[limbwalker]

Browsing photos from the WAF indoor championships in Vegas, I couldn't help but notice that Brady is now using the carbon blade rods? Can anyone confirm this?

Not that it matters that much to me, but I find it interesting after all the commotion caused by B-stinger last year.

I guess one could say that the equipment may change, but the best archers still find a way to win...

John

 

[icehaven]

where do you find the pictures?

 

[x-hunta]

The pictures are available from the World Archery Website.

I saw that he was shooting them in Nimes as well, the 10 ring sure doesn't seem to mind the change though.

 

[Flehrad]

The pictures USAA put up on FB seem to indicate he's using the CB-ES siderods at least....

 

[Chopper94]

I am here in Vegas and saw him shooting the blades yesterday.

 

[julle]

yes, he's been shooting them at least since Nimes. It's funny to think everybody had to get the b-stinger because Brady shot them and now he switched to blades probably hordes of people are switching to, without any knowledge other than that Brady shoots them I think it doesn't really matter much to him which stabilizer he shoots, if you look at the different setups he's been shooting over the years and the different weight distributions, he always seems to deliver.

 

[Matt Z]

I'm wondering if it's as simple as Hoyt being a main title sponsor and Fuse being their subsidiary?

 

[DLJ]

I'm wondering if it's as simple as Hoyt being a main title sponsor and Fuse being their subsidiary?

Just what I was thinking, most likely why Reo switched a while back too...that and some $$$

don't blame tho if it is for money, Archery is their main income

 

[limbwalker]

It's funny to think everybody had to get the b-stinger because Brady shot them and now he switched to blades probably hordes of people are switching to, without any knowledge other than that Brady shoots them

I agree, if that is in fact what some folks are doing. But I have seen a number of archers switching to the blades prior to his adoption of them. What I think is funny is the overwhelming and somewhat suspect endorsements of the previous "best stabilizers ever" just months ago, only to now see something like this. This is not a commentary at all on Brady's selections, but rather the state of commercialism within our sport. I find it quite amusing and transparent at times.

Matt, I'm sure that's right. You could see Doug Denton's bow set up with blades in his video.

Elite archers will use the product from the company that offers them the most financial support, so long as it doesn't impede their ability to be competitive, since that would serve neither the archer nor the sponsor's purpose. Rarely will a top archer risk leaving "cover" long enough to try something new. For those who support themselves through their archery, that only makes good business sense. It's only when they or their sponsors try to pass that behavior off as the result of objective, critical testing that my b.s. flag starts to go up, as was the case with the last "best" stabilizers.

I think the blades are a very interesting concept. It's easy to see the usefulness of their design.

John

 

[Matt Z]

The question is, are we now (and finally) in a transitional stage where recurve archers can make a living shooting arrows like their compound conterparts? With contingency money from manufacturers and tournament winnings from folks like the Easton Foundation, it certainly entices athletes to participate and create a supplemental income.

BTW, I'm working on a large project with the NCAA. Talk about walking on corporate sponsor pins and needles.....

 

[limbwalker]

I can only imagine.

I've often made the comment that the difference between the NFL and college football is that in college, only half the athletes are professionals...

Matt, trying to make a living as a recurve archer is a sketchy proposition at best. Any one archer is a single injury away from being homeless. I'd rather see a young person stay active in archery while they get an education and develop a career. If that career is in the archery industry, then at least they have a backup plan. I'd say that fewer than 5 archers in the U.S. can shoot recurves as their primary source of income, and that's a year-to-year thing.

It makes much more sense for professional athletes in other sports, where there are 1500+ professionals who can literally earn a lifetime's worth of paychecks in one or two seasons. In archery, you could shoot for 20 years at the elite level and still not make as much as the local manager of McDonalds. And if that injury does come around, what do you have to show for it?

It's certainly a risky venture.

Not that I ever had the option, but I'm not sure I could stomach the marketing that a full time archer has to do to survive. Because you're never at liberty to tell the whole truth and answer questions as honestly as you'd like to.

John