2) If i did shoot a recurve does that make me right and better than everyone shooting compounds? 3) To say that a compound is the same as a crossbow only shows that you have never shot a compound or it`s been so long that you forgot how much practise it does take to stay proficent.
Turk_man this is exactly what I am talking about. Archery equipment is archery equipment, it is just another tool of which a hunter has the choice of using. Many many independant experts who have researched archery equipment have stated that compounds and crossbows are generally equal in the advantages that they give the shooters or longbows and recurves. They state that the advantages are different but generally equal. In otherwords in certain situations, either the crossbow or the compound would better suit your hunting terrain. This is where your hunting choice comes in.
By the way; I still own my compound: a Browning Bushmaster which you probually do not even know about 
and yes I still remember how much it took to practice to become profeccient with it.
Check into history and you`ll find that even in ancient China crossbows shooters were never classed as archers. The developement of crossbows was because of the fact that good archers were hard to find and crossbows were an effective alternative.
I think you need to research more into the history of crossbows. Crossbows have been classed as archery equipment for thousands of years. The reason crossbows became a tool of choice is that the warriors did not have to practice as long to become efficant, therefore they could replace dead soldiers faster, but you will find out that the longbows normally defeated the crossbows because of the shear mass or volume or arrows they could sling in a minute compared to the crossbow.
As I said, crossbows are archery equipment and have been for longer then compounds.