Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Evidence OTHER than MR Bows of 120+ bows?
Atlatlista:
I don't really disagree with any of that. I think it's just important to remember in the face of huge draw weight numbers that there are also many cultures and many warriors even within those cultures who are not using such massive draw weights and who seem to be combat effective as well. I really admire people taking on the task of building and shooting these very heavy bows, but I think there is something of a "cult of the warbow" that has developed that sees things of lesser weights as not being combat effective when they quite clearly were. So, I apologize if my posts have seemed a bit reactionary in that regard. I'm also still interested in seeing if people who have mastered these heavy draw weights have also mastered accurate shooting with the same.
WillS:
I think a huge amount of people scoff at warbows when accuracy is the topic of conversation, but mainly because they just can't shoot them themselves! There is no point using a bow if you can't hit your target! The EWBS include wand, target and roving shoots at all their meets, but the reason not many people realise is simply because there's no Portsmouth/York/FITA etc scoring system. Joe Gibbs was dead accurate using the 140# bow last weekend, he wasn't shooting distance he was aiming at body-shaped targets pinned to straw bales and getting head shots at various distances. There are hundreds of pics on Facebook of guys like Nick Birmingham doing "normal" target stuff with 120# bows, and of course there's Martin Harvey, one of the best and most skilled archers in the country shooting 110# with pin point accuracy. That guy is amazing.
Basically, if you're in control of a bow, you can be accurate and as long as the technique, training and core strength is good, there is no reason not to be in control of a warbow. It's not all about heaving back massive lumps of timber just to see how far they go.
Atlatlista:
That's why I'd like to see them shoot a FITA or IFAA or York type round. It gives a universal standard for comparison.
WillS:
I dunno. I see your point, but in a way it's almost an unfair test. Warbows were designed to inflict big, deadly wounds on people often without much concern on consistency (if we're talking livery issue artillery bows) whereas the bows being used to shoot target today are designed to be consistent, predictable and fast to maximise efficiency and speed. The modern arrows are superfast needles with 2 inch fletchings and very light, compared to the spears that warbows shoot. The modern arrows are ultra stable, and the war arrows are big ungainly things for punching through armour.
I don't think even the best warbow archer would stand a chance against a modern target archer, but then modern archery came from warbows, and has been refined and refined until it's accurate enough to become a sport. It's like racing a Ford Model T against a Lamborghini Sesta Elemento.
Plus of course, after one round of a York there wouldnt be a target... ;-)
Bearded bowyer:
Good grief...
you are debating about unknown things based on a tiny few, who living in the modern world with optimal nutrition, genetics and modern luxuries, can manage almost super human feats of shooting massive bows.
'supposed, possible, probable and maybe' are no grounds for actual reason or logic.
Sorry.. I've had a few beers and am just totally fed up with the same old arguments.
cant believe Im actually contributing to this post....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version