Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
stronges bow on the world
nick1346:
Valid points Rod but as with most things its a case of is the glass half empty or half full. The fact is they would have taken accurate, strong archers after all they had plenty to choose from.
I don't think there is a disregard for accuracy with heavy archers although there is a definite perception amongst the wider archer world that that is the case. True a lot of people struggle as they move up in weight as they do in any discipline and it does take much more work to become competent. I was discussing this on the phone this morning with Glenn,in say compound archery you can get reasonably good in about 6 months or at least have a good idea if your going to be able to shoot at any level. In warbow archery it takes about four years to reach an equivalent, the bows are simply far more difficult to handle. Anyone observing that archer in that period could easily believe that he disregards accuracy, which would be pretty pointless afterall. The interesting comparison is with top end warbow archers, they are not only very accurate but shoot the heaviest of bows and it is men like these that would have been selected for warfare. It'll certainly be interesting to see if the current interest in warbows produces a good crop of archers in three or four years time, maybe shooting tests like this will help. In fact I'm off shooting in minute so I'll probably put a stake out at 100yds and see what happens, if I can my hands on something to actualy use as a target I will.
Rod:
Agreed in all respects. It is not about target archery.
It is about addressing all aspects, which includes achieving distance, a sustainable rate of shooting, penetration, intuitive ability and accuracy.
I think it is fair comment to say that a test of accuracy may point up how far some are from achieving control of their chosen bow, but this is NOT a criticism.
I think it constructive to address ALL aspects as soon as one feels able.
Comparison with modern target archers is both un-necessary and risible.
I'm always reminded of the anecdote about Dick Galway when this crops up.
I have every respect for those who make a serious effort to master the heavy bow and a "can do" attitude to a reasonable challenge.
I fully recognise that quite a few may not yet feel ready in their control of the draw weights that they have undertaken to attempt, but I qualify this by saying that there is no disgrace in starting off with a low "score".
It is something that can in time be built upon and I have always seen trying to shoot better as being more interesting and "fun" than not making the effort, but I also recognise that this is a personal preference not shared by everyone.
Nonetheless, I think the proposition has value, but as you say, in the context of also addressing the other fundamental components of shooting in the war bow.
But there is value in addressing individual components in the way of practice, as well as subsequently bringing then together.
This is a useful way of advancing individual ability.
Rod.
Rod:
BTW I have had a response from Mr. Selby.
He stands by his figures for bow draw weights, but has noted that at least one of his published figures for arrow weights (which always seemed far too light) is off by one decimal place, so for the shaft matching the 167 lb draw weight Tang dynasty bow read 3000 grains instead of 300 grains for a heavy war shaft.
I would also add the comment that you will find references to weak bows if you look at the wrong historical period.
At the height of their powers the Chinese infantry archers were shooting serious war bow weights.
Whereas the Qing (Manchu) bows of weak draw weight at the top of p. 283 where the matching shafts are in the 300 grain range are an example of weak bows in a situation where the general examination standards no longer represented effective war bow usage.
In later times and out of the practical war bow context, weights went down.
Just as here, in the post Tudor period.
Rod.
alanesq:
just thought, but would it be acceptable to measure accuracy shooting 100yards shooting at a mark in the ground (e.g. flag, arrow etc.) rather than boss or large target?
I think people would be much more willing to give this a try as its much more in keeping with roving type shooting and more importantly it requires no special equipment so it can be tried any time you shoot your bow
Rod:
The object is to test accuracy shooting at a mark the size of a standing man at 100 yards, as distinct from a close distance clout shoot which is more useful for testing grouping at an extreme distance.
Rod.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version