I don't think there is a formula, though it doesn't hurt to suggest one. I think the person in question is a pro if they know what they are doing, and have good profesional ethics. We aren't trusting these guys with our savings (well I hope not). I don't care if they don't have a bow press at all, or don't have high tech strings. What if they sell stick bows or FITA bows only? If my local shop had an Olympic Gold Medalist, and I was interested in FITA, would I care how many bow presses they had? In general, I think the proposed criterion don't consider adequately shooting skills. If a guy decides to sell only a few brands, and they all fit the one press, and he can order strings, who cares? What would be bad would be the guy puting your bow on a press that might injure it, but that's ethics/education. I don't really care how many bow monkees a guy has in training, what if the guy held really good do-it-yourself seminars so that a lot of the folks could do their own bows? Bows are simple enough that they are pretty much an open book to the right kind of person with some good books or videos, so I wouldn't want to see it get too complicated.

Overall what are we going to do about this? Get AMO to certify what a pro is, and then only let those shops represent Pro Shop product. That isn't a bad idea, if we all want to pay an extra few hundred for our bows. Profesional standards are a good thing if they aren't used to excesively limit competion, and if the economics of the thing can support it. The PGA does a pretty good job but golf isn't cheap, despite all the nonsense about inner city programs to broaden the sport. You have to have the economic hook to hang it on. In golf for a lot of operations (I am told) it is cart rentals. Most of the PGA guys I have run accross aren't all that knowledgeable about gear. They can play the pants off most members though.

To have super pros would be nice, but I am not sure where the money will come from outside the large markets.