Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: Nuss on April 03, 2009, 09:05:12 pm
-
A good show on the History Channel - Warriors / Great Battle of Agincourt.
Lots of information and demonstrations on and about the English Archers.
Tim
-
It was a good show indeed. I'm envious of the host, wish I had his job, don't you. And how bout the craftsmenship of those yew longbows. I'd love to have me one of them!!! ;D
-Ian Mittelberg
-
Hi there
I was the bowyer on that program and I was shooting the heavier longbows, is there a link where I can watch this program or if someone recorded it can I get a copy.
Cheers
Steve Stratton
-
Morning Steve,
I think if you go to;
www.Historychannel.com
You may find the video offered there. Good show, good information, excellent layout. An outstanding job by all involved. :)
-
Here is the bit the bit with Steve, Martin and Nick B!
http://www.history.com/video.do?name=warriors&bcpid=16824444001&bclid=17037604001&bctid=17052944001
-
Look guys, clearly some mistake has been made here.
1 180mph is 264 feet per second - never achieved in a longbow of any description.
2 Impact velocities as quoted in ballistics article at the end of 'The Great Warbow' are invariably less than initial velocities - they are quoted as e.g 210f/s initial and 160 at impact with a light arrow and 175/147 with a heavy arrow.
3 147 ft per sec is 100mph exactly.
C
-
Look guys, clearly some mistake has been made here.
1 180mph is 264 feet per second - never achieved in a longbow of any description.
not with 10gpp, maybe with 5gpp?
-
Well OK :D :D :D but I took it as read that we were talking about arrows that would have been used by medieval military archers - which is what the figures at the end of 'The Great Warbow' refer to and what the programme appears to be about.
In Mike Loades programme on the longbow, if you listen hard you'll hear that Mark Stertton was getting 45m/s initial velocity with his warbow and a heavy arrow 147 ft\sec. I appreciate that this was a relatively venerable bow - but with a really good longbow, you'll be doing well to get more than 180ft/s as an initial velocity with a heavy arrow. I have seen figures suggesting that Simon Stanley got up as far as 210 ft/sec but when I asked him he told me it could not be regarded as generally doable.
The yew longbow/warbow isn't actually that good with light arrows and doesn't necessarily give you great increases speed as you reduce the weight. Either way, there is no way that war arrows ever got to 180mph or indeed anywhere near that out of an english longbow.
Chris
-
oh well it was a lot of fun doing it and it was nice to be asked by the History channel, it is a crying shame some people just can't enjoy it for what it is.
Thanks for the link Nick
Steve
-
It was very good to see a T.V. program which emphasised the draw weight required for a English longbow (used in war) and pointed out how the arrow gains speed as it drops which a lot of people dont realise
Unlike a lot of programs I see where they talk of "the mighty longbow" then show someone shooting a 50lb butt bow ;-)
e.g. I saw a program on Channel 4 last year where they "demonstrated" that the arrow from an English Warbow would bounce off a dead pig - how could no one involved in making this program not have questioned this ?????
BTW - I know from talking to a few people who have been on such programs that the info. they eventually put out is often not what the archer/bowyer had told them etc.
so whatever was said by the T.V. program don't hold Steve responsible
-
It was very good to see a T.V. program which emphasised the draw weight required for a English longbow (used in war) and pointed out how the arrow gains speed as it drops which a lot of people dont realise
Unlike a lot of programs I see where they talk of "the mighty longbow" then show someone shooting a 50lb butt bow ;-)
e.g. I saw a program on Channel 4 last year where they "demonstrated" that the arrow from an English Warbow would bounce off a dead pig - how could no one involved in making this program not have questioned this ?????
BTW - I know from talking to a few people who have been on such programs that the info. they eventually put out is often not what the archer/bowyer had told them etc.
so whatever was said by the T.V. program don't hold Steve responsible
Alan, of course you are right its en-ter-taaaain-ment and should be viewed in that way. Also, programme makers don't give editorial control to contributers. The problem is that my post on the velocities achieved was in response not to the video link but to a post from Stevesjem in which he categorically stated that arrow speeds were 180mph on leaving the bow and the same or even higher on arrival at the target. He then deleted his own post (quite why the moderators tolerate this behaviour is beyond me!) when I pointed out that this simply could not be right. What I think happened is that confusion arose because of use of mph and f/s at different ends of the arrows arc. At the beginning, with a decent archer and a decent bow it is about 180f/s and at the end its 100mph (or 147f/s) at least with some arrow types.
Apropos of nickf's post which I responded to - I should point out that the higher speeds at the end of 'Warbow' with the lighter arrow were actually at about 5.6grain per pound at which 210 f/s was achieved as an initial velocity so that kind of sets the upper limit of speed for a light war type arrow in a 150lb longbow.
You are right that an arrow speeds up as it descends - but that is true of all arrows. They start off with lots of kinetic energy, convert it to mostly potential energy at the apex of their flight and then they descend and convert all that potential energy back into kinetic energy - almost. No system is entirely efficient and at the point of arrival, some energy will have been lost, mostly to friction with the air and that is why velocities are lower on arrival of the arrow. If you want to avoid loss of energy, you need to go to outer space or somewhere else where there is a vacuum.
Hope that clears up any confusion.
Chris
-
Thats fair enough - just didn't want Steve to get lots of flack for what they said on the program when I know he will have had little/no say of what was put actually put out
The arrow speeding up as it comes down is one of those things which is obvious when you think about it but a lot of people don't realise/appreciate this and just assume the arrow gets slower the further it travels
I know Mark Stretton did a lot of work on distance/arrow speed and its very interesting how choosing the angle you shoot not only varies distance but the power the arrow will arrive with
-
I watched it and i just loved it for what it was(Great Job,Steve!) I laughed when terry struggled to pull that 60 pound bow, you can see that it,s hard to pull back a bow as he is in the army and should be used to that.
-
Thanks Alan for what you wrote, I appreciate it, also thanks to youngbowyer as well.
Chris I decided to remove my post as I felt that the information I wrote may be incorrect, I have since checked my figures and also tested the arrow speed through my chronograph and my findings were not as I originally stated, also what was interesting was they were different from yours, however I am someone who is willing to accept it when I'm wrong. Have you any results from tests you have done or are you just quoting from a book?
Cheers
Steve
-
Steve its good of you to say that the figures you quoted were a mistake - I only wish you'd left your post as was and added an addendum much as I did with my response to nickf - that way, the continuity of the conversation is maintained and people don't end up with posts which look like complete non sequiturs because what they are responding to has disappeared! (and you have to admit, I was civilised/but to the point in the post - no accusations, just that a mistake must have been made because humans do err from time to time , particularly when enthusiastic about a topic).
No I don't have a chronograph and so I am relying on the experience of others (who as you well know do have chronographs and use them regularly) - but thats no reason for me not to post. I am an archer who has shot over 350yds with flatbows in company with others shooting even further (who have used chronographs) so I have a good idea of what I would be expecting speedwise. But don't be coy, tell us what figures you have achieved, what bow you used and what arrows at what range. Thats what the thread is really about and what is interesting.
Chris
-
oh well it was a lot of fun doing it and it was nice to be asked by the History channel, it is a crying shame some people just can't enjoy it for what it is.
Steve
A bit of an odd thing to say for someone that has been very vocal about misinformation in the past
-
oh well it was a lot of fun doing it and it was nice to be asked by the History channel, it is a crying shame some people just can't enjoy it for what it is.
Steve
A bit of an odd thing to say for someone that has been very vocal about misinformation in the past
Well thanks for that Marc!
As you may recall a while ago a few of us were on this forum got a little heated and the Admin and Moderators (Including Yourself), got quite angry and as a result I apologised for my outbursts and decided it would be wise to tone things down a little, So I have, but you still find it necessary to critisze me Marc....Any particular reason?
Chris, I'm not being "Coy", i will be happy to post my results when my tests are complete, however i have never seen any of the archers that you normally shoot with use a chronograph and I do know most of them, so I will just have to take your word that they have. A flat bow is different to a longbow and much faster, so I don't doubt you have shot 350yds with one, I also have a flat bow that will shoot a huge distance and hope to compete with it later in the year, but none of that is really relevant is it?
The thread is about a TV program, not my test results or your flat bow distances and should be kept to that.
Steve
-
I liked the show it was nice. What poundage bow was the navy seal guy was trying to shoot? I was funny look on his face. :D Marlon
-
Hi Marlon,
The bow I gave him to shoot was about 80lb@32", yeah he did struggle a bit.
Cheers
Steve
-
I saw the show and I enjoyed it very much, don't know beans about warbows but I think Steve did
very well and the whole clip was educational and although it may have contained some misinformation overall it served
its purpose by educating folks to the use of the warbow in medieval warfare. Congrats Steve I think you did a great job :)
-
No particular reason Steve, I just thought it was odd. I guess it doesn't really matter as many of the people that watched the show most likely wouldn't know the difference anyway. I haven't seen the show myself but I am sure it was instructional to many
-
We all look at things differently. I must be one of the many people that watched the show and didn't know the difference, or care. Because the show was about so much more to me than the arrow speed mentioned in one part of the show.
I liked the show a great deal, in my opinion I thought it was very well done.
The show may have had some misinformation in some of the technical parts. And I will be the first to admit I have got lots to learn about this bow and the people that used them to shape history in the way that they did. One very important bit of information that I came away with from this show "Is that this great battle changed the way wars and battles would be fought in the future from that day forward. And that the bow that intrigues me so had such a big part in that.
Just my opinion,
Tim
-
Thanks DanaM,
Also Tim, you are quite right the program was about more than just arrow speed, it is of course the reason my name is Steve and not Jean-Luc ;D
OK Marc, but you must admit your post was a bit provocative wasn't it?
Steve
-
I thought it was great, well done Steve. Very very funny. Just what we need in a world full of troubles, some comedy to cheer us up. Good job mate, keep it up. :)
-
I thought it was great, well done Steve. Very very funny. Just what we need in a world full of troubles, some comedy to cheer us up. Good job mate, keep it up. :)
So exactly what did you find funny about it John, yes there was some entertainment in it but if you find the story of Agincourt a comedy then I'm embarrassed for you.
Sarcasm is a terrible thing John.
Maybe when you do something for this sport, I can congratulate you in the same manner.
Steve
-
I thought it was great, well done Steve. Very very funny. Just what we need in a world full of troubles, some comedy to cheer us up. Good job mate, keep it up. :)
So exactly what did you find funny about it John, yes there was some entertainment in it but if you find the story of Agincourt a comedy then I'm embarrassed for you.
Sarcasm is a terrible thing John.
Maybe when you do something for this sport, I can congratulate you in the same manner.
Steve
Oh for heavens sake Steve - don't take yourself so seriously!! Its a fantastic achievement to be on TV - many people aspire to just 15 seconds and it looks like you got a good chunk of the programme - something for the grandchildren to look at.And you dressed up for the occasion too - reminded me of, I don't know, maybe Michael Praed circa 1984? Maybe next time bigger hair? Or tights, yes thats it, tights - and some athletic running through the woods.
C
-
Oh dear, I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick there; you mean it wasn’t supposed to be funny?
So exactly what did you find funny about it John, yes there was some entertainment in it but if you find the story of Agincourt a comedy then I'm embarrassed for you.
Sarcasm is a terrible thing John.
Maybe when you do something for this sport, I can congratulate you in the same manner.
Steve
Well since you ask, the statement that bows were 200lb is quite amusing. Then the claim and I quote “Our Steve, one of the best bowmen in the world” really? There are a hell of a lot of archers in the world. That is quite some claim.
As for my views on Agincourt, I could rise to that one… but I don’t think I’ll bother.
Personally I think sarcasm is great.
-
Well the bow weight as far as I remember was up to 180lb, also I have no control over what the presenter said on camera,
The implication that an enormous contribution has been made by someone else who shall remain nameless has been deleted by Rod
-
Get a sense of humour Steve!!
-
Oh dear, I seem to have got the wrong end of the stick there; you mean it wasn’t supposed to be funny?
So exactly what did you find funny about it John, yes there was some entertainment in it but if you find the story of Agincourt a comedy then I'm embarrassed for you.
Sarcasm is a terrible thing John.
Maybe when you do something for this sport, I can congratulate you in the same manner.
Steve
Well since you ask, the statement that bows were 200lb is quite amusing. Then the claim and I quote “Our Steve, one of the best bowmen in the world” really? There are a hell of a lot of archers in the world. That is quite some claim.
As for my views on Agincourt, I could rise to that one… but I don’t think I’ll bother.
Personally I think sarcasm is great.
Grow up John ::) Grow up...
-
Grow up John ::) Grow up...
Your turn with the brain cell eh? Well done Nick. Good night.
-
I thought it was great, well done Steve. Very very funny. Just what we need in a world full of troubles, some comedy to cheer us up. Good job mate, keep it up. :)
So exactly what did you find funny about it John, yes there was some entertainment in it but if you find the story of Agincourt a comedy then I'm embarrassed for you.
Sarcasm is a terrible thing John.
Maybe when you do something for this sport, I can congratulate you in the same manner.
Steve
Oh for heavens sake Steve - don't take yourself so seriously!! Its a fantastic achievement to be on TV - many people aspire to just 15 seconds and it looks like you got a good chunk of the programme - something for the grandchildren to look at.And you dressed up for the occasion too - reminded me of, I don't know, maybe Michael Praed circa 1984? Maybe next time bigger hair? Or tights, yes thats it, tights - and some athletic running through the woods.
C
Yes it was good good Chris wasn't it. You'd be surprised to hear exactly who used to dress up in that, but then you would not make slights like to that to him >:D But then as it's Steve that must be ok.
-
Grow up John ::) Grow up...
Your turn with the brain cell eh? Well done Nick. Good night.
As I said before... ::)
-
Hmmm... I thought we were going to stop the childish behaviour on this segment of this forum? Admins?
Steve... well done mate. I think maybe someone got 180 fps mixed up with 180 mph. Not many people, besides us, can relate to fps... but mph makes more sense to Joe public. I do think this show was the most accurate description of real warbows and their use. I also think Steve was an excellent candidate for the producers to resource. His passion for heavy bows is obvious and extensive. Are you guys who are being critical jealous? All these internet "experts" are comical.
-
Look if this carries on the admins will shut this forum area down, who can blame them, obviously this will not benefit anyone.
To be honest I am a bit tired of having to defend myself, any opportunity to have a go, seems to be the attitude of some users, this is not the only forum that these few people have done this on.
I appreciate all of the positive comments and will not give any more of my time to the trouble makers.
They tell me to get a sense of humour, however if the boot was on the other foot they would not like it,
I am now used to the hassle they & others enjoy dishing out.
If anyone would like to contact me in the future, please email me as I am done here.
Cheers everyone.
Steve
Signing off for good
-
Hey Steve PLEASE don't go .... :'( :'( :'( .......
You are one of the most knowlagable guys on this forum
Chris :'(
-
I thought the clip was pretty good, mostly stuff I already know or take for granted, I also knew there were a couple of discrepencies but I was able to sort those out for what was really meant and saw what was "producers licence". It's like when you get that pedantic git that carps on about spelling and grammer (grammar?), those with a modicum of common sense can usually work out what is being said.
Couple of years ago, I'd have said it was brilliant. 5 years ago it would haver been FANTASTIC. these emotions are a reflection of my experience. For those with little or no knowledge of the weapon it was probably 'fantastic' too. see what I'm getting at?
There are those that don't appreciate there some that learn quick and get all prissy or close ranks among their clique when "that newby" starts offering advice or help, "who does he think he is?".
There's a fire starter in this topic who already owns his own forum, membership by invitation only. He must have had a bad day and didn't feel like cuddling up with his buddies. Well it's Friday, fight or **** night, maybe he'd better go to the pub to vent his spleen.
Steve, I know we haven't seen eye to eye on more than one occasion but personally, I think that anything that undoes the myths that have been put across as fact in the past, should be applauded. Well done. ;D
I especially liked the part where shots are taken at ox bones. close range shots maybe but it shows that anyone hit by those missiles in battle, weren't getting up again.
-
Triton Let's watch the foul language or appearance of foul language. I have edited your post with the ** in it. Thanks, Pat
-
Hey Nick why havent you answer your PM? Not once you answer your pm since the forum went down >:( Thank you Marlon
Sorry Marlon, but I have 23 pm's form june 2007 onwards none are form you ( that does not mean you did not send them only I haven't got them, in fact I got so awamped by it all via my emails I could not possilby have answered it all and I am talking a huge volume), if you want me to go in to detail pm me and I'll give you my phone number mate it would be a very interesting conversation!
Cheers
Nick
-
I don't understand where this criticism of Steve is coming from? If you watch the link posted of where Steve appeared in this program, he did not present any false information. His only involvement in the program was the shooting the bow.
If you want to criticize someone in this program, criticize the Director & Producer for feeding the former Green Beret false information. Don't criticize Steve. He had nothing to do with that.
-
Man, you guy's are a piece of work. ::) You are really different then us in the States. Most of us on this board over here would be happy that one of the contributers got to participate on the History Channel. We know 90% of television is B.S. Just look at our politicians. :D The majority of the people in the world, outside of England don't really care how fast a longbow shoots. I thought it was entertaining, and I don't know about ya'lls little ******* war.
-
lol
That's why we don't have guns over here; if we all had guns the entire population would be wiped out in a matter of weeks ;-)
-
The Navy seal chap in the clip should ask for a refund on his steroids - They only seem to work on his neck (That's a joke BTW)
One a different note I saw some of the Mary Rose bows yesterday at a local exhibition and although I was expecting pretty rough looking bows they looked really well finished and the largest which oddly had one modern horn nock fitted from testing one presumes, looked like it could have shot extremely fast. A truly enormous bow it must have been the potentially 180lb i've seen mentioned in the books.
-
An excellent segment. I love the history channel, sometimes you just have to filter the information and not take everything they say for fact. I enjoyed watching Steve shoot, and his long distance grouping was pretty impressive. Congrats on being asked to do a show for History Channel.
-
I finally got to view the video clip and I must say Congratulations to the fellows shooting the longbows for the segment.
Nicley done and very impressive and informative.
BTW, as far as the History Channel goes, at least it attempts to put out some information on historical events and, perhaps, this may draw a few younger folks into our sport.
Also, the host of the show was a Green Beret, not a Navy Seal... bit of a difference between the two branches of the services...
-
Hey Steve PLEASE don't go .... :'( :'( :'( .......
You are one of the most knowlagable guys on this forum
Chris :'(
I aggree with you Chris! Now where are all those guys that were hating on Steve!?
-
I go away for a few days and this is what happens?
Our colonial friends will be thinking that our IQ is in an inverse proportion to our draw weight if you blokes keep this up. :)
As Marc has observed, most "factual" TV usually contains a fair amount of BS and it is also true that the contributor, if he does not have the clout to insist upon a very tight contract, will have little or no say in the content, certainly no editorial control.
I have in a different context been on TV a few times for one reason or another and the results invariably contained more than one misrepresentation of the facts.
The only one that did not misrepresent was an interview for an item on Russian Channel 1 News which contained what I thought was a rather good spontaneous sound bite about Robin Hood, but it might not have been used for all I know.
In the past I have had conversation with Hector about misrepresentation in these "popular" history programmes, but what the heck, if you are in business and they get your name right you won't complain too much about the free publicity.
The hard truth is that no-one in their right mind should regard such programmes made for the popular market as a reliable source of hard information, but even so there may be some interesting nuggets here and there.
I will admit that I find the sight of Steve leaping about quite entertaining, but will bite my tongue since I can't handle his draw weight, but compared to Simon Stanley and bearing in mind the advice of Ascham it is rather eccentric and I can only presume that he does it in a misguided effort to increase his distance and decrease his accuracy.
Be that as it may, I expect that Steve will get over it, but if anyone chooses to present themselves as something of an authority then once their head is above the parapet they should expect to see some incoming fire, particularly if they are careless with the evidence.
My personal view is that opinions should be clearly described as such and things presented as fact should be supported with meaningful evidence, with pretty much excludes most popular "history" programmes as a useful source.
But if this can't be handled politely, then don't bring it here.
It will not be tolerated.
Rod.
-
Rod
Kick a man when he's Down eh? Certainly not the actions of a moderator?
I did not see Steve "leaping about" as you put it, what I did see was Steve doing a rolling loose which does give the archer extra distance, you will find that Mr Stanley also uses this technique when shooting for distance as do the current standard arrow record holder Joe Gibbs and Mark Stretton, so entertaining it may be but effective, certainly, misguided I think not, also if you look at the Ewbs website and the competition results it shows that Steve has won the last 4 competitions, so accurate, he is.
So where you get your ideas from Rod, I do not know?
You obviously haven't watched the top distance archers shoot otherwise you would know what a rolling loose is.
I do however agree with the bits about the filming.
Yewboy
-
Having witnessed Simon Stanley, a heavy bow archer of undoubtedly the highest calibre, shoot on a number of occasion I think he does have a 'follow-through' at the end of his loose. If you are storing that much energy I think it is inevitable and not an affectation.
I can also vouch for Steve's accuracy roving.
(http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q280/yeomanbowman/simoms.jpg)
I didn't take this picture (but it is on-line) so if the photographer doesn't want me to use it I'll remove it immediately.
-
Rod: you start by complaining there had been trouble on the forum then proceed to seemingly try to start it again :-(
If the bow is moving forward when the arrow is released this will increase the arrows speed - basic physics (unless they are near to light speed anyway;-)
BTW - Who is that handsome chap stood behind Simon there ;-)
-
It's rather disappointing that we all can't share or experiences & accomplishments in a polite and nonjudgemental fashion, mods included. It seems to be very macho thing for some of you heavy archers. There is more than one way, and maybe we could all share and learn something new. Just a thought.
-
Alanesq - Who ever he is he needs a damn good shave .... ;)
-
BTW - Who is that handsome chap stood behind Simon there ;-)
Not sure Alan,
I think you are in the way ;D
-
You know, Rod is right – it does look a bit like a little hopping dance when you loose a war bow.
This stuff is supposed to be fun, guys, and it always seems to become a personality cult and a mean competition between very talented and knowledgeable people tearing each other to shreds over trivial things like a stupid TV show. I hope this section remains alive and healthy.
-
Rod
Kick a man when he's Down eh? Certainly not the actions of a moderator?
I did not see Steve "leaping about" as you put it, what I did see was Steve doing a rolling loose which does give the archer extra distance, you will find that Mr Stanley also uses this technique when shooting for distance as do the current standard arrow record holder Joe Gibbs and Mark Stretton, so entertaining it may be but effective, certainly, misguided I think not, also if you look at the Ewbs website and the competition results it shows that Steve has won the last 4 competitions, so accurate, he is.
In the absence of a common system of scoring what does this actually tell us except that he led the field that day?
So where you get your ideas from Rod, I do not know?
From some few years of shooting in the longbow in more than one style at a competitive level and before that from bowhunting small game when I was younger and it was legal here...
And you?
You obviously haven't watched the top distance archers shoot otherwise you would know what a rolling loose is.
I have seen many folks shoot in different weights, styles and disciplines over the years and have a pretty good eye for understanding what I see.
I would suggest that the prime factors in obtaing good distance are a suitable dry fire weight, a well balanced shaft of the right spine and weight plus a clean fluid loose that does not disrupt the arrow's clean departure.
The biggest reducers of distance are letting down or collapsing into the loose and doing anything that might cause a less than clean departure.
In this context, throwing the body forward has relatively little effect that is good and a great deal of potential for introducing errors when shooting at a mark.
What you call a "rolling loose" I would probably in flight or clout shooting terms call a "slashing loose" and in the past I have shot a weak bow with its arrows borrowed from a friend who could not make the distance at clout and recorded a medal score by the use of a "slashing loose and punching the bow into the loose".
If I had thrown out of line during this process I would not have obtained the score, which is the reasoning behind my comment, which acknowledged that it was a distance technique, not one best suited for shooting at a mark where any departure from the aimed line of force during the loose has inevitable consequences in a looser grouping.
Some degree of reaction is likely shooting high draw-weights, but where this reaction or movement comes after the arrow's departure, or is in line, little harm is done.
When it involves letting off, collapsing, throwing up or down or out of line during the shot the arrow will tell the tale.
What you can get away with shooting for distance may well prove grossly inefficient shooting at a mark.
As to why good distances are achieved, observation of the loose and the arrows departure will tell far more than observation of the archers physical reaction to loosing the draw weight.
Leaping forward adds little to the arrows velocity; good rhythm and tempo, and a fluid loose make a big difference in the same way that a poor rhythm and tempo, a dead or static and less than slick loose all have a large affect on detracting from the cast.
And Ascham writes a good deal of sense even though it is fashionable in some quarters to decry his writing.
But I respect an archer who writes good sense and is modest about his own ability, as is the case with Ascham.
I do however agree with the bits about the filming.
Anyone who has worked with the media without editorial control will tell you the same....
Yewboy
-
Hi Rod,
I think it only fair to point out that the rolling loose is only used when shooting at extreme distance. To confuse this with the techniques used when shooting at the marks is a mistake and does not allow you to see the full picture of how these gentlemen shoot. When at the marks, the archer looses in a more conventional manner allowing him to be far more accurate than with a rolling loose.
What i will say about the effectiveness of shooting in this manner for distance is that the archers in question attain a greater on average distance than not using it and they are all very experienced archers, so the proof is as we say in the pudding.
To see the difference's in techniques for distance and flight watch this video, the first shot of Mark shows him shooting at a mark and the last image of the archers on the ridge has Mark in the centre shooting for extreme distance. The two are different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_rPxV5Jivg
Nick
-
I'm not totally convinced just yet about the effectivity of the rolling loose. If you se the picture of Stanley, the arrow has left the bow in the second picture, and he haven't moved the bow forward too much from picture 1 to picture 2. The speed you would add to the arrow will be the same as the accelleration you put into the bow during the period you release the arrow and it leaves the string. It's less than half a second, and you won't be able to move it forward that much within half a second. At most a foot, and if my thinking is right, it should be 2 fps extra speed for the arrow. That's not much :)
Still, if you can do a perfect loose with the correct angle, while rolling forward, the rolling should add a few yards. 5 perhaps?
-
I'm not totally convinced just yet about the effectivity of the rolling loose. If you se the picture of Stanley, the arrow has left the bow in the second picture, and he haven't moved the bow forward too much from picture 1 to picture 2. The speed you would add to the arrow will be the same as the accelleration you put into the bow during the period you release the arrow and it leaves the string. It's less than half a second, and you won't be able to move it forward that much within half a second. At most a foot, and if my thinking is right, it should be 2 fps extra speed for the arrow. That's not much :)
Still, if you can do a perfect loose with the correct angle, while rolling forward, the rolling should add a few yards. 5 perhaps?
Well we can argue things out as much as we wish but practicall experience orverides all. The pictures of Simon miss out the bits which are important so it is easy to call issue with what he is doing. Make no mistake he is an amazingly competent bowman and would not be doing what he is doing unless it actually helped. Sorry about that.
To illiustrate things watch yet another cliip ::) This is Mark Stretton, the bloke who holds the word record for the heavest longobow shot. He has held the standard arrow record and won umpteen compititions, in short he knows what works and does not. Noitce how he rolls before he looses and the way the arrow comes back that much more because of it. Also notice how his leg does not leave the floor before he has loosed but his positiion changes in a very similar manner to the pictures of Simon.
http://www.englishwarbow.com/Untitled.wmv
It works, why I do not know, personally I think it aids release rather than adding momentum but it clearly works as most of the record setters use a variance on it and that is after all the ultimate test.
-
Of course, these guys do some really impressive shooting, and the rollong loose looks darn cool. I've tried it a little, and it takes some training to get it right, for sure.
However, practical experience should never be relied upon untill it has been tested as thoroughly as it would be in a scientific experiment. There is a lot of ways to misinterpret "everyday experiences". For example it may well be that it is easier to draw longer when doing the roll. Then it is not the roll that contributes, but the longer draw :)
It would be interesting to know if the turks did the same thing while flightshooting. I would rather rely on a couple of hundred years experience than a couple of decades. :)
Pretty cool clip there! Thank you!
-
I think a rolling loose is simply follow through. Like swinging a bat, or a golf club, and we all know what happens when we don't follow through with those activities.
-
I feel another thread coming on..............
-
Hehe ;D
-
Nick,
Both my original comment and the subsequent one make it quite clear that I regarded it as a distance shooting technique.
But I think you are possibly mistaken in attributing it as the real source of greater distance.
It is more likely a symptom of a fluent action and reaction with a heavy draw weight
It would I suggest be more instructive to look at the overall tempo and rhythm of the shot and most critically to look at the departure of the arrow as seen from behind the archer.
How the arrow departs will tell you far more than looking at any amount of bodily movement.
I would go so far as to say that a really bad loose combined with a lot of punching the bow or bodily movement could quite easily cancel each other out.
It is how cleanly the arrow leaves that most of all defines a good shot and you will not distinguish this by looking at bodily motion but by observing the arrow from behind.
Looking at the body will tell you how co-ordinated the archer is, about his rhythm and tempo, whether or not he has sufficient control of the bow.
Careful observation of the string hand, wrist alignment and elbow movement will tell you about the degree of extension in the line of force, and if the loose is dynamic, static or let down, but only the character of the arrows departure as seen from behind will tell you if the loose itself is truly clean.
You may have noticed that some folks who initiate the draw with the wrist of the string hand bent somehow get to their anchor and loose with the wrist still bent and the arm not extended to the rear in line with the shaft.
These blokes are not only making the bow physically harder to draw, they are also giving up at least two inches of drawlength with the same anchor point.
I would expect best distance to be consistently gained by those who had a full extension in the line of force (showing a wrist straightened under back tension) the drawing arm in line with the shaft and a relaxing of the grip on the string under increasing back tension.
Good timing if punching the bow hand into the loose, since bad timing and length can have slightly too interesting consequences and a slick loose that does not disrupt the clean departure of the shaft by impeding the string, letting it forward or by throwing itout of line.
And a smooth fast tempo will usually produce more arrow speed thana slow tempo.
Rod.
-
Rod
A Rolling loose and a Slashing loose are totally different techniques, A rolling loose is where the archer will dip the bow during the draw, this will then allow him to get his whole body into the bow, taking the weight on his back, then the upward movement comes, all the time the bow is being drawn, then the punch forward, this is when the last part of the draw is done, then the loose, The arrow will leave the bow and the energy that is left in the bow will take the archer forward and the often off his feet, this is just the way it is, it's not done for effect and it works. There is no punching the bow arm forward the punch comes from the right leg (Right Handed Archer), The bow arm is perfectly stable when you are in control of the draw weight, so the arm will not move right or left and the shot can be kept in control and accurate.
The slashing loose is a loose that people who generally shoot the lighter weight bows use for distance shooting,however their are a few people who have enough arm strength to adopt this loose for much heavier bows, this is quite a fast draw and requires very good knowledge of your draw length and arrow length, As the archer just points the bow at 45 degrees and quickly draws the bow to its full draw and at the point of release throws his/her drawing hand in a backwards motion and gets the snappy release required.
So they are totally different.
The majority of what you say has some relevence however it is only relevant with regards light weight bows, Arrow Spine, Dry fire weight have little to do with shooting a heavy weight bow, most 1/2" arrows will spine at over 160lb.
Nick is bang on when he says that this type of loose aids distance, as does a slashing loose, both will work, some people use one technique and others use the other, whatever gets the better distance for them, those that do use a rolling loose, do so as it gives them greater distances and the same goes for people who use a slashing loose, each archer who competes in distance shooting will adopt what is better for them, it's stupid to think that they have not tried both and chosen what is best for them.
Archers that use the Rolling Loose: Mark Stretton (Held the Std Arrow Record 2003-2005), Joseph Gibbs (World Record Holder Std Arrow 2009), Simon Stanley (Held the Std Arrow Record 2006-2008, Flight Record holder 2003-2008), Steve Stratton (UK Flight Champion 2006).
Archers that use the slashing loose: Jeremy Spencer (Fight Record Holder 2008-), Alistair Aston (UK Flight Champion 2007-2008).
As you can see both techniques work well and it's just a case of whatever suits the particular archer.
It is probably wise to just applaud these people for there achievments and congratulate them for put their heads on the block by going on tv, instead of trying to analyze or make light of their shooting styles when you have not been able to achieve anything similar.
Yewbow
-
I have seen a number of videos of some heavy bow archers shooting their bows, I'm not talking amateurs here but the regular guys. Most of those videos clearly show the archer pulling the bow back to full draw and just before they let loose back off from full draw a couple inches at least. I may not shoot heavy bows but I know that is not good for distance. Would that be classified as a rolling loose? :)
-
Hi Rod,
It would aid clarity if you used the quote box correctly, instead of using italics which are just about impossible to decipher on my computer :D
I hate to tell you this but I do understand what constitutes a good loose and what constitutes a poor one, like most archers I can even tell you if someone loosed well or poorly by the sound it makes alone.
I agree almost entirely with your saying and as I stated before the rolling loose aids the loose rather than impart blistering kinetic energy to the arrow. If you watch the video of Mark you'll see how he moves before he shoots and how his upper body moves in the direction of the arrows final path. You'll also notice how the arrow gains even more draw length becuase of it.
As with the slashing loose this technique is also easy to mess up or should I rather say the converse, it is hard to master but once mastered it does work. At some point in the future I'll hopefully be filming a multi camera angle of this sequence and the slashing loose which would be interesting and not in a negative way!
So we are basically in agreement then?
Nick
-
I have seen a number of videos of some heavy bow archers shooting their bows, I'm not talking amateurs here but the regular guys. Most of those videos clearly show the archer pulling the bow back to full draw and just before they let loose back off from full draw a couple inches at least. I may not shoot heavy bows but I know that is not good for distance. Would that be classified as a rolling loose? :)
No Marc that would be a poor loose :D
Did you watch the video of second video of Mark I put up? You'll see in that one that his draw length actually increases, now that's called a rolling loose ;)
-
I have seen a number of videos of some heavy bow archers shooting their bows, I'm not talking amateurs here but the regular guys. Most of those videos clearly show the archer pulling the bow back to full draw and just before they let loose back off from full draw a couple inches at least. I may not shoot heavy bows but I know that is not good for distance. Would that be classified as a rolling loose? :)
Well Marc, that may be so but I'm sure you cannot be talking about the people on the list I used as they have all established themselves with shooting big distances and have records to prove or won national competitions, maybe the people you have seen are not on top of their draw weights! Oh and no that is not a rolling loose, that is as Nick states a bad loose.
Yewboy
-
Does anyone actually know what kind of loose was used in medieval combat archery? Is there some period documetation that describes the various releases, or is it conjecture and logic and experimentation that has developed these different kinds of slashing and rolling releases?
The question is a serious one, not to cause strife or anything. Oh, did things change by the Tutor period, or was it the same as the 14th century way of bow shooting?
Dane
-
As I said these were not amateurs. I was going to put names down but on second thought decided not to.
Having done some flight shooting I know for a fact that a slashing loose when well done will get the distance. Holding any wood bow at full draw regardless of draw weight will cut down distance and anyone that says otherwise does not know his wood as well as he thinks he does.
-
I have a tendency to let the bow come down before releasing - its something I have been trying to stop doing for a while
but as a result of this my distances have been terrible
-
As I said these were not amateurs. I was going to put names down but on second thought decided not to.
Having done some flight shooting I know for a fact that a slashing loose when well done will get the distance. Holding any wood bow at full draw regardless of draw weight will cut down distance and anyone that says otherwise does not know his wood as well as he thinks he does.
You are quite correct Marc, however both techniques work and neither require the bow to be held at full draw for any time at all, both techniques are similar in that respect.
-
More in agreement than you might expect Nick, but like any other rational being, not about to give up observation and understanding for blind and unquestioning admiration any time soon...
And you must admit that some of the "explanations" on offer only serve to confuse or cast doubt.
For example:
A "slashing loose" is just that. It is not a contrived method of pre-aiming and drawing, but it can be the fast and fluent loosing component in more than one style of draw.
Rod.
-
Nick: maybe we could film some looses at Batsford with my high speed camera then see what info we can deduce from these?
it should be possible to tell the arrow speed and the archers speed and thus what amount of this arrow speed is due to the active loose
we could also film the same archer not using an active loose and compare them in great detail
-
Hmm, that would be totally awesome Alan!
-
More in agreement than you might expect Nick, but like any other rational being, not about to give up observation and understanding for blind and unquestioning admiration any time soon...
And you must admit that some of the "explanations" on offer only serve to confuse or cast doubt.
For example:
A "slashing loose" is just that. It is not a contrived method of pre-aiming and drawing, but it can be the fast and fluent loosing component in more than one style of draw.
Rod.
Oh of course that's it, I just remembered you know and I don't. Silly me!
-
Nick: maybe we could film some looses at Batsford with my high speed camera then see what info we can deduce from these?
it should be possible to tell the arrow speed and the archers speed and thus what amount of this arrow speed is due to the active loose
we could also film the same archer not using an active loose and compare them in great detail
Sounds liike a good idea Alan, I'll be there with cameras in hand but I've got to film something first else as a priority ;)
-
That would be both interesting and informative since it would allow everyone to see how the whole thing comes together.
What interests me is how the sequence is co-ordinated by different folks and how that effects the shot.
My personal view remains that timing, good extension and a clean loose will characterise the good shots.
And that a breakdown in timing, a lack of extension and a less than slick loose will characterise the poor shots.
It might be useful to have some sort of point of reference in shot behind the archer, such as a vertical pole so as to better perceive and compare the relative movement of the parts.
Also to see the loose and arrow departure from behind might prove instructive.
Rod.
-
More in agreement than you might expect Nick, but like any other rational being, not about to give up observation and understanding for blind and unquestioning admiration any time soon...
And you must admit that some of the "explanations" on offer only serve to confuse or cast doubt.
For example:
A "slashing loose" is just that. It is not a contrived method of pre-aiming and drawing, but it can be the fast and fluent loosing component in more than one style of draw.
Rod.
Oh of course that's it, I just remembered you know and I don't. Silly me!
Yewboy
You can do better than that.
The point is that the style of loose is not, except in a limited context, predetermined by the style of the draw.
There are of course, more common and less common combinations.
So it would be appreciated if you could refrain from the weak sarcasm and consider what it is that you have to say and then say it succinctly and politely.
It seems to me that the heavy draw for shooting distance is so alike to a normal ground up draw and loose that the only distiguishing features to an observer, signs of greater effort aside, are the "push" with the body into the loose and the degree of reaction to loosing the weight.
In my somewhat limited experience it seems to me that it is more in the timing and the fluency than in the more obvious reaction.
Also, as a general rule, that the better the archer, the less apparent the effort.
Obviously being mindful that mastering their draw weight in these bows is a work in progress for most.
FWIW
Rod.
-
I am sure you are right that most of it is technique
- I know this as I have yet to get a decent technique myself ;-)
the question I want to try and answer is what is the difference in distances between a perfect "standard" loose and the same perfect loose but also trying to throw the bow forward as the arrow leaves to give a bit more power
The question for me is; is the effort of doing an active loose worth doing
i.e. will the arrow go another 10 yards or 10mm?
-
From my own observations and practice, I would say that what distinguishes a loose for maximising distance from one that maximises accuracy is a fast tempo and a more dynamic action through the extension and loose.
Shooting for accuracy there is a benefit in producing the same cast every time, making the shot more predictable.
Here there is a likely advantage in the tempo being consistent with the extension and loose measured.
For greatest distance it is probably advantageous to have a faster tempo and a fluent uninterrupted extension.
But both methods benefit from a clean and fluent in-line active loose.
When the final extension is seamlessly co-ordinated with a pushing of the bow, a more dynamic loose is attainable, but it is still important to have a clean non-disruptive loose.
Good awareness of shaft length and feeling for the head coming to the hand, control of length and loose is necessary to avoid self linflicted injury with the more fluid style of draw and loose when drawing to the head.
The more common factors in getting poorer distance might be less than full extension in the line of force, a disruptive loose causing untidy arrow departure, a slower tempo and inappropriate balance in a shaft of a given weight and excessive fletch size.
If the draw weight has not pulled the relaxed wrist into the line of force at full draw, the bow is significantly under drawn.
We will see some folks at full draw with wrist bent and elbow cocked up, sometimes stopping briefly at anchor and letting the fingers go forward.
This obviously gives up drawlength and cast due to not extending fully and not maintaining rearward extension through the loose.
The stronger shooters can be observed pushing into the bow as they come into the loose.
Jumping is I think a reaction to this with the heavy draw weights and can be disadvantageous if it involves throwing the bow out of line during the departure of the arrow, such as by casting the arm out of line during the loose or by deliberately jumping in anticipation of the loose.
In terms of practice, I think the first prerequisite is to attain full extension with a direct line of force and a clean active loose that does not disrupt the flight of the arrow.
Then and only then should one work on increasing the tempo and perfecting the co-ordination of pushing into the loose. If full extension is not made and a clean active loose obtained, there will be no advantage in the latter.
Rod.