The majority of archers shoot bows like:...
Talking about "majority" and then reeling off a list of several examples to compare against one example is bit like arguing that Mandarin isn't the most widely spoken language, because that honour actually falls to Hindi, English and Spanish.
Only retards shoot an olympic bow.
No, they don't. But any person who calls someone a "retard" for their choice of sport is definitely a dick.
Regarding your [what] ... the word left of is is 'now'. N and B are right beside on the keyboard. We are talking about bows. So your '[what]' only shows how retarded you are.
Oh, of course, how foolish of me not to immediately recognise a typing error that resulted in a common English word, and to then not automatically know what you meant. I do apologise most humbly for daring to ask for clarification.
By the way, if someone stops arguing with you after you resort to childish slurs, that doesn't mean you were right all along. Might be worth bearing in mind, considering your debating technique.
If you want to defend that toy bows are the right thing for the Olympics, don't talk to me ...
That's okay, I'm not here to do that. I just wanted you to justify stating your personal opinion as objective fact. Watching you show yourself up as an ass is an amusing bonus, though.
Regarding to shooting an Olympic bow, that kind of archery is no challange in respect to true archery.
Which true archery would that be? Yumi? British longbow? Recurve hunting bow? Hungarian bow? Korean bow?
Maybe you should ask a true Scotsman.
Bottom line: I don't get about what you are arguing ... you shoot a 'normal bow' as good as an Olimpic does a 'special' bow? Is that your point?
I didn't say anything like that. Are you talking to me, or are you talking to the OP now?
Winning the Olympics means you shoot better than the other competitors ... it has no meaning in regards to the rest of the worlds archers (using other bows or distances, who did not join the Olympics)
Err, yes? And? You can go one of two ways then - either restrict archers to whatever it is you consider to be "true" archery, but then what? It's pretty much still exactly the same situation. The result will still have "no meaning" to the rest of the world's archers, using other bows or distances. Or let everyone use whatever bow they want, in which case pretty much everyone with a chance at a medal will be using compounds with zoom sights and stabilisers, and then... guess what? It's exactly the same again - no relevance to archers who use other equipment.
One could make the same arguments about the discus, or the pole vault, or the javelin, or any other event that involves specific equipment. Even running, at a stretch - all that really tells you is that those competitors are among the fastest in the world at running a specific distance on a particular type of track. Usain Bolt is no more or less "the fastest person in the world" than Dennis Kimetto.