View Single Post
Old 01-03-2018, 09:35 AM   #78
Retsbew
Four Point
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Default

Ha, Rick's 'big umbrella' theory is funny as a cartoon but I think DRT's suggestion is more relevant to the point...that the more logical aspects of the issue center around the devilish details of the equipment, their function and heritage.

For example, let's place two bows on the table and compare them.

One is an American semi-longbow, a Hill style (pick a brand, they were all fairly similar). Leather rest, leather sideplate, leather grip, B-50 or linen string...a simple setup by most measures. It resembles an early target bow (all EARLY target bows were SIMPLE in design) but is mostly known for it's warring/hunting applications. Some wood arrows lay next to it, of the type commonly used before wheeled compounds and their carbon arrow counterparts, the latter having been specifically designed for taking advantage of the compound's new technology/efficiency. The simple bow and wood arrow share the same essential characteristics and theme...simple in design and operation, not much technology involved, wrapped in historical richness and remembered much as traditional values are remembered and passed down between generations. As a visual aid for the theme I suppose Rick's stickman (minus the umbrella, lol) might work, or Robin Hood, or Howard Hill, or...I think you get the picture.

Now lets go to the second table. There we find a typical olympic or FITA-style setup used for formal target shooting...maybe ILF foam limbs, Uukha or Hoyt machined metal riser, Shibuya or Fuse Carbon stabilizer, Doinker v-bar, some Win & Win flat weights, pehaps a SF damper and Flex or X-Spot cushion plunger. And a latest-technology string, of materials that change with frequency. The arrows next to it are super slim carbon composites with the minimal fletch design required for serious competition/accuracy/precision shooting typical under formal competitive shooting venues. For a visual aid to theme, see the olympic trials on YouT**b.

You then step away from the two tables and invite the general public to check them out (maybe with a brief explanation of what each set of items are typically used for, and why) and then ask each person to write on a piece of paper the setup that for them best represents the idea of what traditional archery is all about.

I think we all know (but might not want to admit) what the likely outcome/tally would be when the pieces of paper are collected. I don't think any of the pieces of paper would have a drawing of a big umbrella on it, or say the table contents are both equally traditional, or reflect that they seem pretty much equal.

They are not the same, and one of these setups doesn't come close to passing a straight-face test with regard to what traditional archery is known for and typically represents. Not in function, and not in any continuing or real sense of shared tradition. It's not difficult to see why each of these 'archerys' needs it's own identity, and how giving each of them that distinction (without one hogging the public eye and overcoming the characteristics and past accomplishments of the other) can be beneficial to both.

It's not a matter that one is good and one is bad. It's not about 'choosing sides' or getting angry for one or against the other. I think it's about being rational in how we look at target and traditional archery, and honest with ourselves about the clear differences that exist.

Last edited by Retsbew; 01-03-2018 at 09:46 AM.
Retsbew is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top