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

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#31 Post by AndyF » Fri Aug 22, 2014 12:24 pm

Yes Jeff,

Sorry about the poor quality pics. Taken with iphone, at night, in my tiny kitchen, hence the not very good angle as I can't get any further back.

They're all reflex/deflex to some degree apart from (2) the Norseman which has some reflex and (6) the Howard Hill Redman which is flat laid. Wasn't claiming any or all were pre-1966 design or otherwise. Just thought it was interesting to see how much variance there is under current 'longbow' rules. And while 2 and 6 look pretty identical, only one is technically not a semi-recurve.

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

#32 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Fri Aug 22, 2014 12:52 pm

AndyF wrote:They're all reflex/deflex to some degree
Andy, Looking at the photos I'm sure you mean deflex/reflex in limb design.
AndyF wrote: Just thought it was interesting to see how much variance there is under current 'longbow' rules.
Interesting to you but very disappointing to me. I strongly believe that if the current rules of shoots used our Traditional Archery history as a reference the above wouldn't be the case.

Jeff

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

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#33 Post by AndyF » Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:26 pm

Yes you're right. Deflex/Reflex. For some reason I always write/say that the wrong way round.

A

PS. Chris Boynton isn't referring to the Mary Rose bows having bent tips, they don't. He's interested in the fact that the tips seem surprisingly narrow. In his opinion this means they may have been candidates for being slightly recurved. Of course, nobody really knows. Which was my point. So is it correct to say longbows never had recurved tips?

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

#34 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Fri Aug 22, 2014 1:54 pm

AndyF wrote:PS. Chris Boynton isn't referring to the Mary Rose bows having bent tips, they don't. He's interested in the fact that the tips seem surprisingly narrow. In his opinion this means they may have been candidates for being slightly recurved.
Yes, you are correct Andy and I have heard his opinion on this before so should have known. :oops: It is still all conjecture on his part with on evidence to back it up IMO.
AndyF wrote:So is it correct to say longbows never had recurved tips?
Yes! Any bow with recurved tips is, would have been, a recurve.

Jeff

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

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#35 Post by AndyF » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:43 pm

Just the response I expected Jeff :)

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

#36 Post by Mick Smith » Fri Aug 22, 2014 5:51 pm

Stickbow Hunter wrote: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.

Jeff
Jeff, for years, you have kept telling us that deflex reflex bows, aka 'hybrid' bows are actually semi-recurves. Admittedly, I have been guilty of making light of the matter in the past, as have others. I feel bad about that now, as I now realise that you were trying your best to maintain the 'tradition' of our archery as it stood in 1966.

The point I want to make is, if these bows are actually semi-recurves as you have been saying all along, then how can they not be traditional bows? Semi-recurves have been around for a long time, well before 1966. You can't suddenly start calling them 'non-compound' bows, although that designation certainly fits, as it fits all traditional bows.

I liken this situation to the current widespread of fast flight bow strings. The use of these strings is thought to still be 'traditional' here on Ozbow, as fast flight strings are just a modern variant of the older dacron strings of the 1966 era. This is a similar situation to deflex reflex bows, which can be seen as a modern variant of pre 1966 semi-recurves. Why is one acceptable and the other not so acceptable?

I'm confused.
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
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#37 Post by GrahameA » Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:12 pm

Evening Mick.
Mick Smith wrote:... then how can they not be traditional bows? Semi-recurves have been around for a long time ....
To extrapolate.

It is feasible to have a person whose Grandfather shot a compound, their Father only ever shot a compound and they have only ever shot a compound. Yet shooting is not 'Traditional'. I would suggest 3 generations doing the smae thing with the same stuff is about as 'traditional' as you can get.
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

#38 Post by Stickbow Hunter » Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:23 pm

Mick Smith wrote:The point I want to make is, if these bows are actually semi-recurves as you have been saying all along, then how can they not be traditional bows? Semi-recurves have been around for a long time, well before 1966. You can't suddenly start calling them 'non-compound' bows, although that designation certainly fits, as it fits all traditional bows.
Mick, Bows like your whip I have said are semi-recurves and rightly so I believe. However bows like Andy's numbered 3,4, & 5 are unlike any of the earlier semi-recurves I have seen and in fact are unlike any bows I have seen in existence prior to 1966 and that is why I said they are modern non compound bows. If anyone can produce evidence that bows of that type existed prior to 1966 then I would concede that they are in fact Traditional bows.

Jeff

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

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#39 Post by Kendaric » Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:12 pm

So it comes back to my original question about divisions in trad events.

If trad events are not run to the guidelines of ABA or 3DAAA definitions, then what guidelines are they run by, hence my original question?

I suggested two very different styles of 'modern longbow' (as per ABA definition) but where do they fall into the trad event? By what I have seen at several trad events is - that just about anything goes as far as longbow is concerned.

I mean, at what point does a short 3 piece takedown bow become a longbow just because it has straight limbs? At what point does a radial reflex deflex (semi recurve) become a longbow.

Whilst it could be suggested that persons that worry about such things mostly just want to win trophies, that being the case, why have divisions at all in trad. If the trad event is only for having a bit of fun with non compound bows and timber arrows, again why have divisions at all.

From what I have seen at several trad events is that they are non-compound events, not traditional events per say, which is absolutely fine, but that being the case, again, why have divisions when the boundaries are so blurred?

Semantics aside, as per the definition of traditional, I can understand where Jeff and Dennis are coming from with the word recurve. Regardless of style of bow, if it shows any recurve, then it must be a recurve, regardless of degree. That is what recurve means - recurve. You just can't get away from that.
Last edited by Kendaric on Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

#40 Post by Mick Smith » Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:34 pm

Kendaric wrote:So it comes back to my original question about divisions in trad events.

If trad events are not run to the guidelines of ABA or 3DAAA definitions, then what guidelines are they run by, hence my original question?
They are run by the guidelines of whatever club hosts the event. There are no standard guidelines, however there are similarities developing all the time, as members of each club compete at other clubs and they pick up on and adopt different aspects that might appeal to them. It's a very open and fluid arrangement as it stands at the moment. Most ABA clubs hosting events will adhere to ABA guidelines and so forth.

Many of the rules pertaining to trad shoots were originally formatted right here on Ozbow by a few of our dedicated members. These rules have been adopted by many clubs for their trad shoots.
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

#41 Post by Mick Smith » Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:40 pm

Stickbow Hunter wrote: Mick, Bows like your whip I have said are semi-recurves and rightly so I believe. However bows like Andy's numbered 3,4, & 5 are unlike any of the earlier semi-recurves I have seen and in fact are unlike any bows I have seen in existence prior to 1966 and that is why I said they are modern non compound bows. If anyone can produce evidence that bows of that type existed prior to 1966 then I would concede that they are in fact Traditional bows.

Jeff
Thanks for clearing that up Jeff. It's quite hard to determine the nature of those bows when they're strung as well. To me, from what I can make out, they just look like strongly deflex reflexed bows with slightly unusual risers.
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

#42 Post by Mick Smith » Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:45 pm

GrahameA wrote:Evening Mick.
Mick Smith wrote:... then how can they not be traditional bows? Semi-recurves have been around for a long time ....
To extrapolate.

It is feasible to have a person whose Grandfather shot a compound, their Father only ever shot a compound and they have only ever shot a compound. Yet shooting is not 'Traditional'. I would suggest 3 generations doing the smae thing with the same stuff is about as 'traditional' as you can get.
Hi Grahame. I predict that we will see 'traditional' compound sites popping up sometime in the future. Your point is well taken.
There is no use focusing on aiming if you don't execute the shot well enough to hit what your are aiming at.

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

#43 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:02 am

Chris Boynton's effort in making a long bow with recurved tips was based on no historical evidence greater than speculation. He made one such for Mike Loades, author of 'THE LONGBOW' as I recall and it is a favourite bow of Mr Loades. However, as Loades points out in this book, there is not the slightest verifiable evidence that mediaeval English military longbows EVER had anything but straight ends. There is some modern speculation about the possibility of recurved ends, but nothing more substantive than that.

In another thread, I discussed at length the disadvantages of recurved ends on wood bows, principally the excessive amount of string follow that static recurves produce on wood bows because of their greater leverage effect acting on the resultant shorter working limbs, ie, a bow of say 74 inches which has 6 inches of non-working reflex at each end of the bow shortens the length of the working part of the limb by 12 inches from 74 inches down to 62 inches.

With the highly convexed bellies of the traditional mediaeval ELB, compression on the belly would have been much greater than optimum and serious string-follow, if not outright breakage, would have followed. Straight ended bows had no such problems because of the greater dispersion of the bending load over a longer surface area and certainly string angles would have been quite satisfactorily shallow not to pose any kind of problem.

The other important factor in having straight ended longbows is the much greater simplicity of manufacture in very large numbers compared to that extra work involved in recurving the outer limbs of bows. The simple matter of negligible functional gain in having recurved ends for the sheer amount of additional work would obviate such a choice for artillery bows purely on any kind of cost benefit analysis.

I have a significant number of wooden static recurves here at home among my collection or pre-compound bows which at last could numbered 204, give or take one or two. All of these static recurves have in the vicinity of twice the string follow of equivalent straight ended bows from the same manufacturer. None of them shoots quicker than any of the same-maker straight bows.

So, I reject the proposition that there were any static recurved bows in English military archery during the mediaeval period purely on practical grounds. In those times, someone somewhere probably did make such a bow, but they do not figure at all in the records of longbows produced for storage in the Tower by the English military authorities of those times despite some curious interpretations of pictures painted at the time into illuminated manuscripts and other such documents which can only generously be seen as 'representative' art and not historically technically accurate depictions. One picture I saw recently (I think it was in 'Longbow - A Social and Military History' by Robert Hardy showed serried ranks of English longbow men shooting longbows which quite clearly had the sapwood on the belly side of their bows. I would always advise caution in drawing any of conclusive substance from such contemporary art.

The business of semi-recurves, deflex-reflex or any other kind should not pose any kind of problem in organization's rules of traditional shoots so long as they are not passed off as longbows. After going through all my old magazines from the 1940s to the early 1960s, you can clearly follow trends in archery nomenclature and follow the development of bows and arrows. After WWII especially the old Victorian longbow had virtually disappeared and archers generally had moved over to the much shorter emerging static recurve bows and a little later to the full working recurves and semi-recurves as they were called back then. The semi-recurves were nothing more than stretched out full recurves with limbs deflexing from the handle (which differed little from the old flatbow handles) and recurving to a partial or half recurve as opposed to the full working recurves which had their limb tips at close to or at 90 degrees to the bow's long axis. Bow handles throughout the 1940s and into the early 50s were much the same as the straight limbed bows of the day at about 3 1/2" long, 1 1/2" deep and barely 7/8" thick even on heavy bows.

In view of the developments of the new fangled recurved bows which had far flatter trajectories and were nice and short for bush work, longer straight ended bows clearly fell from favour as you can see in the many hunting and tournament pictures in these magazines of the period. By the end of the 1950s, you rarely see any kind of picture with somebody holding a long straight ended bow. Everybody was using bows around 60 inches and shorter.

At that time, Howard Hill stuck doggedly to his straight ended bows which were long by any standard of those days. In Craig Ekin's book "Howard Hill - the Man and the Legend', I am pretty sure that he quotes Hill as saying that he regarded his kind of bow as the American semi-longbow in contrast to the 'real' longbow which was the Victorian ELB, a bow which had virtually disappeared off the archery scene both here in Australia and the US but may have held on a bit in the UK. But I cannot verify that.

Hill's bows came to be regarded as longbows by virtue of the simple fact that they were much longer than almost any bow in common use back then. In fact, they were the ONLY long bow in use during those times and it is my contention that that is how the term Longbow transferred itself from the original ELB over to the American long flatbow and the term stuck.

So, the principle became that the longbow was characterised by its above-average length and the fact that it clearly did not have any degree of recurve in the limbs other than some reflex over the whole limb which was not visible when the bow was braced. Here, it must be emphasised that there is a big difference between reflex over the full length of the limb as opposed to recurve which rarely extends over more than half the limb length and is of much greater degree of curvature.

Also in that same period from 1945 to 1950, with the advent of more reliable glass fibre, you can see the demise of the ads for many sellers of classic bow woods. Certainly by 1950, here was only one wood ad left - a bloke steadfastly still trying to sell Lemonwood staves. But he finally dropped off the scene too. With the manufacture of reliable fibreglass, it was found that Canadian Rock Maple had all the requirements of relatively light weight, good sheer strength and gluability which was all that was needed to make glass fibre bows. Classic bow woods added nothing to the performance of a fibre glassed bow and they fell from favour because they just were not needed.

Over the course of the 15 years of magazines I have in my collection, you can see the speed of change in archery equipment from wood bows to fibreglass laminated recurved bows and eventually in 1966, to the invention of the compound bow by Wilbur Holless Allen produced for him under licence by Jennings. Thereafter, archery changed dramatically and permanently in ways which nobody could possibly have foreseen. Aeons of archery lore and practice had become redundant. The traditional forms of archery which our forefathers had practised for millennia almost vanished in a very few years.

It is the archery of those pre-compound years that Jeff and I are so insistent about trying to preserve. And one day, people who prefer to shoot compounds will perhaps want to go back and begin to re-use the old and more primitive forms of compound bow which after some long time will have become traditional to their form of archery. But that is not our form of traditional archery. Ours is millennia old and predates civilization itself by millennia. Ozbow believes that those most ancient forms of archery are worth preserving and are best conserved by the preservation of its peculiar language and a sound knowledge of its history.
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

#44 Post by GrahameA » Sat Aug 23, 2014 5:53 am

Morning Mick.
Mick Smith wrote:... Many of the rules pertaining to trad shoots were originally formatted right here on Ozbow by a few of our dedicated members. ...
Ahh.... the great Rule Debate. Everybody wanting their personal foible. The nostalgia of it all... the hours of wasted energy.....
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.

wishsong
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#45 Post by wishsong » Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:46 am

Dennis, not meaning this to be pendantic in any way , but I am not sure if there is difference between the form and function in what you are putting forward .....

If , as you describe the intention is the preservation of "ancient forms of archery" so similar (apols on IPAD and quoting is hard for me as a tech dullard) wouldn't this then preclude glassed bows altogether and remove the 1966 'compound date' from the equation ?
I understand the intention of the ethos , but for me it is either all in or out ... Form in itself is only half the picture as carbon, foam core, fibreglass, high performance strings material , machine dowelled shafting, modern glues etc ..... Surely these remove the purity of the intended 'function' of the archery eqiupment the historical data the premise is based on ?

As such I am happy for the ELB and self bow archer to snigger from the moral high ground when I refer to my Hill style bows as "Longbows", much as I am content to refer to my Toelke Whips and Black Widow non-recurves as 'Longbows' ........

But on the whole I concur with keeping tradition , and watch these debates with interest, albeit with some frustration that we are bordering on the pedantic ? I still call my Ruger No1 a gun when it is a rifle ... But everyone knows what I mean .........

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

#46 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Sun Aug 24, 2014 6:07 am

Wishsong,
There is nothing half and half about what Ozbow stands for. We have stated continuously that traditional archery includes all forms of archery in (common) practice before the invention of the compound bow. The bit about 'function' is your take, not ours. The concept is not diffult to grasp and is as simple as the words say.

Where on earth did you read "ancient forms of archery" as the basis of the Ozbow position. The Ozbow position included that form or archery. It has never excluded any other form of archery. The reason we have taken the date of 1966 is as I outlined above. It was the date of one of the most revolutionary developments in archery in all of its history. Bow forms which came before this year suffered badly and very quickly went out of common use, so great was the impact of the compound bow.

Similarly, reading through my collection of old archery magazines from the pre-compound period, one can see a similar but not as devastating impact of the development of the fibreglassed full working recurve bow which over a period of about 5 years pushed the old straight ended bow from common use. Prior to that, the development of the American flatbow based on the work of Hickman, Klopseg and Nagler pushed the once popular Victorian style ELB from use.

To regard any kind of archery equipment as traditional, the fundamental question which must be asked is this - 'Did it exist in that form prior to 1966 and what is the documentary evidence for it?'.

How you are content to regard your Toelke Whips and other kinds of bow is personal preference and not provable historical fact. Did anybody manufacture or put a bow of this form into common use before 1966? The clear answer is no. So, the Whip is not a traditional bow.

I do not think any selfbow or ELB archer does any kind of morally superior sniggering that I know of. They may be very proud of the skill they have acquired which is a different thing. There is nothing morally superior about these people. They just take the idea of traditionalism seriously. The same people may also own Whips and a battery of compound bows which they enjoy for their own sake. But they do not pretend them to be what they are not. The feeling that they snigger comes only from something inside yourself I think.

Comparing your Ruger No1 to the discussion about what is traditional archery is drawing a very long bow indeed. One is a technicality of design, ie. a rifle as opposed to a gun. Traditional archery dating from before 1966 is nothing like a technical discussion. It relates specifically to a defined period of archery and the equipment in use during that period. You analogy may have worked if you had spoken about whether or not your Ruger was a traditional form of firearm specific to a defined period of firearms history.

I could just as easily ask you if your Ruger could be regarded as a traditional firearm if you tried to shoot at a Blackpowder shoot for firearms of the American classic Longrifle period predating 1840 about when the percussion cap was invented. The clear answer would be no. It is the same with the Ozbow stance on traditional archery, not whether a bow which is clearly short (Whip) is a longbow A longbow by definition is actually long by comparison. Ozbow maintains that to be regarded as long in the sense of a bow, it must, inter alia, stand at least as high as the shooter's shoulder when braced.

It is a logical absurdity to regard a bow which is clearly short as a long bow.
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.

wishsong
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#47 Post by wishsong » Sun Aug 24, 2014 7:16 am

Dennis,
Thanks for the response.
I quoted "ancient forms of archery" from the your last sentence in your previous post.
..... "Ozbow believes that those most ancient forms of archery are worth preserving and are best conserved by the preservation of its peculiar language and a sound knowledge of its history."

And regarding form and function, I agree that it is my take, not Ozbows. My suggestion is that doesn't one follow the other ? I certainly didn't mean it as a stab at Ozbow or it's foundation meaning but asked that as a genuine query.


My comment regarding the moral high ground from ELB shooters was tongue in cheek .....


As far as my Whip being a longbow, or my suggestion of such being referred to as a longbow being a " logical absurdity" because it is so short ..... It is 66" long ... Not sure that 66" qualifies as "short" ? I agree that in the purist sense of the term it is not a longbow , but then my Whippenstick American a Semi Longbow with carbon limbs and phenolic riser isn't either , but in form it is exactly the same as my other a Hill bows .....

Anyway , at the end of the day , it leaves me pluck out of luck as most of the bows I am shooting now are post 1966 in design.

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

#48 Post by Mick Smith » Sun Aug 24, 2014 10:07 am

Stickbow Hunter wrote:

Mick, Bows like your whip I have said are semi-recurves and rightly so I believe.

Jeff
Dennis La Varenne wrote:

How you are content to regard your Toelke Whips and other kinds of bow is personal preference and not provable historical fact. Did anybody manufacture or put a bow of this form into common use before 1966? The clear answer is no. So, the Whip is not a traditional bow.

Yes, but is the answer so clear Dennis? Jeff clearly states above that bows, like Whips are, in fact, semi recurves. Semi recurves are a form of bow that was in common use before 1966, therefore by your definition, Toelke Whips have to be traditional bows. In much the same manner that fast flight bow strings are a modern variant on the dacron strings of the pre 1966 and this makes them acceptable, so to are bows such as Toelke Whips a modern variant to the pre 1966 semi recurves and are just as acceptable to be classified as tradtional bows by your criteria.

I'm happy to regard my Whip as being a traditional bow by my criteria. I really don't care what division I'm placed into at competitions when I'm using my Whip. I'm just happy to be shooting arrows, having fun, and catching up with old friends in the process.
There is no use focusing on aiming if you don't execute the shot well enough to hit what your are aiming at.

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

#49 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:26 pm

Wishsong,
Well, you have me there. I did write that too. However, if you re-read it, it does not exclude other than ancient forms of archery. The statement is inclusive of.

I did not think you were having a go at Ozbow at all. You were trying to make a point with which I disagreed with and I gave my reasons. That is the only way we can sort out these matters. No offence taken at all. And your Whip is indeed long at 66 inches.

I have made a blue also about your Whip. I have seen pictures of bows called Whips, but these were very different to what is depicted on the Toelke website which I have just found. The captioning on the web pictures I have seen were obviously wrong indeed. They had very blocky deep risers as you find on most of the take-down recurves these days. Your informing me of the maker's name helped a lot. I had only heard of a bow called a Whip, but I did not know who made them. Your bow is indeed from the traditional stable.

Mick,
The problem is not that the Whips are traditional bows so much as they are deflex-reflex bows. Mr Toelke is incorrect in this regard, even though he is the manufacturer. In the pre-1966 period, these bows were never referred to as longbows. They were always referred to as semi-recurves whose architecture was deflex-reflex. That is the difference.

It was my blue in saying the Whip was not a traditional bow and for that I must apolgise and correct my statement. In time, we will probably find out about more bows which are from that period, but we need evidence.

IN GENERAL, it seems to me that the criteria imposed by the shooting organizations for classifying bows in rules of shoot are the problem. Compound bows are just that. Recurved bows are just that. But the only other classification they have is 'longbow', as a sort of bin into which they have dumped all other bows which are neither compound nor recurve. Post-compound, there have been a multitude of developments in bow forms, often combining the best of the features of the old bow forms and some completely new designs. We have no problem with that.

Because these bows often do not slot into the standing definitions of the organizations, people are left with no alternative than to try to get their bow into the longbow division on the simple principle that it has neither wheels nor full recurves. If the bow has recurved ends or even semi-recurved ends, what is the problem of shooting them in the recurve division? That is the question which both Jeff and I ask all the time. Nobody has come up with any kind of satisfactory answer yet. There is no penalty in shooting such bows against other recurves, surely?

For example, in my competitive days many years ago, I shot only my HH style longbows and I could easily outshoot the great majority of compound and the few recurve shooters of those times. I did get to A-grade in the ABA comps for a couple of years breaking the 300 x 3-arrow and the 280 x 1 arrow most of the time. I rarely got below B-grade. Even today, not many recurved bows really outshoot equivalent made traditional longbows. I would argue there is more difference in the skill levels of the individual shooter than in the bows themselves.
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
Mick Smith
Posts: 4957
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Surf Coast Victoria

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#50 Post by Mick Smith » Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:50 pm

Yes Dennis, perhaps deflex reflex bows such as Whips should be shot in the recurve division at shoots. If you want to categorise divisions into the order of which bows might offer their owners some sort of an advantage over other competitors' bows, then deflex bows should rightly be included with recurves, rather than longbows, IMO.

Instead of this, most clubs have introduced a new division, known as modern Longbow, in which deflex reflex bows have been placed. This is another satisfactory solution, IMO, other than the name 'modern longbow', perhaps, which doesn't appeal to many people.

I have agued in the past, unsuccessfully too I might add, that the competitiveness of different types of bows in competitions is negligible. The skill of the archer is far more significant and therefore adult bow divisions are superfluous. In actual fact, most archers want divisions, as they want to see how they performed in relationship to the users of the same type of bow. I can't really argue with that.

Personally, I don't think of my Whip as being a longbow at all. Unfortunately the trad community at large has been influenced by the sales pitch of the manufacturers of such bows when they were first introduced. I suppose you can't really blame them, for Howard Hill himself did much the same thing when he called his bows American semi-longbows, when in fact they were already known as flatbows. I suppose manufacturers need to make a profit to exist and sales hype is one way of increasing sales. It's nothing new.

I find it interesting, when I browse UK archery websites. Even to this day, they always refer to laminated straight limbed bows as flatbows, not longbows.
There is no use focusing on aiming if you don't execute the shot well enough to hit what your are aiming at.

wishsong
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#51 Post by wishsong » Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:59 pm

Dennis,
All good.


And I agree re ' longbow' ruling in some tourneys ... Many are far removed from the 'longbow' as I know it.

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

#52 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:50 pm

I find it interesting, when I browse UK archery websites. Even to this day, they always refer to laminated straight limbed bows as flatbows, not longbows.
Mick, I too have noticed that on UK sites. I suppose that they understand the term 'Longbow' to mean only the mediaeval English bow which I can understand from their point of view. The bow itself is pretty much an icon in English archery circles and very much a part of their direct archery heritage to an extent unlike ours in Australia or the US.

In reading through my old copies of ARCHERY magazines, you can see how the term crept into American archery over time and replaced the term 'flatbow'. By the mid-1950s, the recurve had pretty much taken over in popularity. Ads and articles featuring the previously understood flatbow, long and short, were noticeably absent.

I think I have mentioned above or elsewhere that the indications are that after about the mid-1950s, the only bows which were long, particularly longer than 60 inches, were the long flatbows such as Howard Hill used. About the same time, you can see references to these bows being called longbows, presumably because they were longer than most other bows in use at that time.

In your reading of Howard Hill, you would have noticed that he often comments upon the reasons he used his old fashioned longbows despite the obvious speed advantages of the recurves of those days. Only once that I recall in either 'Hunting the Hard Way' or in Craig Ekin's book 'Howard Hill, the Man and the Legend' was Howard said to have described his bows as American semi-longbows. Thereafter he seems to have referred to them as longbows, probably because that was how they were regarded in archery circles of those days.

In any case, the term seems to have arisen and come into popular use by then and continues today in Australian, US and some European archery circles.
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

#53 Post by GrahameA » Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:22 am

Morning Mick.

A quote from 2008.

One of the challenges faced when writing a set of rules/guidelines is that they need to be fundamentally applicable across all forms of the sport. Consider that if a 12" fletch rule had been adopted some people would be shooting clout at 90m targets. :D
GrahameA wrote:Morning Mick.
Mick Smith wrote:... Many of the rules pertaining to trad shoots were originally formatted right here on Ozbow by a few of our dedicated members. ...
Ahh.... the great Rule Debate. Everybody wanting their personal foible. The nostalgia of it all... the hours of wasted energy.....
Just for the Nostalgia of it all.

This could be a fun place to start ........
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=102112

And then go to the top here and read down.
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9672
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
Mick Smith
Posts: 4957
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 pm
Location: Surf Coast Victoria

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#54 Post by Mick Smith » Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:00 pm

I remember it all too well Grahame. :lol: Despite of my constant and annoying irritations, the rules were eventually formulated. All in all, I think the members who worked on them did a damn fine job of it too. I for one, would be happy to shoot under those rules any day of the week.

Of course, there's just that one rule that could be adjusted slightly ............................... nah, just joking. :smile:
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
Kendaric
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#55 Post by Kendaric » Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:18 pm

Reading one of those older links, I found it amusing that a Victorian Club wanted to reduce the number of trad divisions to reduce the amount of trophies issued.

ABA has more divisions and grades than you can poke a stick at - everybody gets a prize lol.

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

#56 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:42 pm

Kendaric,

I too remember well that when I effectively stopped competing in ABA shoots that it was already absurd how many trophies were required for each shoot. Most of the monthly interclub shoots had more trophies than competitors most of the time.

I can understand a division of competitors according to bow type, ie. compound, recurve and longbow, but grades within these is rubbish. Whatever happened to excellence?

Why are there divisions bewtween men and women? I don't buy the strength argument. My old longbows were much slower at 50lbs than good recurves and compounds of 30 - 35lbs and I got to A-grade scores as I mentioned earlier.

Dividing kids (cubs) off, I can understand, but their distances are so short that any kind of bow will easily make them. Juniors should shoot alongside adults because their usual bow weights can easily make adult distances.

Society seems to have fallen for the current politically correct rubbish that kids will be scarred for life if they don't get a prize for turning up. We no longer teach our kids how to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, cope with disappointment and poor effort responsibly then get up again and keep trying. They seem to have so little resilience these days and it is our fault.

As a longbow shooter in those days, I constantly asked/demanded that I be allowed to shoot against all comers instead of being the sole or one of two or three longbowmen who turned up. The organizers did not know how to cope with that and I got lots of prizes for just being there with my longbow which disgusted me. They all went into the rubbish.
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

#57 Post by GrahameA » Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:16 am

Morning.
Kendaric wrote:Reading one of those older links, I found it amusing that a Victorian Club wanted to reduce the number of trad divisions to reduce the amount of trophies issued.

ABA has more divisions and grades than you can poke a stick at - everybody gets a prize lol.
Background Information Only.

There was a lot of discussion back then and a lot of it was not on the Ozbow Forum - phone calls and eMails. Plus there were other posts which have been lost due to issues or been deleted or I could not bothered to search for them. Some people genuinely wanted to change things and others just wanted their thing.

What people seem to struggle with is the concept that all rules are a compromise and a consensus. If you get 50% of what you would like you are doing well.

The concept of only two divisions was considered as were 4 and 5 divisions - (Asiatics was a consideration as was Shelf/Non-Shelf). However, the general consensus eventually came in at separating Recurves and 'Longbows'. Essentially because that was what people were used to - anything else was a change that was too big a shock to the system. 'A Change too Far'.

An example of evolution has been the creep of 12" of feather at some events. (And I still do not understand why it is appearing - other than it is something ABA has.)

A definite item was 'Wood Arrows and Feathers' with better than 90% of people wanting that.
Last edited by GrahameA on Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Kendaric
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#58 Post by Kendaric » Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:02 am

Understandable.

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

#59 Post by Mick Smith » Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:03 am

Good morning Grahame. Thanks for posting up those old links ..... not. I've just spent over an hour going through them again. I'd forgotten about many of the aspects that I was so passionate about back then.

I was more than happy with the rules that had been applied at my last couple of shoots I have attended. I don't think we should under estimate the ability of individual clubs to come up with very workable solutions, largely based on the work done by yourself, Perry and Greybeard, plus with a few tweaks of their own and big dose of common sense.

It stands to reason that individual clubs will try to introduce popular measures, as it's in their own best interest to do so. After all, it's in the club's best interest to maximise the attendance, as this maximises the fun as well as maximising the revenue that will flow into the club's coffers.

Getting off track a bit, I'd still like to see an organisation, such as TAA, attempt to introduce some form of state and then a national trad competitions. The various state titles could simply be nominated ordinary trad shoots that have been officially designated as being the state final for that year. That way, the winners of these shoots could then rightly be considered as being state champions by their peers. Of course, the formats of these shoots would have to be similar right across the country, otherwise we might end up 'comparing apples with oranges'. A proper national competition could be something as basic as another ordinary trad shoot at a location that changes each year, thereby allowing equal access to all interested competitors, or it could be a special shoot open only to archers who have qualified by taking a place in their own state titles. It's something for the TAA, if they're interested, to work out. I think it would be great for traditional archery in this country in general. I believe it's a natural progression for trad archery that could generate a lot of sponsorship and media coverage.

The danger of introducing state and national titles could include damaging the friendly nature of ordinary trad shoots, making them too competitive. Another danger might be the creation of elitism amongst our ranks. To me, elitism is abhorrent, but I'm glad to say its notably absent in trad archery now and I certainly hope it remains that way.
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
Roadie
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Irymple Vic

Re: Distinction between Modern & Traditional Longbow in Trad

#60 Post by Roadie » Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:00 pm

The Day that TRAD Archery becomes that serious is the Day I walk away. Cheers Roadie.

Post Reply