Danny,
Now I think I understand your point. However, I think it is a matter of perspective...
The second list (more recent " improvements" ) did LESS to improve the average archer than the first list did. Did we really need single cams, 80% let-off, tritium sight pins, mechanical broadheads, etc, just to become better?
No, we probably did not " need" them but I fail to understand how you can single out something like a single cam in relation to a dual cam when both are significantly different than a stick bow. They are both eccentrics but one was introduced " earlier" than the other. Speaking in very general terms, neither offers a signficant advantage over the other in comparison to traditional equipment.
In alot of ways, the more recent " improvements" made it more DIFFICULT for the average archer. Look at 33" axle to axle bows with 6" of brace height. The average archer is gonna have fits with that.
I have to be honest with you. I rarely see any sub-34 inch axle to axle length bows with brace heights under 7 inches (there are some exceptions ofcourse). However, most of the time the short bows have huge brace heights or unique riser/limb designs to help offset some of the disadvantages of the short axle to axle length. Most sub-7 inch brace height bows are at least 35 inches in axle to axle length and have been around for more than even the last 10 years.
Now, I totally understand that those were just two specific examples of what you were trying to relate. However, though I do agree that there are some " advances" in technology that did not really advance the sport, I do not think that some of the examples you provided could be used as such. Respectively said ofcourse.