Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
stronges bow on the world
stevesjem:
--- Quote from: Badger on February 27, 2008, 02:04:44 pm --- Flight shooters will often get what I consider odd responses such as " whats the point? will a 200 grain arrow kill a deer" or "try killing a deer at 300 yards". Just different games we are playing no more or no less valid. Steve
--- End quote ---
Well said Steve, can we all move on now?
Rod:
--- Quote from: nick1346 on February 27, 2008, 10:07:14 am ---
So what? Thats very nice for them but why to you keep bringing up Tang dynasty archers on a English Warbow forum? If you want to quote standards of military archery quote English ones which I think you'll find were higher.
--- Quote from: Rod on February 27, 2008, 08:22:37 am ---
Because they had a documented test of accuracy for war bows of the same draw weight.
Is that simple enough for you?
You can step up or not. Your choice, forget the scoring face, a man sized target at 100 paces.
Were the Chinese better?
There's only one way you can disprove it.
Meanwhile I'll leave you in peace to "have fun".
Rod.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
ChrisD:
Rod
Can't help weighing in at this point because I've followed your discussions closely on the PA sit for a while now. I desisted from further discussion on the 'what is warbow' topic out of respect for the fact that I don't actually know much about about Chinese Archery - other than an article I read many years back. Instead, I bought myself a copy of Selby's book on Chinese Archery with the aim of discovering a bit more and informing my own views.
What did I find? Well - that its mainly a work of translation and not of archery per se, that it contains inconsistencies with regards to some of the weights used ie that some measures are given as different weights in different parts of the text, and units of weight, when researched seem actually to be units of volume! Whats more, the arrow weights as you point out, are not really appropriate to some of the bow weights quoted, which is a serious problem. Translation of texts such as this is fraught with difficulty and a colleague of mine (skilled in about 5 asiatic languages and used to reading martial arts treatises in the original) has agreed to have a look at the book and comment on what he thinks of the translation.
In the meantime you might be interested in this quote, reproduced from 'Instictive Archer' and written by one S Selby.
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/chin_art.htm
"Chinese literature contains a lot of tales of extraordinary draw-weights for bows. But technical writings stress that a heavy draw-weight was not desirable, and could actually be counter-productive. For military purposes, a weight of fifty to sixty pounds was adequate, and for civil archery, a much lower weight was drawn. Military examinations tested strength to draw up to ninety pounds: but this was a test of physique rather than archery: even the bows for ‘strength drawing’ were different from those used for archery."
Interesting no? The bow weights quoted actually match up better with the arrow weight in Selbys book and are consistent with the article I read way back when which said that Chinese Military Bows came in 70, 80 and 90lb versions.
The purpose of this post is really to point out that there is more mystery and argument to be had on asiatic archery than is really appropriate on an English Warbow Forum - as others have pointed out - and to counsel against 'single sourcing' which it very much looks like you've been doing.
Chris
Rod:
I appreciate your input Chris and have asked Mr. Selby to comment.
Nonetheless the fact remains that Mark Stretton (who also has an injury which curtails his shooting at the present time) has confirmed that he considers the proposal to be a desirable and an interesting challenge in order to advance standards in accuracy.
Given the allergic reaction to the FITA face I have proposed a couple of challenging "fun" alternatives to Mark that might remove the possibility of embarassment by irrelevant direct comparison with target shooting standards.
Rod.
ChrisD:
Rod
Giiven the heat generated in the discussion and the potential umbrage arising out of any post, I really appreciate your response (not being sarcastic here in any way). I'd be interested to hear what Selby has to say - the essay in Primitive Archer was written in 1997 and the book we've been referring to was published in 2000 - so probably written about the same time?
If Selby comes back and says that something to the tune of 'yeah, theres hyperbole in the ancient texts but the real poundage was in the 60-90 range' then you have a range of draw weights encompassing the heavier end of the clout/target longbow range and the lighter end of the ELB range. Seems to me that option exists allowing all to use the same bow weight, or each to use what they consider comfortable.
I don't really like the idea of the FITA face much either - I'd prefer something like a 3D or an animal face - or perhaps a bloke sized and shaped target much as the Pickwicks often cobble together. Either way, the principle of the thing is what counts and whatever you and Mark have come up with which might inject just a little levity will I'm sure be absolutely fine.
If at all possible I'd love to join in - I'm sure that Blundellsands would be happy to donate their venue - though its a bit flat and windy.
Chris
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version