoot off: I don't agree that it is not about precision. The better you are to make a good shot, the better you are to control your nerves etc. - you have a change to win, maybe even against one of the top archers, who might make a bad shot, because he is not as good to control his nerves. I don't know - but at least as a minimum in recurve. In compound - yes, if we say compound is about accuracy, then why not let the one with most X-10's win - but that is how it was before - maybe for example at World Archery Championships in Copenhagen in 2015? But - then maybe - that system is not as audience friendly. Maybe the shoot-off gives an extra thrill - and gives the "under-tipped" archer one more chance to win.

So all in all - maybe it is good as it is... :)
 

Rabid Hamster

Well-known member
Ironman
personally I point to the 2012 olympics and the ladies final plus the mens team final as justification for the H2H and single arrow shoot off. Those matches made archery compulsive viewing not just for us but normal peeps as well. we got a huge uptick in people doing archery after that.

the cumulative scoring system as a bad system i point to one match at the 2010 world cup in edinburg. a compounder shot a 7 towards the middle of the round, it was a typical scottish gust of wind that caused it and that was them done for the competition! the comp was now just filling in the rest of the scoresheet. if the compound had been H2H then they might have recovered as opposed to us all going to the toilet since it was a done deal.
as to compound & 50m ... these bows have magnifying sights and release aids! why not crank them back to 90m/122cm face and let them go ham. I doubt another 20m of space is that hard to find, just plan a little better.

i dont know if there is any truth in it but a while back I heard that there was a vague suggestion to propose compound at the olympics as a field round shot in an "urban skatepark". just what this would have entailed, how it would have been attempted and how dangerous it would have been is something to discuss over a pint of three just for the lols.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
the cumulative scoring system as a bad system i point to one match at the 2010 world cup in edinburg. a compounder shot a 7 towards the middle of the round, it was a typical scottish gust of wind that caused it and that was them done for the competition! the comp was now just filling in the rest of the scoresheet. if the compound had been H2H then they might have recovered as opposed to us all going to the toilet since it was a done deal.
as to compound & 50m ... these bows have magnifying sights and release aids! why not crank them back to 90m/122cm face and let them go ham. I doubt another 20m of space is that hard to find, just plan a little better.
Of course, if it's a weather related 7, there's nothing to say that might not happen to the other archer later in the match. I remember watching a team medal match in Antalya where the wind was bad enough that Reo Wilde shot a miss to start the match off... and the US fought to go on to win despite that miss!

As for 90m, one of the reasons for going shorter with a smaller face was that if meant you could have more venues available because it's easier to fit in a 50/70 range than a 70/90m range.
 
Top