Archery Talk Forum banner

80 cm target at 70 meters??

2K views 14 replies 13 participants last post by  Sosius 
#1 ·
Just curious if there has ever been talk about reducing the target size at an Olympic event. I know for the majority of shooters it is hard enough to just hit the target, but for people at the top of their game I rarely see them hitting white and black rings, not to mention many of them are used to shooting at 90 meters. I think that it would give more value to hitting the gold, reduce the ties to determine who the better shooter really is, and keep the crowd/viewer more involved when watching these national tournaments.
Your thoughts.....
 
#3 ·
The Olympic round is already very much a lottery and reducing the face size would increase the random result factor.
Arrows are not identical and have a natural spread which is around the size of the gold. So decreasing face size would just increase the randomization of the score. You want a gold that is large enough for a good enough archer to put all the arrows in it fairly consistently on merit.
 
#6 ·
IMO, one of the best things about archery is that the lowest ranked shooter from the smallest tournament in the country can directly compare himself with OH, IM, and Brady. If things get Changed up at the wold championship and Olympic levels, you'll lose that.
 
#8 ·
This is of absolutely no concern to the organizers of the major archery events. It is only something us "recreational" archers think about.
 
#7 ·
How many perfect rounds are shot on the 122 at 70? This certainly isn't an issue like the 40cm target is for indoor compound.
 
#9 ·
70M and a 122cm face allow for a lot of 9's and 10's - this is what the organizers of these events want to see because they think it's what the viewers want to see. They wish to portray the archers as "experts" and experts don't shoot 6's and 4's.
 
#10 ·
Have you ever tried it yourself? Did you think it was fun? I rather prefer a target on which I can hold my pin in the gold, makes me shoot much better groups to. If you want to go this way, I think it would be better to add a decimal to the points, e.g, 9,8 instead of just a 9.
 
#11 ·
You want to shoot a smaller target face, go compound. I'm the only one in my town that shoots competition recurve and I get to shoot 70m while the compound guys shoot "70"meters at 50meters but with a smaller face. Now if you said bring recurve to 50 meters, give it a smaller face and call it 70m then I may agree with your post.
 
#12 ·
As John says, it is more of a psychological thing than anything else. It is designed to make people feel good both from a shooter and spectator point of view. People who are very good shooters would go crazy if they were putting arrows in the blue, black, or white. You will find that there will be a lot of people that will quit archery if a 5 or a 6 was normal for the top archers because that means the beginners would be off the target most of the time.

Maybe it is time the target world join the field world in that making the X ring count for 1 more point. The compound target sort of does that by having the X ring count as a ten with a a very large 9 yellow. Just make the X equal 11 for the 10 ring targets, and the X equal to 6 for the 5 ring targets. Then to make it completely challenging, the arrow must be completely inside the X ring. If the arrow is touching the line, it will be a 10.

Then for indoor shoots, make everyone shoot a single spot. I can hear the flames already. The archers will have to make a tough decision, do I shoot the big fat line breakers, or skinny arrows. Hard to get 3 to 6 arrows completely inside that X ring when using the fat line cutters.

One doesn't need to make the target smaller, just make that X count for more.
 
#13 ·
Pete,

The inner 10 is only in play for indoors. Outdoors compound uses the entire 10 in the 80cm target. Believe me if there is any wind at all that 10 is plenty small.

I'd like to see compound and the team rounds go to the set system. It's more interesting by far.

-Grant
 
#15 ·
Changing the target size would also screw with decades of records, wouldn't it. I know the set system probably messed with the records but this would presumably be just as bad, if not worse.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top