A Six Gold End is one of those things that we all aspire to but may never achieve; much like a hole-in-one in golf, a sub-4-minute mile or a 147 break in snooker. Some may achieve it by pure luck but, usually, it is the confleunce of ability and conditions that make it more attainable. I am really pleased for Steve, as I was for Mrs EA and EA jnr, who both had six-gold-ends two years ago and have the badges to prove it. (EA jnr did it twice in the same round but you only get one badge!).
That said, I did reply a little tongue-in-cheek:
Whilst it was a little cheeky, it was a semi-serious reply. Six Gold End awards have a fixed set of criteria, which depends on the gender of the archer and their age (if under 18). This table from the award claim form shows the minimum distances required for each category:
Note that, unlike the Archery GB classification awards, no account is taken of the bowstyle used when shooting. Compound, recurve and barebow archers are lumped together (longbow archers have their own award for a Three Gold End). Thus my cheeky tweet: barebow archers will find it more difficult to achieve a six gold end than recurve archers. Similarly, recurve archers will find it more difficult than compound archers. If there are categories for bowstyle for classifications, then why not for six gold ends?
One problem with this is that a six gold end is a six gold end, no matter what type of bow you used to put your arrows in the boss. There are only two ways in which I could see this being made 'fairer': (1) reduce the minimum distance for barebow and increase it for compound; (2) introduce a different award for each bowstyle (e.g. a 4 gold end for barebow and a seven gold end for compound). OK this last one was a bit facecious but you get my drift. Of the two changes I reckon the distance criteria would be more workable.
I also mentioned the Portsmouth 500+ awards in my tweet. These are badges for achieving scores of 500, 525, 550, 575 and so on. This is even less flexible than the six gold end award, as no account is taken of either bowstyle or gender. Looking at our club indoor records from last season, every compound archer has a 500+ award, the vast majority of recurve archers have a 500+ award, and a small minority of barebow archers have a 500+ award.
Unlike many clubs, we have quite a strong contingent of barebow archers, and at about half of them shoot at 1st class level and above outdoors, so why would achieving a score of 500+ in a Portsmouth round be so difficult? I decided to look at some figures. I took the outdoor handicaps required for each classification for both barebow and recurve, and looked-up the Portsmouth score required to achieve that handicap (I know I am comparing outdoor and indoor figures here, but there is no distinction in bowstyles for indoor handicaps). I then drew the graph below and dropped a line from each of the bowstyle curves where it crosses a score of 500. What this shows is that a recurve archer (blue curve) would be expected to achieve a 500 score when their outdoor classification is mid-way between second class and first class. A barebow archer, on the other hand, would be expected to be shooting at an outdoor classification between Bowman and Master Bowman - two categories higher.
I don't pretend that this is totally scientific, as the higher outdoor classifications must be achieved at longer distances, where environmental factors come into play, but it does demonstrate quite clearly why I shouldn't expect to score 500 points or more in a Portsmouth round anytime soon. I think that is a good thing rather than a bad one. Is this situation likely to change? Well, I hope so. This was the response to my cheeky tweet:
Why is this important? David Harrison is not only a fellow archer, but also the Chairman of Archery GB. I know that AGB are keen to support the emergence of barebow archery and have made a start by allocating a section of the magazine for barebow features. I have emailed David with some of my thoughts and am confident that he will follow-through with his promised support.
No comments:
Post a Comment