A FITA 90m round...?

This thread is about what steps FITA might have to take in future to make the sport more challenging for top class archers competing at the highest levels, in order to make separating them a little easier than at present.

Therefore a discussion of steps that might be taken to achieve this is in order and in any event, FITA will do what it thinks is best regardless of what we may think, so I wouldn't panic about it. Ordinary archers will just have to follow along.

Even then it probably won't make much difference, because when the ISSF made the international small bore rifle and air rifle targets smaller, with tinier tens, the top shooters were soon achieving possibles again. It's the nature of the beast.

[morphymick]

Originally Posted by disbloke

OK so more than one person has been getting a bit carried away with my comment that using X 10 9 means you are less likely to have have tie. I have to say though that Adam states his tie with Chris White was only for the 30m distance not the overall FITA round.

Below is a section of the FITA rules regarding tie breaks in Elimination matches:
For ties deciding the entrance to the Elimination Rounds, or in matches deciding the
progress from one stage of the competition to the next, or for deciding the medal
placements after match play competition, there will be shoot-offs to break the ties
(the system of the number of 10’s and X’s will not be used):

Then below how a tie is broken:

• A single arrow shoot-off for score (maximum of three shootoffs);
• If there is still a tie in the third shoot-off, the arrow closest to
the center of the target face will resolve the tie; or
• Successive single arrow nearest-to-the-center shoot-offs, until
the tie is resolved.

So to sum up, in International events as the Elimination round is used you could then be knocked out, using the inner 10 rule, by putting all 6 arrows in the large ten and your opponent scattering all over the 9 but clips one into the X.

Is it just me that's confused here?

6x10=60, 5x9+1x10=55.

Mick

[JohnK]

Originally Posted by morphymick

Is it just me that's confused here?

6x10=60, 5x9+1x10=55.

If the inner ten is used, an archer could put all their arrows in the recurve ten without an X, but lose to someone with a single X and five scattered 9s. In other words, the poorer group wins.

So: 6x9=54 and 5x9+10=55

[morphymick]

Ah, finally twigged what you're on about, only scoring 10's using the compound 10.

Yep, that system sucks.

Mick

[GeoffT]

Here is my pennyworth to the debate:

Only scoring 10 for the inner ring did not work because the 9 becomes enormous.

Using a smaller face for compounds has some merit, but stops recurve and compounders shooting on the same target. (bad idea)

Scoring lower for a line cutter...I have advocated this for some time. Will get rid of target destroying fat arrows indoors.

Maybe an X should actually count as 11?

[SimonW]

I just did a quick comparison of a recent fita 70m round

1st 1391
2nd 1379
3rd 1374
4th 1373
5th 1371
6th 1370
7th 1341
8th 1337

this becomes (only scoring X as a 10)

1st 1333
2nd 1331
3rd 1326
4th 1325 (was 6th)
5th 1323 (was 4th)
6th 1320 (was 5th)
7th 1299 (was 8th)
8th 1294 (was 7th)

So, no big turnaround and in fact even closer.

So, why should compound archers get upset only scoring X as 10?

Obviously scores are lower.

But ..... the challenge is greater. Afterall, the objective of any shooting discipline is to hit what you are aiming at. This should be the highest scoring zone at the centre of the target.

For me, when I'm shooting well (usually in practice at the moment!!) I know that a decent shot will be a 9 or better at 70m. But, shooting a 10 is a lot more difficult - this requires a very good shot. I can shoot bad 9's but I don't get many bad 10's.

From what I've seen, a reasonable compound archer can virtually guarantee to shot a 9 or better all day at 70m. A good compound archer will shoot 3 or more 10's every end. But, hitting the X still requires a very good shot.

If an archer shoots 5 arrows in the 10, then probably 2 of them will be an X (on average).

Again compare this to the results from above

1st 40 X's out of 98 (41%)
2nd 40 X's out of 88 (46%)
3rd 32 X's out of 80 (38%)
4th 31 X's out of 81 (41%)
5th 34 X's out of 85 (40%)
6th 37 X's out of 82 (45%)
7th 17 X's out of 64 (27%)
8th 26 X's out of 64 (41%)

So, the chance that a lucky X will beat the consistent archer who is grouping in the 10 is reduced (but, the chance is there with the new format H2H rounds. 12 arrows is all it takes now to knock out the first seed ....)

So, why are people so against this?

I read both your posts Marcus. The bit I can't see (sorry) is why people lose interest when you make something harder. Surely making something harder makes it more worthwhile when you achieve it? And, it's not as if hitting the X is impossibly hard (well, maybe at 90m!!).

Simon

[joetapley]

I suggested on Sagi some time ago that there was an argument for reducing face size see http://sagittarius.student.utwente.n...thens&start=30

The argument against was that arrows currently have so much inherent variability in behaviour that a reduction in face size would just make competitions more of a lottery then they currently are.

[pwiles1968]

I would not mind seeing a Fita 90 in the lineup especially if you could qualify for a Bowman Classification shooting one .

[joetapley]

Can't see why you shouldn't be able to get bowman shooting a FITA 70. It's supposed to me a measure of skill not distance. By all accounts doubling a FITA 70 is a good measure of a FITA score. (Works well for me also).

[GeoffT]

Originally Posted by SimonW

So, why are people so against this?

I read both your posts Marcus. The bit I can't see (sorry) is why people lose interest when you make something harder. Surely making something harder makes it more worthwhile when you achieve it? And, it's not as if hitting the X is impossibly hard (well, maybe at 90m!!).

Simon

I'm with Marcus on this. That nine is just too big with only Xs scoring a ten.