Participation Intro

For my whole time playing sport I've enjoyed competition. The process of working towards an event. Training. Travelling and then putting it together at the event in an attempt to come out on top of the rest of the field.

Winning sometimes happened and sometimes didn't. When it didn't the goal of the next event was to move further up the ladder to try and claw my way to the top.

My first individual sport I played was racketball. (similar to squash). I started in E Grade. The basic level. The plan was to work my way up to D through performing well. The drive in a 12 year old me was off the charts. I went undefeated mostly through a sheer determination to be an A grade player.

However my rackball career came to a screeching halt when I started archery. My new obsession.

As I started archery the thought process was the same. Start at the bottom and work my way up.

Back then there was 3 junior age groups, then seniors. No Masters, Veterens or Veterens Plus. No Cadets, no joeys.

The bow divisions were the same as now.



83 shot the State Indoor in 1990 (held in Geelong, so not easy to get to)

Mens Compound: 27 entries

Mens Recurve: 23 entries

Womens Compound: 9 entries


Womens Recurve: 6 entries

Junior Boys Compound:
7 entries

11 State Champions

25 medals handed out.

30% of entries received a medal.





As I got older it seemed to me that more and more people received medals. Presentations were taking longer and longer.



And yet more and more age groups were being added.



These would be put up in motions with reasonings such as



"Will increase participation" and
cost implications as "Zero"



Now after many years the question is. Did it increase participation? Was the movers of these motions correct in their assumptions?



Please note: I am not passing any judgement on competitors and their motivations. Current participants are simply shooting in the divisions they are given. Please do not take this all personally.


Next


User login