I'll have to side with davidmil regarding what successful hunting is. Ultimately the goal of hunting is to take game. No one would argue that you have to kill something to have had a wonderfull time in the woods and I think just about everyone would agree that the actual kill is only a tiny amount of time spent out of the entire hunting experience. I think the problem here (IMHO) is that some confuse succeeding at having a great time/experience with succeeding at the entire hunting experience. I don't think they are one in the same. As davidmil said, ultimately the goal is to kill something and by definition if that is the goal then you have failed in that goal if you don't do it at some point. If your goal is to just have a good time then of course you can succeed in that regard without killing something but of course then you must admit that your goal is not to succeed in a complete hunting experience but rather a partial one. Do you have to kill in order to have had a good time? Of course not, in fact if I didn't have a good time on my outings that failed to result in the taking of game I wouldn't hunt anymore. But I just don't think it's reality to claim to be a successfull hunter if in the end the freezer is empty. I wouldn't consider you to be much of a pilot if you did everything but land the plane and I wouldn't consider you much of a hunter if you did everything but kill the game you pursue.

With regard to compound or recurve. I killed my first deer with a recurve in 1968 and didn't start hunting with a compound until 1980. Is it more challenging with a recurve? Certainly. Which do I enjoy more? Well all things considered, I'd have to say the compound. I'll emphasize FOR ME! To me the weapon I use is only part of the equation and I suspect it is only part of the equation for others as well. How big a part I'm sure varies hunter to hunter. I recommend giving both recurve and compound a fair shot and deciding for yourself.