Indoor Outdoor Equivalent class / score?

[radsbow]

Hi All,</p>

Is there a rough equivalent score#for Bowman standard that I should be shooting indoors on a Portsmouth round? Is there a way to work it out?</p>

All help appreciated </p>

[Shirt]

For a 1050 - 1100 FITA, around 550 for a gent and 540 for a lady.

NB: The handicap tables do NOT work comparing indoors and out, you do not have the same handicap for both (usually)- if you can shoot a 1315 Gents FITA, you'd be looking for more than a 590 Portsmouth. Equally, if you can shoot a 500 Portsmouth you should be able to do more than an 800 Gents FITA.

[Little Miss Purple]

I haven't shot any FITA rounds so I'm not up on what a good or bad score is. Have I got it right in that 540 for a woman shooting a Portsmouth is the equivalent to bowman??

[Murray]

Comparing outdoor to indoor scores is pointless and pretty much impossible - different game, different standards.

I'd suggest a "reasonable" standard for Portsmouth is 540-560.

[Furface]

While I agree at the top and bottom end of the scale, I have always been struck how the handicaps of my club members in the 40-60 range tend to be consistent indoor and out.
There is also the little-used set of Indoor "classifications" which can give a hint (if I only knew what it was!). They are also based, like the outdoor ones, on the percentage of submitted scores at the time of asking, and (I seem to remember) followed a similar distribution. However, as there are 8 indoor steps, compared with the six outdoor, there is no direct correlation.
As for saying 540 - 560 is "Reasonable", I would like to know Murray's range for "Good", "Very Good", "Excellent" and "Top Hole"! After years of struggle I would hate to feel that all my scores were "less than reasonable"

[Shirt]

Furface - I have a suspicion that most of those people will shoot a lot of "short" rounds - Westerns, FITA 900s, etc - short distance stuff, where there is a degree of comparability, since the difference between 30m and a Portsmouth is really not much (although my 30m still sucks something chronic).

[Furface]

That's an interesting thought - and even if they (we!) do branch out into the longer distances, the depressing (in both senses) effect of moderate technique means that one's handicap does not get affected.
So this will also explain another phenomenon, that the Classification becomes a better indicator of progress than the handicap, even though it is less granular. I can think of at least one recent compound archer at my club who reduced his handicap greatly, but usually when he shot Short Metrics for postals. Has since given up, after the frustration of not being able to match his handicap at FITAs.
So, thinking on the paw, those perenially stuck in the 50-40 handicap range are probably better served by a complete technique overhall than a more evolutionary approach. And this would probably benefit from using a weaker bow, rather than the more frequent approach of getting more powerful new equipment, which would only hide poor technique.

[joetapley]

Going to longer distances technique, equipment setup (and wind) become more critical. Handicap tables are currently skewed with respect to distance so most people will get lower handicaps shooting short distance rounds than shooting longer distance rounds. To get bowman and above class requires shooting the longer distances so there's often a mismatch betwen h'cap and class. There are a fair number of archers who hammer indoor rounds like the Portsmouth but shoot total xxxx outdoors at the longer distances.

You can get away with murder at 20 yards on both equipment and technique.

[Murray]

You can get away with murder at 20 yards on both equipment and technique.

Seconded!

Bear in mind Furface, that classifications levels for each round are based somewhat on the number, and the quality of people shooting them - as we've discussed before!

As for what is good, excellent, etc... it's down to the individual. I didn't infer your scores weren't good, for you. I was talking about what would be "reasonable" for someone who was Bowman class outdoors (as that seemed to be the question). Of course, if you're 1st class, or 2nd class, a "reasonable" Portsmouth is a very different score, and there is a WIDE range of difference between the top end of Bowman and the bottom, which is another good reason not to cross compare, but since you ask...

IMO A good Portsmouth score score for a Bowman-level archer woule be 560+
An excellent Portsmouth score score for a Bowman-level archer woule be 575+
A top-hole (!) Portsmouth score score for a Bowman-level archer woule be 582+

All finger in the air, gut feel, completely subjective and without any basis in fact or fiction! YMMV!!!