Straightarrow

I' m a bit leery about all this technology myself, but I must agree with PABowhtr, both of Danny' s lists contain lots of technology. It' s just a matter of degrees. Compare Danny' s first list to the typical set-up of a guy using a self-bow, and it would be like golfing with clubs made from wooden shafts in 1880 and using a hand made ball, compared to using the lastest offerings in equipment from Titlelist.

Fortunately, we can all use whatever we choose to (as long as it' s legal where you hunt).

pdq 5oh

I' m not sure how I feel about the technological advances. Some are legitimate and useful, some are not. Each person needs to sift through it all and decide for themselves. Too many gadgets means too much thinking. Probably a bad thing at times when good instincts are much more useful. Having not shot a bow at 99% let off I can' t comment, other than to say I prefer 65% to 80%. This leads me to believe I may not care for it. My feeling on trad shooters thinking they need, or deserve, a separate season; ridiculous. We all pull the string back & let it go by hand. To divide the archery community so would serve no purpose but to help the antis. Let' s be neither divided, nor conquered.

Danny45

What I tried to convey, and didn' t do a very good job of it, was the difference in the two periods of technological advances.

Prior to the first list' s time period, (and not including traditional equipment) if you shot compounds, you had 50% or less let-off, wood riser bows, laminated (fragile) limbs, round wheels, flimsy sight systems (usually with no pin guard), etc. So the first list of improvements did make a significant impact on improving the average archer.

The second list (more recent " improvements" ) did LESS to improve the average archer than the first list did. Did we really need single cams, 80% let-off, tritium sight pins, mechanical broadheads, etc, just to become better?

In alot of ways, the more recent " improvements" made it more DIFFICULT for the average archer. Look at 33" axle to axle bows with 6" of brace height. The average archer is gonna have fits with that.

PABowhntr

Danny,

Now I think I understand your point. However, I think it is a matter of perspective...

No, we probably did not " need" them but I fail to understand how you can single out something like a single cam in relation to a dual cam when both are significantly different than a stick bow. They are both eccentrics but one was introduced " earlier" than the other. Speaking in very general terms, neither offers a signficant advantage over the other in comparison to traditional equipment.

I have to be honest with you. I rarely see any sub-34 inch axle to axle length bows with brace heights under 7 inches (there are some exceptions ofcourse). However, most of the time the short bows have huge brace heights or unique riser/limb designs to help offset some of the disadvantages of the short axle to axle length. Most sub-7 inch brace height bows are at least 35 inches in axle to axle length and have been around for more than even the last 10 years.

Now, I totally understand that those were just two specific examples of what you were trying to relate. However, though I do agree that there are some " advances" in technology that did not really advance the sport, I do not think that some of the examples you provided could be used as such. Respectively said ofcourse.

Danny45

Well, I just don' t think that single cams, 80% let-off, and ultra short bows helped the average archer MORE than the previous technological advances did. That' s all I was getting at. I think that any archer that shoots a single cam, 80% let-off, 35" bow well, would do just as well with the older equipment, if not better.

Arthur P

Except for a few individuals, I absolutely agree with that, Danny.

Case in point. A couple years ago, IBO had to REDUCE the maximum yardages in Compound Aided and Compound release classes to, I think, a maximum of 45 yards. Now, in the early days of IBO, the maximum yardages were ' around 60 yards' , which meant that some of those targets were actually closer to 70 yards.

Back then, the good shooters were shooting clean rounds, the not so good shooters were bouncing arrows off the trees. What have we gotten for all the money and effort? Shorter distances to shoot at and the good shooters are still shooting clean rounds and the not so good shooters are still bouncing arrows off the trees.

Really, if you compare the scores that are being turned in NOW with the scores that were being turned in 15 years ago, they' d average out pretty close to the same.

Faster, more advanced bows, much shorter distances but no real difference in scores. What does that tell you about the average skill level of today' s shooters? What does that tell you about the emphasis on speed?

The emphasis on arrow speed has resulted in very hard drawing bows, low brace heights and bows with some NASTY reflex in the handle. Torque-amatics! They have totally ruined bow shootability for the average guy. Each and every time someone has an accuracy problem the number one response is about form, and rightly so. The old bows would let you get away with form flaws and lapses in concentration that today' s bows make you pay dearly for.

I still maintain that most people would be far better served to forget all about high speeds and shoot a deflex riser bow, 65% letoff energy wheels, no less than 40" axle to axle and no less than 8" brace height. The extra skill you have to develop at judging yardage a little closer would be WAY offset by the increase in shootability, MUCH easier tuning and arrows that go exactly where they' re aimed. My opinion... I' d rather worry about aiming the arrow to the right spot than having to wonder if my form is exactly right.

That goes double when we' re talking hunting bows.

TFOX

I Do agree that a 99% letoff bow is not my cup of tee but the technology in it does intrique me.What I mean is if we make a bow with 65% letoff with the same technology,wouldn' t that make for a more efficient piece of equipment.I understand and agree that this wouldn' t make a hunter any better of a shot or hunter but the equipment would be improved.Now you can shoot lower poundage with the same results as the high poundage and not burn your shoulder out.Some of you older guys may know what effect years of shooting too much poundage can do to your shoulders.



What I am trying to say is not to totally denounce the technology because sometimes you need to work through " THE GIMMICK" to get a usefull advancement.



New world records in archery are being set all the time at a much quicker rate than any time in the past.Equipment plays a big part but coaching and the availability of coaches plays a big part also.

JeffB

Well gosh then..I guess this modern equipment just isn' t as bad as some foilks make it out to be since it' s clearly no more efficient than equipment from yester-year.[>:]

I' m not picking on anyone in particular here (so don' t get your feathers ruffled AP ), but here and on other boards over the years I' ve seen people denounce what we do have nowadays as too efficient and it ruins the sport, and yet then we hear from these same folks that the older equipment is just as good or better..easier to shoot..more forgiving......scores haven' t changed...new bows are harder to draw..and harder to shoot...they tell us to go back to that older easier to shoot gear...

Food for thought

Arthur P

Jeff, don' t worry about stomping my toes. Bad as my back is, I can' t feel ' em anyway.

Where I leave off with technology isn' t so much with arrow speed. Faster arrows have been one of the prime goals of bowyers since the first caveman tried putting setback in the handle of his selfbow. Frankly, once we got past IBO speeds of 270 fps I think speed has been too highly - and too foolishly - overrated and given too much importance at too much cost of other desirable shooting characteristics for a bow. Speed is just not that big a deal, really.

It' s letoff that chaps my buns.

I know I get into hot water whenever I say it, but it' s the truth. Drawing and holding while waiting for the shot is NOT bowhunting. Whether you' ve got a stock mounted on the bow or not, it' s crossbow hunting. Or, it could just as easily be iron sighted revolver hunting. There was a group at a game commission public input meeting last year that was lobbying for including revolvers in bow season. Same hunting technique. Same shooting distances. Why shouldn' t they be allowed?

I might could stomach 75% letoff. 80% gives me gas. But 99% letoff, drawlocks (which are, unfortunately legal here), and those kinds of devices...[X(][:' (][:@]

c903

Art P:

Well said. Concise. If I was of the " follower" type, you could be my Guru!

PS: Standby for another barrage of disparaging remarks from ...you know who!