Apology to TAA

[Kendaric]

I feel a bit foolish now, going on about guidelines for bow distinctions at Trad shoots and sprouting ABA definitions as a potential guide.

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

http://www.traditionalarcheryaustralia. ... ines-1.pdf

Sorry TAA.

[greybeard]

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

It might be a step in the right direction but the terminology 'hybrid' does not and never has been used to describe a bows limb profile.

I have heard the term 'hybrid' being used when describing plants and animals but never bows.

Perhaps using the term 'Duo-flex' may be a better choice.

Different Limb Designs.jpg (34.32 KiB) Viewed 7740 times

Daryl.

[Kendaric]

Perhaps using the term 'Duo-flex' may be a better choice.

Good point, and I like that term.

That to my mind was part of the difficulty of such a division - what do you call it.

[toby]

Don't feel to bad Kendaric I didn't know that document existed either, it is interesting to read though.
Seems bows with ILF take down limbs are now ok, plunger rest on recurve but not hybrid seems strange. Actually I'm surprised they are ok on any of them.

[Stickbow Hunter]

TAA should hang their heads in shame! With those rules they could at best claim that they are promoting non compound bow shooting; certainly not Traditional Archery.

Perhaps using the term 'Duo-flex' may be a better choice.

The Duo-flex was a full working recurve bow.

Jeff

[toby]

Plunger rest I don't agree with but I like that Ilf three piece take down bows are treated the same as any other three piece take down bow.

[kerry]

Plunger rest I don't agree with but I like that Ilf three piece take down bows are treated the same as any other three piece take down bow.

yeah totally agree Toby ,but I cant see a mention of ilf bows ,are we to assume that because they're not mentioned they're ok ??

[toby]

This from the Longbow description.

The longbow can be of takedown construction but two piece only. Three piece construction is not permitted. Three piece construction, ILF etc., will be considered as hybrid bows and should be placed in that division accordingly.

This from the recurve description,

The recurve can be of one piece or any take down construction.

[kerry]

ah ok, skipped thru the longbow description, thanx.

[GrahameA]

Evening.

I feel a bit foolish now, going on about guidelines for bow distinctions at Trad shoots and sprouting ABA definitions as a potential guide.

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

You maybe interested in looking at the IFAA site. There is drop down list under the ARCHERY heading.

http://www.ifaa-archery.org/index.php/s ... 1/articles

[little arrows]

on the TAA site are GUIDELINES ONLY as correctly noted my Kendaric - they are NOT rules. TAA is NOT an association. They are there to assist clubs, if required. The Clubs Association governs them not TAA.

[little arrows]

it often seems to me, especially when going back over some of these "types" of threads and topics, it is the naysayers, who also chose not to attend Trad shoots, that seem to keep going over the same points. Yet somehow, as I have just very quickly worked out, the rest of the roughly 250 Trad archers from Victoria through to Qld do not have any problems, perceived or otherwise with the equipment required by each club Trad shoot.

sue

[greybeard]

Evening.

I feel a bit foolish now, going on about guidelines for bow distinctions at Trad shoots and sprouting ABA definitions as a potential guide.

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

You maybe interested in looking at the IFAA site. There is drop down list under the ARCHERY heading.

http://www.ifaa-archery.org/index.php/s ... 1/articles

What a coincidence, the illustrations used by TAA are the same as those used by IFAA.

So much for originality, one would have hoped they would have acknowledged the source of the information.

Daryl.

[Stickbow Hunter]

it often seems to me, especially when going back over some of these "types" of threads and topics, it is the naysayers, who also chose not to attend Trad shoots, that seem to keep going over the same points. Yet somehow, as I have just very quickly worked out, the rest of the roughly 250 Trad archers from Victoria through to Qld do not have any problems, perceived or otherwise with the equipment required by each club Trad shoot.

sue

Well Sue it would seem you are referring to me with your comments above as I'm one who gives negative feedback on this topic and doesn't get to attend very many Trad shoots. My health has limited me doing many things over the past twenty years and attending Trad shoots is one of them and I'm not about to apologise for that.

My naysaying, as you put it, has nothing to do with Trad shoots but all to do with what Traditional Archery is. There is not one club, association or whatever you want to call them (that I know of), that is preserving our Traditional Archery heritage. The majority of the so called Traditional Archers today show, by what they say and do, that they too don't care about our heritage.

Tradtional Archery is about upholding our traditions and our heritage. If one doesn't do this then they are not participating in Traditional Archery but something else.

Jeff

[Kendaric]

Yes, guidelines, and I suppose one can not say Traditional Archery and Trad events being one and the same. It is good to see it being discussed, a starting point so to speak.

I suppose the TAA should be the pinnacle of what we are trying to achieve, even if not reached, or convenient to implement at the club level for some.

The longbow description could see a little improvement. The described shape should be what it is when STRUNG, not UNstrung.

As to longbow length, perhaps to take in different drawlengths and heights of people, instead of a minimum static length based on age or gender, perhaps a longbow length should be at least too or past the archers shoulder height. This would give more scope and be fairer.

It has come to my attention too, that semi-recurves (hybrids, modern longbows etc) were never designed as 3 piece bows prior to the compound. I'm not sure if adjustable tiller recurves were either.

I can appreciate that Trad events, are often trying to have a great deal of inclusivity.

Perhaps, as a compromise, as per BowmanBjorns suggestion - that a not strictly traditional, non compound division be created to cover recurves with pressure buttons, tiller adjustable limb pockets, and hybrids that don't meet a new traditional longbow or traditional recurve description. This would replace the current hybrid division (be it called hybrid or not). It could also be noted by TAA, that this division is not strictly traditional in the sense of its prescribed ideal, but a working solution to inclusivity of what people have access too.

That way we can have our cake and eat it too. Not ideal perhaps, but a workable compromise, between what is desirable on a traditional level, and what is practical and inclusive at a club level.

And if nothing else - all of this highlights how much variant exists already in what we currently shoot - and Trad events want to lump all of this into 3 divisions only?

[ron300wm]

I was not aware that Australia had a tradition in archery

[greybeard]

Evening.

I feel a bit foolish now, going on about guidelines for bow distinctions at Trad shoots and sprouting ABA definitions as a potential guide.

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

You maybe interested in looking at the IFAA site. There is drop down list under the ARCHERY heading.

http://www.ifaa-archery.org/index.php/s ... 1/articles

What a coincidence, the illustrations used by TAA are the same as those used by IFAA.

So much for originality, one would have hoped they would have acknowledged the source of the information.

Daryl.

TAA should hang their heads in shame! With those rules they could at best claim that they are promoting non compound bow shooting; certainly not Traditional Archery.

Perhaps using the term 'Duo-flex' may be a better choice.

The Duo-flex was a full working recurve bow.

Jeff

Jeff,

To clarify what a traditional bow is and as to what category different limb profiled bows should be placed perhaps you could write a set of guidelines with bow descriptions to assist clubs/organizers to get it right.

Daryl.

[Stickbow Hunter]

Jeff,

To clarify what a traditional bow is and as to what category different limb profiled bows should be placed perhaps you could write a set of guidelines with bow descriptions to assist clubs/organizers to get it right.

Daryl.

Well Daryl I believe the clubs did up a set of rules they were happy with a few years ago. I think you may have been involved with that and it was discussed in much detail on this site and I gave my opinions then and numerous other times. More recently I also did spend time writing out some guidelines and information for a TAA national committee member. Considering the link to their site above they obviously disregarded it.

So, I will not be spending more of my time to do as you suggest. I don't feel it is for me to do anyway. The clubs, associations or whoever can take the time to do a little research to find those answers for themselves just as I have done. To be honest I really don't think they are interested anyway.

Jeff

[Kendaric]

To be honest I really don't think they are interested anyway.

I'm interested, and perhaps other maybe too.

At least if it was posted here, then it could be a good reference if nothing else, for every one to see.

[GrahameA]

Evening All.

To be honest I really don't think they are interested anyway.

Jeff, I concur.
...

If people say XYZ is acceptable as being "Traditional" it follows logically that its contemporaries are "Traditional". There are consequences in what people say/suggest.

eg It is illogical to say that Carbon Arrows are "Traditional" and Compound Bows are not as Compound Bows pre-date Carbon arrows by several decades.

Similarly if ILF is "Traditional" then so are Berger Buttons as they pre-date the TD3 by a few years. (A decade plus.)

[Gringa Bows]

Well said Jeff

[Kendaric]

Evening All.

To be honest I really don't think they are interested anyway.

Jeff, I concur.
...

If people say XYZ is acceptable as being "Traditional" it follows logically that its contemporaries are "Traditional". There are consequences in what people say/suggest.

I'm not sure if I am reading that right, but I think that is exactly what Jeff is trying to get at, by wanting to define correct terminology and divisions of true traditional archery - otherwise it becomes a slippery slope to 'anything goes quasi trad' that we have today.

[littlejohn59]

Evening All.



If people say XYZ is acceptable as being "Traditional" it follows logically that its contemporaries are "Traditional". There are consequences in what people say/suggest.

eg It is illogical to say that Carbon Arrows are "Traditional" and Compound Bows are not as Compound Bows pre-date Carbon arrows by several decades.

Similarly if ILF is "Traditional" then so are Berger Buttons as they pre-date the TD3 by a few years. (A decade plus.)

Bingo

[scuzz]

"Tradtional Archery is about upholding our traditions and our heritage".

This seems to be the mentality that is creating division within this post. I think this only promotes exclusion and prevents the traditional archery community from growing.

Barebow, no wheels, wooden arrows. These basics have always been enough for me to consider the shooter traditional. This allows newcomers who may have bought a recurve cheap (metal riser, ILF) to be included and experience the trad atmosphere I love so much. If after this they choose to seek out the traditions and heritage of the sport, then they can. But it's not for everyone and shouldn't be necessary.

TAA's guidelines may be the same as specific classes within IFAA, but they are more easily understood. I don't think referencing is necessary in a guideline list.

The word 'hybrid' works for me. It creates a class for people who feel out-bowed in the recurve division. And creates the flat-layed guys a division of their own. I do see the bows as being somewhere between a recurve and a long bow, aligning with the definition of the word.

So TAA, don't "hang your heads in shame" for creating guidelines with an inclusive mindset. I like them.

Scuzz

[bstan86]

There is not one club, association or whatever you want to call them (that I know of), that is preserving our Traditional Archery heritage. The majority of the so called Traditional Archers today show, by what they say and do, that they too don't care about our heritage.

Jeff

Jeff - I am interested in what you believe our (Australian) traditional archery heritage actually is. I know very little about the "early days" of trad archery in our country (or even when exactly those early days were) and would be keen to know more about that.

When compared to the USA it seems that we have a comparatively minuscule history of "traditional archery". Pope, Young, Bear, Hill, Thompson and so on. I can't name one Australian figure in trad archery from that era.

Tradtional Archery is about upholding our traditions and our heritage. If one doesn't do this then they are not participating in Traditional Archery but something else.

Jeff

I disagree. For me it's about using trad gear because I like it (for whatever reason). Based on the above statement I am not a trad archer as I have little interest in upholding whatever traditions and heritage we have in Australia - I just do it because I like it. Am I just masquerading as a traditional archer?

[bstan86]

Barebow, no wheels, wooden arrows. These basics have always been enough for me to consider the shooter traditional. This allows newcomers who may have bought a recurve cheap (metal riser, ILF) to be included and experience the trad atmosphere I love so much. If after this they choose to seek out the traditions and heritage of the sport, then they can. But it's not for everyone and shouldn't be necessary.
Scuzz

AMEN!

[Stickbow Hunter]

"Tradtional Archery is about upholding our traditions and our heritage".

This seems to be the mentality that is creating division within this post. I think this only promotes exclusion and prevents the traditional archery community from growing.

That is nonsense IMO. May I suggest you research what Traditional Archery actually is. You either participate in Traditional Archery or you don't!

Jeff - I am interested in what you believe our (Australian) traditional archery heritage actually is.

Nowhere in my comments have I used the word Australian in relation to our Traditional Archery Heritage. I have always only said our Traditional Archery Heritage meaning Traditional Archery's heritage as a whole.

I disagree. For me it's about using trad gear because I like it (for whatever reason). Based on the above statement I am not a trad archer as I have little interest in upholding whatever traditions and heritage we have in Australia - I just do it because I like it. Am I just masquerading as a traditional archer?

The equipment you shoot, if Traditional equipment, means you are upholding our Traditional Archery heritage, at least as far as equipment goes.

Jeff

[Kendaric]

When compared to the USA it seems that we have a comparatively minuscule history of "traditional archery". Pope, Young, Bear, Hill, Thompson and so on. I can't name one Australian figure in trad archery from that era.

It has to do with the equipment used here prior to the compound. It has nothing to do with who was shooting it.

[bstan86]

Nowhere in my comments have I used the word Australian in relation to our Traditional Archery Heritage. I have always only said our Traditional Archery Heritage meaning Traditional Archery's heritage as a whole.

Jeff

Righto fair enough - I only assumed that since these arguments are coming about from discussion of trad shoots/rules/nitpicking in and about Australian trad archery.

[bstan86]

When compared to the USA it seems that we have a comparatively minuscule history of "traditional archery". Pope, Young, Bear, Hill, Thompson and so on. I can't name one Australian figure in trad archery from that era.

It has to do with the equipment used here prior to the compound. It has nothing to do with who was shooting it.

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...