TV and archery

[Marcus]

What do people think of archery on TV? Does the shootoffs interest you as an event or as just eye candy for TV? Do you think it's helping us get members or not? It clearly hasn't helped with sponsors.

any thoughts?

(there is a vote at the next Worlds to drop FITA 1440 from the Worlds. This could mean it will filter down to National and state level too.)

[Eberbachl]

I haven't ever shot a match play event, but I think I wouldn't like it...it's a bit sudden death for my liking, I'd prefer to shoot the 1440 FITA. But I think that the Matchplay is probably a bit more exciting to watch on tele...

So, are we trying to find a good round to shoot which at the end of the day will find the best archer, or are we trying to find something that looks good?

...it seems to me to be a question of priorities :confused

[Marcus]

The big difference between the 2 is that it is hard to plan having 2 shooters battling it out for first place at the end of 30m. They want to be able to slow a 10 second highlight of someone releasing, hitting the 10 and then throwing their arms in the air in victory.
At the end of some target tournaments they (use to) have a shootout. In it you have 4 shooters at the last distance. They all fire one shot and the furthest from the centre is knocked out. Great fun and hard when you get to the final few shooters. (I lost 2 in a row in the final because Mandy McArdle and Ray Morgan shot the X and I hit their arrows. :( Ray gave me hell over that one for ages)

But that's no way to pick the best archer. I remember in the Olympics after Simon Won the World Champs he put in one of the top FITA 1440 scores. And was then knocked out in the final. Also since the shootout style we have not had a repeat Olympic champion in Men's. While before that there were a handful who you knew would be up there.

[Eberbachl]

Yeah, it seems with the matchplay events that whoever is rocking at the lastsection wins. Also a bit rough I think that a great archer who has a shocking round can get knocked out of an event on the first day...

I guess part of the question is does the "TV friendly" match play do anything for the growth of the sport???:confused

[mike]

Unfortunately, matchplay is here to stay because it is sudden death style competition and that's what the crowd wants (if there is a crowd :p )

The trouble with matchplay as a means of deciding world champion is that the winner of the event is not neccesarily a 'world beater'

I think that FITA 1440 and matchplay are two completely different disciplines and should be treated as such.

The worlds should be a double FITA from which "world target champion" is decided and then the top 64 get invited to compete in the World Matchplay championships. If you can win both, then it is arguable that you are the best in the world, if you come 64th in the double FITA then win the matchplay, then you are world matchplay champion but NOT the world champion target shooter. Its as simple as that. I'm sure that Dee Wilde, who won the worlds in '97 after qualifying 64th in a single arrow shoot off, would not rate himself above someone like Dave Cousins or Clint Freeman when it comes to double FITAs.

Thats my thoughts. I hope that they dont drop the FITA 1440 from the worlds. instead they should introduce compound to the olympics and have the olympics as the major prestigous matchplay event (which it is anyway for recurve.)

:D

[Toxophilite]

I think that we can definitely agree that Matchplay is the most "spectator friendly" form of shooting. I know that my non-archery friends have rued the day they decided to watch a bit of archery in real-life, commenting that it made watching grass grow akin to an edge-of-your-seat, full-body-contact nail-biter. However, these same people confessed that watching the matchplay coverage during the Olympics was "weird 'cause it was actually exciting". Of course, this was helped along by the fact that an Australian was competing, but nonetheless it was MUCH better to watch :)

However, I do agree that this isn't the most suitable set-up for deciding the 'best archer'. But then again, if you look at a number of sports, the Olympics are used as more of a showcase or promotion of their given sport, whilst their world championships are thought of as the holy grail of ability and achievement.

So it should be with archery. The Olympics should be, at some level, utilised to increase the profile of the sport by getting non-participants interested, while the world champs should be the meat and two veg. of the sport. Therefore, leave the matchplay for events where you're trying to reach a wider audience. Have the FITAS for the world champs - archery for archers :D

That's what I think anyway ;)
Be good to hear other people's opinions.

[Marcus]

I agree with what you have put down there Toxophilite. Matchplay for Olympics and FITAS for worlds.

It's also great tohave archery on ESPN's outdoor games etc too. Perhaps progressive archery societies should look at more TV type events and try to get media interest.

Hard work as Australia in only shown football , cricket and Tennis. :mad

[Robin Dud]

If you want business sponsers to be interested then match play on tv will do it. Look at golf, not knocking true golfers, but watching someone hit a ball into a hole is as exciting as ironing shirts. I'm sure they would say the same about us, yet look at the backing that gets, all down to TV coverage! FITA 1440 is the crown, but matchplay is the fun and exciting and thats what gets the interest.

[FreoArcher]

To me basing a World Champion on matchplay rather than the full FITA is like basing the Wimbledon Championship on the result of a "sudden death" tie-break rather than the best of the full five sets. Sure it's quick and exciting - but does it determine the best archer? I don't think so.

I would like to see the Worlds as two separate titles like we have it as the Nationals - one the "World Champion" and one the "World Matchplay Champion".

I'm sick of our sport bastardising itself (or should that be prostituting?) against the wishes of its archers for the almighty viewing dollar - when in the grand scheme of things the viewer doesn't seem to care about us no matter what we do - they'd rather watch the high paid sports they identify with because they've usually experienced them, even if it was on a junior level e.g soccer, football, golf, swimming, even athletics.

The main problem I see facing archery is that people DON'T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT - therefore they find it hard to identify with. Even the biggest crock on the junior footy team has imagined himself kicking the winning score in a grand final. If some-one's never pulled a bow, how do you think they're going to imagine what it feels like to robin-hood your opponents arrow in the "X"??

It's not enough to try and build on the spark of the great public's sporting interest in an event - the spark's gotta be there to start with. All of us must have had the experience where the people who evince the most interest in our sport are the people who've tried it at school, or Club Med, or camp, or where-ever.

Let's face it - we'll never be up there with a lot of the other sports financially or kudos-wise - because it all depends what people will PAY to see us shoot. At the very least all I can see that we can do is be MORE aggressive in marketing to the youth, especially in schools. One small opportunity is targeting the school groups touring through the AIS - it may have changed, but previously there was absolutely zero info disseminated to the touring groups (despite the kids' obvious interest in the sport) - a wasted opportunity that could be easily rectified with leaflets directing individuals to their local archery club.

Getting back to the subject - KEEP THE FITAS!!! ARCHERY FOR ARCHERS!!

[Kuru]

Archery isn't the most exitiong sport to watch at the best of times, Unless it's something like great outdoor games or 3-D most people would get bored of it very fast