I can really flub a chronograph reading by pulling super hard into the wall or creeping or torquing the bow. Again there is that human element.

Certainly taken on it's own merits we can say bow X will be "better" than bow Y from a graph or machine testing. That's not my argument. My argument is, when adding the human element do these "machine tests" prove nearly as valuable as far as the end result (hitting what we aim at) is concerned?

Even for the paid pros who are winning year in and year out with "inferior" equipment..they ARE winning...even against shooters with "superior" (as technically tested) equipment. They've done it indoors @ Vegas/AC, and at marked yardage as well. Would they win more with "superior equipment"? Hard to say one way or another until they tried. The fact remains, they still win quite a bit. Does it mean that one company has all the best shooters? They have alot of them for sure, but given the superiority of the "non winners" equipment, should they not be winning instead all the time?

Again it points back to the individual's skill to put the arrow where it needs to go. As I said in the first post..for some of the more "extreme" archery competitions, little things CAN make the difference...for maybe perhaps 1% of the Archers who are the pinnacle of the sport. But "the proof is in the pudding" as they say, and for the rest of us the human element is the factor that needs the least variation or most consistency, no?

BTW: Changed my sig for you Frank