Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

Questions and answers. How to tune your bow, match those arrows and how to shoot your bow or hit the target. Its all here!

Moderator: Moderators

Message
Author
User avatar
Kendaric
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#1 Post by Kendaric » Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:41 am

Just out of curiosity, do you think the Trad events will ever distinguish a difference between Modern Longbow and Traditional longbow, like ABA does (even with the trad peg)?

A modern longbow being defined as a longbow with any of the below traits:
1. Cut past centreshot
2. Shot three fingers under
3. Any reflex in the limbs (even though the string only just touches the limb nocks only).

Whilst I can understand that the Bear Montana longbow would be classified as a modern longbow, it still looks like a longbow, but what about an instance like the White Wolf Target Master Longbow, which is virtually a semi-recurve, though technically a modern longbow.

http://whitewolfarchery.com/longbows.html

User avatar
Stickbow Hunter
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11637
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: Maryborough Queensland

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#2 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Sun Aug 17, 2014 11:44 am

I can't answer your question but the simple fact, from a traditional history viewpoint, is that longbows are not cut to centre shot and they have no recurve in the limbs.
Kendaric wrote:but what about an instance like the White Wolf Target Master Longbow, which is virtually a semi-recurve, though technically a modern longbow.
Not virtually mate, it is a semi recurve!

Jeff

User avatar
scuzz
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Newcastle, NSW

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#3 Post by scuzz » Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:12 pm

As soon as a bow starts to have reflex in the limb's when strung, it's pretty much screaming 'semi recurve' to me. The wide, thin look of the limbs seems to concrete my view.

Scuzz

User avatar
Kendaric
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#4 Post by Kendaric » Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:13 pm

Kendaric wrote: Not virtually mate, it is a semi recurve!

Jeff
I agree, it is a semi-recurve, but under the conditions of "modern Longbow" under ABA, it could be classified as a modern longbow.

Under ABA rules, tradition longbow can not be cut past centreshot, but one concludes that it could be cut too centreshot (as the arrow itself would still sit just outside centreshot), but you are correct, traditional longbow were outside centreshot yes.

Nowadays it appears that it is somewhat difficult to buy a commercially made longbow that does not show some reflex in the limbs, which is a pity (probably as most come out of Amercia). Mind you, a custom bowyer is very competitive, price wise.
Last edited by Kendaric on Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

little arrows
Posts: 2856
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Sunshine Coast QLD

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#5 Post by little arrows » Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:06 pm

No, is the short answer. The Trad shoots are not run under the bow guidelines of the ABA or 3DAAA.

cheers
sue

dartonian
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Bonnells Bay NSW

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#6 Post by dartonian » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:30 pm

It is a personal gripe of mine in regard to competitive field archery, that I shoot a straight limbed longbow with wooden arrows but because I shoot 3 under, I'm in either "Modern Longbow" in ABA or "Bowhunter recurve" in IFAA type competitions. Dont get me wrong, I understand the "traditional" aspect of the longbow, but it isnt like I'm string or face walking...

Hissy fit over.

Dennis La Varenne
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#7 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:45 am

Sue, there are no hyssy fits here. There are debates, even if they are sometimes heated and you have a right to express your opinion like all of us.

I have had a recent VERY heated debate on the issue of what comprises traditional archery so long as Ozbow is concerned and it is very simple. It is ALL FORMS OF ARCHERY IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THE COMPOUND BOW WAS INVENTED IN 1966.

If a design of bow was not invented before 1966, it is NOT a traditional bow.

Most of the so-called 'modern traditional' bows (a complete contradiction in terms if ever there was one) are simply non-compound bows. They have absolutely nothing to do with traditional archery.

Most modern archers do not even understand the very word 'traditional'. Tradition is always to do with things from the past, not the present. You cannot have 'modern traditional' archery. The absurdity of the two words together is risible. You cannot modernise something which is a tradition. If it is 'modernised', it is no longer a tradition - it has become a modern development.

All of these semi-recurved bows are not and have never been longbows of any kind in any traditional period of archery history. They were developed back in the late 1940s and 1950s and were called semi-recurves because they were partially recurved at the ends as opposed to those bows which were full recurves where the tip of the bow was close to a right angle away from the long axis of the bow. That included the static recurved bows.

The persons responsible for the definitions of 'traditional' sections in ABA and 3DAAA competitions made their decision without any genuine historical knowledge of archery and more as often were influenced persons wanting to be able to shoot the latest non-compound bow having limbs of every kind or wiggle and wobble with anything BUT straight limbs to come onto the market and try to get it mostly into the longbow category.

Unfortunately, the US producers are the worst offenders in this respect, bringing out very short bows of 60 inches or less with duo-curved limbs and deep recurve bow risers with high wrist grips and calling them hybrids for heaven's sake. What is a hybrid anyway but a mongrel which nobody can fathom the ancestry of.

They could have properly and correctly called them a short semi-recurve. But they well knew that it is in their best sales interests to have people try to get their bows into competitive use where the most archers do their shooting and their greatest sales go to get the definitions of longbow and traditional archer changed by naming their bows as forms of longbow. And modern historically illiterate archers fall for it and make enormous fuss when they turn up at shoots to be told that their bow is not what they bought it as.

And so we end up with such absurd definitions about what defines a particular kind of bow when before 1966, it was very clear to the archer of those days exactly what was being referred to and it was quite specific as reading from that period of archery demonstrates.
Dennis La Varénne

Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.

QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8

What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?

HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.

User avatar
Trad Bound
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: Melbourne,Australia

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#8 Post by Trad Bound » Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:03 pm

dartonian wrote:It is a personal gripe of mine in regard to competitive field archery, that I shoot a straight limbed longbow with wooden arrows but because I shoot 3 under, I'm in either "Modern Longbow" in ABA or "Bowhunter recurve" in IFAA type competitions. Dont get me wrong, I understand the "traditional" aspect of the longbow, but it isnt like I'm string or face walking...

Hissy fit over.
Dennis La Varenne wrote:Sue, there are no hyssy fits here. There are debates, even if they are sometimes heated and you have a right to express your opinion like all of us.
Just be be clear Sue was not hissy fitting that comment was another writer. i say no more

Dennis La Varenne
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#9 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:29 pm

I would apologise to that person in that case, but the comment seems to have been deleted. In that case, apologies to Sue. I was pretty sure it was on the tail end of her post. Never mind.
Dennis La Varénne

Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.

QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8

What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?

HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.

little arrows
Posts: 2856
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Sunshine Coast QLD

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#10 Post by little arrows » Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:29 pm

yes Dennis I know where you stand on this entire issue, all I did was answer the original question the person asked - which at this stage is correct. I've not actually felt the need to have a hissy fit, as you put, it on the site yet, trust me Dennis, you'll know when I do.

cheers
sue

little arrows
Posts: 2856
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Sunshine Coast QLD

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#11 Post by little arrows » Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:31 pm

I have no idea what comment you are talking about Dennis, there is no mention of that post being edited, and I don't believe I did 'cause it was short and sweet post.

cheers
sue

Dennis La Varenne
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#12 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:51 pm

Sue,

You are quite right. I know what happened now. Those words are in a quote above from Trad Bound by Dartonian. I quickly scrolled down through your post and it stopped at that part of Trad Bound's post and I did not notice. I thought it had stopped at the end of your post.

Apologies again.
Dennis La Varénne

Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.

QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8

What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?

HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.

little arrows
Posts: 2856
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Sunshine Coast QLD

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#13 Post by little arrows » Wed Aug 20, 2014 8:05 pm

well thank goodness we now have that sorted..... Apology accepted Dennis.

cheers
sue

User avatar
Mick Smith
Posts: 4957
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Surf Coast Victoria

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#14 Post by Mick Smith » Wed Aug 20, 2014 10:13 pm

Dennis La Varenne wrote:
Most of the so-called 'modern traditional' bows (a complete contradiction in terms if ever there was one) are simply non-compound bows. They have absolutely nothing to do with traditional archery.

All of these semi-recurved bows are not and have never been longbows of any kind in any traditional period of archery history. They were developed back in the late 1940s and 1950s and were called semi-recurves because they were partially recurved at the ends as opposed to those bows which were full recurves where the tip of the bow was close to a right angle away from the long axis of the bow. That included the static recurved bows.
I don't quite understand what you are saying here Dennis. On one hand, you are saying the ''modern traditional'' bows have absolutely nothing to do with traditional archery. I take it, that when you say ''modern traditional'' bows, you are referring to deflex reflex or so called hybrid bows. Yet, on the other hand you are saying that these types of bows are in fact traditional bows, as they were invented back in the late 1940s and were actually called semi-recurves and since that were around in the pre compound era, they fit into the criteria of traditional, but not as longbows.

So, are deflex reflex bows, or these otherwise knows as 'hybrid' bows actually traditional bows or not, in your opinion? Or, were your referring to some other type on non-compound bow in the first paragraph of your above quote? I'm not trying to stir you up here, I'm simply curious, as you can't have it both ways.

Finally, how do you view the use of fast flight strings in the 'traditional', 'non traditional' sense from the Ozbow perspective? To my knowledge, fast flight strings weren't available prior to 1966. I'm not trying to push any sort of an agenda here. I just want it clarified a little.
There is no use focusing on aiming if you don't execute the shot well enough to hit what your are aiming at.

dartonian
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Bonnells Bay NSW

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#15 Post by dartonian » Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:56 pm

In the words of Johnny Cash... "How do you do?.... My name is Sue!".... Err, no its not. But I did have the hissy fit.

I was just pointing out that the difference between "modern" and "traditional" longbow divisions in ABA can also be as simple as choosing to shoot 3 under. Which is my gripe given that I shoot a straight longbow (ok... realistically a laminated flatbow) with no reflex and wooden arrows, but I compete against recurve archers with carbon arrows because I place 3 fingers under the arrow whilst drawing.

Which is realistically off-topic in this thread which is discussing deflex/reflex/semi recurves as longbows... So I'll exit stage left

Dennis La Varenne
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#16 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:26 am

Mick,
Bows with any curvature in the limbs were invented and used in the pre-compound days and were called either semi recurved bows or recurved bows. They are and always were traditional bows. Today, people are trying to include modern versions of these bows as longbows which the clearly are not nor ever were. I have a vey extensive archery library and a large collection of ARCHERY, ARCHER WORLD and AMERICAN BOWMAN-REVIEW and nowhere in any of all my books or magazines will you ever see deflex-reflexed semi-recurved or full recurved bows described as longbows.

That is my complaint and nobody had yet produced a cogent argument on Ozbow to contradict that historical fact. I also have a collection of around 150 bows of wood, steel, aluminium, and solid fibreglass as well as wood-fibreglass laminated bows which I can compare with how their makers advertised them in magazines of the period from 1945 to 1960 and much earlier in the books as well as reprints of contemporary manufacturer's catalogues which also describe them.

Nowhere in any of those publications was any form of bow with recurved ends ever confused with straight ended longbows, and no longbow ever had recurved ends. Up until the late 1940s, longbow described only the English longbow as we know it now, but by the early 1950s, these bows were almost completely gone and after Howard Hill began referring to his style of bow as an 'American semi-longbow', the term longbow began to be applied to the American straight-ended long flatbow of rectangular cross section, even though previously from the early 1930s, bows made with the same cross section in adult lengths of 64 inches up to 69 inches were the most commonly used bows and always referred to as American flatbows to distinguish them from the English pattern longbow which was still in uncommon use.

After the ELBs pretty much vanished off the scene by the end of WWII, the term longbow began to be applied to the longer flatbows. The shorter flatbows under 66" were still regarded as flatbows rather than longbows. The clincher in the transfer of the term seems to have been the influence of Howard Hill and his style of bow whose only real claim to difference was that the lamination materials were from Tonkin cane or bamboo, but differed very little in design from the earlier long flatbow. By the mid-1950s, even the straight ended longbow or long flatbow had also all but disappeared in favour of the new fangled full recurved bows which were much shorter, faster and much more manoeuverable in the bush. By 1955, ads for longbows had all but disappeared in favour of recurved bows in just the same way that recurves almost disappeared from popular use after the compound gained favour during the 1970s.

Fortunately, in Australia, the American longbow of Howard Hill design just managed to hold on through the efforts almost single handedly through Ted Mitchell's column in Archery Action which managed to keep interest in the bow style in existence along with wood arrows. Even recurved bows had become quite rare away from the AA target fields in favour of the compound. Those of use who stuck with the Howard Hill longbow and an occasional recurve which was all that was available back then left many of us turning up to even large ABA shoots for years as the only contestant, so rare had traditional archery become

Jeff and I have recently been giving thought to the matter of the materials used in bow and arrow making, and both of us have personal dislikes for the modern synthetics, but so long as these materials are used in bows whose form or style was in use in the pre-compound period, we cannot really justify the exclusion of archery equipment made from them so long as the form of the equipment is a recognised style from before 1966. But that dislike is a purely personal thing. The form of the arrow is the same as in the pre-compound era and the form of the bowstring is the same. If the bow is made from carbon and other synthetics but still conforms to a bow design which existed in the pre-compound era, it is unreasonable to argue against its inclusion no matter how much either of us may dislike it. Nowhere have we ever discarded modern bowstring material as untraditional that I can ever recall. Both of us have advocated the superiority of Fastflight and its descendents since they arrived on the market. But some members have tried to put words in our mouths based on interesting interpretations of the core beliefs of Ozbow.

In the introduction to our most recent glossary, we have stipulated that the official Ozbow definition of traditional archery is 'all forms of archery which existed before the advent of the compound bow'. Materials are not mentioned.

So, I hope the above clarifies the Ozbow position for you.

We do not mind people having debates on Ozbow discussing the vagaries of the rules of shoot of stated organizations either for or against so long as it is quite clear that the discussion is about external organizations, but we become very peeved when people try to open discussions about the meaning of traditional archery in a non-specific way as if this has not been clearly stated in our Glossary, Where We Stand and Bowhunting Ethics as if these have not already been sorted out as basic platforms of Ozbow. We also get peeved when members lazily cannot be bothered with learning some basic traditional archery terminology and using it, and most importantly, knowing its history.

Dartonian,
After my blue above in attributing your comment to Sue through the agency of a very sensitive mouse scroller, if you have a position which you hold passionately, you don't need to call it a hyssy fit. You have a strongly held position which you are entitled to broach on this site so long as it confines itself to the argument and doesn't become personally abusive.

Where I thought it was the tail end of Sue's post above, I was a bit surprised because as I got to know her back in the old Longbow Muster days, she was the very last person from whom I would ever expect a hyssy fit. I always found her a bit more considered in her opinions and one of the least likely to throw a tantrum. I thought is was a rather strange comment for her, mistaken as I was.
Dennis La Varénne

Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.

QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8

What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?

HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#17 Post by GrahameA » Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:58 am

Morning Dennis.
Dennis La Varenne wrote:... We do not mind people having debates on Ozbow discussing the vagaries of the rules of shoot of stated organization...
I like, Mick, do not have that impression. The easiest solution that I see and the one I advocate in the strongest manner is not to discuss anything regarding what are termed "Trad Shoots" on this forum. Better that another organisation that has a vested interest in such address the issue(s).
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

User avatar
Stickbow Hunter
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11637
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: Maryborough Queensland

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#18 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:45 am

GrahameA wrote:The easiest solution that I see and the one I advocate in the strongest manner is not to discuss anything regarding what are termed "Trad Shoots" on this forum. Better that another organisation that has a vested interest in such address the issue(s).
And just what organisation/s would you be thinking about Grahame? At the present time I know of no such organisation in this country.

Jeff

User avatar
Kendaric
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#19 Post by Kendaric » Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:19 am

Thank you, that is all excellent information. The pre-1966 sounds like a really good definition of traditional, particularly in the Australian context . So that being said, if someone turns up at a Trad event with a longbow with reflex in the limbs, or a 3 piece longbow (looks like a take down recurve with straight limbs), are they put into the longbow division or the recurve division. Or is this likely to cause too much dissension when we are trying to promote the Trad Spirit, particularly when there has been such a resurgence in trad shooting. Is it a case of dammed if you do, dammed if you don't?

The information about the American Flatbow was also very interesting. I always has the impression that our now traditional longbows were more based on the Victorian Period Longbow, as opposed to the Earlier Medieval English Longbow, and that due to laminations were able to do away with the D section limb - the American Flatbow being a shorter bow (like you mentioned) with wide flat limbs and a narrower handle section/riser - somewhat based on the shorter Indian style bow. You can see the how the Howard Hill semi-longbow wording then transitioned the term.
Last edited by Kendaric on Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AndyF
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:00 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#20 Post by AndyF » Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:30 pm

Ok, just for fun, it's quiz time. Dragged six bows off the rack last night. Which are 'modern' (semi-recurve, non-compound) which are 'traditional'? Fairly easy to work out I should think. Bonus points, or perhaps a free beer if you're at the HVTA shoot in October, if you can name what bows they are. Could have included my Bear Montana as well, but it's already been categorised. :)
Attachments
Larger.jpg
Larger.jpg (104.69 KiB) Viewed 8935 times

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#21 Post by GrahameA » Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:36 pm

Afternoon Jeff.
Stickbow Hunter wrote:
GrahameA wrote:The easiest solution that I see and the one I advocate in the strongest manner is not to discuss anything regarding what are termed "Trad Shoots" on this forum. Better that another organisation that has a vested interest in such address the issue(s).
And just what organisation/s would you be thinking about Grahame? At the present time I know of no such organisation in this country.

Jeff
The nearest there is in the "Archery Alliance" although that is four organisations.

The closest single organisation would be TAA thus I suggest them - they have a significant vested interest. It is an opportunity for them to demonstrate some leadership and as they are part of the "Archery Alliance" they have close access to the other 3 organisations.
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

littlejohn59

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#22 Post by littlejohn59 » Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:56 pm

Hey Andy

First of ..nice collection there of your bows. My answer .......mmmm No compounds there.
#1 & #6 look like longbows.
2 looks a little suspicious from photo but hard to tell
#3,#4 & #5 long bows with recurve grips or are recurves with longbow limbs....lol.


User avatar
Mick Smith
Posts: 4957
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Surf Coast Victoria

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#23 Post by Mick Smith » Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:50 pm

Thank you for the detailed response Dennis. Everything is as I thought. My deflex reflex Toelke Whip is basically a semi recurve bow and as such it is a traditional bow in any sense of the word. I have some other much liked bows that fit into the longbow category as well. I'm happy with that.

I'm certainly no spring chicken. I can recall what happened over the last 50 years or so, in regards to archery in Australia. Perhaps I was one of the very few who preserved the use of the 'semi-longbow' during the 'dark ages', immediately after the introduction of the compound. Once I had the necessary finances, I imported a Howard Hill Redman longbow from the US in 1971 and continued to use it until quite recently. Prior to that, I used an old Black Widow recurve that my father bought me for my 14th birthday. I wasn't motivated by Ted Mitchell, or any other Australian though. I was inspired by the great Bob Swinehart and his book Sagittarius. Compound bows never interested me. They didn't have the racy good looks, the beautiful wood grains, or the mystique of a Howard Hill longbow.
There is no use focusing on aiming if you don't execute the shot well enough to hit what your are aiming at.

User avatar
Mick Smith
Posts: 4957
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Surf Coast Victoria

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#24 Post by Mick Smith » Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:03 pm

AndyF wrote:Ok, just for fun, it's quiz time. Dragged six bows off the rack last night. Which are 'modern' (semi-recurve, non-compound) which are 'traditional'? Fairly easy to work out I should think. Bonus points, or perhaps a free beer if you're at the HVTA shoot in October, if you can name what bows they are. Could have included my Bear Montana as well, but it's already been categorised. :)
They are all 'traditional', but only 2 and 6 are longbows. The rest are semi-recurves.
There is no use focusing on aiming if you don't execute the shot well enough to hit what your are aiming at.

User avatar
Mick Smith
Posts: 4957
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Surf Coast Victoria

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#25 Post by Mick Smith » Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:23 pm

GrahameA wrote:Morning Dennis.
Dennis La Varenne wrote:... We do not mind people having debates on Ozbow discussing the vagaries of the rules of shoot of stated organization...
I like, Mick, do not have that impression. The easiest solution that I see and the one I advocate in the strongest manner is not to discuss anything regarding what are termed "Trad Shoots" on this forum. Better that another organisation that has a vested interest in such address the issue(s).
I'm not so sure that's a good idea Grahame. We have many members here on Ozbow who love nothing more than attending a trad shoot somewhere. I don't think it would be in anyone's interest not to discuss any aspects of trad shoots here. Sure, we get a bit carried away at times, but generally its all good natured fun. Trad shoots are a major part of the trad scene in Australia and as such, they should be talked about frequently in these forums. I would be silly not to, IMO.

As far as actually coming to conclusions and making real decisions regarding rules, etc, I believe TAA would be the standout and obvious body to do so. I believe we have reached a consensus amongst the various individual clubs when it comes to the rules pretty much anyway, thanks to yourself and other Ozbow members. It would be nice to have a, well represented, national body actively focussing on the future of trad archery in this country.
There is no use focusing on aiming if you don't execute the shot well enough to hit what your are aiming at.

User avatar
kerrille
Posts: 1197
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:27 am
Location: merbein victoria

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#26 Post by kerrille » Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:12 pm

all longbows as far as im concerned.

...nev..

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=engli ... B400%3B481.
i hunt animals because they have legs and can run away ................plants dont

User avatar
Kendaric
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#27 Post by Kendaric » Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:45 pm

I could be wrong but, I'm not sure if the TAA is ready for that just yet. As an incorporated body, it is still in its infancy (so to speak), and is primary focus was as a non-governing body promoting the spirit of trad shooting, and liaising with other archery bodies to give trad shooters a voice. TAA and Trad events probably cant be seen as one and the same.

So Dennis, would it be true to say that what we consider as the traditional longbow, was based more on the American long flatbow, which was an Americanised adaptation of the Victorian longbow - or would that be too much of a leap?

I have read somewhere that long flatbows did exist in Europe prior to the English longbow.

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#28 Post by GrahameA » Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:10 am

Hi Mick.
Mick Smith wrote:I'm not so sure that's a good idea Grahame. We have many members here on Ozbow who love nothing more than attending a trad shoot somewhere. I don't think it would be in anyone's interest not to discuss any aspects of trad shoots here. Sure, we get a bit carried away at times, but generally its all good natured fun.
One would think that however recent events have shown that to not be the case.
Mick Smith wrote:... Trad shoots are a major part of the trad scene in Australia and as such, they should be talked about ...
They are the the Trad scene in this country. Take out the Trad Events and what would exist ......
Mick Smith wrote:... It would be nice to have a, well represented, national body actively focussing on the future of trad archery in this country.
Yep. And so who will it be?
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

User avatar
AndyF
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:00 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#29 Post by AndyF » Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:00 am

Well done Mick S. I said it was pretty easy. That said, there is a red herring in there. Bow 2 is my girlfriend's Norseman Priestess. It has about an inch or so of refllex, so that's a 'semi-recurve' too. Bow 6, a Howard Hill Redman is the only 'flat' bow, and therefore 'longbow' according to earlier definitions. The other bows are 1. Border Griffon. 3. Fox Triple Crown. 4. Blackbrook Sigma C. 5. Border Black Harrier (not the prettiest design but lovely to shoot).

That said, regardless of what people call the various bows, I was very interested to read the explanations of 'longbow', 'American flatbow' etc put up by Dennis. I've always wondered how the terms ended up as they are, as obviously laminated, Howard Hill style flatbows are quite different in design from ELB's.

However, I would question the finite nature of one or two things Dennis wrote:

'All of these semi-recurved bows are not and have never been longbows of any kind in any traditional period of archery history.'

'Nowhere in any of those publications was any form of bow with recurved ends ever confused with straight ended longbows, and no longbow ever had recurved ends.'

Obviously, the 40's and 50's publications referred to were written some time before the Mary Rose bows were dragged up from the mud at the bottom of the Solent. So, I was reminded of a youtube clip I watched a couple of years back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-jsvBt2HI0

As you'll see it discusses the possibility that some English bows of the time may have had recurved tips, and noted bowyer Chris Boynton goes about making one by boiling the tips and bending them over a form. Of course, this proves nothing. If there were ELB style bows with reflexed tips, we'll probably never know. And, if they existed, we won't know whether they were called semi-recurves or non-medieval longbows or whether people discussed what division they should be in at Tudor 'Trad' shoots. I'm just not certain it can be said 'no longbow ever had recurved ends'.

Not that any of this really matters in the great scheme of things. It's just interesting stuff.

A

User avatar
Stickbow Hunter
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 11637
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:33 pm
Location: Maryborough Queensland

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#30 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Fri Aug 22, 2014 11:56 am

Andy, Let me say the photos you have placed up of the bows aren't very good for being able to classify what type of bow they are. I say this because the photos are very distorted. One only has to look at how short the bottom limbs appear to see this. Also the shadows make it difficult to see what effect the limb designs have on the final shape of the limbs. Regardless I will say the following.

Bows 1,2 & 6 appear to be of the form of bows made prior to to 1966 (traditional bows).

I have never seen bows of similar form to bows 3,4 & 5 prior to 1966 so I will say they are not traditional bows but 'non compound' bows designed in recent times. Of course if you can show me that such bows existed prior to 1966 I would gladly concede that they would be traditional bows.
AndyF wrote:Obviously, the 40's and 50's publications referred to were written some time before the Mary Rose bows were dragged up from the mud at the bottom of the Solent. So, I was reminded of a youtube clip I watched a couple of years back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-jsvBt2HI0

As you'll see it discusses the possibility that some English bows of the time may have had recurved tips, and noted bowyer Chris Boynton goes about making one by boiling the tips and bending them over a form. Of course, this proves nothing.
As you say the above proves nothing except that Chris Boynton thinks that some of the bows on the Mary Rose were recurves. It is an opinion and nothing more IMO. I would think it is more likely they were bent from how they were laying on the bottom of the ocean for all those years. Also the D section limb profile is not a very efficient one and it places a lot of compression forces on the narrow belly. Recurving the tips would only make these forces higher which would not have been desirable in this type of bow IMO.

The terminology for the numerous bow types really only became necessary in the 1900's because there were different types of bows being made and in common use. This is clearly evident in the writings of those times.
GrahameA wrote:The closest single organisation would be TAA thus I suggest them - they have a significant vested interest. It is an opportunity for them to demonstrate some leadership and as they are part of the "Archery Alliance" they have close access to the other 3 organisations.
Thanks Grahame. I assumed you would have been referring to TAA. To me it will be interesting to see if they, as an organisation, really wish to be a 'Traditional Archery' organisation who will do their part in preserving and promoting our Traditional Archery history or be just a 'Non Compound' organisation. Sadly, at present, it appears to be the latter IMO.

Mick & Grahame, As Dennis mentioned above we do not mind rules of shoots being discussed on Ozbow.

It must be remembered that the purpose of Ozbow is - the preservation of all forms of archery and bowhunting practised before the advent of the compound bow (1966).

Jeff

Post Reply