Oh boy is this topic a can of worms! We're talking "just archery" here, right? Well, that depends on what kind of shooting we're talking about. While I haven't shot traditional my whole life, I spent most of my hunting and shooting life with either a recurve or a bare-bones compound. If we're comparing Instinctive Shooting VS. Aided (sights, release, overdraw, all the whistles and bells) then there is NO way you can convince me it's easier to shoot traditional.

"Traditional shooting is WAY more of a challenge. Are you kidding me? You are aren't you. Just want to get the boys all rialed up, ah? Get a grip dude. I could take just about any able bodied soul off the street and have them shooting a tricked out, sighted in compound with great accuracy in a matter of a few dozen arrows. You think this would hold true for a recurve?"

I agree with the above quote. What kind of shooting are we looking at here? Let's use the above quote and set up a scenario. You pick two people off the streets, hell, let's make it REAL interesting... you pick a man and his clone (I know it's not possible, but bear with me). You give the man (let's call him "Joe") a recurve. You give his clone (let's call him "Clone") a compound with all the trimmings. Let's say that both bows have... 45# draw weights. Okay? Now, we're not shooting for points here, the object is to hit a paper plate downrange. Let's say that they both have a hundred arrows to practice with. After that, they will be allowed five shots, whoever hits the plate the most wins. If they both hit the plate five times, the better group wins. Let's say that Joe takes his recurve and does EXTREMELY well, for a begginer. Clone takes his decked out compound. They both fire their hundred arrows. Let's say that Joe, being naturally good with a compound, puts all five arrows into the plate. This stands to reason that Clone will be just a naturally gifted with shooting. The clone is going to slaughter Joe in that kind of situation. While this may make little sense, I find it impossible to believe that a compound is just as difficult to shoot as a traditional bow.
In the above quote, I'd also have to say that you're trying to get everyone riled up on this point. I cannot think of ANY post that would fire more people up than this one. IMO, a recurve (or longbow, whichever you choose) is infinitely more difficult to shoot. Sure, there are some guys (like the Olympians recognized in a previous response) who could castrate a gnat... and some have had little or no training. Now what about hunting? It's so much easier to bag an animal with a compound. Wait, I take that back. I've shot numerous geese with a recurve and I've tried with a compound. Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to shoot at a flying goose with a compound? So yeah, a compound is much more difficult to use in that situation. Dang, I burned up my break on this one post. See y'all later.