Compound in the olympics?

[Tegs]

What do you think, should compound bows be allowed to be shot in the olympics?

My thoughts on this is that yes they should. The reason being that is that from recurve it's a whole diffrent ball game. It's stupid to compare the two because thats like comparing netball to basketball. Their both tricky in their own way.

[shooting_star]

I think the reason why compound isn't in the olympics is because in order for to apply to the olympic committee who decides what sports are in the olympics, you would have to take recurve out of it, and then apply to put both recurve and compound in. Several people have told me that they don't think the olympic committee would put recurve back in if it was taken out.

But i do think it would be good to have compound in the olympics, but i think it is in the next commonwealth games isn't it? so thats a good thing!

[Purple Hats]

We're getting there...

I think that is part of the reason, although it seems just a tad unreasonable when there's millions of different kinds of swimming in the olympics, and they can't even stretch it to 2 different types of archery. Money and spectators, neither of which archery has.

[Hannah]

I don't understand why you would have to withdraw the nomination for recurve in the olympics to put in a bid for compound to enter...doesn't make much sense to me.

However, provided that entering compound in the Olympics became an option, compound would have to prove that it was sufficiently different to recurve to make it enticing. Otherwise, from a spectator's point of view (enter layman here if you wish), there is no difference except that one has funny wheelie thingoes on the ends where the other doesn't.

PS - compound in the Olympics would be wonderful!

[Hannah]

We're getting there...

I think that is part of the reason, although it seems just a tad unreasonable when there's millions of different kinds of swimming in the olympics, and they can't even stretch it to 2 different types of archery. Money and spectators, neither of which archery has.
The question then needs to be asked WHY doesn't archery have the money and the spectators...doesn't money come before spectators because people like seeing something "on the line" before they will think that it is interesting? You can sell anything which is exemplified by golf and poker...hell, all poker has is the mental aspect of the game...the rest is just mathematics!

IMO the reason there is no money in the sport is because there seems to be a prevailing mentality which states that we only shoot arrows for fun...and that is all that is okay. Quite frankly this is just stating the obvious (because we wouldn't do it if we didn't enjoy it for one reason or another) and making it easier for people not to attend tournaments - another reason why money is not in the sport...which is attendance. Circular argument really.

[burt666]

The question then needs to be asked WHY doesn't archery have the money and the spectators...doesn't money come before spectators because people like seeing something "on the line" before they will think that it is interesting? You can sell anything which is exemplified by golf and poker...hell, all poker has is the mental aspect of the game...the rest is just mathematics!



I'd say that our sport got 0% of strategy/tactics to it, and that where the problem lies a bit...

it doesn't leave much to comment on in the sport section of the paper, doesn't leave much to a tv commentator appart of " OMG he shoot an eight, could it be the end for him?"...

[gt]

I don't understand why you would have to withdraw the nomination for recurve in the olympics to put in a bid for compound to enter...doesn't make much sense to me.

However, provided that entering compound in the Olympics became an option, compound would have to prove that it was sufficiently different to recurve to make it enticing. Otherwise, from a spectator's point of view (enter layman here if you wish), there is no difference except that one has funny wheelie thingoes on the ends where the other doesn't.

PS - compound in the Olympics would be wonderful!

1. The reason is that the Summer games have grown excessively large, so the IOC has placed a cap upon participant levels. Nothing can be added without removing something else.

2. Actually, spectators (those who buy tickets from the general public, as opposed to archers) tend to look at recurves as "real bows" and don't see compounds as representative of archery from a layman's point of view. It is surprising but true.

3. I am curious, what specifically do you feel would be wonderful about it?

[reversehaven]

3. I am curious, what specifically do you feel would be wonderful about it?

i mean like why not? it's just the same as having recurve in the olympics. Except that right now, compound shooters can enjoy the same thrill of having the chance to participate in the greatest games in the world.


I'd say that our sport got 0% of strategy/tactics to it, and that where the problem lies a bit...

it doesn't leave much to comment on in the sport section of the paper, doesn't leave much to a tv commentator appart of " OMG he shoot an eight, could it be the end for him?"...

lol. there is! why do you think we have stabiliser rods for? the strategy is to bludgeon your opponent on the head or stuff it up his *** if you end up hitting an 8!

'will it be the end of him? NO! he has chosen to start stuffing his stabiliser! the crowd roars!'

uh yeah. you're right. Team event is probably the only thing that has what little strategy or tactics. yet there again it isn't dynamic stretegising, meaning to say you don't need to change your formation of who shoots first second or third according to how your opponents lay out their configuration. you only lay it out according to stuff like john shoots third cuz he shoots best under pressure and under a ticking clock that says ten seconds left kind of thing.

[James Park]

So, we need a new rule for matchplay: you are allowed one "gotcha" per match?

[2Dogs]

Well I say leave it out.

Recurve requires serious training and dedication to get to the level required to attend an Olympics. And don't give me that crap that Compounders train just as hard as recurve at the elite level. It's like chalk and cheese.

Us Compounders just press a trigger. :)

In a prefect world where we could put both into the Olympics.....great. But at the risk of losing Recurve all together from them, I say forget it.

Want to go to the Olympics...... learn to shoot a real bow ;)

[James Park]

Us Compounders just press a trigger. :)
;)
Last I saw, you had given em up (or have you reverted to a different model Carter?).

[2Dogs]

actually I'm just doing a recurve impersonation with wheels ;)

[Eberbachl]

Well I say leave it out.

Recurve requires serious training and dedication to get to the level required to attend an Olympics. And don't give me that crap that Compounders train just as hard as recurve at the elite level. It's like chalk and cheese.

Us Compounders just press a trigger. :)

In a prefect world where we could put both into the Olympics.....great. But at the risk of losing Recurve all together from them, I say forget it.

Want to go to the Olympics...... learn to shoot a real bow ;)

Trigger?

What trigger?

:p

I agree. It would be a shame to see a puncher win the olympics :rofl:

[GuyDawg9]

Well I say leave it out.

Recurve requires serious training and dedication to get to the level required to attend an Olympics. And don't give me that crap that Compounders train just as hard as recurve at the elite level. It's like chalk and cheese.

Us Compounders just press a trigger. :)

In a prefect world where we could put both into the Olympics.....great. But at the risk of losing Recurve all together from them, I say forget it.

Want to go to the Olympics...... learn to shoot a real bow ;)

yeah dude i agree though if both could be in that would be cool

[ReG_C]

if they want to put compounders in the olympics, why not give them a field shoot instead of a matchplay, interesting angle shots, different camera views, etc, etc, spice it up a little, as opposed to just a matchplay event (not that there is anything wrong with that, let me get that clear)
mix power-walking with archery, or introduce the run-archery discipline
there are lots of options to add some 'action' to olympic archery

[Archangel]

Field archery is bloody hard to spectatorise compared to matchplay.

Run-archery isn't very strongly followed AFAIK, which gives them about zero chance of getting into the Games.

And anyway, Olympic archery doesn't actually need any "action" added. There's nothing wrong with what's there.

[James Park]

It is important to remember that the Olympics is not there for the athletes. That is: just because we compounders would like to be included is by no means adequate or good reason to do so.
Ultimately, the Olympics is there to create good television and advertising opportunities - the athletes are a necessary and annoying consequence of that.
Hence, "because we want it" will never work. The arguement will always need to be related to why having a particular sport, or aspect of a sport, enhances the reputation and appeal of the Olympics as a whole to the mass public who might possibly purchase the things the ads cover.

[ReG_C]

live, yes, it would be difficult :) but for television, it would be heaps good

[Hannah]

It is important to remember that the Olympics is not there for the athletes. That is: just because we compounders would like to be included is by no means adequate or good reason to do so.
Ultimately, the Olympics is there to create good television and advertising opportunities - the athletes are a necessary and annoying consequence of that.
Hence, "because we want it" will never work. The arguement will always need to be related to why having a particular sport, or aspect of a sport, enhances the reputation and appeal of the Olympics as a whole to the mass public who might possibly purchase the things the ads cover.
Agreed, and to do that we would need to raise the profile of compound archery outside of the Olympics before it would ever be considered. I also agree that if putting compound in means taking recurve out then it should not be pursued.

gt - as a compounder I would love to have the opportunity to go to the olympics. Sure I could pick up a recurve and try my luck with that - or any other sport for that matter, but at the moment my heart (and therefore any aspirations I may have) lie with compound. I haven't yet reached the level where any international competition is even a viable option, but it would be great to have that option. However, I also understand that there needs to be a coherent argument (just like anything) as to why the status quo would change...thus the PS :) I dare say that I am not the only one who would think that having the ability to compete in the Olympics would be wonderful...the pressure would be fantastic!

Interesting point about most people considering that recurve are "proper" bows - that would just come down to publicity...which ironically may have something to do with its inclusion in the Olympics :lol:

[Tegs]

In order to get money into the sport we need to attract peoples attention! Maybe something like team match play would be funnier for people to watch. Having field would be a great idea but people wouldn't pay to go watch archery in the bush unless you loved the sport.

You could give the archers let say 1 minute to shoot as many arrows as possible that would be more heart pounding and thrilling i guess!

[Brocky]

It is an interesting discussion.
As a recurver that has never shot a compound I must ask.
What could compound bring to the Olympics over recurve from a observing point of view.
I then have to ask outside of archery how many people do you know that understands what back tension, clicker or good realise are all about?
Look at sports like swimming, golf, cricket, football, lawn bowls even darts,whats the one thing they have in common.
If and when on TV, radio or what ever it is explained to the general public what stoke, swing ect is being used.
How many archery events that have been in the media have stimulated the public by explaining the different steps needed to obtain a 10 or how many people know what tuning is. Maybe we should generate interset in the general publics outlook at the sport and show that it is harder than they believe.

[2Dogs]

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zz..........Brocky the Archery Commentator ;)

[Brocky]

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zz..........Brocky the Archery Commentator ;)
I'm in.
The One: 10 10 10. 4thdog 9 9 9 ;)

[cschach]

Its sad really.

I find lawn bowls far more interesting to watch than archery.... and lawn bowls is pretty bloody boring.

With lawn bowls, you get a sort of sadistic pleasure out of seeing a guy that has meticulously put together a handful of bowls closest to the jack being wiped away with a single drive by his opponent.

There is nothing like that in archery. Nothing for the casual observer.

What I like about watching many sports is being able to become an instant expert. You can become an "expert" in judging diving or gymnastics in a matter of minutes. Can't really do that in archery.....

...So, he got an 8. He must of, I don't know, missed I guess. Boring, boring, BORING.

Love to go to the Olympics though. Can't they just put us at some scrappy patch of dirt somewhere. We don't need spectators or TV or anything really. Just a few measly medals- fake ones would do. You all know the kind I mean. Metal coated plastic - thats what we're used to:)

[Clare Barnes]

I'm in.
The One: 10 10 10.

You amateur archery commentator! Don't you know the correct term is bullseye!! :rolleyes: ;)

(It's ok gt, I know you had to say it! :D)

[Brocky]

You amateur archery commentator! Don't you know the correct term is bullseye!! :rolleyes: ;)
Sorry it should have been
The One Bullseye Bullseye Bullseye
4dogs Gold Gold Gold
Taking 4th place out of the medals;)
The One takes out the Bronze medal here in China :thumb:

[2Dogs]

Nah....history shows 2Dogs has a track record of flogging Kiwi's ;)

So this is for you Brockette :fist: ....



:D

[wysper]

Having field would be a great idea but people wouldn't pay to go watch archery in the bush unless you loved the sport.



Good point, but people watch golf and follow the golfers round the course. Maybe a field course could be set up in a similar way?

And people line the couses of marathons, nordic cross country skiing etc.
I guess the trick is to lift the profile, create the interest and then ca$h in on it.

Of course that is easy for me to say - and quite a bit harder to do :o

[ReG_C]

Good point, but people watch golf and follow the golfers round the course. Maybe a field course could be set up in a similar way?

And people line the couses of marathons, nordic cross country skiing etc.
I guess the trick is to lift the profile, create the interest and then ca$h in on it.

Of course that is easy for me to say - and quite a bit harder to do :o

It would be a little harder to accomplish, but it puts the competition in a new perspective for the public, instead of lined up, in front of a target, lets make it a little harder, we could even introduce moving targets

[Eberbachl]

We don't need spectators or TV or anything really. Just a few measly medals- fake ones would do. You all know the kind I mean. Metal coated plastic - thats what we're used to:)

Hey - how 'bout those chocolate medals with the gold foil?

They'd do...and if you get hungry on the trip home, that's taken care of too! :D

[ReG_C]

Hey - how 'bout those chocolate medals with the gold foil?

They'd do...and if you get hungry on the trip home, that's taken care of too! :D

LOL - I agree totally :thumb:

[Marcus]

It would be a little harder to accomplish, but it puts the competition in a new perspective for the public, instead of lined up, in front of a target, lets make it a little harder, we could even introduce moving targets
World field finals are setup this way. Being able to stand next to the target that Clint Freeman and Dave Cousins were shooting off against was very cool.

[Brocky]

Nah....history shows 2Dogs has a track record of flogging Kiwi's ;)

So this is for you Brockette :fist: ....



:D
:rofl:

[reversehaven]

It would be a little harder to accomplish, but it puts the competition in a new perspective for the public, instead of lined up, in front of a target, lets make it a little harder, we could even introduce moving targets

well, actually i had in my own free time on the bus had wild imaginations of mass events where each archer gets to shoot one out of say, sixteen targets for knockout. each participating archer has one target, but he/she doesn't shoot that target. Instead, once he/she gets three hits in the yellow/x he/she is out. something like survivor. Sounds like fun, but it isn't very internationally friendly. Each shot could affect international diplomatic ties. or at least, worsen a conflict.

[shooting_star]

The question then needs to be asked WHY doesn't archery have the money and the spectators...doesn't money come before spectators because people like seeing something "on the line" before they will think that it is interesting? You can sell anything which is exemplified by golf and poker...hell, all poker has is the mental aspect of the game...the rest is just mathematics!.

At the Athens olympics the archery was really packed, but the on the tv, it mostly only showed the side of the stand with the sun, which everyone was avoiding, because it was so hot. Archery was one of the top sports for spectators there.

[Clare Barnes]

At the Athens olympics the archery was really packed...

It was? :-?

[Hannah]

Isn't this all just a matter of perspective? We all sit back and say that archery is not spectator friendly - and it is certainly no football match - but at DVA I regularly see people wander over for a look at what we are doing, and they have stayed there for at least a 1/2 hour...ranging to hours (which is beyond me as to why). I also think that the easiest way to make people assume that archery is difficult is to make it valuable in terms of prize money...think golf. This is not a thrilling game, the commentators do their best, but have nothing to work with, but it is one of the highest paying sports at the top levels. People don't listen to commentators and they never will. It is up to the sport to create the interest, and this is usually tied up with how much money is on offer.

Of course, this is all off topic of the Olympics because there is no prize money per se...but there sure as hell is a lot of kudos ;) However, it relates because the more money the more interest (unfortunately this also means more pompous gits as well :rolleyes:)

In terms of what compound can bring to the Olympics, the answer in short is not much. However, with a little bit of imagination and more than a little bit of work it is possible that it could be done.

[2Dogs]

Hannah.....you talk too much :)

Go cook your husband dinner

[Hannah]

Hannah.....you talk too much :)

Go cook your husband dinner
He's in Sydney and I am at work...better luck next time :)

[2Dogs]

Well go cook your backup Husband dinner ;)

[Hannah]

Well go cook your backup Husband dinner ;)
And who would that be?

do you really think I would give that away on the internet :P

[2Dogs]

I'll keep monitoring your emails and tell you :D

[Hannah]

:lol: I would have to give you access first ;)

[Liam]

Isn't this all just a matter of perspective? We all sit back and say that archery is not spectator friendly - and it is certainly no football match - but at DVA I regularly see people wander over for a look at what we are doing, and they have stayed there for at least a 1/2 hour...ranging to hours (which is beyond me as to why). I also think that the easiest way to make people assume that archery is difficult is to make it valuable in terms of prize money...think golf. This is not a thrilling game, the commentators do their best, but have nothing to work with, but it is one of the highest paying sports at the top levels. People don't listen to commentators and they never will. It is up to the sport to create the interest, and this is usually tied up with how much money is on offer.

Of course, this is all off topic of the Olympics because there is no prize money per se...but there sure as hell is a lot of kudos ;) However, it relates because the more money the more interest (unfortunately this also means more pompous gits as well :rolleyes:)

In terms of what compound can bring to the Olympics, the answer in short is not much. However, with a little bit of imagination and more than a little bit of work it is possible that it could be done.

With MAC being next too a cricket club and a pool, we get people like that too. But I can only remember one person who actually seemed interested enough to join. (Most people just watch from a distance.)

[Hannah]

With MAC being next too a cricket club and a pool, we get people like that too. But I can only remember one person who actually seemed interested enough to join. (Most people just watch from a distance.)
Who said spectators needed to do anything else? Aren't these the best kinds of spectators...just happy to watch? Man, if they all wanted to join in, then there would be no spectators!

[reversehaven]

And who would that be?

ME!

the big 'un's away, the small 'un's out to play. :silly:

[Purple Hats]

Compound could bring another new level of accuracy to the games - make a thing out of nailing the X rather than the 10. People are always amazed at how accurate archers can be. I think that is one of the main things compound can bring to the Olympics.

Additionally, compound archery is much bigger on the hunting scene (where there is some money already) and the average Joe hunter would be more interested in a compound side of the Olympics too.

If we risk losing archery from the Olympics all together however, then I'd say it's not worth it.

[alexvpaq]

:rofl: ME!

the big 'un's away, the small 'un's out to play. :silly:
XD Watch out for primal if he ever comes by :rofl:

[reversehaven]

:rofl:
XD Watch out for primal if he ever comes by :rofl:

Ssh! not so loud! i'm trying to film my home version of desperate housewives here!

lol. okay though oddly enough i've only seen desperate housewives on ads. never really watched the tv series. :P

[James Hirth]

i say who cares what bow is in the Olympics (Compound would be good) as long as we are in it, we are getting publicity and thats what we need more of so instead of trying to get compound in, and we run the risk of lossing it all together who cares.

[ReG_C]

i agree with james, also the fact that compounds don't need that much publicity in a club environment either

speaking as a member from Box Hill City Archers, we have noticed a decline in members wanting to take up recurve, we have recurvers that change to compound, but not the other way around

so even if it is publicity for just recurve archery, i have no complaints, just more publicity for archery in general would be fantastic

ReG_C :thumb:

[Marcus]

We see about a 50-50 recurve compound take up at our club, however few girls take up compound. We only have 2 junior compound girls

[ReG_C]

that is true from club to club, i believe we have only one, chris's daughter - and she's growing up to be a crakc shot too :D

[Marcus]

yeah female compounders are a rare breed indeed. Looks like Vic has only 2 going to the Nats. :(

Personally I think I would find compound at the olympics pretty dull. 119-118 matches with a compound would be common place, while having a recurver pop in a 7 every now and then is actually more exciting.

Compound field archery in the olympics would be best.

[ReG_C]

yeah female compounders are a rare breed indeed. Looks like Vic has only 2 going to the Nats. :(

Personally I think I would find compound at the olympics pretty dull. 119-118 matches with a compound would be common place, while having a recurver pop in a 7 every now and then is actually more exciting.

Compound field archery in the olympics would be best.

I agree totally, and it would be more involving for spectators too, walking around the course, it would add to the experience :thumb:

[Brocky]

At the Athens olympics the archery was really packed, but the on the tv, it mostly only showed the side of the stand with the sun, which everyone was avoiding, because it was so hot. Archery was one of the top sports for spectators there.
I think you may have it wrong if there are seats in the arena then its not full, however if we look at the growds at the Para's it was full.

[James Hirth]

We see about a 50-50 recurve compound take up at our club, however few girls take up compound. We only have 2 junior compound girls
yea most of the guys at Waverly go to Compound and the 2 girls like recurve

[Craig R]

Forget about it. I'll go out on a limb and say that you will never see Compounds in the Olympics.
The only reason its still in there is because of the Eastons pull within the IOC.
There has been more talk of dropping it all together over the years than there ever has of adding or changing the discipline.
There are just so many other sports out there that the IOC would add first if there was the room that all this talk is nothin more than a dream.
A nice dream but it just aint gonna come true!
Sorry.....

[2Dogs]

Yup....that about sums it up :)

[frommy]

Forget about it. I'll go out on a limb and say that you will never see Compounds in the Olympics.
The only reason its still in there is because of the Eastons pull within the IOC.
There has been more talk of dropping it all together over the years than there ever has of adding or changing the discipline.
There are just so many other sports out there that the IOC would add first if there was the room that all this talk is nothin more than a dream.
A nice dream but it just aint gonna come true!
Sorry.....

Apart from the obvious, that Jim Easton was FITA President AND US Oly delegate to the IOC, I don't disagree with this at all Craig.

And this topic has been previously raised so many times it is not funny.
It will not happen. End of story.

Brian

[Craig R]

However, bring on the Commonwealth games!
This will be about the only chance a compounder will have to get his head on the box any time soon.
For what its worth.
Probably absolutely nuthin!
And I rekon the chance of an old f.....r like me gettin a berth (if I could shoot) would be.... well 2 chances!

[frommy]

Let me guess? Buckleys and Nunn?

:cool:

Like me.

:D

[Hannah]

Forget about it. I'll go out on a limb and say that you will never see Compounds in the Olympics.
The only reason its still in there is because of the Eastons pull within the IOC.
There has been more talk of dropping it all together over the years than there ever has of adding or changing the discipline.
There are just so many other sports out there that the IOC would add first if there was the room that all this talk is nothin more than a dream.
A nice dream but it just aint gonna come true!
Sorry.....
You may be right, indeed I tend to agree with you, but unless we start thinking about publicity and why it is not in the Olympics, it will continue to be the same sport with the same popularity. For me, it is the question of why it is not in the Olympics that warrants consideration - rather than will it ever be there.

[Eberbachl]

Let's face it

Archery is not an exciting sport to watch.

Even for archers.

It's a great sport for participators, but not for spectators. In fact for spectators it's as boring as bat****.

I think the chances of Compound in the Olympics are about as good as me making it there if it was :rofl:

Forget it ;)

Recurve is cool, so let's enjoy it.

:thumb:

[Hannah]

Let's face it

Archery is not an exciting sport to watch.

Even for archers.

It's a great sport for participators, but not for spectators. In fact for spectators it's as boring as bat****.

I think the chances of Compound in the Olympics are about as good as me making it there if it was :rofl:

Forget it ;)

Recurve is cool, so let's enjoy it.

:thumb:
Quite frankly, I find pistol shooting boring to watch, same with discus, shot-put, long-jump, triple jump, javelin, high-jump etc etc. I don't think that is the reason. It is merely an excuse to make us feel better.

[Eberbachl]

Quite frankly, I find pistol shooting boring to watch, same with discus, shot-put, long-jump, triple jump, javelin, high-jump etc etc. I don't think that is the reason. It is merely an excuse to make us feel better.

You may find athletics such as discus, shot-put etc boring, but lot's of people love watching that stuff.

Much more so than archery...

Sorry - that's just the way it is.

;)

[Craig R]

Ok!
I was just trying to be diplomatic.
Let me say, Compounds are NOT going to be in the Olympics any time soon (not in my life time)! No i'm still sitting on the fence, they will NEVER be in it.
And recurve is lucky to still be in there.
Great sport that archery is, it aint gunna happen.
I've been in and out of the sport for 28 years and this discussion has been goin' on the whole time.
If the IOC could it would dump alot of the current sports for high profile, money making, great TV viewing sports, including Archery!
It keeps alot of the current sports for their historical value and because of the political clout(no pun intended) that vested interest have in these sports.
Archery is never going to be big enough for the IOC to want to add another discipline except at the cost of cutting recurve and I wouldn't want to see that(I shoot compound).
Dont get me wrong I'd love to see the sport grow, become popular and attract money to the sport.
But compounds in the Olympics, It aint gonna happen!

But then it wasn't all that long ago they added Syncronized Swimming and I'm stuffed if I know how/why that was ever added?

[2Dogs]

they added Syncronized Swimming and I'm stuffed if I know how/why that was ever added?

Well Pretty Girls in Lycra, prancing around upside down with their legs spread, can have a tremenous effect on the decision making abilities of the powers that be :D

[Marcus]

I thought the archery in Athens was incredible to watch. Many non archers thought so too.
CMB50 told me when he got home from work that 100+ people at his place stopped to watch the archery, but nothing else was as popular.
When Erika got to work the day after the finals there were pictures of Tim on the desktops of some of the computers put there by some of the girls there. They did not know that she knew him.

I think we are archers discount our sport's mass appeal potential, in particular with matchplay. I think we tend to assume that because we hate watching it (because we were likely just eliminated and now hate the sport for a few hours) that the non-archery public would as well.

Matchplay on TV is fantastic, we just got to get it shot more and build up it;s reputation.

Remember, if you tell all your friends that archery is boring to watch, they won't watch it when they get the chance. Talk it up, don't talk it down.

[Eberbachl]

I think a large component of the appeal of Tim and Simon on tele here was the novelty of an "unknown" aussie sports heroe catapaulted to stardom by making it to the finals.

My opinion is that if no Aussies were in the finals, very few people would have been interested in watching it in comparision to many of the other sports.

I agree that matchplay has more spectator potential than watching a FITA however ;)


I thought the archery in Athens was incredible to watch. Many non archers thought so too.
CMB50 told me when he got home from work that 100+ people at his place stopped to watch the archery, but nothing else was as popular.
When Erika got to work the day after the finals there were pictures of Tim on the desktops of some of the computers put there by some of the girls there. They did not know that she knew him.

I think we are archers discount our sport's mass appeal potential, in particular with matchplay. I think we tend to assume that because we hate watching it (because we were likely just eliminated and now hate the sport for a few hours) that the non-archery public would as well.

Matchplay on TV is fantastic, we just got to get it shot more and build up it;s reputation.

Remember, if you tell all your friends that archery is boring to watch, they won't watch it when they get the chance. Talk it up, don't talk it down.

[Marcus]

Absolutely. Swimming is boring as hell, it's having Aussies in it that people want to watch it.
Same with athletics.
Other sports are popular because an aussie is in it. Some do well because they have been promoted for years, like gymnastics.

So, want to make archery popular. Here is Marcus' step by step guide.

1) Drop FITAs.
2) Shoot matchplay competitions, but use a system that gives us more matches.
3) Run competitions in locations that draw a crowd, like in fetes and other community events
4) modernise the uniforms. Make it look sporty
5) produce TV spots using rented video equipment and send in to TV networks.
6) promote the archers, not the sport. No one gives a crap about swimming and the technical aspects. It's the names that make it. We tend to talk more about FITA and bow types and not enough about the personalities.

[burt666]

Absolutely. Swimming is boring as hell, it's having Aussies in it that people want to watch it.
Same with athletics.
Other sports are popular because an aussie is in it. Some do well because they have been promoted for years, like gymnastics.

So, want to make archery popular. Here is Marcus' step by step guide.

1) Drop FITAs.
2) Shoot matchplay competitions, but use a system that gives us more matches.
3) Run competitions in locations that draw a crowd, like in fetes and other community events
4) modernise the uniforms. Make it look sporty
5) produce TV spots using rented video equipment and send in to TV networks.
6) promote the archers, not the sport. No one gives a crap about swimming and the technical aspects. It's the names that make it. We tend to talk more about FITA and bow types and not enough about the personalities.

1) funny, france has been doing that for quite some years now... there is probably 2-3 FITA star per year now over the whole country, and that's for 60.000 archers.
2) yeah, it's all 2 x 70m now, or 2 x 50, + matches after that
3) Nimes international indoor tournament(France) is a good example: very popular, cheerleaders, watts of music blasting away, etc... and some archer are still equalizing WR on those event. can even shoot in jeans (3), and it gets TV coverage (4)
5) yeah why not
6) good idea, but i don't quite see how... would be good to be able to associate personalities with tactics/strategy in the sport, but we really lack the last as i stated before... tho some archers around are really good at self promotion...

[Marcus]

The last one is super easy to do.
I often read shoot reports where they talk about the weather, the volunteers, the fun everyone had, the equipment, the way you score the target etc etc. All BS.
Let write a report from a NBA basketball game done the same way as archery promotes itself.

"it was a cool overcast night as the group of basketballers walked onto the empty stadium and started their shoot around. These players are warming up for the upcoming contest between the Boston Celtics and LA Lakers.
The Celtics in their green and white uniforms looked smart while the LA Lakers in their gold and purple stood well apart.
Once the tip off went great sportsmanship was shown as the players hit numourous shots from outside the 3 point arc. This is a line drawn 23ft from the basket where players can score 3 points instead of 2 points.
Once the game was completed the players shook hands and departed with the Celtics winning 103-101. Later they would all enjoy tea and biscuits with the fabulous volunteers who worked so hard during the event to make it all possible. They looked after the scoring and the floors and the uniforms and made the whole thing just excellent.
Here are 59 pictures of the volunteers standing around.
If you would like to get your family into basketball please contact us on this phone number"

How popular would basketball be if that's how it was reported? Don't laugh, that's how we promote archery.

[James Park]

However:
"Australia's superstar archer Clint Freeman ripped yet another point off the great South Australian archer Pat Coghlin in a mighty display at 90M in Canberra. Thinking he had gained points shooting a magnificant 59, just one point short of all bullseyes in gusty wind Patrick was pretty pleased. However Freeman, the World Record holder, responded to that immense challenge and banged in 6 good ones to move further ahead. Showed part of why Freeman won the World Title in 2003."
"Also in Canberra, Craig Tyson, one of our top Victorian archers was faced with near disaster and dropping many places at 50M when his release device failed to engage. As the clock rapidly ran down he grabbed a spare from Queensland's top archer, 2Dogs, and lobbed three right in the centre, just in time - and gained on those around him. The others were astonished - expecting to see a disaster, they witnessed a miracle."

[2Dogs]

2Dogs was quoted as saying "You prick!, give that freaking release back!"

The infamous 2Dogs was Booed by the crowd, but seemed to thrive on the negative energy.

[Hannah]

The last one is super easy to do.
I often read shoot reports where they talk about the weather, the volunteers, the fun everyone had, the equipment, the way you score the target etc etc. All BS.
Let write a report from a NBA basketball game done the same way as archery promotes itself.

"it was a cool overcast night as the group of basketballers walked onto the empty stadium and started their shoot around. These players are warming up for the upcoming contest between the Boston Celtics and LA Lakers.
The Celtics in their green and white uniforms looked smart while the LA Lakers in their gold and purple stood well apart.
Once the tip off went great sportsmanship was shown as the players hit numourous shots from outside the 3 point arc. This is a line drawn 23ft from the basket where players can score 3 points instead of 2 points.
Once the game was completed the players shook hands and departed with the Celtics winning 103-101. Later they would all enjoy tea and biscuits with the fabulous volunteers who worked so hard during the event to make it all possible. They looked after the scoring and the floors and the uniforms and made the whole thing just excellent.
Here are 59 pictures of the volunteers standing around.
If you would like to get your family into basketball please contact us on this phone number"

How popular would basketball be if that's how it was reported? Don't laugh, that's how we promote archery.
Its funny 'cause its true :lol:

[Marcus]

In the NBA they went from an american game behind NFL and baseball to globally huge thanks to their marketing of players.
You had Michael Jordan, the good looking guy with shaved head who could jump over anyone and hit clutch shot after clutch shot. His big story was that he was cut from his high school team.
You had the rivalry of the glamourous LA Lakers with their star Magic Johnson against the traditionalist Boston Celtics and their trash taking white star Larry Bird.
Then there was the Bad Boy Detroit Pistons who played hard nosed bball and kept knocking off Jordan. They had their 'Jordan Rules' where they would go out and try to knock him out of the game.
Later Charles Barkley burst into the scene with his loudmouth demeanor and rough play. He still does it now despite retired, a few weeks ago he challenged a 67 year old ref to a footrace. Huge publicity that helps the game.

You have heros, villians, you have players who struggled to break through and make it. Others who never quite did.

Archery has all of these, yet we constantly fail to take advantage of it.

[Craig R]

I don't think Archery is boring to watch, I really, like watching it actually.
I don't think people don't find it interesting.
And I agree, plenty more can be done to make it more appealing and help the sport grow.

Its just that not enough can be done to make it THAT interesting for the masses to want to watch it on prime time and for the powers that be to make money out of it!

And unfortunately compounds will NEVER EVER be in the Olympics!!!!!:(

[James Park]

I agree: we need to make heros of a small number of our top archers (rather than try to chop them down and make everyone equal).
Pick the best and stick them on a pedestal.
Then when they come to compete, put an aura around them and promote it.
For example, when Pat and Dave came to compete in our AV State Target we should have done exactly that (but we didn't).
(And if they don't happen to win, we can then talk about "the great disaster").

[Hannah]

I agree: we need to make heros of a small number of our top archers (rather than try to chop them down and make everyone equal).
Pick the best and stick them on a pedestal.
Then when they come to compete, put an aura around them and promote it.
For example, when Pat and Dave came to compete in our AV State Target we should have done exactly that (but we didn't).
(And if they don't happen to win, we can then talk about "the great disaster").
Equally the rise of a new star...it needs to perpetuate and continue as well.

[James Park]

In fact we don't NEED compound in the Olympics. We just want ARCHERY to be in the Olympics - I don't care what sort.

[Marcus]

Yeah compound or recurve, it doesn't matter which, people won't suddenly say 'oh wow, I thought archery sucked before, but that compound bow makes me want to join'.
Just like F1 helps all forms of motor racing.

Absolutely Hannah.
State Target this year
The battle in mens Compound
The new up and coming stars bursting through womens compound
The 2nd year shooting mixing it up in womens recurve and the fight for first and second on day 2 at the final distance.

good stuff to leverage.

[Craig R]

Yes I like Archery in the Olympics along with Fencing, Shot put, Discus, Javelin, Decathlon, Pentathlon etc

Why because they're among the traditional sports that made/make it what it is, the greatest sporting event in the world.

But does archery really need to be in the Olympics? I feel some of you out there think we need the Olympics to give our sport some credence.

We don't. Its a great sport that needs to be managed and promoted better.

We need to encourage the grass roots participation and management at this level and the sport will grow by itself. And then good things will come.

But I'm afraid that at the moment the sport is more likely to be dropped from the Olympics than kept long term!

:D

[James Park]

I feel some of you out there think we need the Olympics to give our sport some credence.
:D
Not at all. I just want archery to keep getting money - that is the reason.
As a competitor, I think the World Championships is a better event.

[Marcus]

I don't thin we are at danger of being dropped, archery is actually liked by the IOC. Team sports are much more at risk.

[Archangel]

But does archery really need to be in the Olympics? I feel some of you out there think we need the Olympics to give our sport some credence.

We don't. Its a great sport that needs to be managed and promoted better.
IMO yes, we do. It gives archery a certain level of appearance as a sport - big team sports like rugby/cricket/etc are generally not in the Games, and have no problem as a result.

But for a small individual sport like archery, being in the Olympics groups us with athletics, swimming, rowing, etc. - we're all there at the greatest sporting event in the world. That's a valuable image, and one we could make more of than we do.

If we were not in the Olympics, we'd seem like a smaller sport - in line with disc golf, jump rope and tiddlywinks. Not such a nice image.

[Archangel]

As a competitor, I think the World Championships is a better event.
I'll quietly disagree with you on that... :-)

I agree with Marcus though; I don't think there's any particular reason to believe that archery is in danger of being dropped from the Olympics. Just because the IOC won't put compounds in it doesn't mean they're going to drop archery completely.

[Craig R]

Jim, if our sport was managed and promoted properly it could be financially self relliant and not have to put its hand out for Government grants.

Surely that would be a better position to be in.

We would be able to send fully funded teams away with the best archers in the country able to compete at the World Champs etc. (and even have state funded uniforms)

I first caught the archery bug in primary school shooting at balloons with a fibreglass bow that, if I remember was strung backwards...

I new nothin' of competing, targets, olympics etc, it was just plain fun, but was the catalyst for my Archery career.

Maybe this is what we need to focus our attention on and the sport will grow and gain wider acceptance etc

[Marcus]

To be successful you need multi headed marketing strategies.
Not one system will cast a wide enough net to attract all of your potential market.
For example archery should be trying to hit a large variety of demographics, all have different wants and needs and thus different motivations.
Here is what I think is the wants that people have before starting

8-12 year olds: it's more about being social and playing with toys, in this case bows.
12-15: Now they are starting to get competitive. Competition is important and also learning how to compete with their peers.
16-18: Time sensitive due to school commitments. Archery needs to be comeptitive but must also be stress free. Very dangerous time socially as this now now important.
18-24: this is career building time. Both work and social. Similar needs to the 16-18 year old, but now often with income and means to travel.
25-35: Now in moern times this is the time this group plays. Competition is vital. Social important, but not essential (usually sorted out).
35-50: now usually young families. Looking for either an escape from or as a means to spend time with family. needs to get out more.
50-65: Kids no leaving, so higher disposable incomes. Competition less important and social starting to become priority again.
65+: Starting to retire so needs something to keep social and busy.


So for 8-12 the marketing must be different than the 50-65 group. 8-15 will be influenced by friends, TV and expousure to school and camp based activities. 16-35 will be more influenced by TV based (Olympics) and the 35+ by family orientated marketing programs.

The key too is the social requirements are drastically different. A 15 year old girl will not be thrilled about spending social time with a 60 year old male. (and visa versa I hope)
A 40 year old male will be attracted to the outside atmosphere more than a 19 year old who may be dreaming of Olympic gold.

If you taylor your markting specifically to each group you will find a much higher success rate.

[Eberbachl]

I'm still in the 8-12 category :rofl:

[James Park]

be financially self relliant
That would be nice (and is exactly what I am aiming to achieve by the time I retire).
If we were to work on a return over and above inflation of (say) 5%, we would need to have $1M invested (wisely) for every $50k we need to spend (and then to be sure that we remember to reinvest at least enough to keep up with inflation every year).
Hence, if we needed (say) $0.5M to operate at current costs, we would need to have around $10M invested. Less than that, of course, if we also have ongoing streams of (reasonably reliable) income.
Then we need to be able to withstand comments from (unwise) members to "spend some of the vast fortunes we have in the bank". That is, we need to be able to resist the temptation of spending our capital. We also need to be able to resist (unwise) comments to reduce our fees because "we have all that money stacked away".

From my experience, we are not yet wise enough to achieve this.

[violator]

this reminds me of an article i read while still in school, it was call "BYING MEDALS" it was about the govenments contribution to sports and what THEY FELT would bring in the most gold medals and publicity. why do you think swimming is so big? kiren perkins was not a hero he was a legend the differance between the 2 is " hero's get remembered but legends never die" this was achived simply by the amount of money that the govenment put into the sport.

SPONSORSHIP is the key, you get a big sponsor ie coke, cadbury, VB, XXXX..............who ever it maybe, to promote for you, that will get this sport places, but then outside the archery world, who wants to be like clint ( no offence clint). there also has to be something to bring the kids/people in. A pro division, give the chance to win money( sponsor will take part here).

where to go what to do about it?? this sport could be made very big,

[Hannah]

Yes I like Archery in the Olympics along with Fencing, Shot put, Discus, Javelin, Decathlon, Pentathlon etc

Why because they're among the traditional sports that made/make it what it is, the greatest sporting event in the world.

But does archery really need to be in the Olympics? I feel some of you out there think we need the Olympics to give our sport some credence.

We don't. Its a great sport that needs to be managed and promoted better.

We need to encourage the grass roots participation and management at this level and the sport will grow by itself. And then good things will come.

But I'm afraid that at the moment the sport is more likely to be dropped from the Olympics than kept long term!

:D
I really don't think anyone has said that compound needs the olympics to give it credence at all. What was originally spoken about was whether compounds should be allowed in the Olympics - no talk of taking recurve out at all. Further, IMO it would be good to have compound in the Olympics (provided that it did not effect anything else) simply because it is another competition that people could attend...and going to the Olympics and competing would be fantastic. That said there are other international tournaments that are held that would be equally as fantastic. There is no doubt in my mind that the Olympics is prestigious in its own right and competing there would be a rare opportunity for those who were good enough.

[ULTRAPROELITE]

crossbow grenade launchers would be kewl in the olympics:thumb: ;)

[alexvpaq]

this reminds me of an article i read while still in school, it was call "BYING MEDALS" it was about the govenments contribution to sports and what THEY FELT would bring in the most gold medals and publicity. why do you think swimming is so big? kiren perkins was not a hero he was a legend the differance between the 2 is " hero's get remembered but legends never die" this was achived simply by the amount of money that the govenment put into the sport.

SPONSORSHIP is the key, you get a big sponsor ie coke, cadbury, VB, XXXX..............who ever it maybe, to promote for you, that will get this sport places, but then outside the archery world, who wants to be like clint ( no offence clint). there also has to be something to bring the kids/people in. A pro division, give the chance to win money( sponsor will take part here).

where to go what to do about it?? this sport could be made very big, I want to be a Sponsored Legend :p So I'd get free bows forever :rolleyes:

[violator]

dont we all alex ............dont we all

[frommy]

Alex,

I don't know if you are aware of it, due to your age, but Edmonton hosted the 2005 World Masters Games, and the Canadian archery scene in that area could not get their act together to include archery.

One of my members was planning to compete if it had been held. :(

Brian

[alexvpaq]

Alex,

I don't know if you are aware of it, due to your age, but Edmonton hosted the 2005 World Masters Games, and the Canadian archery scene in that area could not get their act together to include archery.

One of my members was planning to compete if it had been held. :(

Brian
WHAT! :o
X_X
There is so few archery competition in canada it's killing me...
I feel like training forever

[reversehaven]

To be successful you need multi headed marketing strategies.
Not one system will cast a wide enough net to attract all of your potential market.
For example archery should be trying to hit a large variety of demographics, all have different wants and needs and thus different motivations.
Here is what I think is the wants that people have before starting

8-12 year olds: it's more about being social and playing with toys, in this case bows.
12-15: Now they are starting to get competitive. Competition is important and also learning how to compete with their peers.
16-18: Time sensitive due to school commitments. Archery needs to be comeptitive but must also be stress free. Very dangerous time socially as this now now important.
18-24: this is career building time. Both work and social. Similar needs to the 16-18 year old, but now often with income and means to travel.
25-35: Now in moern times this is the time this group plays. Competition is vital. Social important, but not essential (usually sorted out).
35-50: now usually young families. Looking for either an escape from or as a means to spend time with family. needs to get out more.
50-65: Kids no leaving, so higher disposable incomes. Competition less important and social starting to become priority again.
65+: Starting to retire so needs something to keep social and busy.


So for 8-12 the marketing must be different than the 50-65 group. 8-15 will be influenced by friends, TV and expousure to school and camp based activities. 16-35 will be more influenced by TV based (Olympics) and the 35+ by family orientated marketing programs.

The key too is the social requirements are drastically different. A 15 year old girl will not be thrilled about spending social time with a 60 year old male. (and visa versa I hope)
A 40 year old male will be attracted to the outside atmosphere more than a 19 year old who may be dreaming of Olympic gold.

If you taylor your markting specifically to each group you will find a much higher success rate.

That's really true. Sad to say that the 18-24 group face a lot of problems meeting their olympic dream. Most of the time they're in the group where they're starting to become financially independant. (I belong to this group) and they really have this goal and interest they want to go for. Most people in my country REALLY get to start archery at this age, becasue archery is offered in 3 junior colleges, 5 polytechnics and the 3 universities as a co curricular activity. When they're in either institution, they're normally around this age.

however, at this time most of them are actually still students (no income yet) and they're beginning to be given allowances to manage on their own (normally for the rich kids, loads of cash, for the not so rich, just enough to get by). but here's a sport they really want to get into. Eat sleep bathe play shoot, olympic dream.

Sad to say that there's a massive lack of guidance(not enough knowledgeable coaches.. three quarts of the coaches in singapore are incompetent) and also definitely, lack of cash to get equipment. Most of the time you realise you're actually good enough for a certain set of equipment. or rather you find your performance hindered by a cheaper piece of equipment. But you don't have any income to help you get it quickly. can only rely on saving up slowly bit by bit, doing part time jobs flipping burgers and earning every cent you have to get it.

Still, in my opinion, this sport normally is the easiest to market to this age group. Really it's the time when they really get to find something they REALLY want to do. Started young, there's only a 50-50 chance they'll really be interested and stay on. It all depends. They might get bored of it by the time they reach 18, or they see something else they REALLY want to do.

There again, if they didn't start young, some of them hit that age group, and pop by near some range and see some people shooting, and they decided they're interested to start, that's where active publicity comes in(to smoothly usher them in). Whether they stay or not sometimes could depend on whether they can afford their own equipment. (though there are also a myriad of other factors.)

[Brocky]

Alex,

I don't know if you are aware of it, due to your age, but Edmonton hosted the 2005 World Masters Games, and the Canadian archery scene in that area could not get their act together to include archery.

One of my members was planning to compete if it had been held. :(

Brian
The actual problem was accommodation from the emails we recieved from the organisers of the event. There was not enough to go around & hold all the athletes.

[The One]

Jim, if our sport was managed and promoted properly it could be financially self relliant and not have to put its hand out for Government grants.

Why not do both?

[GrahameA]

Good Evening Luke

Let's face it

Archery is not an exciting sport to watch.

Even for archers.

It's a great sport for participators, but not for spectators. In fact for spectators it's as boring as bat****.

I think the chances of Compound in the Olympics are about as good as me making it there if it was :rofl:

Forget it ;)

Recurve is cool, so let's enjoy it.

:thumb:

IMHO It can be exciting to watch and field is the way to go. The downside is that for it to be exciting for a mass audience you need a camera on every target and good commentators so that they can tell the story. Bit like golf - X has completed the course scoring an average of 6 per target meanwhile back at target 10 Luke has managed to maintain his 7 average and could potentially win the event if he does trip over at the next target.

Or you can shoot it in a skins format - which, potentially, be exciting particularly when after 20 targets the participants are tied and they are forced into single arrow shootoffs :-).

The essence of such is that the outcome of the event must have some level of doubt so as to maintain interest and excitement.