210 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Feb. 15, 1913 
3-611. and to be permitted to use it in an article 
on the subject which I hope to prepare. 
Cordiallj- 3'otirs. 
Edw.\rd B. Weston. 
I regret to say that only eleven replies 
vvere received. From these 1 quote as follows, 
taking them in the order in which they were re¬ 
ceived: 
Dr. O. L. Hertig, of Pittsburgh, wrote: 
'‘Am firmly of the opinion that the American 
Found as well as the Columbia, should be de¬ 
cided by highest score. But when it comes to 
the York a different condition obtains, especi¬ 
ally at 80 and too yards, when target hitting is 
archery, and gold making largely luck. Here 
is an illustration. Last fall Jiles and I shot a 
York round, one end of w-hich I remember 
well. At too yards Jiles made 3, 3, 3. i. i. i—6- 
12. Hertig made 9, 5. o, o, 0. c—2-14. No 
archer in the world can deny the fact that Jiles’ 
end was infinitely better than mine, although 
two less in score. Ady suggestion is: Decide 
the York round just as w-e have been doing. 
This may apply to the Ladies' National round. 
“Decide the American and the Columbia 
just as we do the team round, by highest score.” 
Of course, no valid argument can be made 
from a single end. Nearly all would agree that 
Air. Jiles' end was the better of the tw'O. But 
scored by points, as advised by Dr. Hertig, 
for ICO yards' shooting, the scores would be 
tied. Scored by score alone, Dr. Plertig would 
have won. Scored by hits and score added, Mr. 
Jiles would have w-on, 18 to 16, and this would 
seem to be right. 
George Phillips Bryant, National champion, 
Boston: "I have long been of the opinion that 
the point system is unfortunate, and in some 
cases unfair. On the other hand I would not 
like to see any change that would affect the 
fair comparison of modern scores and the long- 
line of past performance. 
“I should like to see total score win, and 
in case of tied scores then total hits to win, 
and in case of both hits and score being tied, 
then settle it by points as now, but only be¬ 
tween those tied.'’ 
In comparing scores, we never compare 
them by points, but always by the highest 
scores. 
George L. Nichols, Chicago: “It is de¬ 
cidedly m3- opinion that the point method does 
not show the relative skill of archers in a con¬ 
test, as w-ell as would the system which you 
suggest. 
“By taking the total of scores and hits at 
all distances in any round, each contestant has 
a fair and equal chance; which does not seem 
entirely possible under the point system. 
“One thing I might ask. That is, how to 
dispose of ties. In the American round shot 
on Columbus Day I made one more hit than 
Air. Bryant: but one less score. 
"It seems to me that the relative importance 
of the number of hits is greater than would be 
shown by simply adding the total number of 
hits to the total score, though that method is 
as fair to one as to another.” 
1 he Columbus Day scores to which Air. 
Nichols refers, were published in Forest and 
Stre.^m last Nov. 16. The3' make an interest¬ 
ing stud}-. Mr. Bryant won, having the highest 
score. Had hits and scores been added it 
would have made a tie in both hits and score. 
Then, if as above suggested by Air. Bryant, 
ihe case had been settled by the point system, 
Mr. Nichols would have won by 6 points to 4 
for Air. Bryant. 
Tac. Hussey, Des Moines, la.: “In answer 
to your question as regards ‘points.’ I have no 
special opinion to give for or against the 
system. I do not e.xpect to enter into a Na¬ 
tional shoot again. I shall continue my local 
shooting as usual, and encourage all archers to 
take up the bow again when the season opens, 
for the reason that I am very fond of the sport, 
and think it does me good to get out into the 
green fields once or twice a week." 
Air. Hussey’s man}- friends expect to see 
him again at National meetings. Though he 
has passed his eightieth milestone, he is yet 
making fine scores. 
Z. E. Jackson, Atchison. Kansas: "Your let¬ 
ter of Jan. 4 relative to the system to be used 
in scoring was duly received. It does seem to 
me that the point system is fraught with tech¬ 
nical possibilities. I believe as you do that the 
test of the archer is his score. The point sys¬ 
tem might be of advantage if only a very limited 
number of arrows were to be shot, because we 
all know that six whites are better than one 
or two golds, but where a large number of 
arrows are shot, as is always done in cham¬ 
pionship tests, this advantage disappears for 
the reason that the good archer will get higher 
scores than the poor one. I am heartily in 
favor of the score system.” 
Dr. Robert P. Elmer, Wayne. Pa.: “In my 
opinion championships should be decided on 
score alone with hits counted only in case of 
ties. This is an arbitrary opinion which I can¬ 
not base on any reasonable demonstration. It 
is lurking in my head that some smart mathe¬ 
matician could figure the whole thing out on a 
scientific basis which would do away with hot¬ 
air and guess-work. 
"If in the American round 90 hits, 90 score 
were made, would it show greater skill than 
10 golds with 80 misses? This is probably a 
question of opinion. 
“The point system in special cases can be 
shown to be obviously unjust, as when, in a 
A'ork round, 29-81. 30-110, 30-165—89-354 would 
beat 28-140, 20-147, 29-165—86-452. 
“I doubt if it would ever be shown that 
greater score would be the cause of unjust 
winning.” 
Burton Payne Gray, president N. A, A,: 
"Yours of Jan. 3 inst., came to hand. Aly im- 
liression is, that the best method of determin¬ 
ing the championship, where there is a tie score, 
would be that the one receiving the largest 
number of hits should be declared the victor; 
and in the event of a tie both in score and 
hits, then use the point method. I doubt if it 
ever happened that there was a tie both in hits 
and score.” 
The following .scores, reported by Dr. 
Hertig, and already printed in Forest and 
Stream, show that an archer ma\- shoot two 
scores on the same day, and tie in both hits 
and score at the different distances, and with 
total of hits and score alike. 
The doctor says: “Air. Holmes’ shooting 
was remarkable for its regularity. It is seldom 
that two rounds in succession are shot with 
so little variation of hits and score at the dif¬ 
ferent distances, and with total of hits and 
score alike. ' 
Double American round scores: 
' 60yds. 50yds. 40yds. Total. 
W. T. Holmes.(A) 26 118 28 148 30 182 84 448 
(1!) 28 118 27 149 29 181 84 448 
54 236 55 297 59 363 168 896 
Dr. O. L. Hertig.(C) 29 127 30 142 30 192 89 461 
(13) 28 174 29 129 30 190 87 493 
57 301 59 271 60 382 176 954 
For our purpose, let us consider that Air. 
Holmes’ double American round score was 
iiiade by two archers, each shooting one of the 
single rounds. We will call them A and B. 
VVe will treat Dr. Plertig's score in the same 
way, and name the archers C and D. 
In the first case, had they been shooting 
for the championship, A would have won, 514 
points to B’s 4J2. though they were tied on 
gross hits and gross score. Most archers will 
think that A and B show-ed the same skill; 
though in this case perhaps it would be as well 
to award the prize by points as in any other 
way: as for instance, by shooting more arrows, 
or b}- drawing lots. 
In the contest between C and D, C made 
tw'o more hits, and D made the higher score by 
32. No sane person would say 2 hits were 
equal in value to 32 score. And yet, scored by 
the point system. C won by points to 3I-2, 
though making 32 less score! 
I'liough not germaine to the question, it 
may be said that Air. Holmes’ score was a re¬ 
markably well balanced one. That is, that part 
of the total score made at each range, was 
w-hat it should ha\'e been. It w-ill be found by 
examining a large number of scores, be they 
high or low-, that about one-third of the total 
is made at 50 yards, the mid range. Mr. 
Holmes’ total score was 8g6. a third of w-hich is 
298; his 50 yards score was 297. 
Dr. Hertig says he fell down at 50 yards. 
Conlinned on page 220. 
FOR ARCHERY SUPPLIES 
Write for Archery Catalogue. 
E. I. HORSMAN CO. 365 Broadway, N. Y. 
