Master Bowman score increase?

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm in complete agreement with Murray.

I have no problem with the bar being raised for MB/GMB classification. It's in the nature of sport (all sports) that the bar is constantly raised. Having to push that bit harder for the reward is a large part of what motivates and improves competitors.

I suspect that the Gents Compound scores will be raised to around 1295 for MB and 1340-45 for GMB but, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, this probably couldn't take effect before the 2008 season.

Adam

I guess you are right Adam, but some people simply won't be able to do it. ( that's the idea I suppose?) I feel in my case 1295 is OK, only 17 points more than the current 1278. How much harder do you have to work to get those axtra points I wonder? In my case I need to clear MB with a degree of comfort, a 1300+ score is on the cards anyway. I was just worried thay would just shift the whole thing up so MB would end up being the same as GMB now. I can't see me ever getting that good with the time and resource I have available.

[Max]

Originally Posted by Adam

I suspect that the Gents Compound scores will be raised to around 1295 for MB and 1340-45 for GMB but, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, this probably couldn't take effect before the 2008 season.

Adam

I'd have no problem with a moderate increase such as that because it could easily be argued that this simply reflects natural drifts upwards in the mean scores submitted by many archers in normal competition. The story I heard from someone who was at the Masters was that MB would be raised "significantly above 1300" in order to protect the exclusivity of the competition. If that is the case then it stinks.

[grantwomack]

I feel that MB is far too easy to reach on a compound. Almost any FITA competition will have at least 5-6 shooters scoring 1300+. Look at recurve scores and you'll see maybe 2-3 scoring MB in a FITA. Granted, there are a lot of good shooters out there, but I think the MB and GMB scores should reflect what is being shot in the rest of the world, not simply the UK.
With better coaching and improved funding, we are going to have a great deal of archers improving to MB and GMB level.
I don't think, however, GMBE and GMB scores being the only ones allowed into the Masters each year is a good idea. Look at numbers... there are so few people who go each year as it is... And only perhaps 2-3 recurvers reach GMB each season.

Furthermore, I think there needs to be a change introduced to the rounds available to achieve MB and GMB scores. To reflect international standards, a Double FITA 720 would be a fair indicator for all bow styles and genders.

[Furface]

Two separate questions need sorting here:-
1) What are the classifications for?
2) What level should they be set at?
Now, IMHO, the classifications are there to assist archers by providing a structured means of assessing progress and increasing motivation (to get to the next level). Does the current structure do this effectively? I have the suspicion that it does not, though for a mass of reasons. And (personal opinion) I think the chief problem is at the LOWER end, where 1st, 2nd, 3rd class all cover a vast mix of abilities, and can be very hard to progress through for a lowly club archer (ie the majority). It is also very rare (in my experience) for there to be any reward for moving up a classification other than the warm glow, and a very small badge you can buy for yourself. So I would go for a complete revamp, with more levels, more kudos, and more tangible proof of improvement.
(How about: Archer and Bowman grades at each of Club, County and Regional levels, followed by National Bowman, National Master Bowman, and Grand Master Bowman, each with a different coloured shoulder flash, only obtainable through Club/County/Region/GNAS, with proper certificate)
At which the second question becomes relevant. But different

Originally Posted by grantwomack

I feel that MB is far too easy to reach on a compound. Almost any FITA competition will have at least 5-6 shooters scoring 1300+. Look at recurve scores and you'll see maybe 2-3 scoring MB in a FITA. Granted, there are a lot of good shooters out there, but I think the MB and GMB scores should reflect what is being shot in the rest of the world, not simply the UK.
With better coaching and improved funding, we are going to have a great deal of archers improving to MB and GMB level.
I don't think, however, GMBE and GMB scores being the only ones allowed into the Masters each year is a good idea. Look at numbers... there are so few people who go each year as it is... And only perhaps 2-3 recurvers reach GMB each season.

There are more people shooting MB on a Compound now at Fita tournaments as there are lots more people shooting Compounds now. Imagine if archery was as popular as ********. There would be lot more archers of every type and lots more MB's too. So why slap people down for shooting a popular bow type? And NO it's not easy to shoot MB with a compound.

I hear that there were plenty of people at the Masters this year, 60 tagets to accomodate the Compound shooters. I suspect a large proportion of them were GMB too. Anyone got any stats on this?

Originally Posted by Furface

Two separate questions need sorting here:-
1) What are the classifications for?
2) What level should they be set at?
Now, IMHO, the classifications are there to assist archers by providing a structured means of assessing progress and increasing motivation (to get to the next level). Does the current structure do this effectively? I have the suspicion that it does not, though for a mass of reasons. And (personal opinion) I think the chief problem is at the LOWER end, where 1st, 2nd, 3rd class all cover a vast mix of abilities, and can be very hard to progress through for a lowly club archer (ie the majority). It is also very rare (in my experience) for there to be any reward for moving up a classification other than the warm glow, and a very small badge you can buy for yourself. So I would go for a complete revamp, with more levels, more kudos, and more tangible proof of improvement.
(How about: Archer and Bowman grades at each of Club, County and Regional levels, followed by National Bowman, National Master Bowman, and Grand Master Bowman, each with a different coloured shoulder flash, only obtainable through Club/County/Region/GNAS, with proper certificate)
At which the second question becomes relevant. But different

Sounds a bit complicated FF

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Max

The story I heard from someone who was at the Masters was that MB would be raised "significantly above 1300" in order to protect the exclusivity of the competition. If that is the case then it stinks.

An MB requirement of 1300 and GMB of 1350 represent an increase of only 1.8% on the current score levels, or less than 2 points per dozen on a 12 dozen round. Not a lot in theory but I agree that, in pratice, this will be hard to achieve for many archers.

That said, it should be hard to achieve, or what's the point of having a classification system in the first place?

It took me three years of effort and continual frustration to make MB. However, once there, I rarely seemed to shoot below an MB score and GMB came along very shortly afterwards. At GMB score levels, the same seems to apply: once achieved, it seems easy to hang on to.

I'm pretty certain that the scores themselves aren't the problem: the barrier is, in large part, mental/psychological and once you've got over it it ceases to be an issue.

You might argue that "it's easy for me to say", given that I'm already there. But I'm going through exactly the same issue right now with GB selection scores (outdoor anyway). The bar here has been raised too, from what was effectively 2716 (for a Fita and a couple of 720's) to 2740. Now, this increase is less than 1% but, at this level, 1% is a huge difference in performance and one I'm struggling to find right now.

Do I think "it stinks"?. Sometimes, yes, but I completely understand the reasoning behind the change and I actually agree with it. If you don't set the bar high, how will you ever know what you're really capable of?

Will I quit because I can't find the consistency necessary? Like hell will I. I'm the best part of a decade older than most of the people currently shooting qualifying scores and I have a limited window in which to do so, but this just hardens my resolve to discover my limits while I still can. I know what I need to do. It's up to me to find the way to do it.

Classification scores are just another form of competition. If you don't want to compete, don't, and nobody will criticise you for your choice. If you do wan't to compete, surely the object is to measure your performance against others, be they people or objective measures such as scores?

Adam

[Murray]

FF - For recurve I think that FITA 1100/1200/1250/1300 badges (and Rose 900/1000/1100...) are a good "interim" between Bowman/MB/GMB, not to mention personal score/handicap goals. Not sure how this works with compound. The point being, recognition at national level is MB/GMB at other levels, there are other means of making your own personal "steps to success", BUT if you increase the number of "recognised" rewards, then you increase administrative burden all round - something the sport can little afford IMO.

I think Bowman and below work quite well as the progression can be quite rapid, but to get to MB, it requires a lot more commitment and less reliance on external "stages", but more focus on internal targets - increasing averages, setting points goals, and that is, I think, just as it should be...

RGS - I don't think anyone is "slapping down" anyone else - I think you're taking it too personally. It's simple stats.

Just one last comment... if you compare MB and GMB scores with the levels required to be internationally competitive (top 10 in a international event), they're actually quite low

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rgsphoto

I hear that there were plenty of people at the Masters this year, 60 tagets to accomodate the Compound shooters. I suspect a large proportion of them were GMB too. Anyone got any stats on this?

There were 56 gent's compounds of which, by my reckoning, about 19-20 were GMB. Too many, as a proportion, I think (there were 3 more on international duty, and a couple of other absentees), but whether this is because there are just too many, or because not all of the eligible MBs were there, I can't say.

Adam

Originally Posted by Murray

RGS - I don't think anyone is "slapping down" anyone else - I think you're taking it too personally. It's simple stats.

You are probably right Murray, I can get on my high horse with anything to do with officialdom. What will be will be, it's nice to see a bit of perspective and opinion on this. All very valid points. I better get practicing some more