New GNAS longbow classifications!

[NobleKnight]

I just get the new Gnas longbow classifications for outdoor target - and they are much smaller than the previous!!!

As example the old one:

http://www.wrexhambowmen.co.uk/LongbowClasses.gif

As example the old York classifications (for gents):

511
450
390
308
194
127

And the brand new one from GNAS (April 2008)(York\Gents):

450
362
236
142
89
46

So according to this, my 2 class suddenly becomes "Bowman"

Can anybody explain why the tables were changed (so greatly)...

[Furface]

The original tables were very much "finger in the air" stuff, based on a relatively small sample. When we collected the data last year (or so) the sample was much larger and allowed us to form a consistent view that the original levels were much too high. We hope that the new levels will more accurately reflect the relative percentages among longbowmen.
On a related topic, we are getting several "observations" about the levels set for juniors. Again, in the latest data trawl, we received very few scores from junior archers, particularly in the lower age ranges. What scores we did receive from the youngest were inconsistent, which is possibly the nature of the beast. Anyway, we did not have enough scores on which to base a full set of tables. So, rather than leave junior longbowmen out altogether, or say there are no classifications for the younger groups, we took the decision to have just one set of scores across the age bands. This, in turn, meant that, confusingly, some of the scores required for longbow classifications in the younger groups are actually higher than their recurve equivalents. But we felt that it was better to have something than nothing. Hopefully, when the next revision comes round in a few years, there will be more scores, enough to make a reasoned reassessment.

[Snarkhunter]

Originally Posted by Furface

...Hopefully, when the next revision comes round in a few years, there will be more scores, enough to make a reasoned reassessment.

By which time the poor under 12 year-olds - like my son - who are having to shoot under 18 scores will be... in the under 18 age group!

Even pegging the scores level with the recurve scores would have given the younger longbow archers a more reasonable chance.

Can I offer the results for the Junior Windsor round at the Bowmen of Burleigh Junior Open last weekend as an example:

Longbow
Female
Junior U13

210

Longbow
Male
Junior U12

387

Longbow
Male
Junior U12

341

Recurve
Female
Junior U13

588

Recurve
Female
Junior U13

356

Recurve
Male
Junior U12

847

Recurve
Male
Junior U12

602

Recurve
Male
Junior U12

557

Recurve
Male
Junior U12

527

Recurve
Male
Junior U12

172

For the Recurve, the results were for the boys one unclassified, three 1st class and one junior Bowman score while for the girls in was one 2nd class and one first class.

In the longbow, however, the two boys shot 3rd class scores, the girl was unclassified. To gain a first class score, a boy would have to shoot 535 for the round! (By contrast, the score for first class required by adult longbow man shooting an Albion round is more than 60% less than that required for recurve. For U12 longbow it is 25% more.)

I appreciate the limitations of the data available and the relative numbers involved, but I still feel that some effort could have been made to differentiate the scores for the different age groups and that some revisions should be made sooner rather than later.

<soapbox: dismount>

[SVL]

I have had similar thoughts when looking at the score requirements for junior U12 scores accross the range of bow styles.

It is difficult to understand how good these data are given that I don't know what the cohort size is for each group. I do understand that in some groups there was not enough data to make a statistical assessment. In some instances the BB scores are higher than the recurve scores and as already stated there is no data for junior longbow archers.

The idea of working on percentages of recurve equivalents, is interesting but then you first need to know if the junior recurve data that you might base your percentages on is statistically significant, especially for the younger age groups. I reckon in some cases the BB data might actually be the best available. This idea also means you would have two potentail datasets one based on a robust statistical analysis and another being estiamated. Mixing datasets is not always the best idea.

Given that GNAS now know what areas had a significant lack of data then I think it would be worth asking for more feedback this year from the junior members so that specific junior data (i.e. only that which had a very low cohort size ) could be recalculated and updated as appropriate. Asking for data every few years might not be best as you will still have the group size issue, but combining annually collected data over a few years might be the solution, in order to obtain a better data analysis.

[Snarkhunter]

Originally Posted by SVL

Given that GNAS now know what areas had a significant lack of data then I think it would be worth asking for more feedback this year from the junior members so that specific junior data (i.e. only that which had a very low cohort size ) could be recalculated and updated as appropriate. Asking for data every few years might not be best as you will still have the group size issue, but combining annually collected data over a few years might be the solution, in order to obtain a better data analysis.

I agree: records offices in clubs would have a great deal more data than could ever be obtained from tournaments. As much (if not virtually all) of this will be held electronically, it must be possible to collect much of this in reasonably-usable formats should GNAS care to ask for it.

Your comment about Barebow is interesting: many young archers struggle with sights (a combination of the counter-intuitive way sights move coupled with the problems inherent in so many of the cheap/junior sight) and may well be effectively, if not actually, shooting barebow.

However, as sights are not compulsory, barebow (recurve) archers always have the option of submitting their scores under recurve, something that those shooting longbow cannot do.

[SVL]

Originally Posted by Snarkhunter

However, as sights are not compulsory, barebow (recurve) archers always have the option of submitting their scores under recurve, something that those shooting longbow cannot do.

Intersting thought....... but....... if the BB data is based on a reasonably sized dataset and you go and use the recurve classifications then you are only kidding yourself (and the junior archer).

My son is eight and a BB archer so we use the BB classifications. [He just got second class and is rightly chuffed]

[Snarkhunter]

Do the barebow classifications suffer from the same issue as the Longbow ones (i.e. the scores are the same for all junior age groups, the only difference is that some classifications are unavailable to older juniors on the shorter rounds)?

[yoda]

i'm getting a longbow if i only need 13 from a new national to get 3rd class.

doesn't the drop in classification scores needed for longbow slightly demean(spelling?) the scores of all those longbowmen/women that have got them in the past?

just curious

yoda

[Little Miss Purple]

Originally Posted by yoda

i'm getting a longbow if i only need 13 from a new national to get 3rd class.

doesn't the drop in classification scores needed for longbow slightly demean(spelling?) the scores of all those longbowmen/women that have got them in the past?

just curious

yoda

The changes in classification have been discussed over & over again... why should many longbow archers miss out on a higher classification just because the bar was set to high originally? As with the compounds.. was it too easy before?? (I certainly think MB was too easy... but thats just my opinion).

Maybe the changes in scores will encourage more archers to compete with their sticks giving a rounder picture and the classifications can be reduced!!

[NobleKnight]

It will encourage!
That means, as we use the GNAS tables, we have 3 bowmen and plenty of 1 class archers at Russian Longbow Club )))) 450 to make GMB is not so bad at all!!!