I’ve just gotten into archery and am now obsessed with watching Olympic archery. Not boring AT ALL if you have the slightest idea of the talent and control it takes to make those shots!!
Things people don't realize when they complain about "all that junk on the bow making it too easy" How much their hands shake. Magnified sights do not make shooting easier, they only make seeing what you're shooting at long distance possible. Recurve bow sights aren't magnified. Hitting a CD at 70m from an unstable platform with no consistent forward reference is luck. They couldn't do it with a stabilized bow, sight, and matched arrows, let alone their trad stick...
Very true, as someone who shoots both Asiatic trad. and Recurve. The recurve form and learning curve are far more difficult and complex than a traditional bow. A trad bow can never be as accurate as a recurve past 30 meters.
I can only agree and have even proof. I bought a laser pointer arrowhead and reached it around in our club. It´s fascinating to see this dot bounce around even indoors at merely 18m. As most of our archers tried to keep it steady even those with full Olympic recurve couldn´t prevent it from swaying in and out of 10 down to nine or eight (occasionally). That´s is only showing you the natural sway everyone already has now you need to add every other aspect like release, grip, back tension, anchor and a few more and none of them make this natural spray smaller. It´s a miracle we even manage to hit a ten under this circumstances. The only thing I´ll never understand is why is compound shooting 50m and recurve 70m ? Granted, the target is smaller but wouldn´t it be more interesting to shoot this smaller target @70m too ?
Recurve archer does not even use magnified sight. It’s literally a metal pin. You may as well use a nail and it’s the same. The fancy things you see is just adjustment mechanism. Same applies for Olympic rifle.
Agreed. One of the Korean female archers said something to this effect: 2mm variation at the archer’s end makes for 20cm difference on the target at 70m. 2mm sight off, or draw or wrist angle or string alignment or… etc.. No way is it easy.
@@David_randomnumberAs having shot almost all bow types, and currently compound, I agree. Admittedly I am not a very accomplished archer, I still think a 100cm at 70m would be a good compromise.
You'll get closer to the olympics than you think. I started archery as a mid-life crisis ten years ago. My best now is 330 for three dozen and 649 for a WA70. Looking at previous olympics those scores would be mid-ranking. However, getting in your national team is a different matter entirely...
there's a huge huge difference btw shooting those numbers relaxed at your local home club or in an extremely important tournament against the best archers in the world. In archery, when you reach a certain level, it's not about skill anymore but rather it's all about the mindset
“How could Messi miss a penalty kick” By someone that couldn’t run 10 steps to the ball. I did a video in my channel where I show in one part the difference between what the camera shows in Tv - with a telephoto lens that compresses everything - against what the archer sees. BIG DIFFERENCE!
A criticism of televised archery at the Olympics is that you rarely see the distance involved, you see the archer in one half and the target in the other. If they showed how far they're actually shooting then I think more people would appreciate it.
I know why they don't shoot 90m's any more (too hard to find the space and 70m fits across a football/soccer field making stadiums a good fit) but 90m's would probably separate the field more. The top archers would still do well but going from 70m to 90m is quite a jump. Or they could switch to the 80cm face at 70m from the 122cm face. I've shot 80cm at 60m before and damn that was hard compared to 122cm at 70m.
What is the purpose of separating the field though? The results are spread in what is already a normal distribution curve and the scores are competitive.
My 2 cents: perhaps the events should be modified as the competition progresses from qualifiers to quarter finals to semi finals to finals. As you rightly pointed out, people get more consistent near the finals because the inconsistent ones are weeded out. I also agree with your claim that people tend to find consistency a bit boring to watch. But... maybe the finals should be modified to be "harder" than the qualifiers? For example, if the qualifiers are shot at 30m, perhaps the finals should be shot at 40m to help the audience see the relative differences between the more consistent archers in the finals? (Apologies if 30m or 40m are simply unrealistic ranges; I don't actually shoot bows and arrows much and I can't consistently hit the haybale at 10m myself)
The distance is 70m. Why would the qualifying rounds need to be made easier when the 70m already shows that separation in skill and performance? This is like adding 25m to the 100m sprint final.
"Archery is too easy!" - said no one who has ever actually tried archery.
Nah. Once said by every archer when they first start out 😂😂😂
I’ve just gotten into archery and am now obsessed with watching Olympic archery. Not boring AT ALL if you have the slightest idea of the talent and control it takes to make those shots!!
Things people don't realize when they complain about "all that junk on the bow making it too easy"
How much their hands shake.
Magnified sights do not make shooting easier, they only make seeing what you're shooting at long distance possible.
Recurve bow sights aren't magnified.
Hitting a CD at 70m from an unstable platform with no consistent forward reference is luck.
They couldn't do it with a stabilized bow, sight, and matched arrows, let alone their trad stick...
Very true, as someone who shoots both Asiatic trad. and Recurve. The recurve form and learning curve are far more difficult and complex than a traditional bow. A trad bow can never be as accurate as a recurve past 30 meters.
I can only agree and have even proof. I bought a laser pointer arrowhead and reached it around in our club. It´s fascinating to see this dot bounce around even indoors at merely 18m. As most of our archers tried to keep it steady even those with full Olympic recurve couldn´t prevent it from swaying in and out of 10 down to nine or eight (occasionally). That´s is only showing you the natural sway everyone already has now you need to add every other aspect like release, grip, back tension, anchor and a few more and none of them make this natural spray smaller.
It´s a miracle we even manage to hit a ten under this circumstances.
The only thing I´ll never understand is why is compound shooting 50m and recurve 70m ? Granted, the target is smaller but wouldn´t it be more interesting to shoot this smaller target @70m too ?
Recurve archer does not even use magnified sight. It’s literally a metal pin. You may as well use a nail and it’s the same. The fancy things you see is just adjustment mechanism. Same applies for Olympic rifle.
Agreed. One of the Korean female archers said something to this effect: 2mm variation at the archer’s end makes for 20cm difference on the target at 70m. 2mm sight off, or draw or wrist angle or string alignment or… etc.. No way is it easy.
@@David_randomnumberAs having shot almost all bow types, and currently compound, I agree. Admittedly I am not a very accomplished archer, I still think a 100cm at 70m would be a good compromise.
As someone having started archery less than a year ago, I will confirm that regularly hitting a 9 or a 10 at 70 meters is superhuman.
You'll get closer to the olympics than you think. I started archery as a mid-life crisis ten years ago. My best now is 330 for three dozen and 649 for a WA70. Looking at previous olympics those scores would be mid-ranking. However, getting in your national team is a different matter entirely...
there's a huge huge difference btw shooting those numbers relaxed at your local home club or in an extremely important tournament against the best archers in the world. In archery, when you reach a certain level, it's not about skill anymore but rather it's all about the mindset
@@MJ-jo9ew thanks I'll bare that in mind when I start competing 🙄
“How could Messi miss a penalty kick”
By someone that couldn’t run 10 steps to the ball.
I did a video in my channel where I show in one part the difference between what the camera shows in Tv - with a telephoto lens that compresses everything - against what the archer sees. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Spot on!
Thank You for the dose of reality!
Well put NuSensei
Every day is a 7x1, unfortunally
I know...
Still hurts
Never shot an arrow in their life:
"If i competed I would blow the comp away. I was great at sports in highschool."
Interesting perspective, thank you
A criticism of televised archery at the Olympics is that you rarely see the distance involved, you see the archer in one half and the target in the other. If they showed how far they're actually shooting then I think more people would appreciate it.
Only the one's that make it look easy, make it to the end.
I know why they don't shoot 90m's any more (too hard to find the space and 70m fits across a football/soccer field making stadiums a good fit) but 90m's would probably separate the field more. The top archers would still do well but going from 70m to 90m is quite a jump. Or they could switch to the 80cm face at 70m from the 122cm face. I've shot 80cm at 60m before and damn that was hard compared to 122cm at 70m.
What is the purpose of separating the field though? The results are spread in what is already a normal distribution curve and the scores are competitive.
My 2 cents: perhaps the events should be modified as the competition progresses from qualifiers to quarter finals to semi finals to finals. As you rightly pointed out, people get more consistent near the finals because the inconsistent ones are weeded out. I also agree with your claim that people tend to find consistency a bit boring to watch. But... maybe the finals should be modified to be "harder" than the qualifiers? For example, if the qualifiers are shot at 30m, perhaps the finals should be shot at 40m to help the audience see the relative differences between the more consistent archers in the finals?
(Apologies if 30m or 40m are simply unrealistic ranges; I don't actually shoot bows and arrows much and I can't consistently hit the haybale at 10m myself)
The distance is 70m. Why would the qualifying rounds need to be made easier when the 70m already shows that separation in skill and performance?
This is like adding 25m to the 100m sprint final.
When I watch the games, I found them suprisingly inaccurate. The boring thing is they only shoot at a fixed distance.
EASY ??? 🤣🤣🤣 no it's not easy.....
anyone who actually watches or does archery knows they rarely ever always hit gold lol. Just look at the olympics lol.
Literally. Just watch the matches and they don't hit all gold.
lets make it an actual challenge, have moving targets lol
I have my bow ready, start running! xD
first
.... &
first one to dislike!