Which rounds do you prefer: Imperial or Fita

[Raedwald]

Originally Posted by GeoffT

The 9,7,5,3,1 scoring is not logical when you think about it. At least 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 makes a better job of deciding what arrow scores more than another. Or is it just me that is convinced that I only put arrows in the inner colours when shooting an imperial round.

About time we joined the rest of the world and shot mainly proper rounds. Leave the yards and imperials to the longbows.

Hmm.... isn't 9,7,5,3,1 known as "Princes scoring" or something like that? My memory seems to be that this was laid down during mediaeval times (100yrs war I think?). So, if I'm right on that, then it's been around a long time, so people really ought to be used to it by now!!!

And as for which round do I prefer, that's easy.... Big Game....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ben tarrow

I agree. Gents FITA is prefered by archers who just can't shoot 100 yards well.

What a complete load of tosh.

I, and many others on here, can make a damn good job of 100 yds, but still prefer FITA rounds.

Imperial rounds no longer have any relevance to any other tournament format shot anywhere other than in the UK. FITA is a standard recognised worldwide, not just by the narrow sectional interests of GNAS. A FITA round offers more variety, a far more enjoyable shooting format (none of that 3-arrows-and-off nonsense) and is a much more sociable event too. It gives results that can be compared to those shot by anyone else, anywhere else (without recourse to handicap tables), and, to cap it, Fita results can be used by those of us interested in achieving international selection. Now, perhaps you'd like to tell me again that I can't shoot 100yds?

Adam

[GeoffT]

Originally Posted by Adam

What a complete load of tosh.

I, and many others on here, can make a damn good job of 100 yds, but still prefer FITA rounds.

Imperial rounds no longer have any relevance to any other tournament format shot anywhere other than in the UK. FITA is a standard recognised worldwide, not just by the narrow sectional interests of GNAS. A FITA round offers more variety, a far more enjoyable shooting format (none of that 3-arrows-and-off nonsense) and is a much more sociable event too. It gives results that can be compared to those shot by anyone else, anywhere else (without recourse to handicap tables), and, to cap it, Fita results can be used by those of us interested in achieving international selection. Now, perhaps you'd like to tell me again that I can't shoot 100yds?

Adam

Come on Adam, admit it, you just can't do 100yards.......That extra 1.4 meters is too much for you

Seriously though, what you have said here is 100% correct. As I've said before imperial rounds are for longbows

[tel]

You'll be suggesting popping down the local for .5 L in a minute!

[Adam]

How true Geoff. That extra 1.4m is a real stretch!.

Truth be told, although I don't really enjoy the format of Imperial rounds, I can't say I hate shooting them - it's better than having to decorate the sitting room, for instance. But give me a choice of a useful, relevant Fita or a (for my purposes) useless Imperial round, and I know which I'll choose - and there are many, many other archers who would jump the same way.

Adam

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tel

You'll be suggesting popping down the local for .5 L in a minute!

Well, we buy our wine in metric measures, and our bananas, beef, etc. so why not our beer?

I'm as partial to a pint as the next guy, but I really don't care what we call it, just what's in it.

Adam

[WhitehartFB]

Agreed for the most serious archers imperial rounds I guess are for fun only little to be gained other than medals and trophies and a lost chance for a selection qualifying score.

But for archers like me just below MB who can only shoot a few arrows a week (3/4 doz) and a tournament occasionally I enjoy the challenge of both formats but still prefer a York. To me shooting recurve, a 30 handicap York is harder to consistantly achieve than a 30h/c FITA especially in poorer conditions.

I think that which round you prefer depends on your goals and ability as when I shoot shorter rounds they are purely for fun or the chance of a medal as I cannot claim a Bowman or MB score and the scores are not even considered for county selection.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Whitehart

when I shoot shorter rounds they are purely for fun or the chance of a medal as I cannot claim a Bowman or MB score and the scores are not even considered for county selection.

Then why shoot the shorter rounds? Longer rounds are just as much fun, and the results are useful too.

Adam

[WhitehartFB]

Originally Posted by Adam

Then why shoot the shorter rounds? Longer rounds are just as much fun, and the results are useful too.

Adam

Good point it's mainly to do with availability of the types of local open shoots on at the weekends I am free. I enjoy competing but archery has to fit around my family & work, some planning is possible but even then in the past I have had to cancel the night before.

Shorter rounds also bring in different mental pressures, expectations and fun. For example a double american, even at my standard & level of practice I expect all my arrows in the gold at 50&40 and most at 60.

[Random_guy]

i've heard the '6 dozen at 100 yards sorts the men from the boys' arguement before. Well, not really. It means that those people who are good at long distance beat people who might be better at short distances.

If you have archer A) who can shoot 300+ at 90m, but can't shoot very well at 30m (comparitivly) and archer B) who can clean, or come very close to cleaning 30m, but isn't very good at 90m (low draw weight?) then is one a better archer than the other?

IMO you cannot tell from this information alone, yet a york only really takes into account the longer distance (i've heard it said that a york can only be won at 100 yardsl, but can be lost at any distance). A Fita on the other hand would take these archers and enable you to compare their scores fairly to judge who was the better archer.

A truly great archer must be able to deal with the mental pressure of short distances AS WELL as being accurate at long distance. A Fita tests both of these fully, as opposed to a York which only truly tests one.