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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Jan 3 10:48 AM
      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

      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.