Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

stronges bow on the world

<< < (20/25) > >>

D. Taylor Sapergia:
Thanks for the reply Mark.  That's not as severe as I had thought it might be.  I will definitely need a better anchor on my tillering wall.

Taylor

Marc St Louis:
Perhaps I should clarify that statement. Bows of around 150# @ 30" increase by about 7#/inch in the last few inches of draw

Rod:
Jaroslav, Nick, Chris et al.,

I agree that recording hits on a board of an acceptable standard size is probably the way to go, but for the purposes of discussion, this is what I would propose upon recording scores:

Whilst it is encouragibng the record a personal best of 5 or six hits, this would less accurately demonstrate the consistent level of ability than a running average.

On the face of it, this is a harder road to travel, but being less of a flatterer it is IMO a more useful tool in monitoring ones progress.

Say you were to shoot 16 "ends" of attempts at this target and scored, for the sake of argument, 0, 1, 0, 2, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 5, 1 & 4.
When these are shot does not matter so long as they are a true record of all ends shot.

This would be a running total of 43 divided by 16 sets which gives an average of 2.687  which would be more representative of your consistent level of ability than a claim of your personal best score of 6.

In this way, by keeping a simple card of all your attempts showing A. hits, B. total score/total sets, C. product of total score divided by total sets, you would be able to monitor any progress more truthfully.

If it was considered worthwhile as a motivating factor to publish scores for comparison, the running average and PB could be stated, since the object is to increase the average and to bring it closer to the PB, not to pretend that the PB repesents your consistent level of ability unless this can be supported by the running average.

I doubt that there would be an interest in ranking at the present time, but if this was of interest, I would suggest this:

First Class:  Running average of 4.51 to 6.00
Second Class: Running average of 2.51 to 4.50
Third Class: Running average of 0.10 to 2.50

This makes Third Class readily achievable, Second Class not impossible and retains First Class as requiring some considerable effort, as it should be if it were to be meaningful as a distinction.

I would make no distinction in draw weight except to post a minimum acceptable. Beyond this you choose the draw weight you think that you can command.
If time and experience shows otherwise, you have a choice to make.

This might seem daunting, but it is a useful tool in helping to form a true picture of your own level of consistent ability in this particular area of shooting.

At the end of the day, you will know your draw weight, how far you can shoot and your rate of fire.
The premise is that it is helpful to also know your standard of accuracy.

Knowing it, you can then if you choose, work upon improvement.
Not knowing it, what can you honestly do?

If you can hold a group at 100, you will be the more accurate at your longest distance.
Rod.

nick1346:
Rod,

I appreciate your thoughts on trying to catergorise, standardise and compare the abilities of warbow archers but basing that on one single aspect of shooting runs the risk of turning it a mere off shoot of target archery. Warbow shooting is about being able to shoot well at distances from a few yards to as far as you can get an authentic arrow. Remember that an English archer had to be able to shoot well to 'minimum maximum' of 240 yards distance to be even considered for indentured service. To get a true overall apprecaition of an archers ability any 'tests' should take consideration of the overall stlye of warbow shooting. The draw weight of the bows would vary from archer to archer based upon the bow he required to shoot a militiary arrow that set minimum distance of 240 yards or by Henry VIII standards 220yds. An archer who cannot achieve this cannot be considered to be shooting well enough to have any bearing on a series of tests designed to test the abilities of modern heavy archers agianst those of our forebears. That does not mean that people who cannot achieve this distance should not undergo a test as you put foward but it must be remebered that no matter how well they did at 100yds they would not make a good all round archer as the style dictates.

To expand upon your idea an archer should be tested in a number of fields, accuracy at mid range (as you suggest), armour penetration at shorter range say 20 to 50 yards, accurate speed shooting of the required 10 arrows a minute and various ranges, the abitilty to rove well (the really hard one) and be able to shoot that big arrow a very long way. Trying to classify someone on the basis of just one of those fields doesn't really give much insight into there abilities other than being good a t that one thing. As an example if an archer did well at the 100 yds test but his arrow bounced of plate steel at 30yds it would show that he dosen't shoot very strongly but is stable. Bieng able to lob a military arrow 240yds and not being able to hit the man 100yds ever would show the opposite. Warbow shooting is about overall abitilies with a bow.

Rod:
Of course. This is just something that came up in conversation about the apparent lack of interest in accuracy, which is understandable where some folks are still struggling to achieve control of a draw weight.

It is only one component, as has been said quite often.

I will only point out that measuring accuracy at a realistic but demanding distance can have the effect of improving all round accuracy and as such has as much value as the other necessary components.

If the choice were between a man who could make his distance and hold to a rate of fire but unable to hit a man at 100 yards, and a man who could match him AND hit a man at 100 yards, who would you recruit?
All else being equal, I would pick the men who could shoot more accurately first, then make up the numbers with the rest.

This is the value of assessing accuracy.
Rod.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page