PVC bows for novice archers: Susanto 2024 study

At an Indonesian club there were too few bows, and those there were too heavy for beginners (18 to 20 pounds), so athletes spent more time queuing than shooting. The author introduced bows made from plastic pipe (PVC, "paralon" in Indonesian) and followed 15 novice athletes through two training cycles, with a shooting test at 10 metres at the end of each.

After the first cycle the mean mark was 54.58, with a low of 39.04 and a high of 90.45; after the second it was 81.31, with a low of 71.37 and a high of 91.53. The pass mark was 75: 5 of the 15 athletes (33.3%) reached it after the first cycle and 14 of 15 (93.33%) after the second. A ten-item questionnaire at the end reports that almost everyone found the training enjoyable and the pipe bow comfortable and safe, and could reach the target at 3, 5 and 7 metres. The author concludes that training with the PVC bow improved the beginners' results.

The design is classroom action research following the Kemmis and McTaggart model: plan, act, observe, reflect, then repeat the cycle. The athletes were 15 novices from the Beji club in Tulungagung, East Java. In the first cycle they took turns shooting the pipe bows from 7-10 metres; in the second, split into three teams, they shot from 3, 5, 7 and 10 metres, were taught the nine stages of the shot, from foot position to holding still after the release, and were also allowed to try the club's standard bow. At the end of each cycle a shooting test at 10 metres produced a mark, and the results are reported as the percentage of athletes above the pass mark of 75. The target set in the method section was for at least 75% of athletes to reach it.

The paper does not describe the test: we are not told how many arrows each athlete shot, at what target face, with which bow (pipe or standard), or how scores became the mark against which the pass level of 75 was set. There is no control group and no measurement before the pipe bow was introduced, since the first cycle already used it: the improvement between the two cycles may come from practice, the progressive distances, the technical instruction in the second cycle or the standard bow, and the study cannot separate them. Neither the athletes' ages nor the type of standard bow is given.

The numbers do not always agree with one another. The pass rate after the first cycle is given as 33.3%, then as 42.42% and as 44.44%; the rise from 33.3% to 93.33% is described as an increase of 50%; at one point the number passing becomes 15 while the percentage stays at that for 14; the questionnaire reports figures such as 94.44%, which cannot be obtained with 15 people; the conclusion speaks of two cycles and three sessions, the discussion of one cycle and two sessions, and the target shifts from 75% to 80%. The abstract talks about arrows made from pipe, while the title and text talk about bows. The journal is flagged in the registry for questionable editorial standards.

For a coach working with children or beginners, the study describes a real situation: at the club in question, with light, cheap bows the athletes shot more without tiring, instead of waiting their turn with a bow that was too heavy, and according to the questionnaire the sessions were more enjoyable. It does not show that such a bow improves technique or scores, since there is no comparison of any kind, and the final test is not described well enough to know what it measured. What remains is an account of one club's experience, with numbers that cannot stand comparison with other studies.