Rob, if you want to talk about the average compound shooter vs the average traditional shooter, then I'll fall back on statistics. Hunter success ratios are 3 times higher for compound hunters than for traditional hunters, ref: study done by Oklahoma State University on hunter success and wound/loss ratios comparing traditional vs compounds for the U.S. Army Ammunition Depot, McAlester, Oklahoma. Check with OSU library archives if you'd like to buy a copy.

If compound was equally as hard as traditional, overall, then the ratios would be identical.

To my knowledge, this is the only study that has ever directly compared hunter success between traditional and compound equipment. Interestingly, it also compared wound/loss statistics between the two. Far lower wound/loss rate for traditional. Traditionals were collecting a much higher percentage of the animals they hit than the compound guys. Some might say it's more experienced bowhunters that have gone over to traditional, and that accounts for the disparity in wound/loss. I'm inclined to agree with that.