Okay, let's use a conversation I had with Matt about his trophy buck this year. It's a damn good thing he had his traditional gear with him. The way the shot played out and I hope you remember, we talked that it was a damn good thing he didn't carry his compound because he feels he would have NEVER got a shot off. He was all but laying on the ground, blindly grabbing an arrow and knocking it, drawing and shooting instinctively with his bow just inches off the ground and almost parallel to it. He mentioned that buck would have never stood there for him to draw, anchor, set his pin and release. SO having his traditional gear made that hunt easier? Could that be said? It would have been harder to get a shot off with a compound so a compound hunt could be harder?
You've said something to me a while back about traditional being no more difficult than a compound if the animal is within 20 yards. Well, that might be true... If you are patient enough to hold off with the compound and wait for the deer to come to 20 instead of zapping it the first time it gives you a broadside at 40. But this is something different... taking a seldom seenincident like that and using it for a basis to say traditional is no more difficult than compound?
True the traditional bow is an advantage in that kind of situation (unless you shoot your compound barebow and fingers just like it were a traditional bowand thenthe compoundhas the exact same advantage) but the average bowhunter might never see that kind of thing happen in the woods! It's a pretty rare thing, and even more rare that it was such a great animal. That's like saying someone survived falling 20,000 feet from an airplane without a parachute and survived, so parachutes are no advantage!