March 29, 1913 
FOREST AND STREAM 
405 
Forest and Stream is the official organ of the National Archery Association. 
The Point System of Scoring. 
BY E. J. RENDTORFF. 
The adoption of Forest and Stream as 
our official organ for the discussion of archery 
matters has been one of the wisest moves made 
by the archery world during the last decade. 
During the past winter season, archery has not 
been dormant, but wide awake and progressive. 
Considerable interest has been shown, and the 
prospects for a revival of the sport are brighter 
than for many a long year past. We have, how¬ 
ever, neglected to make full use of the oppor¬ 
tunities afforded by Forest and Stream. By 
this statement I mean that we do not enter 
sufficiently into friendly discussions of mooted 
archery questions. 
The sport is old and full of traditions. The 
customs of ages, cling to it tenaciously. We ad¬ 
here to the practices of the hoary past and 
progress but slowly. The reason for this is 
that we do not enter sufficiently into a general 
discussion when new ideas are presented. Dr. 
Weston’s articles suggesting a change in the 
point system of scoring offers a fruitful field 
for discussion. For fear that no other archer 
will consider the matter, I shall attempt to make 
a few remarks pertaining to the question, mainly 
for the reason that others may then follow my 
example. In a general discussion of the matter 
many suggestive ideas will be presented. 
It is a good idea to let well enough alone, 
but it is another question when we consider a 
change in those matters where a grave injus¬ 
tice is more than possible. Thus, for example, 
the standard target is forty-eight inches in 
diameter, and every shot outside of the charmed 
circle is a miss. The outer circle counts one, 
and the center nine, with the other zones valued 
at three, five and seven. The selection of the 
size of the target is purely arbitrary, and so 
are the values assigned to the various colors. 
But what is the difference? Does not your 
black or gold count exactly the same as that 
of any other archer? Here is an example where 
a change would be extremely unwise and un¬ 
desirable, in spite of the arbitrary, somewhat 
incorrect values assigned to the various colors 
of the target. It gives us all an equal chance. 
It is a good application of the square deal. 
When it comes to the point system of scor¬ 
ing, a different condition presents itself. It does 
not necessarily give all an equal chance, but is 
frequently a matter of circumstances. Take, for 
example, the following three scores selected from 
actual American rounds: 
60Yds. 
50Yds. 
40Yds. 
Score. Points. 
A . 
. 28 
150 
29 199 
29 225 
86 574 4 
B . 
. 29 
153 
30 148 
28 168 
87 469 5 
C . 
. 17 
71 
25 131 
30 150 
72 352 1 
Here is 
an 
example 
of a poor archer, mak- 
ing 
a score 
of 
but 72-352, robbin 
g an excellent 
score of the honors of the round. It gives an 
equal value to the scores 29-225 and 30-150. It 
is nothing short of a crime. Why should the 
mediocre performance of C at forty yards be 
considered at all? If archer C had not been 
present, A and B would have tied in points with 
five each. On the basis of the highest score, A 
would have won the match by the skin of his 
teeth; but if B had made one more hit at forty 
yards, he would have won the honors by 5^2 to 
4,^2 points in spite of a total score of 100 less 
than A. This may be an unusual case, but it is 
taken from scores actually made. Consider, for 
example. Miss Brownell’s score at the last tour¬ 
nament. 
Now, I maintain that a method of scoring 
that allows these conditions is radically wrong 
and needs revision. 
The conditions in the York round are some¬ 
what different, for here an equal value in points 
is assigned to the twenty-four arorws at sixty 
yards, as to the seventy-two arows at too yards. 
It is true that the expert at too yards has the 
advantage of the four points for total hits and 
total score, due to the larger number of arrows 
at that distance. This may tend to equalize the 
same number of points given for proficiency at 
sixty yards, as compared with 100 yards. There 
is, however, no similar compensating feature in 
the point system as applied to the American 
round, so that if the system is equitable for 
the one round, it is not for the other. 
The two most popular alternatives that could 
be used in place of the present point method 
are: First, an addition of hits and score, and 
second, the score alone. If the first method is 
adopted and a tie results, the winner should be 
the man with the highest score. In case of a 
tie in both hits and score, the old point method 
could be applied to decide the winner, but ap¬ 
plied only to the records of the two archers 
that were tied, irrespective of the records made 
l)y competing archers. 
Some archers might object to the second 
method on the basis of insufficient credit given 
to hits. We must consider that every miss de¬ 
tracts a possible nine from the total score, so 
that if the score alone is counted to determine 
the winner, the number of hits made still enters, 
not as a separate entity, but in its equivalent 
value as part of the total score. If this does 
not give hits the true value, then add the hits 
to the score. Either method is fairer, more 
rational and less apt to create bad feeling than 
our present method. 
The relative value of hits and score is to 
a great extent a question of conditions. My two 
most abnormal scores at 100 yards, for an end 
of six arrows are: i, i, i, i, i, 3=6-8 and 
o, o, o, 5, 9, 9—3-23. The latter was to a great 
extent a matter of luck which is equalized in 
a large number of shots, and gave me less pleas¬ 
ure than the first end ; still it is a great question 
FOREST GROVE, OREGON, ARCHERS’ CLUB. 
