Has traditional archery become hypocritical?

[DRT]

Yeah see that's where I agree with Retsbrew. I think once you add adjustable sights, stabilizers or those types of things you have dilute it so bad it's diminished to me.

Sent from my SM-J710MN using Tapatalk

[DRT]

All the wheels and cams dog is change the amount of leverage to push the arrow. Yes that may extend the effective energy range of the arrow but the sights, rests and other technology allows for shooting accuracy most anyone can master. Add a mechanical release and a person whose never shot a bow can be accurate in just a shooting session or two. I killed my first bow deer with a compound shooting split finger with a glove.

Sent from my SM-J710MN using Tapatalk

[Retsbew]

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.

[DRT]

So are wood/fiberglass composites to modern for you? Recurve bows or take down models too technical? What about the fact crossbows were in use hundreds of years before compounds? Maybe they are traditional.

Sent from my SM-J710MN using Tapatalk

[DRT]

I shoot carbon arrows because they work and I trust them. I shoot bows others made because they are beautiful and they shoot well for me. I'm not an engineer so I can't tell you why each is built the way it is. But I consider them traditional. For me, that's enough.

Sent from my SM-J710MN using Tapatalk

[Phillip Fields]

You're right back to what your opinion of traditional archery is. Metal risers, stablizers, sights, non-wood arrows, elevated rests - all were in use well before the invention of the compound. There is nothing hypocritical in the use of either under the umbrella of traditional.

[Retsbew]

Obviously anyone can shoot whatever equipment they want (provided it's legal) and call it whatever name they want (modern, traditional, Orville, Auntie Wrinklepants, whatever). I'm just suggesting that referring to modern archery tackle as 'traditional' is like calling a brand new Porche an antique car. The logic and credibility of that approach simply isn't there, but then what does that have to do with anything these days.

[Phillip Fields]

With all due respect, what I get from your posts is that if I don't agree with you is that I'm hypocritical.

[covedogs]

I think it depends on when you started. I started over 20 years ago, and I still pretty much hunt that way, but if someone starts bow hunting tomorrow, I'm sure they would start with the more updated gear and go from there.

[Retsbew]

Whether you agree or disagree with me makes no difference, opinions are what they are. My own, and one that is neither an insult to you or a forced requirement at any level. is simply that including today's target archery mindset and equipment under the same umbrella as what has been regarded in past practice as traditional archery makes no sense...just as it makes no sense to regard a new sports car as an antique car and pretend there is no real difference between the two. Your perception is your own, and you are entitled to it just as I am to mine. It's just food for thought in a chat forum.

[caughtandhobble]

Happy New Year

OK, pre war, post war, either way back then it was just called archery. I for one still call it archery, without any walls. IMO, one has to hone their skills to shoot any archery style in order to be proficient. We have a member here (several actually) that has practiced enough to hit a ping pong ball at 80-100 yards with a compound and then pick up their recurve or longbow and hit a tennis ball at 20-30 yards. It's the Indian shooting the bow and always has been.

I can use my youngest son as a "Traditional" shooter for example. He can take his ILF Recurve (no sights) with carbon arrows and put up some nice groups. He can also do the exact same groups with a Selfbow that our Friend Arvin Weaver made for him. Once again, it's the Indian behind the bow.

I am lucky to have "Trad" friends along with "Conventional" friends. Yep, we may make a friendly jest here and there but it is all in fun because they know I can shoot their bow also, lol. Basically it all comes down to how seriously one wants to shoot well, no matter the style. I personally believe the www is mostly responsible for numbers of truly great "Traditional" shooters today. YouTube, TBH, Leatherwall and many others are great resources to help one to get started in Archery. We are lucky here in Texas to have TBoT that is a well ran organization dedicated to "Traditional" archery. Once again, the comradery far out shadows the completion at any 3D shoot I have ever been to.

Me, well I don't care what title I'm given. I just always hope that I can help out anytime someone needs help, just as many others have helped me over the years.

[Geezy Rider]

So what defines modern vs traditional?
Era? Style? Materials?

Was the recurve considered modern over the longbow?
How about the horse-bow? Now that was a technological advancement?
Would the flatbow shooter think the Holmegaard was a threat to his tradition?
As a "three under" shooter I can feel the eyes of the "split finger" crowd glaring at me.

The only thing hypocritical that I can see is one person trying to categorize the all encompassing sport of archery.

[SwampRabbit]

Obviously anyone can shoot whatever equipment they want (provided it's legal) and call it whatever name they want (modern, traditional, Orville, Auntie Wrinklepants, whatever). I'm just suggesting that referring to modern archery tackle as 'traditional' is like calling a brand new Porche an antique car. The logic and credibility of that approach simply isn't there, but then what does that have to do with anything these days.

I think we've left the idea of hypotheticals and high level discussion of what "traditional" means... yada... yada... yada...

I think it is important to understand the audience that is reading this post and the arena this conversation is taking place in... allow me a moment to break it down from my perspective:

TBH Traditional Forum

TBH = Texas Bowhunter. Let's break it down to Texas and Bowhunter.

Texas... doesn't mean you have to live here, but it should be a safe assumption that folks on here have a connection to Texas. In Texas, we have this history of being the frontier and a melting pot of folks who just do things their own way. We are not the North, we are not the South... we are Texas. For those of us who have been raised reading up on Texas history, it is really a no brainer to know why we even hunt the way we do. Heck... Texas has something like over 9 distinct eco-systems and the means/methods just vary and understandably so if you drive all 9 "corners" of our state. Again, I don't mean you have to be a Texan... we have plenty of folks who live out of state... but who come down to Texas to hunt... because well... it's Texas!

Bowhunter... we are bowhunters here. The site is actually full of folks who don't hunt... or just hunt with a rifle... but it is a bowhunting site and for the most part, we really like to hunt around here. When it comes to hunting, people tend to loosen concept of "purity" of "sport" or "competition" as they go out and want to kill things within their own skill or comfort zone.

Now we get to the 3rd qualifier... "Traditional"... This is the portion of this site, the minority by the way, where folks who are pretty much wanting to hunt with something other than a compound or crossbow or gun come to talk about stick and string shooting. We got guys that started off in compounds and are trying out single stick and string... we got guys that knew nothing more than a single stick and string... we... just like our beautiful state.. are fairly diverse.

Forum... actually a subforum would be more precise... we are not Tradgang, Leatherwall, etc, etc, where we are a traditional forum. This is where guys who love Texas, who bowhunt here, and happen to shoot a stick and string hang out.

The hypocrisy you speak of... people getting wound up on Olympic style.. judging... all that jazz just aren't issues that this crowd tends to care about; especially when it comes to hunting. There are other more political fun topics to discuss (fences... I mean again, the first adjective is the most important... Texas... and fences are always a fun topic around these parts!) In fact, I think what gets people more riled up (as you have seen) is when somebody else insists that we should care about something that we feel isn't worth caring about. I don't mean that to be rude... but just pointing it out. Telling me I should care about what my fellow bowhunter calls traditional is just kinda something that doesn't make sense typically to this crowd that I've attempted to describe.

[M.E.B.]

Retsbew if you don't mind how old are you?

[Retsbew]

I don't think one's opinion should be restricted or measured by where they come from, live, how old they are or anything else that begs the question of what the heck that kind of thing has to do with the specific topic of conversation. Doing so deflects from the discussion and tends to promote defense strategies at a personal level (human nature), and no good comes of that.

I will say that I've hunted with bow and gun for over 50 years, in places/conditions that many here will probably never get to experience (and wouldn't want to, lol), and even won a few local plastic trophies along the way. I remember when the only targets were paper bullseyes on straw bales, target bows had no gadgets, compounds were cumbersome novelties and 'normal' hunting bows needed only a string, a wood arrow and instinctive shooting practice to make them work. I know very well what it feels like to stalk, kill, clean, drag out (what's an ATV??), butcher, eat and appreciate an animal, and I know how that compares to hitting a piece of foam or paper on a target course.

I hope that today's hunters who by choice or life situation must count video tapes and chat sites as their primary 'archery experience', can somehow grow to understand that traditional archery is real, well worth undertaking, and measured much more by what's in their heart and field time than by what repetitive punching of holes in foam or paper brings.

I'll leave this thread now and trust that regardless of where your interests lie (hunting with simple gear or target shooting with maximized precision), some may find discussions like this one worth thinking about.

Best of luck to all.