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 seen incident like that and using it for a basis to say traditional is no more difficult than compound?
I agree AP, very much so but bc said about norms and in most polls, the majority of deer are taken 20 yards and in.
I threw up my own experience of missing a buck at 16 yards, I'm here to tell you that I could have hit the damn thing with traditional gear so why would traditional gear have made that hunt "harder"? That's all I'm asking and I'm yet to see a valid reason.
I'm not talking that a compound "can" give you more yardage options, to some, not others so again, harder or easier for whom, only the proficient right? Isn't that what were really talking here? The best of the best against the best of the best, then yes, traditional is a harder hunt because of yardage limitations but
bc, is that a norm, I ask an experience traditionalist such as yourself.