Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: WillS on January 02, 2015, 06:51:17 pm
-
I'm sure many of you guys have seen this by now, but for those who haven't, or for future reference, here's a blog written about Mark Strettons Guinness World Record attempt, shooting a 200lb bow. Covers everything from diet and exercise to the bow used and the details of the record itself, and some of it is written by Mark himself.
http://markstretton.blogspot.co.uk
-
Excellent!
The training regime and exercises are V interesting.
But the pictures of his breakfast just made me hungry :laugh:
Del
(As a point of pedantry... the delay between shots would have been to his chagrin, not that of the crowd... :-[
Gotta learn to speak proper, innit?)
-
Nah, you don't gotta learn to do nuffin proper when you shoots a whopper like what he does.
-
200lb of bow? Wow! :o
I take it that this was not standard for longbows during the medieval age?
Is 100lb not heavy then? I can get 80lb back to 30.
-
The lightest bows on the Mary Rose (and therefore potentially throughout the medieval period) are currently estimated to be around 110-120lbs. The average weight is around 150lbs, with bows up to 200lb thought to have been on board.
There are a few perfect replicas of the biggest bows found that would have a draw weight of 196lbs, so 100lbs is considerably light in relation.
If you look at the arrows found, and various heads found throughout history, most are half inch in diameter. To get a half inch arrow to travel around 220yards (medieval bowshot, give or take 20yards) you need something in the range of 110lbs. And that's the absolute minimum.
-
@Will
What can you shoot comfortably, and what is your max one shot draw?
Yeah about the arrows, I have got a Flint tipped birch shaft that weighs a good 1500 grains. Try shooting that out of a 70lb flatbow.
Flys like a Civil War Mortar round!
-
110 or 115 on a good day. Not doing half as much as I should be. I prefer making them!
-
Must have taken many years to get to that though.
Been shooting for years. My Hill bow pulls 83 at 31 inch, and that is my max.
-
I've not really focused on it though. I wish I had been, as I may be further on by now.
It does help to make your own - the moment you need a step up you just make a quick training bow that comes in at whatever weight you need. They don't even have to be any good in terms of set, cast, appearance etc, as they're just a weight training exercise that focuses the exact muscles.
My New Year's Resolution is to train harder. I'd like to be up to 130lb at some point this year. With nowhere to shoot it makes it tricky, of course...
Maybe the secret is venison. I need to get some venison.
-
Must have taken many years to get to that though.
Been shooting for years. My Hill bow pulls 83 at 31 inch, and that is my max.
I'm over 60, never done much shooting and it only took me a couple of weeks training to get up to 100#
At my age the strength isn't the problem it's the joints and tendons which is why it was so interesting to read Mark Stretton's training regime.
If you can draw 70 at 28" I reckon with a little training and the right technique 100# is achievable. After that it's keeping up the work. I dropped off very rapidly once I'd shot the 100# and I'm very cautious about overstraining myself now.
I think 90# at about 31" is a sensible limit of me.
If you are drawing fairly straight, then a technique change will easily gain you an extra 10#. It's about the leverage coming over and down rather than brute force straight (target style) draw. If the right elbow travels in an arc it can travel say 10" to get an extra 3" of draw beyond the 28"... that's a leverage of over 3:1. So draw to the forehead then arc downwards... a bit like the Japanese do with their Yumis, but much more dynamically of course (they take an age to do each movement).
Anyhow plenty of videos on youtube to watch... just got to sort the wheat from the chaff (and ignore the jumping about >:D (although others may insist it makes sense ::)))
Del
BTW I'm pretty average build 5'10" about 12 stone. Not short limbed.
-
As a side note Del, there was a fascinating thread on a different forum about the rolling loose (or "jumping about" to give it the technical term ;) )
Turns out it actually adds a fair old amount to the cast. Michael (Blacksmith77k on here) posted a vid of static and rolling loose with the distances achieved and the rolling loose gave a large chunk extra.
It seems to all be about timing - if you leap about at the wrong moment, all you're doing is leaping about. If you can time it to perfection and put the jump into the release as the arrow leaves the bow, you gain a lot. Trouble of course is getting that timing...!
-
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY
This guy pulls 170 and makes it looks easy. Doesn't seem to pull to the forehead, or "jump about"
Just seems to stand still and draw normally.
-
I thought I read somewhere that the purpose of the horn nocks was
To allow the archer to "push" the bow down into the ground while simultaneously drawing the bow. The pushing with the braced arm allowed easier drawing(almost like floor tillering).
Or did I mis-interpret things?
-
I thought I read somewhere that the purpose of the horn nocks was
To allow the archer to "push" the bow down into the ground while simultaneously drawing the bow. The pushing with the braced arm allowed easier drawing(almost like floor tillering).
Or did I mis-interpret things?
That would probably be because there is a lot of nonsense both written and spoken about warbows.
You have to remember we weren't there and some of these half baked theories do more harm than good.
Del
-
I thought I read somewhere that the purpose of the horn nocks was
To allow the archer to "push" the bow down into the ground while simultaneously drawing the bow. The pushing with the braced arm allowed easier drawing(almost like floor tillering).
Or did I mis-interpret things?
I did read that English archer "pressed their body into the horns of the bow", whatever that means.
-
It's just misunderstanding the documents written back then, really.
To an artist or somebody watching, seeing somebody shoot 32" looks like they're "in the bow" in the sense that the string and bow at full draw are encompassing their whole upper body. The fact that Mark and Joe can shoot around 200lbs without doing anything weird with the nocks proves that anybody can.
As for that vid of Joe shooting, he's not shooting for distance there, so he's not using the rolling loose. Watch the video of him setting a new world record and you'll see him "leap about" then. It's not used for any shooting other than actual distance shooting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN2jAsE9ics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTX1kss99_0
Different styles for different goals.
-
Those videos prove that it is possible to loose a half dozen arrows, without any weird draw trickery. Fatigue would set in fast I imagine.
Shoulder and back strength is required. I hope starting an old chainsaw is good cross-training.
-
Well 200lb is amazing, and what a bow too!
What about drawing to the forehead and down? He isn't doing that either, it seems. ???
Just looks like he is drawing a bow like anyone else, but to around 31 inches I'm guessing?
Saw a vid of a guy shooting really heavy bows on youtube. It was really old footage, but he just stood there and drew them like it was nothing. :)
There is another guy on the tube who makes warbow videos, and you can tell that he is massively overbowed. :o
Makes a war grimace each time he draws.
-
Aye me too Del, within a couple of weeks I could draw just over 100# to 31. Mind i'm 35 and have been rock climbing for many years. Although climbing gives you great forearm strength that doesn't help much with drawing a heavy bow. I'm sure with a couple of months dedicated training I could pull significantly heavier. In Adam Karpowzi's book there is a picture of a massive 'double' hornbow....now that is a proper beast! Estimated weight at over 300#.....
The problem I have with the 'rolling loose' is that they seem to hold the bow at full draw for far too long. Put a bow on a tillering tree with a scale. Pull it to full draw and hold it there....what does the scale do.....lose weight. Holding a bow at full draw is NOT going to help distances no matter what 'evidence' i'm shown! How do the modern flight archers who hold the records shoot for distance? How did the Turks get those amazing distances with their flight bows. What do the laws of physics say! If you can add a bit of forward momentum AS the arrow is loosed of course you have added that extra initial velocity to it but it's the holding at full draw.....no don't do it!!! Whereas drawing the bow faster will raise the weight a little.
-
Well 200lb is amazing, and what a bow too!
What about drawing to the forehead and down? He isn't doing that either, it seems. ???
Just looks like he is drawing a bow like anyone else, but to around 31 inches I'm guessing?
Saw a vid of a guy shooting really heavy bows on youtube. It was really old footage, but he just stood there and drew them like it was nothing. :)
There is another guy on the tube who makes warbow videos, and you can tell that he is massively overbowed. :o
Makes a war grimace each time he draws.
Ok, drawing to the forehead is a slight exaggeration (e.g for illustrative purposes), but I think Mark Stretton draws to about his eye line and then brings the elbow/forearm/hand down to well below the jaw. Whereas a target style draw would be along the line of lower jaw or just below along a straight line.
Plenty of people look but don't actually see...
I think the individual needs to find what works for them...
I don't really want to dig up all the old arguments/discussions about rolling loose etc. So I'm out.
Del
-
I don't really want to dig up all the old arguments/discussions about rolling loose etc. So I'm out.
Del
+1
-
It's a touchy subject then? Loosing techniques and so forth?
-
Have a read back through old posts here over the last few years and you'll see just how touchy it can get...
-
The point I was making is that if you hold a bow at full draw it loses weight. Less weight = less efficient bow = less distance. Simple.
No room for 'heated' discussions with that one it's just plain common sense and can easily be confirmed by anybody with a scale.
-
All well and good until you realise that the bow isn't held at full draw during the rolling loose ;)
The arrow is coming back right up until you let go. Watch the first video of two that I posted earlier (Joe setting the 1/4lb record) and you'll see the arrow head moving back right up to the moment it goes.
Your point is non-debatable though - hold a bow at full draw and it slowly loses weight. No argument there. :)
-
Groan, here we go again ::).
@ WillS ...
You are guilty of choosing whatever you like to support your "argument de jour"
Those videos which you have previously and repeatedly referred to as being exemplary. Showed the archer getting to v near full draw, dipping down to get full draw, then coming all the way up, then down a bit and finally loosing and leaping.
I distinctly remember in a previous thread analysing it frame at a time and estimating full draw being held for about 4 seconds and the leap being after the arrow had left the string.
There are so many variables that even if a leaping rolling loose does give extra distance it is impossible to say which part of it is actually making the improvement.
I don't think the leap is a part of any other flight shooting (but I'm happy to be corrected on this), whereas a snatch loose and not holding at full draw is.
Maybe the leap helps contribute to a snatched loose. Without decent high speed photography and painstaking analysis we won't know.
Finally to say it adds distance could simply be that without it their loose is poor or they are subconsciously not getting a good draw loose. In other words biasing the experiment to support their expected result. It happens in all fields of experiment, even those with fewer variables.
Del
-
Not getting drawn in :)
It's all been said and I wasn't starting anew. I was replying to Mike's specific question, using a video to support that. Watch the video, and its impossible to disagree as you can see the arrow moving backwards into the bow until released. That's all.
No mention of whether the "leaping" has any effect whatsoever. That's on other forums in other discussions and doesn't need to be dragged up again here, as personal opinions will clearly never change on this odd little topic!
-
Some stills grabbed from this thread... draw your own conclusions.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,46139.0.html (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,46139.0.html)
For Hooray Horace. Note the reltive right hand elbow positions. Starts high and finishes very low.
Del
-
Will, The point is that the bow is still held at virtual maximum extension for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if a bow starts dropping weight with every second at an even shorter draw than we think.
If you get a bow to 31 inches and then spend an extra four seconds getting the last inch it can't be beneficial.
Looking at the pics it's hard to see definitively but it looks like full draw is reached while pointing at the ground, lost a bit on the way up and regained again.
-
What's with the guys in the background wearing WW2 Axis Uniforms? Is that the dress or something? The military look?
I was referring to this on YouTube. Looks really odd to me, and I think others might agree. @2.05, never seen anything like it in my life :o
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xWXp0_VTr-A
Don't want to sound like I'm picking on him though, bing honest though his strange release and posture might not be his fault. Never would pick on the less fortunate.
-
Will, The point is that the bow is still held at virtual maximum extension for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if a bow starts dropping weight with every second at an even shorter draw than we think.
If you get a bow to 31 inches and then spend an extra four seconds getting the last inch it can't be beneficial.
Looking at the pics it's hard to see definitively but it looks like full draw is reached while pointing at the ground, lost a bit on the way up and regained again.
Can't disagree with that. It's obviously very hard to see, so hard to analyse from a computer!
I'm trying to avoid getting dragged into this, because at this stage there's nothing new being said or revealed, but I think it's worth mentioning that ( in my opinion ) we're not gonna know anything new until somebody turns up and equals or beats Joes world records using a non-rolling loose.
As it stands (and I said this recently on a different forum) it's the method used exclusively by the guys setting world records. They don't use it for any other type of shooting (as you can see in the first vid of Joe shooting half a dozen, he's not using it there) so its not used to make certain weights usable.
Currently all the records set by English warbows have been set while using the rolling loose. It seems odd to me that guys like Joe and Mark who have been shooting incredibly heavy bows since they were kids would adopt such an extreme, physical way of shooting if there was no proof it worked. They've chosen to learn it and use it for a reason. I think it's hard to ignore that.
We can sit on a forum all day and debate whether its useless or damages bows etc but these guys are out there rewriting history books while using it and until somebody proves you can beat the records NOT using it, it would be potentially daft to claim that it isn't necessary.
-
Are ALL the weight classes held with it as well? I'd want to know if their ability to pull weights nobody else can is more of a factor.
Has universal acceptance of FF string material been achieved? I thought there was some sort of quibble with the American association still having to use natural material string.
Do you have the records for both sides of the pond?
-
Would it not make sense to use a natural period string and not a modem day material?
I've made a few linen and sinew strings.
How log has that guy in the video been shooting bows then? I've done some research on him and can't find too much ???
How is he so strong?
-
That I don't know Pat. I also think your point is very important - at the moment, there are very few who can shoot the weight Joe does, so that may be the reason he's at the top of the distance tables. My point was that all we know right now (hence why all the online debates are somewhat moot) is that he set his records while using the rolling loose. It could be a load of rubbish, but we need to have side by side comparison with static looses to know. Until then, this topic just circles over and over again. Blacksmith77k went to great lengths to help towards this last month on a different forum, but I'm not sure even the video evidence made the non-believers change their mind.
I guess the way to answer your question is to ask somebody who was at every record attempt. If they can verify that the rolling loose was used throughout the weights, that may go some way towards a better understanding.
The records for the English society is on the website, not sure about the others.
Strings - there's an important article on its way regarding strings (and something else massively overlooked but now focused on within the EWBS) and that will be out soon. It may even be on the website now, I can't remember if Chris put a link to it yet or its still being sorted. Either way, anybody who thinks the strings could only support light bows are gonna need a new topic to argue about! I know that doesn't answer your question - sorry! - but I think more people are leaning towards natural strings, and I imagine they definitely will soon.
-
Nobody is suggesting the strings couldn't support the bows but it's about time that bit of authenticity was addressed.
-
I read recently that the MR arrows had fine nocks and were suited to primitive hunting bows of about 70lb. 200lb would need rope for a string :o
-
Nobody is suggesting the strings couldn't support the bows but it's about time that bit of authenticity was addressed.
It's been addressed, and will be released soon. The guys behind it are just a bit wary of bringing it out too early, as there are apparently people who will be claiming it as their own research, so they need to tie it down first before publishing.
The tests have all been done. Shouldn't be more than a couple of months now.
-
If the flight records are set with a standardised arrow as the EWBS uses then one would expect that all other things being equal the heavier bow will chuck the arrow further. A possible exception would be a superb lighter bow versus a dog of a heavier bow, but as Joe Gibbs has a reputation as a fine bowyer I don't think that variable applies here.
Also it appears that 200lbs is the limit of physical ability to shoot and Joe seems to be able to handle more than almost anyone else (did I see he's shooting 190lbs at times?) so it looks to me like his records may well stand until the arrow changes.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it doesn't really matter how Joe Gibbs shoots a bow for flight shooting because other variables than the loose may be dominant. If a rolling loose however performed makes him feel better then it will improve his shot, but correlation is not the same as causation.
-
Joe has shot over 200lbs, but not on record. I think you're partly right though. We won't know, that's the problem ;)
-
Can you tell us anything about how Alistair outshoots Joe in flight despite using a much lighter bow than Joe can handle?
-
All this 'we won't know until somebody else can shoot the same weight' etc...is all a load of cobblers. Why not just try it with a lighter bow? A group of shooters so you aren't getting just one answer?
I'll say it again - No other flight shooters use this method. A bow held at full draw loses weight. A bow drawn quickly GAINS weight. If we have two bows of the same physical weight and one draws 100# and one draws 110# which is the best bow (all other things being equal)?
That's all i'm saying and they are facts. If those statements don't say something to you about the 'rolling loose' then I give up.
-
I think guys in the EWBS are wrapped in their own dogma like the rolling loose and nothing will change their minds that it does what they say it does for range, I reckon its just dogma to make it look more sexy.
I couldn't imagine fellas during the War of the Roses in a bow line at Towton shooting bows 100lbs plus prancing around like nancy's doing some rolling dance to get some extra yardage on range. The opposite forces would probably have pissed tha sens laughing.
-
I can't imagine you could get off 12 arrows a minute if you're spending 4 seconds each shot waving the bow around at basically full draw either - that's 48 seconds!
-
It's like a brick wall in here.
Nobody seems to have got the basic idea that this WASN'T used during war. This is a completely modern method designed by modern archers using 170lb bows.
Nobody is claiming it was used in the middle ages, nobody is claiming it helps you shoot heavier bows and nobody is claiming it's faster.
It was the only method used to break world records. That's all anybody knows.
They weren't shooting to break records in the middle ages. They didn't need to shoot beyond about 200 yards, whereas with the same equipment the rolling loose is being used to break 300 yards.
By the way Mike, it has been tested with a lighter bow. Michael Heinz made a video testing it. The rolling loose added 50 feet when using a 22lb bow, compared to a static release. But like I said, once the video came out all the guys clamouring that the rolling loose is rubbish went quiet and stopped talking about it.
-
I was being facetious there sorry.
-
It's not a brick wall, it's logical questioning and responding to your assertions.
E.G Your assertion that the rolling loose involved the arrow being drawn back progressively through the process.
What we are doing is trying to methodically get to the bottom of the claims.
If it has been demonstrated with a 22# bow that a rolling loose gives more distance, then it should be possible to disect the rolling loose and find which component is adding the distance and optimise it.
1. Is it the drawing, lowering and raising of the bow?
2. Is it creating a snatch loose?
3. Is it the crouch down or does this just give a better launch angle?
4. Is it the leap forward?
5. Does it create a longer draw?
Note for 5. There is some overlap here with 1. From the archers viewpoint, due to the foreshortening, it is easy to think you are at full draw when you are an inch short. Maybe the rolling loose extends the draw beyond what would be achieved from a stationary release.
Mind any of this would be difficult to demonstrate conclusively short of programming an industrial robot to perform the actions.
E.G If I do the test and the rolling loose doesn't add distance you'll just say I'm doing it wrong.
Similarly if one of the rolling loose exponents does a static shot and it doesn't go so far, we will just say he's doing it wrong.
What is actually needed is rigorous discussion and experiment.
We don't mean to be ganging up on you, but you do rather adjust your claims an references like shifting sands or make assertions without providing links, or first hand data.
When you do make a specific testable claim then there is a chance to prove or disprove it. Karl Popper would be turning in his grave reading this thread!
Del
-
Del, I don't think I've made any claims and changed them...?
The only thing I think I've said here as a statement of fact is that Joe sets his records using a rolling loose. Which, with the video evidence proving it, he does.
There is also a video I posted that is shot from behind him that clearly shows the arrow moving backwards until shot.
I don't feel like anybody's "ganging up" on me at all, but it does seem that people can't quite differentiate between modern day world record attempt flight shooting with massively heavy bows, and medieval military archery. Every time this discussion happens, people eventually pull out the "there's no way they'd do THAT in the middle ages" despite it being a completely irrelevant point.
You never see the rolling loose being used until somebody (usually somebody incredibly experienced) is trying to set a distance record. That alone, with no other elements involved, should go a long way towards accepting it as a valid technique. If everybody used it constantly and claimed it made all aspects of archery better, I'd be disputing it myself.
-
It's like a brick wall in here.
Nobody seems to have got the basic idea that this WASN'T used during war. This is a completely modern method designed by modern archers using 170lb bows.
Nobody is claiming it was used in the middle ages, nobody is claiming it helps you shoot heavier bows and nobody is claiming it's faster.
It was the only method used to break world records. That's all anybody knows.
They weren't shooting to break records in the middle ages. They didn't need to shoot beyond about 200 yards, whereas with the same equipment the rolling loose is being used to break 300 yards.
By the way Mike, it has been tested with a lighter bow. Michael Heinz made a video testing it. The rolling loose added 50 feet when using a 22lb bow, compared to a static release. But like I said, once the video came out all the guys clamouring that the rolling loose is rubbish went quiet and stopped talking about it.
I couldn't even see the video but I guarantee it was biased to make the rolling loose appear superior. Rod picked it apart quite adequately.
-
SERIOUSLY WILL,
Do you really think, that at a time, the 15th century to be precise, the zenith of military archery, do you honestly believe medieval bowmen would not have figured out to use the 'rolling loose' to gain a tactical advantage in range, if it did. Your claim that it is a modern invention can not be proven. I defy anyone in the past 50 years to say they have invented something new with wooden bows that has not been done before, to be honest we are re-discovering what what lost with selfbows. I just can't accept that people trained in artillery bows from the age of 7 would not have known they could get extra range by using the 'rolling loose' to give a tactical advantage in a battle. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
-
I think guys in the EWBS are wrapped in their own dogma like the rolling loose and nothing will change their minds that it does what they say it does for range, I reckon its just dogma to make it look more sexy.
I couldn't imagine fellas during the War of the Roses in a bow line at Towton shooting bows 100lbs plus prancing around like nancy's doing some rolling dance to get some extra yardage on range. The opposite forces would probably have pissed tha sens laughing.
The military is all about disapline. I did 4 years to know that.
I've shot longbow for 6 years now, and I think the warbow people have got it way wrong.
I've been doing a lot of research on them as of late. Seems all military uniforms and dancing around after shooting.
Prancing around after every shot seems odd, and I doubt would be tolerated in the armies of the day.
-
It's like a brick wall in here.
Nobody seems to have got the basic idea that this WASN'T used during war. This is a completely modern method designed by modern archers using 170lb bows.
Nobody is claiming it was used in the middle ages, nobody is claiming it helps you shoot heavier bows and nobody is claiming it's faster.
It was the only method used to break world records. That's all anybody knows.
They weren't shooting to break records in the middle ages. They didn't need to shoot beyond about 200 yards, whereas with the same equipment the rolling loose is being used to break 300 yards.
By the way Mike, it has been tested with a lighter bow. Michael Heinz made a video testing it. The rolling loose added 50 feet when using a 22lb bow, compared to a static release. But like I said, once the video came out all the guys clamouring that the rolling loose is rubbish went quiet and stopped talking about it.
I don't doubt that the rolling loose adds more yards to the shot.
I will have to try it with my Kassia Bear (95) @ 30 and see for myself, though I can see that pushing off whilst loosing the arrow would add velocity. :)
But a few vides on YouTube show archers loosing an arrow, then jumping around after the shot.
-
I agree with you Horace. I reckon the warbow guys have figured how to draw the heavy bows and have demonstrated that often. The rolling loose is just some daft dance that kind of makes a regular loose look vaguely like something worth learning because it may give you an 'edge'.
I joined the warbow society as an associate, to see what it was about, I have to say I was not impressed. The forums on the website is dead and a few members just said it was because everyone uses facebook and I was told to use that as I was keen to discuss proper technique as I attempted to up my bow poundage with my own home made longbows. My experience of the society was that I was booted out of the face book group because they did not know me. To say I was cheesed off after only just joining and paying a £5 for the privilege left me bitter. Seems like a bunch of lads that just meet up once in a while to hero worship those blokes pulling big ass bows. Not really an open society to welcome new people and teach how to shoot proper and correct medieval form, more like an ego trip for people who think they know best.
-
Don't think we have anything like that over here, just normal archery clubs.
Would be embarrased to be out with a bunch of people shooting their bows whilst wearing military fatigues though ???
Strange, but horses for courses I guess.
This guy is in the book I recently bought. Seems to have a pretty standard/normal technique
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NdXjq7c1R5I
-
I agree with you Horace. I reckon the warbow guys have figured how to draw the heavy bows and have demonstrated that often. The rolling loose is just some daft dance that kind of makes a regular loose look vaguely like something worth learning because it may give you an 'edge'.
I joined the warbow society as an associate, to see what it was about, I have to say I was not impressed. The forums on the website is dead and a few members just said it was because everyone uses facebook and I was told to use that as I was keen to discuss proper technique as I attempted to up my bow poundage with my own home made longbows. My experience of the society was that I was booted out of the face book group because they did not know me. To say I was cheesed off after only just joining and paying a £5 for the privilege left me bitter. Seems like a bunch of lads that just meet up once in a while to hero worship those blokes pulling big ass bows. Not really an open society to welcome new people and teach how to shoot proper and correct medieval form, more like an ego trip for people who think they know best.
Considering every shoot is heavily attended, by kids, wives, girlfriends, parents... All shooting various bow types and weights, your claim is a bit daft to say the least.
The fact that you got "kicked" out of the Facebook group was a result of one particularly childish moron trying to cause trouble on his little ego trip (he's still bobbing up everywhere interestingly enough, repeating his inane comments as if nobody knows it's him haha!) It did leave a few trust issues sadly, but in general it's pretty healthy, and there's been a lot of new members lately. As Mark told you, on the thread. Where you got his name wrong. Twice. ::)
Turn up at a shoot, ask questions, be involved. Watch them using these techniques first hand. Or sit on a forum and complain about it. It makes no difference to anybody else, but bad mouthing a society you've never shot with isn't really the way to go, is it. Not very dignified.
Anyway, as Del said ages ago, it's an irritating conversation that goes round in circles because nobody is willing to change opinions on it. Let's try and avoid getting personal, and all agree to never bring it up again :)
-
SERIOUSLY WILL,
Do you really think, that at a time, the 15th century to be precise, the zenith of military archery, do you honestly believe medieval bowmen would not have figured out to use the 'rolling loose' to gain a tactical advantage in range, if it did. Your claim that it is a modern invention can not be proven. I defy anyone in the past 50 years to say they have invented something new with wooden bows that has not been done before, to be honest we are re-discovering what was lost with selfbows. I just can't accept that people trained in artillery bows from the age of 7 would not have known they could get extra range by using the 'rolling loose' to give a tactical advantage in a battle. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
First published in 1515......(quoting an even older book)....this is just 100 years after Agincourt (I know of no earlier written European archery instruction)......
"As a book called "The Art of War" tells us, an archer who wishes to shoot in good style must attend to several points, both as respects his body and his feet. First of all his arrows must be on his right side, as his sword is on his left. He should poise his bow on the thumb of the hand with which he holds it when he shoots, and for butt shooting balance it exactly. If the bow is well made the upper limb will be the longest. While doing this, he should draw an arrow from his quiver in two motions, the reason being that unless he had a very long arm, the arrows would remain jammed in the quiver, from which the feathers would suffer. Then, holding the arrow by the middle, he must put it in the bow,[8] and there hold it between two fingers, and you must know that these two fingers are the first and second. And every good archer should, as I have said before, draw his bow with three fingers and to his right breast, as by doing so he can pull a longer arrow. The foot of the side on which he holds the bow should be in front of the other, the toe only touching the ground, so that when the heel is brought down (without moving the foot), the side may turn towards the butt, and give a good impetus to the arrow. As to drawing, it can be done in two ways; some draw with the bow hand raised, and some with it low down, and both are good in different ways. Drawing with the bow hand low is good for butt and target shooting, and is a more natural way of shooting than with the bow hand high, besides which it assists the loose, and also because the arm, not being raised so high, is, in case of necessity, less exposed.
You must know also that there are several ways of loosing, but all depending on two things-on the drawing hand, for one must have and hold the string on the second joint of the first finger, and on the first joint of the third, and on the step, of which there are three kinds, that is to say, with one, two, or three steps, the one step loose is done in two ways; one is stepping forward with the foot of the bow hand side, and the other by bringing beck the arm, pushing out the bow and arrow, and at the same time stepping back with the other foot; this step straightens the arm, but it must be a long and sharp step back. The two other ways are by taking two steps and three steps. To shoot with two steps, a backward step must be taken with the hindermost foot, so that on bringing the front foot down, sufficient impetus is given to effect the loose. For the three step, the front foot is moved forward, then the bow is thrust forward as explained above, and the hinder foot is brought back in such a way that when the arrow is loosed one can step forward with the front foot.
According to custom a good archer should draw ten palms' breadths of arrow. There are many who draw more, but of those who draw more, there are many who shoot a weaker arrow by doing so. There are many good archers who don't draw so much, yet do not fail to make long shots and shoot as strong as the others, but if their reach is sufficient, they should pull the above-named length, for they would be finer archers by doing so. I venture to say that it is impossible to shoot a long arrow in an ungraceful way, if the bow is pushed forward.
If you wish to become a good archer you must practice in two ways, namely, at the butts under the screen, and at a target. For it is easier to learn to shoot by shooting under the screen, than in any other way, and in order that you should know how the screen if fixed, I will tell you. The screen should be placed across the range, half way between the butts, the bottom edge being one foot abort the ground for every ten paces there is between the butts. Thus if the butts are one hundred paces apart, the screen would be ten feet high, and the bottom edge should have bells on it, so that even if the feather of the arrow should touch it, one may know it by hearing the bells ring. And the said screen should be at least half an aune in depth, so that no mistake may be made.
For target shooting, as I have already said, round bows should be used. For good archers the range should be three hundred paces. Nevertheless I have formerly seen shooting at four hundred paces, but it must be admitted that the archers were first-class ones (bons exquiz archiers)"......
....indeed, there is not that much new under the sun is there chaps?!
John T. ;)
-
Fantastic post John. Wish there was a "like" button!
As a side note (specifically for John, after a convo on FaceBook) - notice the paragraph about drawing the arrows - that works quite nicely with an arrow bag/quiver with an open bottom. There's no way the feathers of the arrow would be affected if they were drawn up and out, so they must be drawn down through the bag.
-
Fantastic post John. Wish there was a "like" button!
As a side note (specifically for John, after a convo on FaceBook) - notice the paragraph about drawing the arrows - that works quite nicely with an arrow bag/quiver with an open bottom. There's no way the feathers of the arrow would be affected if they were drawn up and out, so they must be drawn down through the bag.
Thanks Will and "Yes" on the arrow bag convo! ;)
John T. :)
-
Hooray Horace - I'm not sure what material you're looking at but the only military fatigues I think I've seen in the EWBS stuff online is the guy in the background of the video on this thread...
-
That and his buddy in the camo pants. Not mocking it, so if you like wearing it then good for you.
A few guys turn up to the annual Sharps rifle shoot I attend in military style fatigues. Only a few out of 70 odd.
Not my thing, but up to them in the end.
Never felt the need personally to wear that stuff in my civilian life
-
Have to say John T. I take my hat off to you, I found that a really interesting post. I had never read that before and I don't think there many medieval archery books historical or modern that do not rest on my book shelf.
Will S:
I was told I was booted from the facebook group for the EWBS Will because of some troll, I get that, what really pissed me of was the fact the moderators booted me not once but three times after they accepted my invite. I never even made any damn posts in the facebook group to even warrant getting booted. One of your members from Leeds explained it was because I was not known to the group and therefore was booted along with other unknowns. If thats the way the society treats new members I wouldn't even both turning up at a meet because it sounds like a shower of shite to be honest.
How the hell is anyone supposed to interact with fellow members when you get booted three times before you even say hello or introduce yourself.
I would turn up at shoot but its kinda pointless when you can't even interact on social media.
Enought said.
-
You may all find this site interesting...it's the source of John T's post. As he rightly says, there's nothing new under the sun. I think however, this article was probably intended as an instruction for flight/leisure shooting.
http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/gallice/docs/chapter09-1.html
-
You may all find this site interesting...it's the source of John T's post. As he rightly says, there's nothing new under the sun. I think however, this article was probably intended as an instruction for flight/leisure shooting.
http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/gallice/docs/chapter09-1.html
You're probably right Frank......I've always thought though, that a lot of this information has probably been plagiarised from the earlier work referred to as "The Art of War" (Clearly nothing to do with Sun Tzu!), that I assume, had a distinctly more martial flavour, rather than being a leisure and flight instruction manual.
This work "Art De L'Archerie" was written in old French, published in Paris in 1515, possibly penned by our former allies the Gascons and makes reference to "wearing a sword on your left side", clearly not an accoutrement for the sporting archer and also mentions in several places "amongst the English" this and "amongst the English" that and also gives reference to fletching suitable for war arrows (as well as target/butt shooting arrows).....so my thinking is that this book was possibly a follow-on from an earlier English work, re-written and revised to transfer what knowledge the French has gleaned from witnessing and possibly fighting alongside the English during the HYW.
Of course all this is just my personal opinion, but as we have no earlier written references from this period and the available 2-D drawn/painted representations of medieval archery can be misleading at best, I take this as the best information currently available on the archery of the 15th century.
Hope everyone enjoys the read and (much to Del the Cat's disgust ;)) are now busy experimenting with hopping and skipping about on the shooting line trying to add a few yards to their distance shooting! LoL
All the best,
John T.
-
My disgust was pretty much used up when that dodgy hazel exploded on the tiller a couple of days ago.
It was the waiting a year for it to season that annoyed me...
So I nipped out from work this lunch time (just before the thunder and lightening started :o ) and cut a nice length of 3 1/4" diameter Hazel ;D
I shall record how it fares being rapid seasoned... hope to have it shooting buy April 1st ::)
Del
-
Shame Del, the piccies on your blog looked very interesting. I've got a really wobbly hazel stave I'm hoping to do something with, so I'll be following with interest.
Good luck with the next one!
-
Will, Is the hemp string article on the" last mean wood bow" thread anything to do with the string information that you were talking about?
It's on the page that's linked.
-
Don't think so.