Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: Last call for updates and request for comments

Expand Messages
  • Jack Bradley
    Number 8 here I m kinda wondering why sights or mark term need to be included at all I don t remember including any bow info on the score sheet Of the bowes
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Number 8 here I'm kinda wondering why sights or mark term need to be
      included at all I don't remember including any bow info on the score
      sheet Of the bowes that I use only one has marks and it was not used for
      the ICAK this year
      Congratulations to the seven who beat me And thanks to Lorenzo for the
      good work
      Ragnar Two Ax

      detomamd wrote:

      >Greetings Sir Jon and everyone.
      >Thanks for the question, which is a good one. First of all: the
      >term "sights" in the IKAC refers to simple limb markings, per the SCA
      >rules.
      >This appears to be a regional confusion. Here in the East Coast and I
      >am pretty sure in Mid, the terms "sights" is commonly used for simple
      >limb markings. This terms does not appear to be used in the western
      >Kingdoms. It has been my intention to change it just as you have
      >suggested. I received a handful of questions about it this year, and
      >I think only one last year, when I introduced the reporting of
      >markings or no markings, so I didn't realize at first that it was
      >causing confusion.
      >
      >Once again: the terms "sights" in the Open IKAC refers to simple limb
      >markings. It will be changed to "marks" next year.
      >
      >Thanks again for your input. Please let me know if you have any
      >further questions.
      >Regards,
      >- Lorenzo
      >
      >--- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, John Edgerton <sirjon1@p...>
      >wrote:
      >
      >
      >>An archer in the West brought to my attention a question about the
      >>scores in the Open division of the IKAC. So I looked at the latest
      >>
      >>
      >Open
      >
      >
      >>division scores at the IKAC web site. Both the first and eighth
      >>
      >>
      >place
      >
      >
      >>scores in the Open division are listed as recurve-sights. Most all
      >>
      >>
      >of
      >
      >
      >>the other Open scores are listed as no sights. To my understanding
      >>
      >>
      >the
      >
      >
      >>standards for the Open division were the same as the SCA rules,
      >>
      >>
      >which do
      >
      >
      >>not allow the use of sights, marked bow limbs are allowed, but not
      >>sights. So my question is, are these scores that are noted as with
      >>sights shot with sights or with marked bow limbs? If they were
      >>
      >>
      >shot
      >
      >
      >>with sights they should not be allowed. If with marked bow limbs,
      >>
      >>
      >then
      >
      >
      >>all is fine. But, perhaps the term "sights" on the scores should be
      >>changed to "marks" or something else if there is really a need for
      >>
      >>
      >it.
      >
      >
      >>The current score sheets have under the bow type both "N" and "S"
      >>
      >>
      >which
      >
      >
      >>may stand for "sights" and "no sights". And has an example of RS
      >>
      >>
      >which
      >
      >
      >>might be understood to stand for "Recurve-Sights". This is
      >>
      >>
      >misleading
      >
      >
      >>and could cause someone to believe that they may use sights in
      >>
      >>
      >shooting
      >
      >
      >>the Open division.
      >>
      >>Lorenzo, could you clear this up for me.
      >>
      >>Thanks
      >>
      >>Jon
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >---8<---------------------------------------------
      >Brought to you YahooGroups Ad Free in 2002 by Medieval Mart
      >Get Medieval at Mad Macsen's http://www.medievalmart.com/
      >
      >[Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to leave this list]
      >
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Edgerton
      That clears it up. Many thanks Jon ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        That clears it up.

        Many thanks

        Jon

        detomamd wrote:

        >Greetings Sir Jon and everyone.
        >Thanks for the question, which is a good one. First of all: the
        >term "sights" in the IKAC refers to simple limb markings, per the SCA
        >rules.
        >This appears to be a regional confusion. Here in the East Coast and I
        >am pretty sure in Mid, the terms "sights" is commonly used for simple
        >limb markings. This terms does not appear to be used in the western
        >Kingdoms. It has been my intention to change it just as you have
        >suggested. I received a handful of questions about it this year, and
        >I think only one last year, when I introduced the reporting of
        >markings or no markings, so I didn't realize at first that it was
        >causing confusion.
        >
        >Once again: the terms "sights" in the Open IKAC refers to simple limb
        >markings. It will be changed to "marks" next year.
        >
        >Thanks again for your input. Please let me know if you have any
        >further questions.
        >Regards,
        >- Lorenzo
        >
        >-
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Carolus Eulenhorst
        As one looking at competing next year and having both heavy weapons legal (APD equipped 1.5 blunts) and light weapons (no APD 1.25 blunts) I would say that
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          As one looking at competing next year and having both heavy weapons legal
          (APD equipped 1.5" blunts) and light weapons (no APD 1.25" blunts) I
          would say that these two divisions with waiver kingdoms/regions being
          included in the light weapons division for equipment similarity and
          equitability would be the way to go. Thanks for running this competition
          and taking the time to refine the rules on an ongoing basis.

          In service to the dream
          Carolus von Eulenhorst
          eulenhorst@...

          On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:34:41 -0000 "detomamd <detomamd@...>"
          <detomamd@...> writes:
          > Last year (2001) I received more complaints than scores on the use of
          >
          > APDs or not in the IKCAC, and specifically whether they should be
          > allowed or not allowed in the IKCAC, for a very wide variety of
          > reasons. However, it seemed to me that the majority of the
          > complaints
          > came from the fact that people didn't feel like they were competing
          >
          > on a level playing field, and there was always the suspicion that a
          >
          > particular good score was due to a particular arrow configuration.
          > FUrthermore, by the time the just concluded season (2002) started,
          > APD designs were still evolving, and the bottom line is that I felt
          > I
          > had no good data on which to make any kind of decisions, since no
          > one
          > had been tracking ammunition type before. After consulting with
          > several people I decided to run the 2002 IKCAC season as the year
          > before, but to require submissions to specify arrow type and
          > components. I then reported that information along with the score on
          >
          > the web site and report.
          > I think that this worked well. We now have some good data, and we
          > can
          > definitely see correlations. The question now is how to handle it
          > for
          > next season. One division, multiple divisions? Allowing 3/4 blunts
          > only for the areas that allow it does not solve the underlying un-
          > level playing field complaint, whereas creating one division just
          > for
          > those folks would make a tiny division indeed, as you have correctly
          >
          > pointed out. I appreciate your input on this. I would very much like
          >
          > more input from archers in the next few weeks. I will do what the
          > majority would like, but Sir Jon, yours is only the second answer I
          >
          > have received on this so far. The other one advised me to create
          > three new divisions. How does everyone else feel? Please let me
          > know,
          > I very much need your input.
          > ds,
          > - Lorenzo

          ________________________________________________________________
          Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
          Only $9.95 per month!
          Visit www.juno.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.