How good are we really?

Wizard

New member
I've been thinkinggg.......

When I was a kid I could pick up my bow and hit the tin can off the fence, or come pretty close with the shots that missed. Bow made of tree branch, string made of string (funny about that), arrows made of garden canes.

The cowboys in the films would draw and shoot a hole through a silver dollar tossed in the air. The injuns weren't bad either, could even shoot flaming arrows and hit the flaming target.

Point is, how good are we really? Sure we can hit the gold at 100 yards, sometimes, some can do it nearly every time. We use carbon arrows, scopes, laminated limbs, sight settings etc. etc. But who could pick up their bow and within 10 seconds, nock an arrow and hit a tin can off a wall at 30m, then turn 90 degrees and hit the snowman at the bottom of the paddock at 60 yards. I'm not a fan of bowhunting or barebow etc, but are those shooters actually better 'shots'.

"Excuse me LittleJohn, how far do you think that nasty sheriff's man is from here? 30 yards would you say? Bugger, don't have a sight setting for 30 yards. Nevermind, I'll give it a go anyway. So, put the sight to say 32 yardsish, remember to get my stance right. Here we go. Bugger again!!! forgot to put it through the clicker. Right, this time...."

"too late Robin, he's gone!" :rolleyes:
 
Great post Wizard!!!

I was chatting to an 'old timer' at a club a few months ago and were discussing field archery and target. She (a target archer of many a year) reckoned that Field archers were the most skillful of all archers as they shot at unmarked distances (usually), on uneven ground, with trees & bushes etc in the way.

The distances are of course usually shorter than target, but it is interesting to see otherwise top target archers struggle (certainly initially) when their sights etc are removed from their bows..........
 

Psychomuso

New member
"Excuse me LittleJohn, how far do you think that nasty sheriff's man is from here? 30 yards would you say? Bugger, don't have a sight setting for 30 yards. Nevermind, I'll give it a go anyway. So, put the sight to say 32 yardsish, remember to get my stance right. Here we go. Bugger again!!! forgot to put it through the clicker. Right, this time...."

"too late Robin, he's gone!" :rolleyes:
:rotfl:
Nice one Wizard. I've always wondered about the FBI/police trained shooters on tv, how come they manage to miss?
 

COOLHAND

New member
Ahhhh........ So you've been thinking..... this can be dangerous when you've had no practice.

Not so long ago I thought it would be a good idea to have competition where two types of bow would be used, partly as a bit of fun but also to see who was the best all round archer. You thought the idea was quite comic but now you're asking questions that this round would have answered.

Might try the shooting a snowman at 60yds though.
 

Kae

The American
American Shoot
eh? ah, I see... your misguided belief of archers of bygone years based on TV and an over active imagination?

Childhood memories tend to exaggerate reality... I'm sure you remember hitting every time, but I doubt you actually did...


And yes, I could shoot both the tin can, and the snowman, but it would be with a warbow, not a sighted recurve.

They are entirely different pieces of equipment. The modern, sighted bows are designed for ultimate accuracy, not instinctive shooting. The longbow/warbow the opposite.
 

steve Morley

New member
when you see film footage of Howard Hill and Byron Ferguson shooting coins out of the air with a Longbow and I've also watched in Hungary Kassai Lajos shoot flying discs of the back of a horse at gallop, you realize if you have the dedication and desire almost anything is possible in this sport.

A few weeks back I nailed the spot on a tricky uphill shot at 80 yards with an AFB, the compound shooting next to me and spotting said "Wow you hit the spot, I only got a three" to have a Compound shooter acknowledge my skill in such a genuine way sure makes my day.

Then I watch those Olympic shooters with perfect form and dream that one day my form would be that good. Doesn't matter if it's Field, Target or shooting of the back of a horse, in this sport excellence is beautiful thing to watch. :poulies:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epw3XmIiZb8&feature=related[/ame]
 

grimsby archer

New member
But who could pick up their bow and within 10 seconds, nock an arrow and hit a tin can off a wall at 30m, then turn 90 degrees and hit the snowman at the bottom of the paddock at 60 yards. I'm not a fan of bowhunting or barebow etc, but are those shooters actually better 'shots'.
Great post Wizard!!!

I was chatting to an 'old timer' at a club a few months ago and were discussing field archery and target. She (a target archer of many a year) reckoned that Field archers were the most skillful of all archers as they shot at unmarked distances (usually), on uneven ground, with trees & bushes etc in the way.

The distances are of course usually shorter than target, but it is interesting to see otherwise top target archers struggle (certainly initially) when their sights etc are removed from their bows..........
What a bizzarre premise!

Field or target? Sights or no sights? Surely this is just "different" skills, neither being "better" or "worse".

Judging unmarked distances is a skill, different to shooting target at 90m but nonetheless neither being better.

Of course top target archers (presuming freestyle) will struggle initially when their sights are removed from their bows. Youve removed something they're accustomed to. Its not a skill they normally practise.
Barebow target archers wont struggle without sights.
You can get the same effect if you try to shoot using the "other" hand, you struggle initially. That doesnt mean leftys are better shots!
 

david451

New member
What a bizzarre premise!

Field or target? Sights or no sights? Surely this is just "different" skills, neither being "better" or "worse".

Judging unmarked distances is a skill, different to shooting target at 90m but nonetheless neither being better.

Of course top target archers (presuming freestyle) will struggle initially when their sights are removed from their bows. Youve removed something they're accustomed to. Its not a skill they normally practise.
Barebow target archers wont struggle without sights.
You can get the same effect if you try to shoot using the "other" hand, you struggle initially. That doesnt mean leftys are better shots!
I think that if you practice anything enough you will get good at it, but it levels off at some point and thats when better equipment comes in to take you that stage further. That stage further then levels off unless you are gifted.

There was a program on the tv where they said that we are all capable of becoming great at something, that it was in all of us and that we had to search for it, wish I could find it tho.
 

Wizard

New member
Ahhhh........ So you've been thinking..... this can be dangerous when you've had no practice.

Not so long ago I thought it would be a good idea to have competition where two types of bow would be used, partly as a bit of fun but also to see who was the best all round archer. You thought the idea was quite comic but now you're asking questions that this round would have answered.

Might try the shooting a snowman at 60yds though.
Look Coolhand, what we have here is failure to communicate....

Talk about miss the point (not to mention that strange complicated misguided humour of mine). When you think about sighted target archery, recurve or compound, and you start to break it down to who won the tournament, got the highest 'score', it's a very exacting business. nearly all the archers shooting say 50 yards banging in nearly all their arrows in the red or better on a large face. To the average member of the public watching this looks very impressive. "Oooo, they are all soo goood!". Truth is if the average member of the public joined a club, practiced for 3-6 months, got the same gear, they too could be banging arrows in just as proficiently with the rest of those 'good archers'. (especially with a compound) It's no big deal. BUT, we are in an exacting sport, 'target archery', where the quality over say 50 yards is measured in inches (or even fractions of an inch). It's about subtlety. Spending hours and hours to improve to hit the 10 instead of the nine at any given distance.

I just wonder if being able to shoot instinctively with an unsighted bow at unmarked distance is more what REAL archery should be about, and a skill that can not be learned quickly by anyone. Even some of our top 'open' target shooters would struggle, I would suggest. Far easier to be a 'sighted' robot.
I stand on the line with my gee whiz compound and bang arrows repeatedly into the gold at 50 yards on a large face, of course to be any good they should all be in the 10, or the 'X'. The bloke on the next target is spraying them a little bit with his longbow, but gets off three arrows to my one, and can effortlessly change from distance to distance and keep shooting away blissfully with reasonable success.
I'm sure he could have shot that sheriff's man within ten seconds, no trouble at all, as I stood their clueless with my state of the art 21st century schizoid man gear.

:poulies: .......................:fita:

:eek:gre:.............................:archer2:
 

steve Morley

New member
I just wonder if being able to shoot instinctively with an unsighted bow at unmarked distance is more what REAL archery should be about, and a skill that can not be learned quickly by anyone. Even some of our top 'open' target shooters would struggle, I would suggest. Far easier to be a 'sighted' robot.
I stand on the line with my gee whiz compound and bang arrows repeatedly into the gold at 50 yards on a large face, of course to be any good they should all be in the 10, or the 'X'. The bloke on the next target is spraying them a little bit with his longbow, but gets off three arrows to my one, and can effortlessly change from distance to distance and keep shooting away blissfully with reasonable success.
I'm sure he could have shot that sheriff's man within ten seconds, no trouble at all, as I stood their clueless with my state of the art 21st century schizoid man gear.

:poulies: .......................:fita:

:eek:gre:.............................:archer2:
You're right even Field (sighted) Archers find it hard to accept my accuracy and consistency as they're totally lost without thier sights and ability to judge distances down to one or two yards.

Yes I do aim in a fashion but in comparison to sighted styles it's a little crude, even primitive and it's as much about feel than a precise aiming method. It doesn't make me better than sighted Archers, it's just a different skill that suits me and I enjoy.

The goal in Target and Field is to put the arrow where you aimed and the real skill is in trying to achieve perfect form shot after shot, a Compound is easier with scope sights and release aids but the disciple to hit spot after spot is still very hard. I watched Dave Cousins shoot 2004 world Field champs, he only dropped 2 points in five days shooting, even with all the bells and whistles I find that amazing shooting.

Last year at the IFAA European Bowhunter champs and young Estonian Freestyle Archer (hopes to make London Olympics) entered the competition on special invitation 2 days before the start, having never shot unmarked distances or a 3D she went on the win the competition.
 

mikeb0551

New member
Last year at the IFAA European Bowhunter champs and young Estonian Freestyle Archer (hopes to make London Olympics) entered the competition on special invitation 2 days before the start, having never shot unmarked distances or a 3D she went on the win the competition.

I think you will find that the young lady possesses something that can neither be bought nor taught....natural ability, instinct, talent call it what you want.

There are many examples in the sporting world of those who have this quality and those on the other hand who practice to develop and achieve similar results.

Mike :stirthepo: scratchch
 

Froggy the Elder

New member
Not as good as we think we are

I just wonder if being able to shoot instinctively with an unsighted bow at unmarked distance is more what REAL archery should be about, and a skill that can not be learned quickly by anyone.
Well, I'm really, really average. Indoor handicap of 47, shooting like a 50. I WANT that 500 Portsmouth score sooooo bad.

Real Archery? My guess is being able to hit the target every time.

In the good old days, our ancestors had to be GOOD ENOUGH with their primitive bows. That means at least one of the hunting party being able to hit and kill something edible each day (or injure it so they can catch it) Otherwise they didn't eat.

Forward to warfare. The archer had to be GOOD ENOUGH to hit an enemy within the effective distance of the bow. Any hit, torso, arm, leg would be probably be good enough to remove the threat from that enemy. Alternatively, they needed to be able to land an arrow at a certain range within an arrow storm.

Field archery is one discipline. Target archery is another. Target archery is perhaps a more "scientific" version where the variablity of range and terrain has been removed. Where equipment and tiny alterations count.

Field still has room for the "gut" instinct and the "non-scientific" abilities and skills of the archer.

They are different disciplines and cannot be compared. To swap over, an archer has a different skill set to learn.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Wizard, we have some things in common it seems. I have made bows from branches and arrows too.String came from Christmas parcels; you never threw string away, right? I shot for distance, or aimed at cans. Even at 6 years old I did wonder about the uneven bend in the branch, and the bend in the arrow, but the shooting just happened.
To answer your question, "are we better?" I have to say "NO"!
There was a time when I could shoot recurve pretty well, but not now. I feel shooting compound has made me lazy. When I first started compound, I could shoot both.
With practice, shooting bare bow, I guess I could improve my skill, and the judgement that goes with it. My form would not change much, I guess, but the timing would probably speed up. I may still use a compound bow to shoot with but I would feel like a better archer if I could group with no sight at all sorts of distances. I'm not sure if my FEELING better would make me a better archer in truth, but it would seem that way to ME.
 

Yew Selfbow

Active member
It's really quite simple .....
look at your average York of Fita round score..... remove everything from your bow that isn't a riser, a limb or a string ... then
shoot a York or Fita round
Guess what ... 50% of your score is down to the whistles and bells
 

grimsby archer

New member
It's really quite simple .....
look at your average York of Fita round score..... remove everything from your bow that isn't a riser, a limb or a string ... then
shoot a York or Fita round
Guess what ... 50% of your score is down to the whistles and bells
but the national barebow york record compared to the recurve york record shows that sights and stabilizers give the archer an advantage. this isnt news. people wouldnt use them if they didnt improve the shot. why are people making out that we should somehow feel guilty for using them or that it makes us less of an accomplished archer?
 

Froggy the Elder

New member
but the national barebow york record compared to the recurve york record shows that sights and stabilizers give the archer an advantage. this isnt news. people wouldnt use them if they didnt improve the shot. why are people making out that we should somehow feel guilty for using them or that it makes us less of an accomplished archer?
It looks like you two guys are arguing the same point, that is having sights and stabilisers and bows made out of modern materials (as opposed to traditional longbow) produces an advantage.

Which is exactly why longbow and recurve target archery are classed differently. Stating the obvious. Sights and stabilisers are within the rules for recurve target archery. Therefore the performance expectations are much greater than for barebow or longbow archery.

I don't think we should feel guilty or superior about whatever branch of archery we choose. If we swapped over, we could all learn to shoot well (as defined by the relative expectations of each branch) given enough practice and time.

I'm sure there are individuals who firmly believe that longbow archery is the pure religion and would have us burn our compounds and stabiliser rods and carbon arrows in an orgy of repentance. I don't mind them believing that, as long as they don't try and force their beliefs on me. I'm willing to listen to their argument, though.

As for the real question of this thread (are modern archers any better than our ancestors were?) you need to compare like for like. The only way I can see is to compare longbow scores, as longbow technology by definition has remained fairly static over the years.

And before records were being kept? We have no real idea. We have historical records which may or may not be accurate. We have the Hollywood version of legends that have Robin Hood splitting arrows at 100yards. Is that really possible? Ask a longbow shooter, if he or she is honest, only in a fluke.
 

Wizard

New member
grimsby archer; What a bizzarre premise!
Nothing bizarre about it, and there never was a premise, simply questioning if we as archers are as 'good' as we think we are. This is not about being competent at your chosen discipline of barebow or compound or whatever I am questioning our ability and skillfulness as archers.

I am quite a proficient compound archer but I get an uneasy feeling about how good that is. That's what I mean when I suggest that we are not really as good as we think. I don't have a problem with using sightpins and all the aids and modern stuff available, I have a problem with my lack of ability to pull back the bow and hit a target 'on request'. I see archers hitting a predetermined target at say 50 yards repeatedly, but only when they are all setup for that task. I don't think that is particularly difficult, at least not as difficult as some like to think.
I want to be able to hit a target 'on request'. I guess a bit like what hunters should be able to do.

e.g. someone says "so you are a good archer, can you hit that cardboard box over there (say about 30 yards) and that tree away down there (say about 60 yards) and that plastic bottle over there (say about 15 yards)."
Currently I can't say yes. When I can confidently hit targets at different distances using ANY gear I chose within a fairly short timeframe, maybe then I might consider myself a good archer.

I am having a lot of trouble explaining myself well, sorry about that but I think you will be getting the jist of what I mean. Just having the skill to pick up the bow and hit any 'target' 'on request'. That would be nice. ;)
 

pHz

The American
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
American Shoot
I am having a lot of trouble explaining myself well, sorry about that but I think you will be getting the jist of what I mean. Just having the skill to pick up the bow and hit any 'target' 'on request'. That would be nice. ;)
sell your compound - use the cash to buy an AFB and an ELB and an asiatic of some sort - practice like stink for a few years with unmarked targets

or - just enjoy shooting your compound for what it is

simples

slainte :raspberry rob
 

Paradox

New member
I've never shot compound, and only occasionally shoot sighted recurve, but I recently had the experience of taking the elastic band off my ELB in order to try field.

I decided to test myself at about 20 yards and my first dozen were terrible, but I was astonishingly surprised that within 50 arrows or so I was back to scoring very close to normal. I decided to test myself up to around 50 yards and found that the "instinct" (patterns/engrams etc) build up during practice began to kick in and I was at least hitting the boss more often than not.

I'm not a great shooter, so it was really quite satisfying to get the results I did. Give it a try - if nothing else, you'll have lots of fun.
 
Top