Apology to TAA

[sage]

'Traditional Archery Heritage' comment from Stickman Hunter could you clarify 'Heritage'. I would be interested in your reply. Thanks

[Kendaric]

That's a huge call to say that the (most famous/well known) people involved in it are irrelevant to it's heritage.

That's like saying Donald Bradman is irrelevant to the heritage of Australian cricket...

I'd be too, with an analogy like that - once again we are talking about archery EQUIPMENT used prior to the compound. That is just a semantic argument to justify a irrelevant point - unless of cause, there is a Bradman Bat used in a sport called Heritage Cricket Australia, I don't know much about cricket. I have never seen any archery divisions called and based after a person.

You cant take a Formula One, remove the foil and drive it on a suburban street, and call it a family car.

So by the definition of Trad recurve, I can take my 68" carbon fibre Olympic target recurve, remove the clicker, sights and stabilisers, use it with timber arrows, and compete alongside the guy shooting off the shelf with his Bear Grizzly. I don't think he will consider it too fair. Better still, if my long window bow had camo marks all over the riser, I could use these a sighting marks, and shoot it like a target bow with target anchor, and call it traditional. And whilst it says in the definition no sighting aids can be used - how could you prove it - it is not an aid, it is a manufacturers finish. ABA had this problem and simply removed the issue later by allowing it via the manufacturer. A bit the same way I have seen custom made trad recurves made with pictures on the window which could also be used as a sighting reference.

[greybeard]

......It seems the TAA had nice, simple, easy to understand and appropriate guidelines for bow types already..........

I have finished reading the so called guidelines and as far as I can ascertain they are pretty much useless.

Daryl.

[GrahameA]

Afternoon.

You cant take a Formula One, remove the foil and drive it on a suburban street, and call it a family car.

You could if it complied with the relevant requirements. Many vehicles which are biased to Motorsport are registered and driven on the road. May not be a pleasant car to drive but you can. All you need do is comply with the "Rules" (Registration Requirements, etc.) Many things can be done if you comply with the 'Rules and Requirements'.

[Kendaric]

......It seems the TAA had nice, simple, easy to understand and appropriate guidelines for bow types already..........

I have finished reading the so called guidelines and as far as I can ascertain they are pretty much useless.

Daryl.

Yeah, I should have ready it more closely - I was just happy to see the longbow separated from the semi-recurve.

[Kendaric]

Afternoon.

You cant take a Formula One, remove the foil and drive it on a suburban street, and call it a family car.

You could if it complied with the relevant requirements. Many vehicles which are biased to Motorsport are registered and driven it on the road. May not be a pleasant car to drive but you can. All you need do is comply with the "Rules" (Registration Requirements, etc.) Many things can be done if you comply with the 'Rules and Requirements'.

Ok, let me rephrase that - you can't call it a HQ Holden station wagon, and your second point - true, which is why we have to be careful of what requirements are set at the outset.

[GrahameA]

Afternoon.

... you can't call it a HQ Holden station wagon ...

You could however, it would be a lie and it would fail when compared to the prototype.

[bstan86]

That's a huge call to say that the (most famous/well known) people involved in it are irrelevant to it's heritage.

That's like saying Donald Bradman is irrelevant to the heritage of Australian cricket...

I'd be too, with an analogy like that - once again we are talking about archery EQUIPMENT used prior to the compound. That is just a semantic argument to justify a irrelevant point - unless of cause, there is a Bradman Bat used in a sport called Heritage Cricket Australia, I don't know much about cricket. I have never seen any archery divisions called and based after a person.

You cant take a Formula One, remove the foil and drive it on a suburban street, and call it a family car.

So by the definition of Trad recurve, I can take my 68" carbon fibre Olympic target recurve, remove the clicker, sights and stabilisers, use it with timber arrows, and compete alongside the quy shooting off the shelf with his Bear Grizzly. I don't think he will consider it too fair. Better still, if my long window bow had camo marks all over the riser, I could use these a sighting marks, and shoot it like a target bow with target anchor, and call it traditonal. And whilst it says in the definition no sighting aids can be used - how could you prove it - it is not an aid, it is a manufacturers finish. ABA had this problem and simply removed the issue later by allowing it via the manufacturer. A bit the same way I have seen custom made trad recurves made with pictures on the window which could also be used as a sighting reference.

Righto we must be on different wavelengths then mate. Traditional archery is and was done by people, some of whom contributed greatly to its "heritage". How are they then irrelevent?


My cricket analogy was made in the hope it may provide a good exemplar of my point. Point obviously missed....

This thread is reminding me now of how the semantics of this sort of discussion are of little interest to me - but I still got caught up in it.

[Kendaric]

but I still got caught up in it.

Me too

[greybeard]

.......Yeah, I should have ready it more closely - I was just happy to see the longbow separated from the semi-recurve.

But their definitions are still lacking detail.

If they allow fibreglass to be used in the construction of the bow would it not be logical to allow the use of fibreglass arrows?

Fibreglass Arrows.jpg (59.88 KiB) Viewed 6657 times

Taking the scenario further I believe the Martin Viper utilises carbon in its construction, yet another tin of worms.

The above is the least of my concerns as TAA's treatment of non glass bows is laughable.

Daryl.

[toby]

Darryl what's the problem with non fibreglass bows?

[greybeard]

Darryl what's the problem with non fibreglass bows?

Read their definitions and it should become obvious.

Daryl.

[GrahameA]

Morning.

... This thread is reminding me now of how the semantics of this sort of discussion are of little interest to me ...

We communicate/express ideas/etc. by the written word. If people expect you/me to believe what they write (have credibility) it is of significant importance that what they write is true and correct. So when people write something it is in their best interests that they give appropriate consideration.

An example. This is from the TAA Guidelines http://www.traditionalarcheryaustralia. ... ines-1.pdf and in particular Asiatic Bows.

... These bows can be made from any materials including fibreglass and carbon. ...

Sounds good. In the next paragraph it has:

Carbon arrow shafts are not permitted as they cannot be seen as traditional.

So what is the issue? It is not the material, Carbon, as it is acceptable for use - you could make/purchase an all-HMG bow and it would be acceptable but it is not acceptable in an arrow shaft.

So is it the way that they are made? Are Arrows made that differently from the bow that...

Why is Carbon (HMG) Traditional when it is use to make a bow but "cannot be seen as Traditional" when it is used to make an arrow?

I an not advocating any side of the argument/discussion however, I do see it as not well written.
...

I anticipate that clarifies why it is important what people say. There are consequences to what they write/say.

[GrahameA]

Morning.

but I still got caught up in it.

Me too

I was going to post a photo of an F1 car being driven at a substantial rate of knots on the suburban streets of Murwillimbah to illustrate the point/issue but gave up. To much of an annoyance to get the photo up.

Scrub that - I finally remembered how to do it - this is what happens when you do not use something for a few years.

The photo is from 2004 and whilst not a current F1 car you should get the concept - and the aeros were still on the car. I probably have some photos of a circa 2000 Ferrari F1 car in action. There is no standards on what you can call your car - other than Copyright which seems to be ignored by some - so for the moment it is a ...

Once again it is a matter of complying with the "Rules". If people do not like the "Rules" get them changed.

Img_4854.jpg (32.88 KiB) Viewed 6624 times

An addenda. An F1 car, a World Championship Winning F1 car, no aeros and being driven on the suburban streets of Murwillimbah.

Img_9805.jpg (49.19 KiB) Viewed 6621 times

[greybeard]

The more I read the TAA ‘equipment guidelines’ the more convinced I am that they are totally useless.

Primitive [adj.]
2. Characterized by simplicity or crudity; unsophisticated: primitive weapons.
3. Of or relating to a non industrial, often tribal culture, especially one that is characterized by an absence of literacy and a low level of economic or technological complexity: primitive societies.”

In the ‘Primitive’ division; TAA’s version;

A primitive bow may be of take-down construction, but two piece only.
A primitive bow may have a full pistol grip.
A primitive bow may have a shelf but must not be cut full centre shot (see longbow).

Where is TAA’s proof that primitive bows displaying these characteristics actually existed.

In TAA’s ‘English Longbow’ division;

Having a flattish back and stacked with a Roman arch type belly.
Having approximately an 8 to 5 width to depth ratio.

From Wiki;

“Organizations which run archery competitions have set out formal definitions for the various classes; many definitions of the longbow would exclude some medieval examples, materials, and techniques of use.
According to the British Longbow Society, the English longbow is made so that its thickness is at least ⅝ (.625%) of its width, as in Victorian longbows, and is widest at the handle.

This differs from the Medieval longbow, which had a thickness between 33% and 75% of the width.
Also, the Victorian longbow does not bend throughout the entire length, as does the medieval longbow.”

As TAA have made no reference to ‘stiff’ handle sectioned bows it would appear that medieval bows can be shot in this division if they comply with the ⅝ (.625%) rule. Otzi's 6000 year old yew longbow may even qualify for this division.

Daryl.

[GrahameA]

Evening.

The 5/8 rule is very specific. A reproduction of a 'Mary Rose' bow as it will not comply. An anomaly in a classification termed 'English Longbow'.

[BowmanBjorn]

ok in an attempt to be constructive. lets assume that the TTA guidelines for what ever reason are not up to scratch. we can argue that one way or the other all day with no real benefit other than stroking egos.

SO lets start from the top here and work through a suitable set of OZBOW RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOW CLASS.

some questions:
1. How many classes should there be
2. what is the benefit to the archers of having these classes
3. For each class what are the defining features
4. what are the common limitations that apply to all classes

from here we can begin to discuss and plan out our guidelines.

my EXAMPLE and it is only an example!:

classes:
1. Historical: equipment as it was made and used pre 1900
2. traditional: materials and bows styles pre 1960
3. NEO Trad: modern materials and bows using no wheels, cams etc.

what is the benefit:
1. historical shows the golden era of archery and a richness of heritage (norse, medieval, mongal etc)
2. represents the image of traditional the majority of people have
3. allows performance junkies and newbies to join in and see how far they want to crawl down the rabbit hole.

defining features:
1. Historical: equipment and materials pre 1900.
2. Traditional:longbows, semi recurves, recurves, flatbows, yumi, horsebow etc. limited to materials that were available and in use at the time in bows. i.e no carbon or foam etc to be used.
3. NEO TRAD: anything goes as long as it doesn't have wheels!

common rules:
- no stabilising aids
- no siting aids
- no release aids unless it was of the period of bow you are shooting (i.e thumb ring with a horse bow)
- no draw aids i.e kisser buttons, clickers etc.


so boys and girls lets start to work this through. again i think the important part when looking at categories is to think about how adding a category BENEFITS the traditional archery community rather than just adding categories for the sake of it.

[greybeard]

ok in an attempt to be constructive. lets assume that the TTA guidelines for what ever reason are not up to scratch. we can argue that one way or the other all day with no real benefit other than stroking egos........SO lets start from the top here and work through a suitable set of OZBOW RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOW CLASS..........so boys and girls lets start to work this through. again i think the important part when looking at categories is to think about how adding a category BENEFITS the traditional archery community rather than just adding categories for the sake of it.

It may be beneficial to start a fresh post rather than dragging this one out.

Daryl.

My personal view is two divisions, pre 1901 no synthetic materials [laminating glues could be an issue]; post 1901 plastic bows in all their configurations and plastic/alloy arrows where applicable.

One may also have to take into account hunting sights used in the earlier parts of the 1900s.

[BowmanBjorn]

ok will do.

i REALLY LIKE your idea of 2 devisions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! easy to implement and inclusive of all "traditional shooter"

[bstan86]

ok in an attempt to be constructive. lets assume that the TTA guidelines for what ever reason are not up to scratch. we can argue that one way or the other all day with no real benefit other than stroking egos........SO lets start from the top here and work through a suitable set of OZBOW RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOW CLASS..........so boys and girls lets start to work this through. again i think the important part when looking at categories is to think about how adding a category BENEFITS the traditional archery community rather than just adding categories for the sake of it.

It may be beneficial to start a fresh post rather than dragging this one out.

Daryl.

My personal view is two divisions, pre 1901 no synthetic materials [laminating glues could be an issue]; post 1901 plastic bows in all their configurations and plastic/alloy arrows where applicable.

One may also have to take into account hunting sights used in the earlier parts of the 1900s.

I like that idea as well Daryl. Now can someone magically implement it please so that we can go back to talking more about traditional bowhunting instead of organisational semantics and nitpicking...

[greybeard]

.............. Now can someone magically implement it please so that we can go back to talking more about traditional bowhunting instead of organisational semantics and nitpicking...

Someone is extremely busy at the moment but feel free to get the ball rolling.

Daryl.

[bstan86]