They look like a very robust riser but even I can’t get my head wrapped around the adjustable blocks for the limb pads...Is that what’s causing all of these almost immediate sales of these relatively new risers?
I do agree that a top archer is going to shoot well with sub-par equipment. But, to say that equipment doesn't matter is just a little over stating it.Sjef somewhat prove this in a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLtTyh-5Xj8
I'm still just a Prodigy......I didn’t know you were shooting an Xceed!
https://youtu.be/1T-DZuh4QQYI do agree that a top archer is going to shoot well with sub-par equipment. But, to say that equipment doesn't matter is just a little over stating it.
To test out the hypothesis that the equipment doesn't make the archer, they needed to have two equally ranked archers, one with a top-notch bow and one with a basic bow, and see if they score the same. Even better -- a within subjects design, in which the same archer shoots both bows, so we can really see the effect of the equipment. To test the claim that the archer's skill is what matters, they needed to have the pro and the amateur both shoot the same exact bow. In other words, in a true experiment, you should only change one variable at time.
Sjef dropped 0 points in three sets with a $200 bow. There is no bow ever made that would have beaten that score. Test over. LOLI do agree that a top archer is going to shoot well with sub-par equipment. But, to say that equipment doesn't matter is just a little over stating it.
To test out the hypothesis that the equipment doesn't make the archer, they needed to have two equally ranked archers, one with a top-notch bow and one with a basic bow, and see if they score the same. Even better -- a within subjects design, in which the same archer shoots both bows, so we can really see the effect of the equipment. To test the claim that the archer's skill is what matters, they needed to have the pro and the amateur both shoot the same exact bow. In other words, in a true experiment, you should only change one variable at time.
And that's exactly how equipment manufacturers stay in business. By convincing people there is always something better out there. LOLThe test would be "over" if top archers shot sub-par equipment against their main competition. So, Sjef vs Ellison what does Sjef show up with?
It's good people live their dreams but, nightmares are dreams too. Now that's funny.
Again, I know that a top archer is going to be hard to beat but, equipment matters. Just look at what the top archers are shooting. Any objective person is able to conclude. Testing is never over...LOL.
no, he broke the cabal by using W&W stabs! had the test used Easton stabs, the result would have been totally different.Sjef somewhat prove this in a video
and more importantly, more of your money in Hoyt's wallet. which you could largely replicate with a couple of different length strings.Though, I'm really not sold on the string tension technology. Just adding more moving parts, more stuff to come loose, more stuff to break.
I know, right? Even when you give em a video with proof, not doctored in any way, they still argue with ya.... I should do a video of my shooting comparing my $150 bow from lancaster and my $750 inno cxt riser equipped bow. I'll do the same collapse/rip with each, and those shafts will go out in the woods to the right of the bale exactly the same each time. But if they won't believe a video with Sjef B in it, well, what can you do.....Sjef dropped 0 points in three sets with a $200 bow. There is no bow ever made that would have beaten that score. Test over. LOL
Any objective person is able to conclude that equipment in fact, does not make the archer. If we're talking recurve, all you have to do is look at scores from the 1990's compared to today. Statistically insignificant improvement in 25 years.
Totally agree with all, my thoughts are the same. After owning top thier bows, most pleasure now is mid priced PSE Phenom with dc cams. Excellent postI know, right? Even when you give em a video with proof, not doctored in any way, they still argue with ya.... I should do a video of my shooting comparing my $150 bow from lancaster and my $750 inno cxt riser equipped bow. I'll do the same collapse/rip with each, and those shafts will go out in the woods to the right of the bale exactly the same each time. But if they won't believe a video with Sjef B in it, well, what can you do.....
This discussion also comes up constantly over on the compound forums. The situation there is basically the same thing, though nobody actually believes you when you tell them. And I say it over and over again: the only thing that really affects your scores is a) it fits you, b) it doesn't rip your arms and hands off and c) if stuff stays bolted onto the bow for the whole round. Everything else is creature comforts. Accuracy hasn't been an issue for at least 30 years if not all the way back to when the compound became commercially available at all.
This is reflected in the scores too. Over time what has happened is the scores among the intermediates and The Great Unwashed (which I'm a part of) have come up somewhat as a class. The scores at the very top haven't really changed significantly - maybe a little higher X counts indoors and maybe higher scores outdoors due to the improvements in compound arrow tech over the last 20 years. But the lion's share of what you got is just more of them shooting those scores.
The big change has been down here at the bottom, though. With the unathletic guys with no shooting talent like myself - mainly in the form of creature comforts like better cam profiles, less hand shock to reduce fatique and better arrow technology. And even those don't improve scores in and of themselves; what they do is little more than simply increase the chances that we'll actually make it all the way through the tournament period. And without having to go to the hospital at the end. Or have the rest or sight fall off in the middle of the round, nuking our progress for the duration after a miss or two.
Don't ask me how I've gathered all that information.
My current bow, for example, a supra focus xl, is one of the hottest new target bows on the market for this year. PSE can't make em fast enough. And I shoot mine well, with nice tight groups. But it's also a little fussy to tune (more of a mental thing for me) and kind of fatiguing to shoot. Everything stays bolted onto it, but the storm is starting to gather on the horizon, that indicates I might not have the endurance to shoot it competitively. It's got a lot of mass weight and a lot of shock on the shot, it just doesn't seem real thrilled with me behind the string shooting it for long periods of time. I've been shooting it a couple months now and still haven't been able to actually shoot a score yet with it... Again, probably the hottest target bow out there with the very upper crust shooting it now like Dave Cousins, Stephan Hanson, etc.....
If I continue with compound my next one may be a hunting bow with better creature comforts in the manner I've described. The task will be finding one with appropriately light limbs. And the focus may end up being sold.
Anyway, you get the idea: it's not the bow itself, the equation is always the bow + the shooter. On the compound at least, selecting the bow is not a matter of its accuracy and hasn't been for some time. It's will you shoot it accurately, does it hurt when you shoot it, will you make it through the tournament with it or not, do you like shooting it, and does anything break or fall off. and so on....
lee.
That's what you actually had in the video: the only change was the bow - the shooter on the left was still Sjef B. So ironically it starts off with a decent scientific basis, even though it was more an entertainment-value-only kind of setup......I do agree that a top archer is going to shoot well with sub-par equipment. But, to say that equipment doesn't matter is just a little over stating it.
To test out the hypothesis that the equipment doesn't make the archer, they needed to have two equally ranked archers, one with a top-notch bow and one with a basic bow, and see if they score the same. Even better -- a within subjects design, in which the same archer shoots both bows, so we can really see the effect of the equipment. To test the claim that the archer's skill is what matters, they needed to have the pro and the amateur both shoot the same exact bow. In other words, in a true experiment, you should only change one variable at time.
I'm considering a centrix LD among a few others if I end up deciding to throw in the towel on the focus. I'm giving it a little more time before I truly give up, but it's one of the bows near the top of the list. Main thing is if would be any better than what I already got, which is debatable...Totally agree with all, my thoughts are the same. After owning top thier bows, most pleasure now is mid priced PSE Phenom with dc cams. Excellent post
I'm following your posts a long time lees, you are in "best" years as I am (73). You have had a Supra with me cams, me too, but I couldn't find much love and pleasure with that bow. A little too aggressive for my strength. I am not following a new bow hype any more and need to have the best and newest also not. I've read your posts with great respect for your healthy understanding of archery and human nature and thinking.I'm considering a centrix LD among a few others if I end up deciding to throw in the towel on the focus. I'm giving it a little more time before I truly give up, but it's one of the bows near the top of the list. Main thing is if would be any better than what I already got, which is debatable...
I originally went with the focus xl because it's in my sweet spot in terms of fit ATA-wise. The centrix may be a little short for me.
If nothing else, it looks like it'd be a hell of a lot quicker to make strings for than the focus, tho....
lee.
I have 2. They both are good risers, I also have 2 WFX 25’s. The Hoyt doesn’t feel as stiff on the shot, but the WFX in my humble opinion balances better with less added weights. Speaking BB wise anyway.Having been up close and personal with one this weekend, nothing. They are an awesome riser.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd agree with that Ren, I've owned 3 WF risers and they are some of the stiffest I've shot. I like Spigs so the softer riser feel obviously suits me better Lol. I think the Exceed is somewhere between the 2. I'm actually looking for an Exceed now, tried a 27" GT and found I don't get on as well with 27" risers, though the GT is exceptional in every way.I have 2. They both are good risers, I also have 2 WFX 25’s. The Hoyt doesn’t feel as stiff on the shot, but the WFX in my humble opinion balances better with less added weights. Speaking BB wise anyway.