March 22, 1913 
FOREST AND STREAM 
373 
Forest and Stream is the official organ of the National Archery Association. 
Scoring by Points. 
BY EDWARD B. WESTON. 
In the past several weeks the papers have 
printed a number of letters and articles on scor¬ 
ing by points, and nearly all the writers have 
expressed the opinion that a change ought to 
be made in the present methods of scoring the 
archery championships. 
I am surprised that any archer should not 
know what the point system is. But I have lately 
been asked by two good archers, who have shot 
in several recent tournaments, to explain it to 
them. 
All that they had cared to know was who 
had made the best scores; showing that to them, 
in comparing archery’ skill, the number of points 
made cut no figure. 
The York round is composed of three ranges. 
Seventy-two arrows are shot at the loo-yard 
range, forty-eight arrows are shot at 80 yards 
and twenty-four arrows at 60 yards. In a cham¬ 
pionship contest the round is shot twice, making 
a double round. 
Ten points are used in deciding the winner. 
Two points are given the archer making the 
greatest number of hits, and two points to the 
one making the highest score; one point for the 
greatest number of hits at too yards, and one 
point for highest score at 100 yards; one point 
for most hits at 80 yards, and one point for 
highest score at 80 yards; one point for most 
hits at 60 yards, and one point for highest score 
at 60 yards. 
The archer having the most points becomes 
the champion. 
When a person takes up archery, or any 
sport, he sees many things which do not look 
quite right to him. He is not conversant with 
the history of the sport, and does not know that 
every point in it has been thought over care¬ 
fully and discussed pro and con, until it has 
reached its present status. In his impatient en¬ 
thusiasm he starts, de novo, to make over things, 
without availing himself of the work which has 
been done in the past. 
It may be stated that as a rule it is a good 
plan to let well enough alone. But “well enough” 
is often not as good as it should be. In such 
case an effort should be made to change things 
for the better. 
It appears that a majority of the archers 
believe that the present system of scoring the 
championship contests could be changed with 
great benefit. To be sure, it has the sanction of 
long years’ use. It has been adopted, dropped 
and adopted again. Each time it has been under 
consideration, it has been discussed at length, 
and I regret to say in some cases acrimoniously. 
H. B. Richardson states in his letter already 
printed, that “whatever may be the official rule 
in England concerning the use of the point sys¬ 
tem, it was not enforced in 1908, the year I was 
there. The match was decided on the highest 
score. When I got one more than Brooks King, 
there was no discussion of the points won.” 
Though nothing was said about it on the range, 
the Archer’s Register, for that year, shows that 
the championship was won by points as usual. 
It shows that the archers were thinking 
more of highest score than of points. It is alto¬ 
gether probable that if a contestant were de¬ 
clared champion by a point, or the fraction of 
a point, and had not made the highest score, 
the one who had would be popularly considered 
the best archer. 
In the Archer’s Register for 1911-12, a list 
of six best ladies’ and gentlemen’s scores and 
hits are given for each year since 1871. Of 
course there was no occasion for saying anything 
about points; it is stated that the hits and scores 
are given so that comparisons can be made. 
They, no more than we, would think of com¬ 
paring archers’ skill by points which they might 
have made. 
James Duff, of Jersey City, who has lived 
and drawn the long bow in England, states in 
his recent letter: 
“I may mention here that the point method 
of scoring has long been looked on with scorn 
by some of the good British archers, but its very 
antiquity, I believe, has scared the man from 
coming forth and taking a firm stand for im¬ 
provement.” 
The antiquity and glory of archery, and the 
sentiment attached to it, make it difficult to effect 
changes which seem to be needed. 
But we must remember that the archery of 
to-day is different from the archery of the past. 
Distances shot have been charged, as also 
have targets, number of arrows shot for an end, 
archer’s dress, methods of scoring, and in other 
ways. A change was made at the last tourna¬ 
ment by assigning the archers to different targets 
on the two days of the championship contest, so 
that if there was any difference in the desirable¬ 
ness of their locations, no one would have a 
good target on two days, and another, one not 
so good, on two days. This new arrangement 
caused no commotion whatever. 
An evolution has been going on, and the 
time has not yet come when there can be no 
further change for the better. 
When in the past, either in this country or 
abroad, the point system has been given up, it 
has been changed to gross score alone. Score 
and hits should be added, for in this way hits 
receive the credit due them, and this makes a 
different proposition of it. 
I am firmly of the opinion that the cham¬ 
pionships should be awarded by coming hits and 
score. And the change can be made without 
“muddying the clear stream of archery that now 
flows deeper, cleaner and stronger than for many 
years,” as Mr. Thompson fears might be the 
case. 
Note.—Recent discussions of the point sys¬ 
tem of scoring may be found in the issues of 
Forest and Stream for Dec. 21, 1912, Feb. 15, 
22, March 8 , 1913. 
Fine Archery Scores. 
When a double York round score of 900 is 
made, it does not cause much comment. The 
average archer does not seem to think it any¬ 
thing out of the ordinary, though he may never 
have approached it. 
Since the organization of the National 
Archery Association, in 1879, it has been made, 
at its annual meetings, but six times, and by four 
different archers. These scores follows; 
1883 Col. Robert Williams, Jr. 199 907 
1885 Col. Robert Williams, Jr. 215 995 
1908 Will H. Thompson . 211 973 
1909 George P. Bryant . 227 975 
1910 H. B. Richardson . 231 1111 
1912 George P. Bryant . 230 1094 
During the same period, the championship 
score made at the Grand National Meeting, in 
England, has been as high as 900 only four times 
as shown below: 
1884 C. E. Nesham . 208 902 
1885 C. E. Nesham . 211 917 
1886 C. E. Nesham . 202 1022 
1890 C. E. Nesham . 207 921 
Since 1879, 900 has been made in other Grand 
meetings in England, and also in the Ohio State 
Archery Association a few times. But it is made 
so rarely, that we remove our hat to the one who 
makes it. 
The Degenerate Yew. 
From the Archer’s Register, 1911-12. 
Oh, where in the world can I find the bow 
That cost but a fiver some years ago. 
And pulled about fifty-five pounds or so— 
Slender and taper to head and heel. 
Steady and whippy and tough as steel? 
If I drew but a finger across the string. 
Like the note of a fiddle I heard it sing; 
If I shot all day in the summer sun,- 
It kept its shape when the day was done; 
It drove the arrows both low and fast. 
For bows in those days never lost their cast. 
It was caste indeed that our Yews had then. 
But ours to-day are a bourgeois race; 
Podgy and heavy and void of grace; 
No ancient blood in their veins, I ween— 
It isn’t an insult to call them green! 
If you don’t believe me, just “wait and see”— 
You may order a bow, but you’ll get a tree! 
When you’ve shot your round you will rage and foam 
For you’ll need a coffin to cart it home; 
And when on your wall it is safely hung. 
You’d almost swear that the thing was strung. 
If you wouldn’t be cursed with such a bow. 
Fat and lazy and tired and slow. 
You may save your money and buy, perchance, 
A “cattle-walloper”—that’s a lance! 
Avondale. 
FOR ARCHERY SUPPLIES 
Write for Archery Catalogue. 
E. I. HORSMAN CO. 365 Broadway, N. Y. 
