Who is the better archer

[pwiles1968]

Originally Posted by geoffretired

Groups but not tight ones is often a refinement of technique problem.

Or Equipement.

It is a really interesting discussion, who is better the one with more hits or less misses.

[SimonW]

Originally Posted by pwiles1968

.....
It is a really interesting discussion, who is better the one with more hits or less misses.

err. surely they're (effectively) the same thing:

A has 144 hits, 0 misses vs. B has 142 hits, 2 misses

A wins because he has more hits than B
A wins because he has less misses than B

Simon

I was shooting a week or so ago down the club at 80yds with a small piece (5cm) of white paper roughly in the centre.

Very difficult to hit it (I hit it twice in 3 dozen arrows), not so hard to get within 1" or so. Kind of like being at the fairground when you're trying to throw a ring over something to win a prize.

But it really did focus the mind on shooting only the perfect shot. I had to aim properly (I have a tendancy to allow the sight to drift to low 9) and then shoot a strong shot. Anything pulled was never going to hit the paper.

My point though is that 34 of my arrows missed. I hit with only 2 of them. I think if I only practiced like this that my score (on a normal face) would improve (or I would give up 'cause it was too hard). I find it very easy to shoot arrows that are never going to hit the 10 but be happy with a 9 or a strong 8.

[geoffretired]

SimonW you got some interesting ideas there. Trying to hit something is very different,I feel, from trying to get close to, and grading the distance between.
We used to shoot at sticks in the ground(splitting the wand) It is not that easy but you do improve once you realise that there are no near hits!
It would make for an interesting competition I feel.
The mental aspect is also fascinating-were you serious when you said you'd "Give up because it's too hard?"
Two hits isn't a huge percentage, but was that not offset by the huge excitement when you did?

[Murray]

Originally Posted by Woodie

Who is the better archer with the same score?

The one who buys the beers in the bar afterwards

[SimonW]

Originally Posted by geoffretired

......The mental aspect is also fascinating-were you serious when you said you'd "Give up because it's too hard?"
Two hits isn't a huge percentage, but was that not offset by the huge excitement when you did?

No, I never give up, I just curse a bit!!

You're right. The satisfaction of 1 hit was worth all the misses. After all, if it took that many misses (no matter how close they were), it must have been hard (for me) and so worth it when I did succeed.

The more I think about this aspect (and I, like many of us reading this and similar threads have obviously been thinking) I think that it would be very useful for me to practice like this.

I would rather come away from a practice session with a "5 hits today" stat than a general feeling that I was shooting well, grouping well, scoring OK.

I've shot a very small amount of field archery and find that relatively I'm better at this than target. The "only 1 shot here" aspect makes me shoot a good arrow.

This is not to say I don't like target, nor to say that I don't like conventional scoring.

Food for thought.

Simon

(who moves house tomorrow so hasn't shot since last friday. boxes everywhere but at least my archery kit is well packed)

[Rik]

This touches on a discussion I had with Steve Ellison (many) years ago. Is it better to get a particular score by shooting lots of tens and a few duff shots, or by shooting lots of average shots?
His take at the time was that it would be easier to fix the 'few bad mistakes' than many 'not so bad mistakes'. If you're getting the tens, you can focus on making the few non-tens better. If you're not getting the tens, then you've got an issue of general improvement (maybe something fundamental) to deal with. I've heard people say 'it's better to focus on getting groups than tens', but, if you're getting tens, then you are getting groups... and in the right place too.

My personal feeling is that tens are a good indicator of potential if nothing else. The person hitting more tens has more 'headroom' in their score.

[pwiles1968]

Originally Posted by SimonW

err. surely they're (effectively) the same thing:

A has 144 hits, 0 misses vs. B has 142 hits, 2 misses

A wins because he has more hits than B
A wins because he has less misses than B

Simon

By Hits I meant Golds/10's Misses Could also read Low Scores.

If the score was the same chances are B got more tens or Golds so he would have won ?

[Woodie]

Originally Posted by Murray

The one who buys the beers in the bar afterwards

You can be the better archer any time. See you in the bar.

[Furface]

Originally Posted by Rik

My personal feeling is that tens are a good indicator of potential if nothing else. The person hitting more tens has more 'headroom' in their score.

But tens can be misleading too. I'm sure we all know archers who have managed to reach a scoring level despite poor technique, and only admit to having occasional poor shots. But they cannot understand why they cannot get past that level. In fact it is the "poor shots" that are good (showing they have potential) and it is the combination of errors that they have learnt to cope with that gets arrows in the ten, but does not provide a foundation for improvement. (And these archers tend to be the ones who say they don't need a coach, because all the coaches they have worked with in the past have stopped them hitting the ten!)

[Big Boy Blue]

This scenario is a snap shot of a moving picture. I don't think you can say who is the better archer. The only thing you can ask is "who was the better archer on the day ?"

I now that I most definately have better days than others, giving a very different impression on how good or bad I am.

Fingers croosed for Sunday then