Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: chaetaux on February 11, 2008, 06:31:48 am
-
how strong was bow guinnes record holder Mark Strenton?
-
I can find no record of Stretton holding the Record....this Guy states that He holds it....
http://www.indium.com/drlasky/entry.php?id=386
Hello And Good day !
Please allow me to introduce myself , I am Den Erickson .
I am the Worlds Strongest Archer , and have been for (April 1994 ) 10 Years prior to Mark Stretton's so called "Feat" .
I have demonstrated my Ability to successfully Shoot and Hunt with these weights .
I on a weekly basis shoot 6 / 6 arrow ends at 125# , 147# ,And over 230 #
with recurves and a Longbow , Drawn to my natural Draw length of 26 1/2 " .
At the Moment Mark Stretton while a terrific and competent Archer is no where near my strength or abilities , has been challenged in this regard and refuses any sort of competition .
I do have a current claim in to Guinness whilst Mark Stretton does not .
As to Stats
I am 5'8" , and 280 lbs . 32 years of age
In coorespondance with Pip he has mentioned he does not endorse any one let alone Mark Stretton pulling such heavy weight as he feels it is historically inaccurate .
This is for informational purposes as well as serving as a challenge to Mark Stretton to Match me or beat me as The Worlds Strongest .
I may be reached at Varbogen@aol.com
or USA tel 262-705-2245 .
Sincerely ,
Den Erickson
The Worlds Strongest Archer ( U.S.)
-
It only matters if it can hit....
Perhaps you might like to consider the same challenge I put to Mark and others in the heavy bow community. Though some have agreed that a benchmark in accuracy would be useful, no-one thus far has made the effort to set such a benchmark.
The proposal was to shoot 72 x consecutive arrows in sets of three or six at 100 yards at the standard 48" target face. (FITA 122cm) and to record the number of hits and the score on 5 zone scoring (Gold 9,Red 7,Blue 5,Black 3 & White 1)
The general reaction has been that target shooting is irrelevant, despite the fact that target shooting is historically an offshoot of practice for military shooting.
I don't know why there is such reluctance to set a benchmark (though I suspect it is the certain knowledge that a low score would be posted) since any criticism of the level of score is easily answered by inviting any critic to take up the heavy bow and show what he can do with the same draw weight, much as Dick Galway once responded to crticism from a target archer by inviting to demonstrate with Dick's own bow, which the man could not even draw, let alone shoot.
Unfortunately the present stage of development in the heavy bow fraternity seems at present to be focussed upon what weight can be pulled and what distance can be made with little or no regard to the level of accuracy, which is unfortunate.
Bearing in mind that the Chinese, in the Tang dynasty qualified an archer as first class by his ability to get six hits with six arrows in a man sized target at 100 paces. Less than six hits out of six won you a second class grade and no hits at all was a failing grade.
Some weak sister complained that this also was irrelevant as the Chinese were shooting composite bows, which is an absurd cop out.
All war bow cultures demanded two things of their archers, regardless of the style of bow.
One is the ability to maintain a rate of fire, the other that they should be capable of hitting a man at the closer distances and in war bow cultures, 100 paces is considered close enough to hit a man, 40 paces or less would be very close and considered a gift.
Such bows are these days most often demonstrated at very close distances, which is fair enough given the constraints of public demonstration and safe layout for spectators, but for a fighting warbow, 12 score paces used to be the legal minimum practice distance and 100 paces is getting pretty close to point on.
Perhaps you would care to set an example by establishing a benchmark at 100 yards, bearing in mind that in long-bow custom, no sighters are permitted and all arrow will count. No sights or marks on the bow limb as an aid to finding the elevation are permitted though there is nothing to prevent the use of point of aim.
There is of course also nothing to prevent you from practising, but any claim for a benchmark score should be independantly witnessed and recorded as a discrete round of consecutive arrows.
This would be a record that really means something in the traditional context of war bow shooting.
Rod.
-
What would be the target size at say 220/40 yards?
-
I can find no record of Stretton holding the Record....this Guy states that He holds it....
http://www.indium.com/drlasky/entry.php?id=386
Hello And Good day !
Please allow me to introduce myself , I am Den Erickson .
I am the Worlds Strongest Archer , and have been for (April 1994 ) 10 Years prior to Mark Stretton's so called "Feat" .
I have demonstrated my Ability to successfully Shoot and Hunt with these weights .
I on a weekly basis shoot 6 / 6 arrow ends at 125# , 147# ,And over 230 #
with recurves and a Longbow , Drawn to my natural Draw length of 26 1/2 " .
At the Moment Mark Stretton while a terrific and competent Archer is no where near my strength or abilities , has been challenged in this regard and refuses any sort of competition .
I do have a current claim in to Guinness whilst Mark Stretton does not .
As to Stats
I am 5'8" , and 280 lbs . 32 years of age
In coorespondance with Pip he has mentioned he does not endorse any one let alone Mark Stretton pulling such heavy weight as he feels it is historically inaccurate .
This is for informational purposes as well as serving as a challenge to Mark Stretton to Match me or beat me as The Worlds Strongest .
I may be reached at Varbogen@aol.com
or USA tel 262-705-2245 .
Sincerely ,
Den Erickson
The Worlds Strongest Archer ( U.S.)
Mark Stretton set the world record for a longbow at 200lb draw weight with Guiness world records a few years back. Den Erickson may well be able to shoot such draw weights but certainly does not hold the world record, to claim to be and to actualy be are two entirely different things.
It only matters if it can hit....
Perhaps you might like to consider the same challenge I put to Mark and others in the heavy bow community. Though some have agreed that a benchmark in accuracy would be useful, no-one thus far has made the effort to set such a benchmark.
The proposal was to shoot 72 x consecutive arrows in sets of three or six at 100 yards at the standard 48" target face. (FITA 122cm) and to record the number of hits and the score on 5 zone scoring (Gold 9,Red 7,Blue 5,Black 3 & White 1)
The general reaction has been that target shooting is irrelevant, despite the fact that target shooting is historically an offshoot of practice for military shooting.
I don't know why there is such reluctance to set a benchmark (though I suspect it is the certain knowledge that a low score would be posted) since any criticism of the level of score is easily answered by inviting any critic to take up the heavy bow and show what he can do with the same draw weight, much as Dick Galway once responded to crticism from a target archer by inviting to demonstrate with Dick's own bow, which the man could not even draw, let alone shoot.
Unfortunately the present stage of development in the heavy bow fraternity seems at present to be focussed upon what weight can be pulled and what distance can be made with little or no regard to the level of accuracy, which is unfortunate.
Bearing in mind that the Chinese, in the Tang dynasty qualified an archer as first class by his ability to get six hits with six arrows in a man sized target at 100 paces. Less than six hits out of six won you a second class grade and no hits at all was a failing grade.
Some weak sister complained that this also was irrelevant as the Chinese were shooting composite bows, which is an absurd cop out.
All war bow cultures demanded two things of their archers, regardless of the style of bow.
One is the ability to maintain a rate of fire, the other that they should be capable of hitting a man at the closer distances and in war bow cultures, 100 paces is considered close enough to hit a man, 40 paces or less would be very close and considered a gift.
Such bows are these days most often demonstrated at very close distances, which is fair enough given the constraints of public demonstration and safe layout for spectators, but for a fighting warbow, 12 score paces used to be the legal minimum practice distance and 100 paces is getting pretty close to point on.
Perhaps you would care to set an example by establishing a benchmark at 100 yards, bearing in mind that in long-bow custom, no sighters are permitted and all arrow will count. No sights or marks on the bow limb as an aid to finding the elevation are permitted though there is nothing to prevent the use of point of aim.
There is of course also nothing to prevent you from practising, but any claim for a benchmark score should be independantly witnessed and recorded as a discrete round of consecutive arrows.
This would be a record that really means something in the traditional context of war bow shooting.
Rod.
Thats an interesting point but it misses the point somewhat. Warbow archers, certainly those in the uk, tend to practice roving marks where accuracy is very important, however the way that accuracy is judged in roving is markedly differen't to other forms of archery. The test that you propose is one based on sport target archery, roving requires archers to group there arrows on the ground and distances out to 250yds+, without knowing the distance to those marks, to be regarded as accurate you have to be able to group two to three bow lengths from that mark. Asking a roving mark archer to prove his ability by shooting a fita round would be like asking a fita target to shoot a rove and then extrapolate his ability from to the other.
Now you are correct when say that we should practice at field and target, but the problem we face is that we are practically banned from doing so in the uk. Clubs refuse to allow warbow archers to shoot at targets and the governing body for longbows in the uk puts a limit of 70lb draw on longbows for target archery.
It may interest you to know that a shoot we shall be holding in the near future we shall be doing something like this. A flat boss 80x80cm will be put out at 20,30,40,50,60......yds as a last man standing contest. Will it be 'independantly witnessed to your satifaction? Probably not but it will be to mine and everybody else who is there and that is what matters ;) Sorry.
Oh and by the way we are perfectly aware that your not meant to use sight markings. ::)
-
Hi Nick,
It was kind of the point I was trying to say (not very well) with target size at 220 plus yards. The tolerance (expectations) are wider at those distances.
Alistair
-
Hi Nick,
It was kind of the point I was trying to say (not very well) with target size at 220 plus yards. The tolerance (expectations) are wider at those distances.
Alistair
Hi Alistair,
I thought thats what you meant :)
Interesting that the above quote mentions chinese archers. Given the '1st class' ability, which is a fantastic achievement, it is interesting to think how many would have made into Henry V army, not many given the minimum standards applied there with far heavier bows. Not that I'm claiming I could achieve what the chinese archers achieved ohh blimey no ;)
See you at the shoot
Nick
-
You Stated that:
Mark Stretton set the world record for a longbow at 200lb draw weight with Guiness world records a few years back. Den Erickson may well be able to shoot such draw weights but certainly does not hold the world record, to claim to be and to actualy be are two entirely different things.
I can still not find any listing of Stretton in the Guinness Book....or on their Website to verify this...can you find it and post it???
-
You Stated that:
Mark Stretton set the world record for a longbow at 200lb draw weight with Guiness world records a few years back. Den Erickson may well be able to shoot such draw weights but certainly does not hold the world record, to claim to be and to actualy be are two entirely different things.
I can still not find any listing of Stretton in the Guinness Book....or on their Website to verify this...can you find it and post it???
It's not on there now, well the search didn't pick it up I don't know why. But here are some details where you can find about it. Mark set the record on 15th August 2004 so any record of it would be in the 2005(?) book and the Glade issue 106 ran an article on it.
-
Interesting that the above quote mentions chinese archers. Given the '1st class' ability, which is a fantastic achievement, it is interesting to think how many would have made into Henry V army, not many given the minimum standards applied there with far heavier bows. Not that I'm claiming I could achieve what the chinese archers achieved ohh blimey no ;)
[/quote]
Nick,
Which is pretty much what I would expect given the tone and content of your response to a challenge to set a benchmark for accuracy at 100 yards, which was not even addressed to you.
How do you think you would fare going for Tang Dynasty second class? Surely that is achievable with a modicum of practice?
Probably the vast majority fell into this category since it is quite easy to miss at 100 paces and I expect that only a relatively small percentile made the first class grade.
I have no problem with someone who honestly says "I don't think I could do that" but I always hear the same old excuses.
It's not about what you like doing, or what you think you can't do, or whether you would feel embarassed at shooting a lower score than a target archer.
As I said above, when criticised by a target archer, offer him your bow and let him show you what he can do with your draw weight.
I can understand a pleasant social knockout contest starting at 20 yards, but those are for a warbow, extremely close distances and 100 yardfs should be pretty near to point on with some shafts.
But childrens and ethical hunting distances are not the distances for setting a benchmark for accuracy with a war bow.
You should not be worried about embarassing yourself with something as harmless as a recorded score.
A low score is only a place to start, something to build upon.
It won't get you killed, which is what your attitude would do if it was for real.
A good archer would have been a fair allround hand, since excuses are useless in the face of the enemy.
BTW since Den is a foreigner I thought it useful to mention something to him that I thought that you would know. But thanks for the information anyway.
A FITA face is suggested since it is the same anywhere in the world, which is useful if we are considering setting a standard for accuracy.
This does not of itself make it impossible to shoot at it with a longbow.
What it does mean however, is that you will have a recorded score which can be subject to comparison, which as you well know, is the real cause of your reluctance.
Fair enough, if you are not ready to record a score at 100 paces, it's a free country, no-one is going to make you do it.
Rod.
Alistair,
Judging by the local butt mounds, I would say around 10 or 12 feet in diameter, but no doubt with a centre "coit" or peg, like the Luttrell Salter drawing.
Rod.
-
Anyone who has ever seen a photo of Den Erickson drawing a bow will no longer take hime serious. His full draw looks to be about 16". He claims to run the 40 yard dash in something like 40 seconds. And is the greatest and anything that comes up. Steve
-
Anyone who has ever seen a photo of Den Erickson drawing a bow will no longer take hime serious. His full draw looks to be about 16". He claims to run the 40 yard dash in something like 40 seconds. And is the greatest and anything that comes up. Steve
Steve, we call everybody that is like that STAN. You tell a story and they say "S#!t That Ain't Nothing", S T A N. ;D Justin
-
Nick,
Which is pretty much what I would expect given the tone and content of your response to a challenge to set a benchmark for accuracy at 100 yards, which was not even addressed to you.
How do you think you would fare going for Tang Dynasty second class? Surely that is achievable with a modicum of practice?
Probably the vast majority fell into this category since it is quite easy to miss at 100 paces and I expect that only a relatively small percentile made the first class grade.
I have no problem with someone who honestly says "I don't think I could do that" but I always hear the same old excuses.
It's not about what you like doing, or what you think you can't do, or whether you would feel embarassed at shooting a lower score than a target archer.
As I said above, when criticised by a target archer, offer him your bow and let him show you what he can do with your draw weight.
I can understand a pleasant social knockout contest starting at 20 yards, but those are for a warbow, extremely close distances and 100 yardfs should be pretty near to point on with some shafts.
But childrens and ethical hunting distances are not the distances for setting a benchmark for accuracy with a war bow.
You should not be worried about embarassing yourself with something as harmless as a recorded score.
A low score is only a place to start, something to build upon.
It won't get you killed, which is what your attitude would do if it was for real.
A good archer would have been a fair allround hand, since excuses are useless in the face of the enemy.
BTW since Den is a foreigner I thought it useful to mention something to him that I thought that you would know. But thanks for the information anyway.
A FITA face is suggested since it is the same anywhere in the world, which is useful if we are considering setting a standard for accuracy.
This does not of itself make it impossible to shoot at it with a longbow.
What it does mean however, is that you will have a recorded score which can be subject to comparison, which as you well know, is the real cause of your reluctance.
Fair enough, if you are not ready to record a score at 100 paces, it's a free country, no-one is going to make you do it.
Rod.
Alistair,
Judging by the local butt mounds, I would say around 10 or 12 feet in diameter, but no doubt with a centre "coit" or peg, like the Luttrell Salter drawing.
Rod.
My point about chinese archers was to illustrate the fact that you cannot take one group of archers and directly compare them to another if you do you end up with a very weak comparison. A chinese archer shoots chinese kit and in the ethos of his military mindset, an English archer likewise the two are not the same. Who knows if I tried there test I may be a 1st, 2nd or zilch archer but as I have no interest in chinese archery, which is probably a lot of fun, I'm not about to go out and buy chinese bows and learn their shooting techniques.
In a similar vain your test falls down for the same reason. It is a test of target archery and even though it's not aimed at me, which must mean your only interested in certain individual archers and not warbows per se, it is not what I try to train for. To say that I'm offering excuses and I'm worried I'll be embarresed is ridiculous, I'm a grown bloody man not some wet behind the ears kid! I know I'd be beaten hands down by a target archer, so what? You don't judge a rally driver by making him race at siverstone against a superbike. To under take your challenge then I'd have to train for it, which you have to see as fair, to do that takes time. Time which I'm better able to spend roving, clout shooting and heavy arrow shooting which is what I do. If you want a 'bench mark' come up with something based on that and you may get a few takers. You can't seriously expect people to start shooting in a completely differen't manner becuase you issuse a challenge, what happens if the week after someone else comes up with another one for us which we have to undertake to satisfy them? What good would it serve us?
If you want a bench mark base it on something readily repeatable which reflects what most warbow archers do. As an example clout shooting, or how well you group your military arrows on the round at your furthest range. A challenge like that may be taken up becuase that is what we already do, to say we have to do something completely differen't would be like asking compound archers to take up military arrow shooting, it's not something there interested in otherwise they'd shoot warbows. It is agian trying to judge one style of shooting by anothers benchmarks, whats the point?
Making cheap points out of 'we know your real reaosons for not wanting' is not only childish but also insulting. if you want poeple to do your test might I suggest that you are more gracious to those who turn you down or find other ways in which you could improve upon your challenge. After all if someone reads this they might think I'll give that a go but they may be put off thinking if they do badly they will get cheap comments thrown at them by yourself after all I've not even taken your 'test' and your calling me to all intense and purposes a coward, bizare!
As for Den Erickson I have no idea if he can do what he claims, if he goes out and gets a world record then I'll drink a toast to him, if he doesn't then he doesn't it doesn't worry me.
-
Wow, lots of chest thumping and finger pointing!!
-
Wow, lots of chest thumping and finger pointing!!
Ug :D
-
Mark Stretton set the world record for a longbow at 200lb draw weight with Guinness world records a few years back. Den Erickson may well be able to shoot such draw weights but certainly does not hold the world record, to claim to be and to actualy be are two entirely different things.
I can still not find any listing of Stretton in the Guinness Book....or on their Website to verify this...can you find it and post it???
I went to my local library today to check this out
turns out the book no longer lists all records, its just a selection of the most "interesting" ones
the web site states it is only a small selection of records you can search there
it seems the only way to find out is to text the question in
see details at their website - guinnessworldrecords.com (after you search for something)
this usually costs £1 but you get 2 tries for free
so I gave this a go and sure enough the reply soon came back "Mark Stretton - 200lbs"
So anyone who can pull a heavier bow the record is still there to be broken (details on the website how to claim the record)
-
It only matters if it can hit....
Perhaps you might like to consider the same challenge I put to Mark and others in the heavy bow community. Though some have agreed that a benchmark in accuracy would be useful, no-one thus far has made the effort to set such a benchmark.
The proposal was to shoot 72 x consecutive arrows in sets of three or six at 100 yards at the standard 48" target face. (FITA 122cm) and to record the number of hits and the score on 5 zone scoring (Gold 9,Red 7,Blue 5,Black 3 & White 1)
The general reaction has been that target shooting is irrelevant, despite the fact that target shooting is historically an offshoot of practice for military shooting.
I shoot a 120lb bow at target archery (although I am very much a beginner so not very good at it)
but weather permitting on Sunday I will give it a try if you want?
The problem with this though, if someone else posts a score using a 130lb bow how do you compare the two ?
As Nick was saying though, warbows are all about getting a heavy arrow as far as you can and whilst accuracy is obviously important it is not everything (unlike other types of archery)
so I think for this to be of interest to warbow archers we really need some way of not only measuring how accurate the arrow was but also how much "stopping power" it delivered ?
btw - what score would be considered "respectable" for a standard target archer using English longbow ?
-
Mark Stretton set the world record for a longbow at 200lb draw weight with Guinness world records a few years back. Den Erickson may well be able to shoot such draw weights but certainly does not hold the world record, to claim to be and to actualy be are two entirely different things.
I can still not find any listing of Stretton in the Guinness Book....or on their Website to verify this...can you find it and post it???
I went to my local library today to check this out
turns out the book no longer lists all records, its just a selection of the most "interesting" ones
the web site states it is only a small selection of records you can search there
it seems the only way to find out is to text the question in
see details at their website - guinnessworldrecords.com (after you search for something)
this usually costs £1 but you get 2 tries for free
so I gave this a go and sure enough the reply soon came back "Mark Stretton - 200lbs"
So anyone who can pull a heavier bow the record is still there to be broken (details on the website how to claim the record)
Nice one Alan! Seems your attention to detail cuts through the 'have it now' attitude of the net! :D
-
Ok, Historicly War archers didnt stand on a battle feild alone lbbing arrows at a charge of calvery. right so wouldnt a good mark for war bows be a group of archers shooting at a target. Joel
-
Well done Alan! Nick, great try at trying to explain the shooting of a warbow. Believe what I say that I try everyday with the target archers that I work with.
I am also a beginner warbow enthusiast, shooting the minimum weight that would be considered a warbow. I do understand the concept of what we call "arrow rain", with three thousand archers shooting, can you imagine the deadly effect?
I regularly shoot my warbow at a 3D deer target with what I consider satisfactory results. I also find it much more difficult to shoot at a target one hundred and fifty yards away using the roving style, and consider myself happy when i get within twenty yards of it. In my opinion (and everyone knows how opinions are), leave it to the English to make the rules. After all, it is called the English Warbow.
-
Ok, Historicly War archers didnt stand on a battle feild alone lbbing arrows at a charge of calvery. right so wouldnt a good mark for war bows be a group of archers shooting at a target. Joel
I am not sure if that question is directed at myself or Nick?
What I would say is that I think you are right, a warbow archer would probably be expected to have a good aim at any range but what I think separates warbow archery from other types is that hitting a target at 100 yards is no good at all if the arrow has no energy in it (i.e. it just bounces off the most basic form of armour)
The simplest way to measure how much energy you are putting into an arrow is shoot a standard arrow (e.g. the John Holder arrow) and see how far you can get it to go, I think this is why we tend to put a lot of emphasis on distance.
I dont know how feasible it is but I think it would be interesting to have a target archery type boss which registers how hard the arrow hits
I think this would then give the information you would need to be able to compare warbow archers at close range shooting.
-
If the straw boss is new and firm with no soft spots a good judge of the energy is how far an arrow penetrates. As long as the basic arrow head and shaft diameter are basically the same (a standard arrow type) you should be able to measure penetration from different weight bows at different differences (assuming you could hit the thing!).
Mark in England
-
If the straw boss is new and firm with no soft spots a good judge of the energy is how far an arrow penetrates. As long as the basic arrow head and shaft diameter are basically the same (a standard arrow type) you should be able to measure penetration from different weight bows at different differences (assuming you could hit the thing!).
This is a possibility
but as you say, this would require a brand new boss and I woulld imagine a straw boss would be no good as its not consistant over its surface
-
I suppose you could construct something similar to those scales used for measuring draw weights, but for compression instead of tension and of course in a suitable size. You'd need to mount your target on a spring with a slider that remains at the position of maximum compression of the spring after the impact. You need to determine the ratio of force and compression length of the spring, then you can calculate the energy that has been transferred to the spring by multiplying this ratio with the squared length.
-
I'm not a warbow shooter but it would seem to me that being able to hit a man size target accurately at 200 yards would not be desireable in war. Can you just imagine 200 archers each picking the same foe to shoot at? Sure he would be a pin cushion but everybody else would be free to come in and hack you to pieces.
-
Marc,
Q.Why do you suppose the Chinese tested individual accuracy at 100 instead of 200 plus?
A. Because they were able to differentiate between distances appropriate to barrage fire and distances at which individual accuracy could realistically be acvhieved by someone in command of their bow.
Alan,
It is not a test of penetration. It is a suitable test of the ability to maintain a rate of fire and a quantifiable degree of accuracy.
Your draw weight is not relevant other than that it should be a weight within your ability to command the bow, maintain a rate of fire and obviously, shoot with some degree of accuracy.
To be continued.
Rod.
-
Rod,
I have been reading your posts on this thread and to be honest i find it incredible how much importance you put on your own request, why first of all would any of us who shoot these heavy draw weight bows have any interest in taking up your challenge just so you can say target archers are better than warbow archers, it's like me saying, Lets all see who would like to penetrate an armour breastplate using target size arrows and a light draw weight bow, you would not even consider it, you would say this is not what this bow and arrows is designed for etc.etc, while us that can do it would be saying we are better than you.......You see it is rediculous and rather childish and has no real bearing on what both bow types are used for.
A recreational bow that target archers shoot is designed for one thing "Recreation" where archers aspire to the Horace Ford style of accurate target shooting, that is fine if that's what rocks your boat, However shooting a heavy draw weight longbow is completely different, your aim is to shoot a very heavy arrow with as much force as you can, we tend to shoot roving marks where accuracy and distance judgement are paramount at distances up to and over 250yds, where archers can group up to 6 arrows in a close proximity to a flag placed in the ground, to be able to do this requires alot more skill than shooting huge numbers of arrows at a fixed range target, where you have the opportunity to zone in on your target by repeatedly shooting at the same distance, shooting a warbow requires complete control over the draw weight to shoot it well.
BTW there is no fire involved with shooting a longbow!
Anyway that is all i have to say on it.
Steve
-
Yankee and John, This board you just posted on is ENGLISH WARBOWS this comment would make sence if the disscusion was in Shooting and Hunting board. Plus Howard Hill Shoot Hunting bow in exess of 80# for the flatter trajectery. He used a 110# bow for his African Elephant hunts. Plus the Enlglish Longbow Is why we arent posting in french right now. Joel
-
I am not an Warbow Fan at all so I have little to say on these Bows ...besides the Fact that they are almost allways Laminated Bows...and do not constitute being called Primitive Weapons at all.....and here is what a good Friend of Mine has to say on these Behemoths...........
Ya know, I regret dropping out of the PA board cause I'd like to tell those douche bags that are into super high weight bows that they have no business on a Primitive Archery board. It goes against the spirit of primitive wud bows: Hunting is in a wooden bows soul, and primitive hunting is all about economy of materials, the artistry of creating a weapon from the Earth, and extending one's reach in an organic way. The heavy English War Bow has no soul what so ever. It is a thing, a brutish man killer made to penetrate armor. Armor isn't an organic thing. It isn't a hide with fur... It's a dead piece of steel and the tools that are designed to kill a "steel animal" are just as lifeless. The modern archer who aches to pull the heaviest weapon possible, is not a hunter. He is a performer and only interested in besting someone else's ability. This is borne from ego, not from hunger or need, which makes it very anti "primitive". My answer to anyone of this ilk that insults someone that is vested in keeping the true spirit of the bow alive is "go to hell!". John Riggs. You can quote me on that.
How extrodinary that people can get so worked up and angry about this ? ? ?
get a grip!
-
Alan,
It is not a test of penetration. It is a suitable test of the ability to maintain a rate of fire and a quantifiable degree of accuracy.
Your draw weight is not relevant other than that it should be a weight within your ability to command the bow, maintain a rate of fire and obviously, shoot with some degree of accuracy.
The problem with this would be that it would be normal target archery, so you would find the best bow/arrow/technique for accuracy, as Horrace Ford has already done
This is of no interest to warbow archers
As I say; warbows are different to other forms of archery in that we are also interested in the power of the arrow as well as accuracy
e.g. your suggested test we could just give a 50lb full compass bow to the best target archer in the world and see what score he/she gets
-
I am not an Warbow Fan at all so I have little to say on these Bows ...besides the Fact that they are almost allways Laminated Bows...and do not constitute being called Primitive Weapons at all.....and here is what a good Friend of Mine has to say on these Behemoths...........
Ya know, I regret dropping out of the PA board cause I'd like to tell those douche bags that are into super high weight bows that they have no business on a Primitive Archery board. It goes against the spirit of primitive wud bows: Hunting is in a wooden bows soul, and primitive hunting is all about economy of materials, the artistry of creating a weapon from the Earth, and extending one's reach in an organic way. The heavy English War Bow has no soul what so ever. It is a thing, a brutish man killer made to penetrate armor. Armor isn't an organic thing. It isn't a hide with fur... It's a dead piece of steel and the tools that are designed to kill a "steel animal" are just as lifeless. The modern archer who aches to pull the heaviest weapon possible, is not a hunter. He is a performer and only interested in besting someone else's ability. This is borne from ego, not from hunger or need, which makes it very anti "primitive". My answer to anyone of this ilk that insults someone that is vested in keeping the true spirit of the bow alive is "go to hell!". John Riggs. You can quote me on that.
I must take exception to this! A warbow is a primitive bow it is the most simple of weapons. I have two Italain self yew EWB which you both will notice are made form a single piece of 'wud'. Those bows extend my reach far beyond my natural limits, historicaly in warfare it helped my ancestors reclaim their English identity. I have no problem with people hunting with bows, we can't in Britian there you go, in fact people would hunt game with the same bows they hunted their two legged enemies and they would fight back. To say that it has no soul is as absurd as it is ill informed. It is the soul of my nation, the representation of the re emergence of the English and Welsh people, the common man with his bent stick exerting his authority over those that would oppress him both as an individual and as a nation. There is no greater need than that of the desire to be a free man rather than a serf, the use of the bow in England lifted the people out of serfdom John Riggs if you fail to understand that then that it is your problem.
-
Well said Nick!
-
Who in hell is john riggs. well said Nick. marlon
-
I am not an Warbow Fan at all so I have little to say on these Bows ...besides the Fact that they are almost allways Laminated Bows...and do not constitute being called Primitive Weapons at all.....and here is what a good Friend of Mine has to say on these Behemoths...........
Ya know, I regret dropping out of the PA board cause I'd like to tell those douche bags that are into super high weight bows that they have no business on a Primitive Archery board. It goes against the spirit of primitive wud bows: Hunting is in a wooden bows soul, and primitive hunting is all about economy of materials, the artistry of creating a weapon from the Earth, and extending one's reach in an organic way. The heavy English War Bow has no soul what so ever. It is a thing, a brutish man killer made to penetrate armor. Armor isn't an organic thing. It isn't a hide with fur... It's a dead piece of steel and the tools that are designed to kill a "steel animal" are just as lifeless. The modern archer who aches to pull the heaviest weapon possible, is not a hunter. He is a performer and only interested in besting someone else's ability. This is borne from ego, not from hunger or need, which makes it very anti "primitive". My answer to anyone of this ilk that insults someone that is vested in keeping the true spirit of the bow alive is "go to hell!". John Riggs. You can quote me on that.
laughed my arse off reading that ;D :D
What a load of Bollock's!
-
Who in hell is john riggs. well said Nick. marlon
I don't know who he is...but do know what he is ;)
Please feel free to quote me on that.
Jeremy
-
Not much of an EWB enthusiast myself, but do like long, heavy hunting bows and arrows (similiar to the style Hill prefered). My 80#, 70" hickory bow can shoot out to 50 yards with 840 grain hickory arrows without much trouble (it has a tight accuracy... I don't always have the same ;)). If the arrows weighed over a thousand grains and stood at about 80", I would think that this would make accuracy easier- even pulling about 160# or so. Seems that all the power would be compensated for with the extremely stable bow and stable arrows?
Just wondering :). I have yet to test it myself, so I haven't a clue on whether it really works that way.
-
Yankeemongiat please pass this on to you your friend John Riggs,
So John, you dropped out of the Primitive Archer board? Not interested enough in Primitive Archer to stay connected with what is going on? Odd that you feel well enough informed and connected to insult people who are motivated enough to keep in contact with Primitive Archery. Still I expect you asked your friend to post just because you were to afraid to do so yourself and wanted to wind people up behind the protection of your "friend"?
Well, I am not wound up but I am interested in the window that you have given us all into your suprisingly narrow little soul.
You start you comment with an insult. Am I a "douche bag"? What is this thing? If you want to insult me can you not think of something that is a little clever, insulting or funny? What is it that you know about me that gives you the right to decide that I am a douche bag, whatever that is? I had a friend whose surname was Douche but he was a failry nice person so maybe this is a compliment?
So, what do you feel is a John Riggs approved weight for a bow, and exactly what test is needed to decide if we are worthy to have an interest in Primitive Archery? Personally I don't give a "douche bag" what you think. As someone who is interested in many different areas of Primitive Archery and as I beleive in my and your right to free expression and free speech your bigotry is interesting as an insight into your personality and there it ends.
I have seen some truly wonderful war bows. Some of those bows were thousands of years old. The craftsmanship that went into them leaves me speechless. There is spirit in everything for those who are not blinded by a closed mind. Have you ever in your life seen or handled a strong bow? have you seen an archer use one and send an arrow out of sight? Have you seen the same archer in a woodland setting send his arrow thudding into a 3D target 50 yards away? The bow I saw used in this way was a much loved yew selfbow, impefect but used all the same because this archer knew it and trusted it.
You appear to think that the target is as important as the bow or archer. Warbows are not all about armour. and they are not all laminated. If you are going to insult others on the PA board you might have the decency to make sense and get your facts straight.
I make and shoot bows that could be called warbows, just as I make simple primitive bows. I make bows and arrows because I enjoy making them from the materials available to me, and because I enjoy shooting them. I do enjoy using as heavy a bow as I can manage and sending an arrow soaring high into the sky for the simple joy of seeing an arrow fly. There is art, spirit, freedom within an arrow arcing across the sky and I couldn't care less whether your narrow little black-and-white vision of how life should be can recognise that or not.
Apparently you cannot share the thrill of shooting an arrow from a heavy bow. That is your loss. I can and I will enjoy myself with warbows and any other bow I can lay my hands on whether you approve or not.
I do not care about ego. I do not care about what you or any other think of my archery. I shoot because I like archery and I enjoy the company of others who share that. Perhaps if you were to shoot a warbow you may catch the same thrill, or maybe your view of archery is just too limited to see byond your self imposed bigatry?
I feel sorry for you John. I think that somehow you settled for a sadly limited view of what the "true spirit of the bow" really is.
With real sincerity,
Mark in England (Limey and proud of it!)
-
Mark what is a Limey? Joel
-
Mark what is a Limey? Joel
I am 1/2 Limey.....and also proud of it....Mark......My Great Grandfather on my Fathers Side was .....Jack Johns........from Cornwall, England........I am also 1/4 Ojibwa on my Mothers Side.....and very Proud of that also...then there is the German....Irish and Dutch too!!... And I stepped out of Bounds when I was talked into posting for a Friend ...... As I know that everyone is entitled to their own opinion...and I really had none on this subject besides the fact that I know very little about Warbows at all.....I am only schooled on Native American Bows....so I will stick to what I know and what I am good at....sorry for the Toes I stepped on........and Minwaadizi from the Grandson a Native American Warrior and a Cornish Miner.....
-
I think its a bunch of bull shit. saw your web site those bows look very crappy >:(
MARLON.............Opinions are like BUTT - HOLES...........everyone has one....and yours STINKS!!!!!!!!! J.M.O
-
Mark what is a Limey? Joel
North American's called English Sailor's Limey's because it was a rule that every man onboard Royal Navy Vessel's had to drink a ration of Lime Juice every day,no other nation's had such habit's.The Lime juice was to keep away Scurvey what can outbreak when men are couped up for Month's at sea,it worked too! and the nickname stuck ;D.
-
Yankeemongiat,
You didn't tread on my toes. I just thought your friend quite sad in his limited narrow minded view.
Generally one of the nice things about Primitive Archery and this site in particular is the tolerance and open mindedness. Our cultures may be different but we all share an interest in simple archery, whether that is Native American, English or Far Eastern to name only a few. Very seldom do people revert to imature biggotted name calling and when they do there is often a deafening silence to any post they may make.
Mark in England
-
Come on guys...family freindly please...my young son hangs out here on PA too...Brian
-
Yankee, that post was way out of line for a family oriented web sight. Your friend may have said it but you posted it. I have no use for attitudes lie that. Steve
-
Well Said steve.
-
Let's not give these two and more precious time. Nick and Mark spent time writing very patient and erudite replies, however I fear they fall upon deaf ears. They are clearly interested only in being provocative for it's own sake, otherwise why bother to post to make anti-warbow posts on the warbow section PA kindly provided for us. I've seen this happen before with a narrow-minded individual baiting Jaro on the other primitive forum. Childish and a bit pathetic really.
-
Yankee, that post was way out of line for a family oriented web sight. Your friend may have said it but you posted it. I have no use for attitudes lie that. Steve
I pulled the Post two days ago.......never thought about the D$%^& Bag deal.....My Bad
Thanks Mark.....I am glad that I didnt make an enemy out of you or most of the Others
But Heavybow......your Language still STINKS .....Badger said I was out of line......... then you went way over...I am out of Here
-
I can find no record of Stretton holding the Record....this Guy states that He holds it....
http://www.indium.com/drlasky/entry.php?id=386
Hello And Good day !
Please allow me to introduce myself , I am Den Erickson .
I am the Worlds Strongest Archer , and have been for (April 1994 ) 10 Years prior to Mark Stretton's so called "Feat" .
I have demonstrated my Ability to successfully Shoot and Hunt with these weights .
I on a weekly basis shoot 6 / 6 arrow ends at 125# , 147# ,And over 230 #
with recurves and a Longbow , Drawn to my natural Draw length of 26 1/2 " .
At the Moment Mark Stretton while a terrific and competent Archer is no where near my strength or abilities , has been challenged in this regard and refuses any sort of competition .
I do have a current claim in to Guinness whilst Mark Stretton does not .
As to Stats
I am 5'8" , and 280 lbs . 32 years of age
In coorespondance with Pip he has mentioned he does not endorse any one let alone Mark Stretton pulling such heavy weight as he feels it is historically inaccurate .
This is for informational purposes as well as serving as a challenge to Mark Stretton to Match me or beat me as The Worlds Strongest .
I may be reached at Varbogen@aol.com
or USA tel 262-705-2245 .
Sincerely ,
Den Erickson
The Worlds Strongest Archer ( U.S.)
Just to bring things back to the original thread here's a bit of proof for anyone who hasn't texted Guiness :D
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n258/nick1346/mark2.jpg)
-
Great picture Nick ;)
-
Nice Picture! ;D
-
lol - That is taking "holding the record" quiet literally ;-)
-
It is interesting to note that both Mark Stretton and Jaroslav Petrina have expressed an interest and regard establishing a benchmark for accuracy at 100 yards as an interesting and worthwhile challenge.
Given the present emphasis upon extreme distances, sustaining a rate of fire and concerns about investigating penetration, accuracy at the extreme of practicable distance for deliberate accuracy against a target smaller than a mass of defensively armed men seemed to us not entirely irrelevant, particularly in the light of what was evidently standard practice in another war bow culture with a greater body of literature upon which one might call for useful comparision.
And make no mistake, these people were using bows in the same range of draw wweight for very similar purposes against defensively arrayed men.
I dare say that an investigation of other established war bow cultures (Hindu, Mongol, Korean, Japanese)would show more similarities than differences despite the more obvious differences in style.
To reject this purely on the basis of it being a different type of bow is foolish. We are not comparing compounds and crossbows with the English war bow, but other full draw bows of similar draw weights.
If we had had to face these people, we would have had to deal with it, not make excuses, so what does the response of the nay sayers tell us about the attitudes of todays war bow exponents?
Is it the contention that these cultures would have been more skilled, more accurate than our ancestors, or was there possibly a useful consonance across all well developed war bow using cultures? The evidence on draw weights and general performance, such as it is, would tend to suggest the latter might well be the case.
As for this continual mithering on about "target archery", how many times do I have to write that comparison with contemporary target scores is not the point and criticism by someone who cannot even draw a heavy bow let alone shoot one, of no consequence, so you should set such fears aside.
Anyway, in the Luttrell Psalter you will find an illustration of target archery circa 1330, they even have specialised arrows with pinch nocks and bulbous heads for shooting at the clay faced butts.
The proposal to use a FITA face only arose since it would provide a universally available standard and is of a comparable size for the distance.
The quantity of arrows arose to cover two aspects. One was to place it in the context of maintaining a rate of fire. The other, that scoring rings permit the recording of potentially useful information which can be transmitted to others using the same standard face, and that averages might be derived therefore affording a meaningful comparison, being more representative of ongoing performance that the odd shot or personal best.
Rod.
-
Mark whats a crumpet? what do they taste like? Or is that sterio typing to automatically assume you have because your English. ;D I am 25% english i think i have cousins in London
-
It is interesting to note that both Mark Stretton and Jaroslav Petrina have expressed an interest and regard establishing a benchmark for accuracy at 100 yards as an interesting and worthwhile challenge.
Rod.
I for one would like to see a standard of accuracy set. If there were a benchmark set, I think it would push me to shoot the heavy bows more just to try to get closer to the benchmark. A little good natured competition is always good. If there hadn't been competition on the other side of the battlefield, none of the great warbows would have reached their full potential.
I'm not what you would call a warbow fanatic, but my love of bows certainly isn't impeded by a silly notion that they are different. I like to build and shoot bows. I'm pretty sure that protection from others (man or animal) who were willing to kill you crossed the mind of every Paleo man who ever existed. Justin
-
.
If we had had to face these people, we would have had to deal with it, not make excuses, so what does the response of the nay sayers tell us about the attitudes of todays war bow exponents?
Rod.
Care to expand on that Rod? I've noticed a strong feeling in your posts that anyone who does not immiedately take up your challenge is attacked! You implicated that I was some kind of a coward in a prior post on this thread! Setting forth a challenge and attacking anyone who may point reasons why that challenge has not been taken up on masse is no way to win people over to take up that challenge, in fact it will do the exact opposite. Attacking 'nay sayers' is no way going to get people to take up your challenge, to my mind it sounds like I'd be making a rod for my own back.
You state that two archers will take up your challenge. I know Mark will we discussed this a few days ago and even though I've never met Jaro I know Mark holds in in very high regard so that holds a lot of water with myself but you could have so many more if you stopped the insults.
I'll take up your challenge on one condition you shoot with me and I'll choose the bow and arrows (and no I will not take the mickey with the kit) That way we will have a fair comparison, a warbow archer who is rubbish at target archery vs a target archer who is rubbish with a warbow. It would be fun and at least we could bury the hatchet :D
-
Nick, that was a great post, I don't know what was so good about it but I really enjoyed it, sounded like a very manly, and gentlemanly response! Steve
-
Nick, that was a great post, I don't know what was so good about it but I really enjoyed it, sounded like a very manly, and gentlemanly response! Steve
Thanks I suppose that proves there is a first for anything :D
-
Nick please post pics of the compation so we can all enjoy it with you and Rod. Joel
-
Nick please post pics of the compation so we can all enjoy it with you and Rod. Joel
Well if it happens!
-
I can hardly believe that John Riggs said that stuff. It's actually hard to believe that anyone who is so invested in archery would attack another archery culture like that. It's just weird. Until this, I'd never heard a bad thing about Riggs though. He has contributed a lot to primitive archery in the Oregon area but that post made him look like a bit of a hater. ??? Oh well, we all love and hate.
Ethnocentrism: evaluating other peoples' cultures according to the standards of one's own culture.
J. D. Duff
-
.
If we had had to face these people, we would have had to deal with it, not make excuses, so what does the response of the nay sayers tell us about the attitudes of todays war bow exponents?
Rod.
Care to expand on that Rod? I've noticed a strong feeling in your posts that anyone who does not immiedately take up your challenge is attacked! You implicated that I was some kind of a coward in a prior post on this thread! Setting forth a challenge and attacking anyone who may point reasons why that challenge has not been taken up on masse is no way to win people over to take up that challenge, in fact it will do the exact opposite. Attacking 'nay sayers' is no way going to get people to take up your challenge, to my mind it sounds like I'd be making a rod for my own back.
You state that two archers will take up your challenge. I know Mark will we discussed this a few days ago and even though I've never met Jaro I know Mark holds in in very high regard so that holds a lot of water with myself but you could have so many more if you stopped the insults.
I'll take up your challenge on one condition you shoot with me and I'll choose the bow and arrows (and no I will not take the mickey with the kit) That way we will have a fair comparison, a warbow archer who is rubbish at target archery vs a target archer who is rubbish with a warbow. It would be fun and at least we could bury the hatchet :D
Nick,
I have no objection to shooting with anyone just so long as it is not boring.
I do find it odd that you should now wish to compare your shooting with that of a "target shooter" after making such a fuss about not wishing to be compared.
But no matter.
Not that I would characterise myself as a target archer although I have dabbled in most styles of longbow shooting.
My preference is for instinctive unmarked distance field shooting.
You don't need to provide me with a bow, but you may wish to provide yourself with one.
-
There's nothing odd in it, I'm only wishing to compare myself against you thats why I shall provide you with the bow, unless of course you can provide yourself with a warbow and the correct arrows. Like I said we'll both be at a disadvantage, you'll be unused to the bows and I'll be unused to style of shooting and at the end we'll have a pint. The question is when and where? The depends on the distance between us the when should be before the start of Summer otherwise it'll die a natural death, say during May?
-
Nick,
I take it as a given that you will hopefully be shooting a bow that you consider within your command that is of a higher draw weight than I might choose to use.
The fact that I shoot a lighter bow is neither here nor there since the object of the discussion with Mark and Jaroslav concerned the desirability of setting a benchmark in accuracy at the further end of intermediate distances for the heavy bow and 100 yards was chosen as the model based upon the not inconsiderable literature detailing practice in another but directly comparable war bow culture.
If you wish to make it, for whatever reason, a personal comparison, then you will have to accept that I will shoot a draw weight within my command.
But as I have said more than once, this would not be a meaningful comparison.
It seems that you still have some difficulty with the concept.
It is not about what draw weight I can handle. Though I did for a time shoot a 90lb bow, I have no intention of aggravating a damaged elbow by engaging in a contest of strength.
If you wish me to shoot with you, then I will shoot a bow that suits me, but as I have said, and will say again, this is not relevant to the proposition.
The proposition is about quantifying accuracy with any draw weight that you might consider to be within your command. Whoever you might be, your choice of draw weight is your own.
I fully understand that it is harder to hold a group as draw weight increases beyond a certain level, which differs for each individual, but the intention is not to draw a comparison between different applications.
It is however intended to help establish what level of accuracy is attainable with the war bow at the present time and to compare this with the yardstick of historical standards where possible, and to seek to raise the standard.
We might indeed classify draw weights by the level at which one loses command of the bow in practical terms of ongoing and consistent performance.
For example, a draw weight one might be able to make a few times, but would not choose to shoot habitually.
Mark freely admits that for him, this would include a 200 lb bow and considers 140 lb to 150 lb to be within his compass for shooting continually and with control, maintaining a steady rate of fire.
In this respect it is proposed that given a benchmark which is universally applicable, then others might have a standard to match or hopefullytry to better.
We take it as a given that the present standard is based upon draw weights, penetration and distances more than upon quantifiable accuracy.
Mark and Jaroslav understand this principle well enough.
It is for you to consider the draw weight that you consider within your compass and forget about what I choose to shoot.
If you mistakenly see this as a contest between us I would be happy to meet you on an NFAS field course shooting 3D's where you might feel less disadvantaged by shooting a draw weight that you do not regard as a handicap to shooting with accuracy.
On the other hand, I am quite happy to see you demonstrate that you can shoot a bow far heavier than I would choose to shoot, if that is what it takes to see you contribute.
Rod.
-
Rod,
I haven't missed the point of your challenge at all, my challenge to you was to put you on the spot in the same you have sought to put the entire warbow community on the spot. You issued a challenge to a group of archers based upon something that is not what they normally do, when some of those archers, most vocally myself pointed out a few reasons why they would not do it you disregarded those points and instead set out to ridulcule them. I issued a challenge back to you based upon a manner of shooting to which you are unnacustomed you have stated an elbow injury, I accept that and I will not attack you saying things like 'well Rod we know the real reason' or label your points as mere 'excuses'. I could say something along the lines of 'well you shouldn't be worried about embarrasing yourself' or I could say something about your 'attitude' all of those things you have said to me but I won't stoop that low so please do me the same courtesy.
In fact I believe there is merit in getting a seasoned archer to shoot a comparison using a warbow against someone used to a warbow, it could be very enlightening indeed, of course the bow couldn't be to heavy but any grown man should be able to learn how to use a 100lb bow in a few months, certainly well enough for a comparison. It would put any results gained from a warbow into a least some context, as I have said before you cannot get much aprreciation of the qualites of a rally car by racing it against a superbike at silverstone. Merely comparing scores of a warbow against those of a recurve or whatever on target archery round doesn't actually say a lot about the overall qualities of warbow copmared to to other weapons. If you extended your challenge to include other aspects and types of bows then you could be onto a winner. But at the end of the day all you'll have is a set of results which don't really say a lot about the weapons overall qualities.
I may well actually take it up not out of embarresment ro trying to prove someone wrong but because I often think along the lines of what the hell :D
-
just my two cents which are worth nothing in this style of shooting as i really only care about filling my belly. wouldn't it be necessary for a man shooting a warbow to be able to defend himself even at close distances. nice to kill a man far away but what about those who got through and are about to tear into you. shouldn't you be able to pick them off quickly at 20-50 yards. peace
-
Hello jamie, thats not a problem!
-
just my two cents which are worth nothing in this style of shooting as i really only care about filling my belly. wouldn't it be necessary for a man shooting a warbow to be able to defend himself even at close distances. nice to kill a man far away but what about those who got through and are about to tear into you. shouldn't you be able to pick them off quickly at 20-50 yards. peace
Of course, at 100 yards your shooting at a body of men, if you miss the one your aiming at you'll hit the one next to him or behind. Getting closer in you'll more than likely hit the actual bloke your shooting at and at 20 yds you'd better well hit the bloke your shooting at becuase thats the one with a sword with your name on it...ouch!
-
I would like to thank everyone in this forum been great. I decided to leave this forum. thank you marlon
-
Nick, Rod,
Why not agree to meet and compare accuracy at Batsford in May. Plenty of opportunity to compare accuracy at a roving shoot and a field shoot and I am sure that there would be a space to set up a target roundel somewhere for a target test as well. What's more there would be plenty of witnesses and no doubt some other warbow or no-warbow archers who may take part in the challenge.
Sound possible?
Mark in England
-
Bye Marlon. Pop in and say hi now and then....
Simon
-
Nick, Rod,
Why not agree to meet and compare accuracy at Batsford in May. Plenty of opportunity to compare accuracy at a roving shoot and a field shoot and I am sure that there would be a space to set up a target roundel somewhere for a target test as well. What's more there would be plenty of witnesses and no doubt some other warbow or no-warbow archers who may take part in the challenge.
Sound possible?
Mark in England
That could be arranged. But Nick, why are you bothering with this, if someone wants to prove something then let him do it himself, if he wants to put his point across then let him do his own experiments/Challenges and not get others to prove or disprove his theories. Forget it mate, lets just get on with doing what were doing.....Having fun ;)
-
Nick, Rod,
Why not agree to meet and compare accuracy at Batsford in May. Plenty of opportunity to compare accuracy at a roving shoot and a field shoot and I am sure that there would be a space to set up a target roundel somewhere for a target test as well. What's more there would be plenty of witnesses and no doubt some other warbow or no-warbow archers who may take part in the challenge.
Sound possible?
Mark in England
That could be arranged. But Nick, why are you bothering with this, if someone wants to prove something then let him do it himself, if he wants to put his point across then let him do his own experiments/Challenges and not get others to prove or disprove his theories. Forget it mate, lets just get on with doing what were doing.....Having fun ;)
I've no intention of letting something like this spoil my weekend at Batsford :D If Rod wants to go head to head as I suggested then it'll be between ourselves and as I challenged I'll supply the bow and arrows, that would take place somewhere quite Batsford isn't the place. But as Rod isn't capable of it though injury, which I can understand, then the only challenge left is the one he put out to everyone else. If I do that then it'll be down at our club with the club GNAS coaches as witnesses.
-
I am not the one who seems to be obsessed with comparing target bows with war bows.
The proposal only has to do a curiosity about standards of accuracy with a heavy bow.
To suggest that this would not have been relevant to the realistic employment of a projectile weapon is patently absurd.
If I appear to be critical, it is not of the ability of todays heavy bow afficionados, but of the weakness of some of the responses.
Fact: In the Tang dynasty the main body of infantry archers will have passed a test in mid range accuracy by shooting six arrows at a man sized mark from a bow in the median draw weight range of 120 lb to150 lb.
The passing grade required one or more hits out of six arrows.
No hits was a failing grade.
Six out of six hits was the elite first class grade.
If you think that an honest and rational response is to say that you are not Chinese, not a target archer and that it is irrelevant, and that besides the comopound bow has some magic quality which makes it possible for the ancient Chinese to perform the impossible, do you expect to accorded the same respect as someone who says "I don't think I can do that" or "I wonder If I could do that?" or even " I don't find that interesting".
Rod.
I
-
If I appear to be critical, it is not of the ability of todays heavy bow afficionados, but of the weakness of some of the responses.
I
LIke your poorly elbow?
Fact: In the Tang dynasty the main body of infantry archers will have passed a test in mid range accuracy by shooting six arrows at a man sized mark from a bow in the median draw weight range of 120 lb to150 lb.
The passing grade required one or more hits out of six arrows.
No hits was a failing grade.
Six out of six hits was the elite first class grade.
I
So what? Thats very nice for them but why to you keep bringing up Tang dynasty archers on a English Warbow forum? If you want to quote standards of military archery quote English ones which I think you'll find were higher.
If you think that an honest and rational response is to say that you are not Chinese, not a target archer and that it is irrelevant, and that besides the comopound bow has some magic quality which makes it possible for the ancient Chinese to perform the impossible, do you expect to accorded the same respect as someone who says "I don't think I can do that" or "I wonder If I could do that?" or even " I don't find that interesting".
Rod.
I
Agian there you go about chinese archers, since I'm someone who studies English archery then it is an entirely rational response to point out the fact that we are not chinese. That doesn't detract form chinese archery in the slightest but why use that example when you could use English ones? That is not very logical. All of my points so far in this thread have not to provide excuses for not doing your little test but to point out to you why you haven't been swamped with offers. Steve gave the best respnse so far ' why are you bothering with this, if someone wants to prove something then let him do it himself, if he wants to put his point across then let him do his own experiments/Challenges and not get others to prove or disprove his theories. Forget it mate, lets just get on with doing what were doing.....Having fun ' and that seems to be the main reason. Why should people want to engage in your test when you plainly attack anyone who disagrees with it and are unwilling to take it yourself! That is no way to win people over.
Anyway enough of this I shall not post any longer on this as I'm sure many people are tiring of this somewhat. If I do this round I'll contact you and let you know the results and yes they will be fairly witnessed.
-
Flight shooters will often get what I consider odd responses such as " whats the point? will a 200 grain arrow kill a deer" or "try killing a deer at 300 yards". Just different games we are playing no more or no less valid. Steve
-
Flight shooters will often get what I consider odd responses such as " whats the point? will a 200 grain arrow kill a deer" or "try killing a deer at 300 yards". Just different games we are playing no more or no less valid. Steve
Well said Steve, can we all move on now?
-
So what? Thats very nice for them but why to you keep bringing up Tang dynasty archers on a English Warbow forum? If you want to quote standards of military archery quote English ones which I think you'll find were higher.
Because they had a documented test of accuracy for war bows of the same draw weight.
Is that simple enough for you?
You can step up or not. Your choice, forget the scoring face, a man sized target at 100 paces.
Were the Chinese better?
There's only one way you can disprove it.
Meanwhile I'll leave you in peace to "have fun".
Rod.
-
Rod
Can't help weighing in at this point because I've followed your discussions closely on the PA sit for a while now. I desisted from further discussion on the 'what is warbow' topic out of respect for the fact that I don't actually know much about about Chinese Archery - other than an article I read many years back. Instead, I bought myself a copy of Selby's book on Chinese Archery with the aim of discovering a bit more and informing my own views.
What did I find? Well - that its mainly a work of translation and not of archery per se, that it contains inconsistencies with regards to some of the weights used ie that some measures are given as different weights in different parts of the text, and units of weight, when researched seem actually to be units of volume! Whats more, the arrow weights as you point out, are not really appropriate to some of the bow weights quoted, which is a serious problem. Translation of texts such as this is fraught with difficulty and a colleague of mine (skilled in about 5 asiatic languages and used to reading martial arts treatises in the original) has agreed to have a look at the book and comment on what he thinks of the translation.
In the meantime you might be interested in this quote, reproduced from 'Instictive Archer' and written by one S Selby.
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/chin_art.htm
"Chinese literature contains a lot of tales of extraordinary draw-weights for bows. But technical writings stress that a heavy draw-weight was not desirable, and could actually be counter-productive. For military purposes, a weight of fifty to sixty pounds was adequate, and for civil archery, a much lower weight was drawn. Military examinations tested strength to draw up to ninety pounds: but this was a test of physique rather than archery: even the bows for ‘strength drawing’ were different from those used for archery."
Interesting no? The bow weights quoted actually match up better with the arrow weight in Selbys book and are consistent with the article I read way back when which said that Chinese Military Bows came in 70, 80 and 90lb versions.
The purpose of this post is really to point out that there is more mystery and argument to be had on asiatic archery than is really appropriate on an English Warbow Forum - as others have pointed out - and to counsel against 'single sourcing' which it very much looks like you've been doing.
Chris
-
I appreciate your input Chris and have asked Mr. Selby to comment.
Nonetheless the fact remains that Mark Stretton (who also has an injury which curtails his shooting at the present time) has confirmed that he considers the proposal to be a desirable and an interesting challenge in order to advance standards in accuracy.
Given the allergic reaction to the FITA face I have proposed a couple of challenging "fun" alternatives to Mark that might remove the possibility of embarassment by irrelevant direct comparison with target shooting standards.
Rod.
-
Rod
Giiven the heat generated in the discussion and the potential umbrage arising out of any post, I really appreciate your response (not being sarcastic here in any way). I'd be interested to hear what Selby has to say - the essay in Primitive Archer was written in 1997 and the book we've been referring to was published in 2000 - so probably written about the same time?
If Selby comes back and says that something to the tune of 'yeah, theres hyperbole in the ancient texts but the real poundage was in the 60-90 range' then you have a range of draw weights encompassing the heavier end of the clout/target longbow range and the lighter end of the ELB range. Seems to me that option exists allowing all to use the same bow weight, or each to use what they consider comfortable.
I don't really like the idea of the FITA face much either - I'd prefer something like a 3D or an animal face - or perhaps a bloke sized and shaped target much as the Pickwicks often cobble together. Either way, the principle of the thing is what counts and whatever you and Mark have come up with which might inject just a little levity will I'm sure be absolutely fine.
If at all possible I'd love to join in - I'm sure that Blundellsands would be happy to donate their venue - though its a bit flat and windy.
Chris
-
You are welcome to use Monsieur Aubergine Al and I made.
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa82/Outcastebowman/Dscn7276.jpg)
-
It will be nice to have something anybody could replicate. Lets say that a silhuette of a man is roughly 6X2 feet ???
J.
-
Well, of course you're right - its just that I sense a certain enthusiasm in the EWB community here for a 6 foot x 2 foot mock up man at arms - or whatever else fits with the gestalt of EWB enthusiasts. Pity that political correctness imposes a need that whatever it is will have to be home made!
Your point is well taken though - a firm foam or straw based rectangle of the size you suggest would make a good standardisable tool for this sort of caper.
Chris
-
Chris, Jaroslav & Yeomanbowman,
I had thought of a slightly generous board 6 foot high x 3 foot wide with a 12" diameter black spot placed 12" above centre (since having a spot to look at is conducive to better shooting rather than leaving the whole thing blank).
I had also thought of removing the top left and top right 12" squares leaving the centre one to represent the head, but thought that this might be an unecessary complication and churlish to boot.
Also I appreciate the offer of M. Aubergine but fear that too many glancers might lead to further discord.
I think the KISS approach better in principle.
A simple way to record progress or standing would be to count only hits and keep an accumulating average.
So shooting six arrows within one minute, 10 attempts scoring say 0, 1, 3, 4, 1, 2, 6, 5, 4, 3, would give an average and a score of 2.9 out of a possible 6 and a standing of 3, adjusting to the nearest whole number.
This system is only intended so that progress can be recorded and communicated.
There is another notion that might be fun, but I am loath to suggest it as some might find it too intimidating... :-)
Rod.
-
Well Rod what is it? I take it that it's actual hits recorded that will be the score, a hit anywhere scores the same?
-
I actually thought about just counting hits and mises and calculating succes as percentage, which is fairly simple and it gives conclusive result regardles of number of arrows shot. The longer the session, the more accurate result, but as average its fairly accurate.
Jaro
-
According to the KISS principle, Jaro would be right - stick to hits and misses and add more complexity only as need arises. Late last year, Arms of Old ran a similar event in Devon, reported in the NFAS magazine that comes around. All the heavy bow users were there or thereabouts, but very few hits. Simon Stanley was there with a 150lb bow - but he wasn't the first to score a hit, some other guy with lighter tackle was.
I'd be as happy shying arrows at a 6 x2 target as a 6 x 3 - don't really expect it'd make much difference the way I shoot.
Chris
-
I could have a serious take at this game back in 2005 prior injuring my right palm twice. Now I m all but mediocre with heavy bow, still counting whatever the hand takes it or not. But there is comunity of people who have bows in 90# and more here growing, and I might be able to persuade some of lads, who shoot my tackle to join in during one of those reenactment events.
-
Hello fellow archers. This is my first post at this site. I have always been keenly interested in English longbows, and warbows in particular. May I ask, what constitutes "Warbow" class - ie: draw weight, at what draw length, and what arrow weight? These questions no doubt have been addressed many times, but being new here, please indulge me.
-
Hello fellow archers. This is my first post at this site. I have always been keenly interested in English longbows, and warbows in particular. May I ask, what constitutes "Warbow" class - ie: draw weight, at what draw length, and what arrow weight? These questions no doubt have been addressed many times, but being new here, please indulge me.
This is a difficult question and one which has been hotly debated many times before
Many clubs (and BLBS) tend to have a limit on longbow weight so that anything over 70lbs is banned so basically anything over 70lbs can be considered in warbow territory
I personally consider 140lbs at 32" to be a true warbow (but no doubt others will disagree)
32" draw length is the basic standard but this will vary depending on your build etc. but the general idea is that warbows are drawn to the ear (or there abouts)
-
Thanks for responding to my questions. I can see that I have some building and training ahead of me. Others would likely label me a target archer, because that is most of the shooting that I do. My hunting weight is 61# and my target weight is 54#. I shoot up to three nights per week in the winter in an indoor club, and take part in every 3D match I can afford to travel to. About fifteen years ago, I shot a 30 arrow round with a 96# longbow. It played me out and my score dropped some from my average, but I survived it.
But a war bow! That's a different thing altogether. I believe I shall aim for 100 # for my first one, and work up to the 32" draw length.
I thank all of you for this inspiration.
-
According to archaeological evidence most medieval and Tudor war arrows, that have been uncovered, are about 30" or just over. So anything from there up is OK if your stave is too short to accommodate 32" (or you have short arms). I think a 100lb draw-weight is a legitimate warbow weight, but at the very bottom end of the scale. I'd agree with Alan that about 140lbs, or so, seem more representative for the period.
However, something that has not been mentioned is the bows material. If you want authenticity then you really only have 2 options, yew and wych elm. I'm sure other woods were occasionally used but only as the exception (or as a recreational bow).
Only 8 Mary Rose bows had flat bellies, so a shallow crown is desireable with yew as is working through the handle tiller.
Hope this helps
-
I have quite a quantity of what I hope is good yew in eight foot lengths, as well as a good number os sister billets. I've accumulated a good library and have had success building yew longbows of much less weight. This will be fun.
Can anyone suggest how much weight per inch a bow increases in weight as one nears full draw? My scale only goes to 100 pounds.
-
Bows of around 150# draw weight increase about 7#/inch in the last few inches of draw
-
Bows of around 150# draw weight increase about 7#/inch in the last few inches of draw
? :-\
-
Thanks for the reply Mark. That's not as severe as I had thought it might be. I will definitely need a better anchor on my tillering wall.
Taylor
-
Perhaps I should clarify that statement. Bows of around 150# @ 30" increase by about 7#/inch in the last few inches of draw
-
Jaroslav, Nick, Chris et al.,
I agree that recording hits on a board of an acceptable standard size is probably the way to go, but for the purposes of discussion, this is what I would propose upon recording scores:
Whilst it is encouragibng the record a personal best of 5 or six hits, this would less accurately demonstrate the consistent level of ability than a running average.
On the face of it, this is a harder road to travel, but being less of a flatterer it is IMO a more useful tool in monitoring ones progress.
Say you were to shoot 16 "ends" of attempts at this target and scored, for the sake of argument, 0, 1, 0, 2, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 5, 1 & 4.
When these are shot does not matter so long as they are a true record of all ends shot.
This would be a running total of 43 divided by 16 sets which gives an average of 2.687 which would be more representative of your consistent level of ability than a claim of your personal best score of 6.
In this way, by keeping a simple card of all your attempts showing A. hits, B. total score/total sets, C. product of total score divided by total sets, you would be able to monitor any progress more truthfully.
If it was considered worthwhile as a motivating factor to publish scores for comparison, the running average and PB could be stated, since the object is to increase the average and to bring it closer to the PB, not to pretend that the PB repesents your consistent level of ability unless this can be supported by the running average.
I doubt that there would be an interest in ranking at the present time, but if this was of interest, I would suggest this:
First Class: Running average of 4.51 to 6.00
Second Class: Running average of 2.51 to 4.50
Third Class: Running average of 0.10 to 2.50
This makes Third Class readily achievable, Second Class not impossible and retains First Class as requiring some considerable effort, as it should be if it were to be meaningful as a distinction.
I would make no distinction in draw weight except to post a minimum acceptable. Beyond this you choose the draw weight you think that you can command.
If time and experience shows otherwise, you have a choice to make.
This might seem daunting, but it is a useful tool in helping to form a true picture of your own level of consistent ability in this particular area of shooting.
At the end of the day, you will know your draw weight, how far you can shoot and your rate of fire.
The premise is that it is helpful to also know your standard of accuracy.
Knowing it, you can then if you choose, work upon improvement.
Not knowing it, what can you honestly do?
If you can hold a group at 100, you will be the more accurate at your longest distance.
Rod.
-
Rod,
I appreciate your thoughts on trying to catergorise, standardise and compare the abilities of warbow archers but basing that on one single aspect of shooting runs the risk of turning it a mere off shoot of target archery. Warbow shooting is about being able to shoot well at distances from a few yards to as far as you can get an authentic arrow. Remember that an English archer had to be able to shoot well to 'minimum maximum' of 240 yards distance to be even considered for indentured service. To get a true overall apprecaition of an archers ability any 'tests' should take consideration of the overall stlye of warbow shooting. The draw weight of the bows would vary from archer to archer based upon the bow he required to shoot a militiary arrow that set minimum distance of 240 yards or by Henry VIII standards 220yds. An archer who cannot achieve this cannot be considered to be shooting well enough to have any bearing on a series of tests designed to test the abilities of modern heavy archers agianst those of our forebears. That does not mean that people who cannot achieve this distance should not undergo a test as you put foward but it must be remebered that no matter how well they did at 100yds they would not make a good all round archer as the style dictates.
To expand upon your idea an archer should be tested in a number of fields, accuracy at mid range (as you suggest), armour penetration at shorter range say 20 to 50 yards, accurate speed shooting of the required 10 arrows a minute and various ranges, the abitilty to rove well (the really hard one) and be able to shoot that big arrow a very long way. Trying to classify someone on the basis of just one of those fields doesn't really give much insight into there abilities other than being good a t that one thing. As an example if an archer did well at the 100 yds test but his arrow bounced of plate steel at 30yds it would show that he dosen't shoot very strongly but is stable. Bieng able to lob a military arrow 240yds and not being able to hit the man 100yds ever would show the opposite. Warbow shooting is about overall abitilies with a bow.
-
Of course. This is just something that came up in conversation about the apparent lack of interest in accuracy, which is understandable where some folks are still struggling to achieve control of a draw weight.
It is only one component, as has been said quite often.
I will only point out that measuring accuracy at a realistic but demanding distance can have the effect of improving all round accuracy and as such has as much value as the other necessary components.
If the choice were between a man who could make his distance and hold to a rate of fire but unable to hit a man at 100 yards, and a man who could match him AND hit a man at 100 yards, who would you recruit?
All else being equal, I would pick the men who could shoot more accurately first, then make up the numbers with the rest.
This is the value of assessing accuracy.
Rod.
-
Valid points Rod but as with most things its a case of is the glass half empty or half full. The fact is they would have taken accurate, strong archers after all they had plenty to choose from.
I don't think there is a disregard for accuracy with heavy archers although there is a definite perception amongst the wider archer world that that is the case. True a lot of people struggle as they move up in weight as they do in any discipline and it does take much more work to become competent. I was discussing this on the phone this morning with Glenn,in say compound archery you can get reasonably good in about 6 months or at least have a good idea if your going to be able to shoot at any level. In warbow archery it takes about four years to reach an equivalent, the bows are simply far more difficult to handle. Anyone observing that archer in that period could easily believe that he disregards accuracy, which would be pretty pointless afterall. The interesting comparison is with top end warbow archers, they are not only very accurate but shoot the heaviest of bows and it is men like these that would have been selected for warfare. It'll certainly be interesting to see if the current interest in warbows produces a good crop of archers in three or four years time, maybe shooting tests like this will help. In fact I'm off shooting in minute so I'll probably put a stake out at 100yds and see what happens, if I can my hands on something to actualy use as a target I will.
-
Agreed in all respects. It is not about target archery.
It is about addressing all aspects, which includes achieving distance, a sustainable rate of shooting, penetration, intuitive ability and accuracy.
I think it is fair comment to say that a test of accuracy may point up how far some are from achieving control of their chosen bow, but this is NOT a criticism.
I think it constructive to address ALL aspects as soon as one feels able.
Comparison with modern target archers is both un-necessary and risible.
I'm always reminded of the anecdote about Dick Galway when this crops up.
I have every respect for those who make a serious effort to master the heavy bow and a "can do" attitude to a reasonable challenge.
I fully recognise that quite a few may not yet feel ready in their control of the draw weights that they have undertaken to attempt, but I qualify this by saying that there is no disgrace in starting off with a low "score".
It is something that can in time be built upon and I have always seen trying to shoot better as being more interesting and "fun" than not making the effort, but I also recognise that this is a personal preference not shared by everyone.
Nonetheless, I think the proposition has value, but as you say, in the context of also addressing the other fundamental components of shooting in the war bow.
But there is value in addressing individual components in the way of practice, as well as subsequently bringing then together.
This is a useful way of advancing individual ability.
Rod.
-
BTW I have had a response from Mr. Selby.
He stands by his figures for bow draw weights, but has noted that at least one of his published figures for arrow weights (which always seemed far too light) is off by one decimal place, so for the shaft matching the 167 lb draw weight Tang dynasty bow read 3000 grains instead of 300 grains for a heavy war shaft.
I would also add the comment that you will find references to weak bows if you look at the wrong historical period.
At the height of their powers the Chinese infantry archers were shooting serious war bow weights.
Whereas the Qing (Manchu) bows of weak draw weight at the top of p. 283 where the matching shafts are in the 300 grain range are an example of weak bows in a situation where the general examination standards no longer represented effective war bow usage.
In later times and out of the practical war bow context, weights went down.
Just as here, in the post Tudor period.
Rod.
-
just thought, but would it be acceptable to measure accuracy shooting 100yards shooting at a mark in the ground (e.g. flag, arrow etc.) rather than boss or large target?
I think people would be much more willing to give this a try as its much more in keeping with roving type shooting and more importantly it requires no special equipment so it can be tried any time you shoot your bow
-
The object is to test accuracy shooting at a mark the size of a standing man at 100 yards, as distinct from a close distance clout shoot which is more useful for testing grouping at an extreme distance.
Rod.
-
I can't help it , but I have to, no I don't, Oh yes I do. ;) Man, you guy's are going to grow to old to shoot this match by the time you make up the rules ;D :-\ ;)
-
No comment... :-)
-
the problem is that no one is very interested in it
just trying to find a way to make it of more interest to warbow archers
I would have thought that getting within 2 foot of a mark at 100 yards is going to be about the same as hitting a standard target boss at 100 yards ?
with a heavy war bow you are going to be shooting pretty straight at it (i.e. not shooting high into the air like a long shot)
-
I don't know anything about Warbows except it seems like a lot of work ;) But I always thought a miss, anyway you look at it , is a miss.
-
I don't know anything about Warbows except it seems like a lot of work ;) But I always thought a miss, anyway you look at it , is a miss.
Well not quite if I missed the bloke I was going shooting at 100, 150, 200 yds away I'd hit his mate slighty to the left and just behind him :D
-
This point of view is based upon the notion that in every conceivable tactical situation, your foe will always be bunched together.
Unfortunately, in real life situations, this will not always be the case.
Are we then assuming that if faced with a number of men who disoblige us by not bunching together, we might then ask them to kindly bunch up so that we might hit the guy next to the one we were shooting at?
True, barrage fire at a mass of men is an important application, but not at the cost of an inability to shoot accurately at a moderate distance.
Another very real benefit of practising for accuracy at 100 is that it will make you more accurate at longer distances.
Rod.
-
This point of view is based upon the notion that in every conceivable tactical situation, your foe will always be bunched together.
Unfortunately, in real life situations, this will not always be the case.
Rod.
I would guess that you are quite right. I think rather than standing/marching shoulder to shoulder you would like to be far enough apart to actually use the weapon you are carrying. ;D
Also assuming you didn't hit 6 inches in front of him. :o Justin
-
This point of view is based upon the notion that in every conceivable tactical situation, your foe will always be bunched together.
Unfortunately, in real life situations, this will not always be the case.
Are we then assuming that if faced with a number of men who disoblige us by not bunching together, we might then ask them to kindly bunch up so that we might hit the guy next to the one we were shooting at?
True, barrage fire at a mass of men is an important application, but not at the cost of an inability to shoot accurately at a moderate distance.
Another very real benefit of practising for accuracy at 100 is that it will make you more accurate at longer distances.
Rod.
Now your having a laugh Rod! It's called light hearted banter...chill :D
-
Can someone get rid of this thread, it is now becoming laughable,
Nick forget this bloke, he is quite capable of doing his own tests as he runs some sort of archery centre, leave him to get on with it mate, then he can say for certain wether or not he himself is good enough with a heavy bow.
-
Nick,
I'm not upset or even surprised by these responses, let us wait and see what happens when a few folks show that it not only can be done, but that it can also contribute towards also raising the standard.
Those who have no interest in this are obviously not ready and indeed may never be ready judging from the quality of some of the responses.
Let it stand for now that some think it impossible to hit a man at 100 yards with a war bow given their present level of ability.
The question is, does this represent the reality of a competent mediaeval archer ?
Rod.
-
I don't know? If my job was killing people or putting meat on the table, It would be hard for me to be happy about missing by a little bit. :'(
-
dude, those guys are suposedly drawing weights only 50 lbs less than my squat max.
-
100 yards = 91,2 m first of all its Boring,thats why i quit the fita stuff. Don't see the point of trying to hit a target of six feet by 3 feet i could do that with a warbow @ 100 lb after 10 pints. So sorry i would rather go out and have some fun with the lads ;D
Not that bow shooting and drinking at the same time is good, i tend to spill to much ;)
-
I can find no record of Stretton holding the Record....this Guy states that He holds it....
http://www.indium.com/drlasky/entry.php?id=386
Hello And Good day !
Please allow me to introduce myself , I am Den Erickson .
I am the Worlds Strongest Archer , and have been for (April 1994 ) 10 Years prior to Mark Stretton's so called "Feat" .
I have demonstrated my Ability to successfully Shoot and Hunt with these weights .
I on a weekly basis shoot 6 / 6 arrow ends at 125# , 147# ,And over 230 #
with recurves and a Longbow , Drawn to my natural Draw length of 26 1/2 " .
At the Moment Mark Stretton while a terrific and competent Archer is no where near my strength or abilities , has been challenged in this regard and refuses any sort of competition .
I do have a current claim in to Guinness whilst Mark Stretton does not .
As to Stats
I am 5'8" , and 280 lbs . 32 years of age
In coorespondance with Pip he has mentioned he does not endorse any one let alone Mark Stretton pulling such heavy weight as he feels it is historically inaccurate .
This is for informational purposes as well as serving as a challenge to Mark Stretton to Match me or beat me as The Worlds Strongest .
I may be reached at Varbogen@aol.com
or USA tel 262-705-2245 .
Sincerely ,
Den Erickson
The Worlds Strongest Archer ( U.S.)
you are so full of s*** stop smoking that stuff it does not agree with you it seems ( PS. you may change your name but you are still a Pri** )
-
Don't see the point of trying to hit a target of six feet by 3 feet i could do that with a warbow @ 100 lb after 10 pints.
I'd like to see that. Most of us only think we are shooting better after 10 pints... :-)
Rod.
-
Don't see the point of trying to hit a target of six feet by 3 feet i could do that with a warbow @ 100 lb after 10 pints.
I'd like to see that. Most of us only think we are shooting better after 10 pints... :-)
Rod.
No thats after 15 pints with me upto 10 i am ok ;D
-
I guess if we get around to agreeing a format and setting up a trial we will have to supply the beer. ;-)
Rod.
-
Rod
What did I find? Well - that its mainly a work of translation and not of archery per se, that it contains inconsistencies with regards to some of the weights used ie that some measures are given as different weights in different parts of the text, and units of weight, when researched seem actually to be units of volume!
A comment from Stephen Selby on weight and volume when posed this question confirms what I first thought on reading this point.
In Ancient Chinese names of weights and volume can be synonymous since a given weight is derived from a certain volume of (in this case) water.
This should not be a concept foreign to anyone who knows that a Specific Gravity of one derives from 1 litre of water weighing 1 kg (leaving aside the refinement of specifying a temperature).
Rod.