The Archery Performance Rating is a single number that represents your shooting accuracy level based on competition results. It translates every qualifying score you've shot — regardless of distance, target face, or round format — to a common reference standard: a 122 cm WA face at 70 metres. The resulting arrow average, multiplied by 100, is your APR.

An APR of 850 means you average 8.5 per arrow on that reference. Every 10 points on the scale equals 0.1 per arrow, or about 7 score points over a 72-arrow round.

Higher is better. The scale runs from around 200 for very early-stage archers to a theoretical maximum of about 1100 (representing a perfect round of all Xs). In practice the world's best recurve archers sit around 950–1000, and top compound archers around 1010–1060.

National rankings typically reflect placement at specific selection events — they are positional (1st, 2nd, 3rd) rather than performance-based. Two archers ranked 5th and 6th might be 200 APR points apart, or they might be 5 points apart.

The APR is a performance-based, absolute scale. It doesn't care where you finished — only what you actually shot, adjusted for the difficulty of the conditions and the quality of the field. It's comparable across countries, years, and round formats.

The Arrow Score Level (ASL) model was developed by Dr. Richard Park and Magnus Larven and published by Archery Australia in 2014. It models arrow scatter on a target face as a Gaussian distribution — arrows cluster around the aiming point with a spread that follows predictable statistical laws. Given any competition score at any distance and face, the model can calculate the spread (sigma) that would have produced it, and then translate that sigma to any other distance and face.

This is what allows the APR to compare a 660/720 at 70m with a 290/300 at 18m on the same scale — the physics of the scatter model does the translation, not a lookup table. Full explanation on the Theory page.

The APR uses an 11-point scoring model — X counts as 11, not 10. The ASL model calculates a probability for each ring zone, including the X ring. If the X is collapsed back to 10, that probability information is discarded, and the model loses the ability to distinguish between two archers with the same total score but different X counts.

At elite levels, nearly every arrow lands in the gold. A 10-point model would cluster all those archers together at the ceiling. The 11-point model maintains discriminating power across the full range. For developing archers it makes less difference — most arrows aren't in the gold anyway — but it's consistent across the scale.

Scores are imported from sanctioned competition result systems — primarily the World Archery results API, which provides official qualification round scores for World Cups, World Championships, and Olympic Games. Other competition platforms are added as integrations are built. Self-submission is not currently available, but is planned for club and regional events.

Not yet. The system currently relies on official result feeds to ensure data accuracy. A self-submission feature for club and regional events is planned, and will include a verification mechanism to prevent fabricated results from influencing ratings.

Events are imported manually when official results are available from the source system. If your event hasn't appeared yet, it's most likely that the results haven't been imported — not that your score was missed. Events are added as data becomes available, so recently completed competitions may have a short lag before appearing.

No. Only qualification round scores are included. Match play results have a fundamentally different structure — sets won and lost, not arrow values — and the ASL model can't translate them to the reference standard. Qualification scores, where archers shoot a full round for a total, are the correct input for the APR calculation. A match-play rating system is considered for future development.

For your APR and rating, it doesn't matter — a round total is all the system needs to calculate a valid rating. What changes with arrow data is the availability of two coaching diagnostics: the consistency score and peak potential APR. Both require knowing which ring zone each arrow landed in, which a round total doesn't reveal.

All World Archery imports include end-by-end arrow values, so these metrics are available for World Cup, World Championship, and Olympic scores. Events sourced from other systems may provide totals only.

Because the APR uses an 11-point scoring model (X = 11), it matters whether an event recorded X counts. If X counts were recorded, the system can use the 11-point model fully. If they weren't — as is common at smaller indoor events — the system uses a 10-ring model and the APR ceiling for that round is slightly lower.

This flag is set by the system operator at import time based on whether the event format includes X scoring. An indoor 300 round without X tracking still generates a valid, fully usable APR and rating update. It simply can't access the additional resolution that X counts provide.

Ratings are updated every time a new event is imported. There's no scheduled update cycle — when a competition's results are loaded into the system, every affected archer's rating is recalculated in sequence from their full competition history. You may see your rating change when new historical events are added as well, since all ratings are always calculated in chronological order.

Two things can cause this. First, if a historical event was added or corrected, all ratings are recalculated from scratch in chronological order — this can shift ratings for archers who competed in subsequent events, even if they weren't in the new event themselves. Second, your rating is a weighted average of event APRs: when the full history is replayed, small shifts in weights or ordering can change the aggregate slightly even when you have not shot a new round.

A few factors could be at play. Your overall rating is a weighted average of your event APR results — more recent scores carry more weight than older ones, and scores from major championships carry more weight than smaller events. It is not a snapshot of your latest result alone: one score moves it, but does not replace it. A single strong or weak performance will move the needle, but not dramatically once you have an established history.

Field calibration may also have been applied when difficult conditions depressed an entire session — see Conditions in this FAQ.

If you're in Phase 1 or 2 (fewer than 10 scores), the weighted aggregation is still working with limited data and the rating can shift more than it will once you're established.

Not necessarily — it depends on where the score falls relative to your existing rating. Your rating is a weighted average of all your event APRs, so a single result below your current rating will bring the average down slightly, and one above will bring it up. The more scores you have, the less any single result moves the average. Over time, consistent improvement in your scores will move the rating upward.

Your rating number itself doesn't change while you're inactive — the weighted average of your existing results stays where it is. What does change is that older scores carry progressively less weight when new results are eventually added, so returning to competition after a long gap will move your rating more than it would for an active archer. Your rating deviation (RD) reflects the volume of your competition history; competing again will continue to narrow it.

Field calibration corrects for conditions (wind, rain, lighting) that push an entire session below what that group of archers would normally average at other events. See the Theory page section on field calibration, or the Conditions questions below.

The ± value is your rating deviation (RD). It represents the system's statistical confidence in your rating based on the volume of your competition history. A wide RD (±150) means the system has seen little data and is uncertain. A narrow RD (±25) means your rating is well-established from a substantial competition history. RD narrows as you accumulate more scores — it doesn't widen automatically during inactivity, but returning to competition after a long gap will produce larger rating movements as the system incorporates new evidence.

Compete more. Each additional score adds evidence and narrows the RD. There's no shortcut — the system is designed to require genuine competition history before claiming high confidence. After 10+ scores from well-weighted events, most archers will see an RD in the ±30–60 range.

No — it just means the system doesn't yet have enough data to be confident. It's not a reflection of your shooting quality. A new archer who shoots beautifully will have a wide RD until they've competed enough for the system to be sure. Think of it as the system being honest rather than overconfident.

They measure completely different things and are independent of one another.

RD is about how much competition evidence the system has about you across events — it narrows as you compete more, regardless of how evenly you shoot. An archer can have a very narrow RD (well-established) and still shoot inconsistently.

The consistency score is a coaching diagnostic for a single round: by default it emphasizes downside — how much excess you have in the weaker half of ring values compared with what the ASL model expects at your skill level. Scoring better than expected on high rings does not lower it. (Administrators can switch the site to a legacy “full histogram” mode that treats any deviation from the predicted ring mix more symmetrically.) It has nothing to do with how many competitions you've entered. A large RD is fixed by competing more. A low consistency score is addressed on the practice range.

By default, the consistency score is a percentage based on the low half of ring values on the target (values through about half of the highest ring on that face). It measures whether you threw more weak-ring arrows than the ASL model expects for someone shooting at your level. If your low-ring counts stay close to or below expectation, the score is high. If you pile up misses and low values beyond what the model predicts — even when your average still looks fine — the score drops. Outperforming the model on high rings alone does not reduce this score.

Site operators can instead enable a legacy mode that scores consistency from deviation across the entire ring histogram (symmetric χ²-style fit). In either case, it's a coaching diagnostic, not a ranking metric — it doesn't feed into your APR. It's shown per-event in your score history as well as in aggregate on your profile.

Because the APR is based on the average arrow value, not on how that average was achieved. Archer A might shoot six 55–57 point ends throughout a round: very consistent, even distribution. Archer B might shoot two 62-point ends and one 46 and alternate between excellent and weak — but average the same score. Their APR is identical; their consistency scores are not. The diagnostics reveal the story behind the average.

Peak potential is your APR recalculated after removing the weakest arrows from a round — specifically, those scoring at or below the 15th percentile of the expected ASL distribution for your skill level. The remaining arrows are re-solved through the ASL model to produce a rating representing your better-than-average shooting.

The gap between your APR and your peak potential APR tells you how much your off-arrows are costing you. A 20–30 point gap means your distribution is already fairly tight. A 80–100+ point gap means a small number of significantly weak arrows are holding your average down — which is actually encouraging, as it shows your best shooting is well ahead of your typical result.

Both metrics require individual arrow data — at minimum, end-by-end scores (e.g. end 1: 57, end 2: 54, etc.). A round total alone can't be decomposed into individual arrow values, so these calculations aren't possible without it. All World Archery imports include end-by-end values, so these metrics are available for all World Cup, World Championship, and Olympic scores. Events sourced from systems that only provide a round total will show these as unavailable for those scores — but your APR and rating are unaffected.

Not directly — consistency doesn't feed into the APR calculation. What it does tell you is whether your end-to-end variance is tight or wide relative to your scoring level. An archer who improves their consistency — bringing weak ends up to the level of their strong ones — will see their average score improve, which will then improve their APR. But the consistency score itself is a diagnostic that points where to look, not a direct rating input.

This varies by country and bow style, and national team selection is based on ranking systems that may not align directly with APR. As a rough guide, the benchmarks on the rating scale suggest "national / elite national" level is around 800–849 for Olympic Recurve and 860–909 for Compound. These are world-competition benchmarks drawn from athletes who appear at international events, so actual national team thresholds for a given country could be considerably lower or higher depending on the depth of that country's programme.

The ASL Gaussian scatter model requires a minimum arrow accuracy to produce reliable results — very low scores don't generate enough statistical signal for the inverse-solving process to work cleanly. For archers scoring below this threshold, a power-curve developmental model is used instead: APR = 200 + (floor − 200) × (score% / floor%)². This produces smooth, graduated ratings for early-stage archers rather than the model breaking down or producing absurd values. The transition between the developmental and full ASL models is smoothed across a narrow overlap range to avoid any sudden jump.

In absolute accuracy terms, no — 50 APR points always represents the same 0.5 per arrow accuracy gain on the reference target. The arithmetic is constant across the scale.

In practical terms, it becomes progressively harder because at higher levels there's less room for error in any given arrow. Going from 650 to 700 means landing more arrows in the 7–8 ring zone instead of the 6 zone. Going from 950 to 1000 means converting 9s to Xs while already landing nearly everything in the gold. The absolute gain is the same; the margin for error is not.

A perfect round — every arrow an X — would score 792 out of 792 on the 11-point model over 72 arrows, producing a theoretical APR of around 1100. No archer has come close to this in competition. The world's best recurve archers operate around 950–1000; top compound archers around 1010–1060. The ceiling exists as a mathematical limit that gives the scale room to breathe at the top rather than compressing all elite performance into a narrow band.

Because the equipment capabilities differ. A compound archer using a release aid and a near-zero let-off bow can physically group arrows more tightly at 50m than a recurve archer can at 70m with fingers. Applying the same scale to both would mean compound archers always out-rated recurve archers simply because of equipment, not skill. Each style is calibrated to the actual performance distribution of athletes competing in that discipline internationally, so the benchmarks reflect what's genuinely achievable with that equipment.

Not with the current setup — each style has its own calibrated scale, and the benchmarks are set at different absolute APR values for the same competitive level. A recurve "World Cup level" sits around 900–949; a compound "World Cup level" sits around 960–1009. A cross-style comparison factor that would put all styles on a single unified scale is planned for a future update, but is not yet implemented.

For the WA720 outdoor round: Olympic Recurve shoots 70m on the 122cm full face. Compound shoots 50m on the 80cm 6-ring face. Barebow, Fixed Pins, Traditional, and Longbow shoot 50m on the 122cm full face.

All scores are normalised back to the single reference standard (70m / 122cm) regardless of what round was shot, using the ASL model translation. The distance and face at which you competed only affect the translation step, not the meaning of the final APR number.

Event weighting reflects the competitive significance of the result. A score at the Olympic Games under maximum pressure with the deepest field is stronger evidence of your true level than the same score at a club event. The weighting system (Olympic 2.5×, World Championships 2.0×, World Cup 1.75×, etc.) means results from major events pull your rating more strongly. This also means an off-day at a major championship will cost more than an off-day at a local event — which accurately reflects the stakes involved.

The system currently includes results from World Archery World Cup stages and World Championships from 2023 onwards, and the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, as well as USA Archery national and regional events from 2023 onwards. Historical coverage is being expanded as data is reviewed and imported. Check the events list in the system for the current full list. The World Cup Finals cannot be included because the Finals format is match-play only — there is no qualification round and all reported scores are zero.

The World Cup Finals uses an elimination match-play format from the opening round — there is no qualification round where archers shoot a full distance round for a score. The World Archery results API returns a score of zero for all archers at these events. Since the APR is based on full-round arrow averages, there is no valid score to import. The Finals results do show competitive level, but in a format the APR system cannot translate.

The rating system replays the full calculation chain chronologically whenever an event is added, corrected, or removed. Your rating is always the result of all qualifying scores in the correct time order. If a score changes or disappears, the chain is replayed from that point and all subsequent ratings are updated automatically. This means historical changes can ripple forward through ratings, which is why you may occasionally see your rating adjust even when you didn't compete.

Yes — through field calibration. If conditions in a session (wind, rain, difficult lighting) systematically depressed scores across the whole group, the system detects this and applies an upward adjustment to every archer in that session.

The adjustment is calculated by comparing the group's actual performance to what the same group of archers would be expected to average based on their historical results at other events. If actual performance falls more than 2% below expected, a correction is applied.

A calibration group is the set of archers who competed in the same session under the same conditions. In practice, recurve-family archers (recurve, barebow, traditional, longbow, VI) shoot together, and compound-family archers (compound, fixed pins, W1) shoot together. Within each family, senior and masters divisions shoot in one session and youth divisions (U18, U21) shoot separately.

Only archers within the same calibration group are compared for conditions adjustment. Mixing archers from different sessions would dilute the signal — a morning session's wind doesn't affect the afternoon session.

Yes — by design. Every archer in the session receives exactly the same absolute APR adjustment. This means relative performance is perfectly preserved: an archer who outperformed their peers by 40 APR points still outperforms them by 40 points after calibration. The adjustment only shifts the group's average to where it would have been in neutral conditions. No archer gains or loses ground relative to anyone else in the same session.

An archer who shot exceptionally well despite difficult conditions will naturally have a higher adjusted APR than their peers — their relative excellence is fully preserved and their score is brought up to reflect what it implies about their true ability level.

No. Calibration only applies upward — it corrects for conditions that hurt scores, not for conditions that helped them. An archer who shot well in perfect weather earned that score. The system does not penalise good conditions.

Where a field conditions adjustment was applied, a footnote appears alongside the event APR on your profile page and on the event results page. The footnote shows the adjustment in APR points (for example, "Field conditions adjustment: +18.3 APR"). The raw unadjusted APR is always stored internally.