On the 65% thing, I don' t have the least concern that P&Y did it. I just think it was a mistake.

I said " in retrospect" Arthur, not that at the time they cut people out. I think they hoped it would draw a line, but if nobody observes it, I think it risks making P&Y irrelevant. Of course, they have never been a complete list, so I guess that doesn' t mater.

What is worst for their credibility is that it wasn' t a meaningful restriction. Modern bows are just as hard to hold at 80% as 65%, on a 70# bow, that is an 11 pound difference in holding weight. The holding weight of the 65% bow is about the holding weight of a child' s recurve 25.5# (insome cases easier to shoot that the floppy 80% bow). The majority of archer' s can' t even hold that weight long enough to get off a shot before their form crumbles, because they blew their strength rolling over a massive cam. It it is more difficult, as regards strength, to shoot a 70#/80% cam bow than a 70# recurve, assuming the recurve isn' t being used like a FITA bow with sights etc.... The fact is that most people are overbowed, and will always take more bow than they can manage, regardless of the technology. If a person stayed within the 190 fps area we enjoyed with recurves, back in the early 80s, and applied all the modern gizmos, they would find their new bows trivialy easy to shoot. That isn' t what I see on the range or in the groups. People are still overbowed. The let-off issue wasn' t a threat.