Condensed: Compound men’s finals | Paris 2021 Hyundai Archery World Cup S3

Skill. Sometimes it’s used to compare two different styles.

Often it’s made use of objectively. Often it’s made use of in a bad way. It’s used by non-archers. “Oh, you do archery? Exactly how good are you at archery?

” “I’m … this excellent.” It’s made use of by archers … versus various other archers. “This sort of archery takes much less ability than this kind of archery.” Skill. A word that we all recognize, however few of us can explain.

And because of that, whenever we bring up the mention of “skill”, we always get into arguments because we come in with different understandings of what makes a person skilful. I’m here to lay down a definition and get you think about what skill means to you before you start applying it to other people.

What we often miss in our analysis of skill, however, is that skill must be measured. Skill should have some kind of metric.

A skilled chef is able to make dishes that taste good. A skilled artist is able to show creativity and complexity in their work.

So what is a skilled archer? A competent archer can hit their target.

That’s it. This is something that can be gauged– the regularity of their bullseyes, the size of their collections, the factors on the scorecard. You might question form.

Type is a huge part of archery. You can observe as well as analyse a person’s shot process or talk about the cleanness of their release. But, archery is not a performance art. You can have the most effective type, however if you can’t hit your target, that means absolutely nothing. Ability at archery is merely your ability to strike the target.

If your definition of skill is different to what I stated, then you are bringing something more into the picture– a personal opinion, a biased perspective, an intrinsic value, a hidden agenda. And I’m going to refute some of these perceptions of skill.

You could state that an experienced archer must have the ability to loose 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds. No, that means you are a fast shooter. You could state that a competent archer has the ability to use a range of various bow kinds, on foot and also on horseback, ambidextrously. If you can do that, after that you are a functional archer.

Their ability to hit the target, irrespective of what kind bow they are using, or what technique they use, is what defines their skill. A person practicing a particular form of archery might have additional parameters, and we may have to measure skill within these parameters, but that means that we can’t then take these measurements and apply them equally to a different set of parameters.

So now we concern the centerpiece: the tradshooter facility, the perfectionists who think that shooting naturally with a conventional barebow is the most expert type of archery.

I acknowledge and, to an extent, agree with the general perception that because this particular style of shooting is more difficult that it takes more skill. Considering that it is generally easier to shoot accurately with a compound bow, I would believe that you are certainly a more skilful archer.

Who is the more skilful archer? Can a traditional shooter really claim that they have more skill if they are attempting a task that has higher difficulty, but achieves a lower result?

Are we simply going to blame our selection of tools? Do I have much less ability than you merely since I’m firing a substance and also you’re firing a longbow, regardless of what our scores were? Obviously I can not declare to be the better archer since I’ve obtained the training wheels, yet can you declare to be a better archer on the basis that you are using the perfectionist form of archery? And so we return to our interpretation of skill: it is the person’s capability to hit the target.

Every archer will agree that it is the individual, not the bow, that does the work.

We’re not placing our bows in shooting machines and counting the bullseyes. It’s up to us to perform the shot flawlessly, and also the errors are our very own. But that is not always the instance. Occasionally, it is our tools that is allowing us down. Some bow kinds will certainly lose more energy in vibration.

Some materials are normally going to be more irregular in differing conditions.

There is a reason why you never see barebow shooters at Olympic level. The bow type is legal in Olympic competition, but no barebow shooter– not even modern barebow – has ever shot the minimum qualifying score for an Olympic team.

Do we blame the archer, or do we fault the equipment? If you are truly going to measure skill, then you have to logically take equipment of the equation.

Let there be no differences in equipment. Let’s make everyone shoot at 15m with Genesis bows. Standardised distance, standardised bows. No one is advantaged or disadvantaged. May the best archer win.

Since forever, traditional bows have been touted as requiring the most skill to use. One can argue that compound bows demand the most skill.

They’ve got stabilisers and sights and cams. If the compound bow is engineered to do all the work– that means that every mistake must be the fault of the archer.

It is up to the archer to execute the perfect shot every single time.

Is that not the perfect definition of “skill”? If the equipment and technology is so consistent that it removes nearly every variable in the bow, then the only variable is the archer. Any compound shooter will blame themselves for a bad shot. And truly, if compound bows remove all skill from archery– why do we still see a score gap even at the highest levels? Why can’t every archer pick up a compound bow and shoot perfect scores?

If you got out of compound because it felt boring and you really enjoy instinctive barebow, have you considered that it isn’t really “skill”, but “thrill”? Does the thought that the arrow might hit the target– and it might not– excite you?

It isn’t just the simplicity or the naturalness of barebow. You’re really a thrill-seeker who thrives on having some control, but not complete control, over what happens with your shot.

But you’ve forfeited your ability to do so because now you’ve realised the true meaning of the archer’s paradox– that you want to achieve the perfect shot. You love the feeling of getting as close as you can. That is our “Skill Spectrum”– from crossbows and compound bows to Olympic recurve to traditional.

And even in traditional, we see the “skill difference” between barebow shooters who stringwalk and instinctive shooters who ban all aiming methods in competition. The reality is that this spectrum isn’t about what how much skill is required, but the relationship between the bow and its user.

For recurves– Olympic or traditional– just because you execute a flawless shot process doesn’t mean the arrow is guaranteed to find its mark. How good you are at controlling what you can is the mark of a skilled archer.


More archery at and

Subscribe for more archery videos on 👉 and click on the bell 🔔 to get notified when new videos land.

More archery at and

Subscribe for more archery videos on 👉 and click on the bell 🔔 to get notified when new videos land.