Afternoon All.
Since the topic of rules has somehow managed to surface once again some background reading for people who are not aware of the dimensions of the discussion on this topic on Ozbow.:
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6178
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5910
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4292
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6160
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6226
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6365
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6335
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6461
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7018
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7977
http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8322
Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
Moderator: Moderators
Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
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.
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.
-
Mick Smith
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 pm
- Location: Surf Coast Victoria
Re: Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
Those links are helpful to find the areas upon which some agreement was reached. I now believe that you will find that some of the Victorian clubs might now be more inclined to run events with the rules as laid out by Perry, Greybeard and Grahame, particularly if the proposed state titles ever eventuate and most certainly if we ever go national.
I for one, don't particularly want to discuss the rules again other than perhaps participating in some fine tuning, if necessary. Oh man, what a headache it was.
Mick
I for one, don't particularly want to discuss the rules again other than perhaps participating in some fine tuning, if necessary. Oh man, what a headache it was.
Mick
There is no use focusing on aiming if you don't execute the shot well enough to hit what your are aiming at.
-
longbowinfected
- Posts: 2040
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:42 pm
Re: Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
Mick, those rules work really well at Wisemans. Robert McKenzie adopted them a few shoots ago and I would have a chat with him if I were you....he runs a tight ship.
Kev
Kev
never complain....you did not have to wake up....every day is an extra bonus and costs nothing.
Re: Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
The following going back to 2008 may have been forgotten by some and not read by newer members.
I could not do a 'quote' from a different thread going back to 2008.
Within the context of the job description given to Dennis at the time he presented an honest opinion to ABA regarding bow description.
The lack of longbow styles in popular use not appearing at ABA shoots at this time had a bearing the outcome.
In those days, there were only two kinds of longbow - the classic English traditional longbow which nobody had seen in reality, and the commoner Howard Hill American semi-longbow which had become the standard because of its common use and acceptance. Some Howard Hill designs had a built in reflex in the limbs but most did not.
"To everyone,
In response to Daryl's question quoted in Perry's post above, I remember way back in the late 1980s or early 1990s, I was asked by the then Zone H division of ABA to put up a definition of a longbow for consideration by the next AGM of ABA at that time. I believe the ABA definition at the time was not very specific and open to very wide interpretation.
The question arose because I was one of the very few people actually using one seriously in Victoria at the time and the majority of shooters being compunders, wanted input from someone who actually used one. I was often asked to be on bow checking duty at shoots for the specific purpose of checking longbows only.
I showed them what I was using and explained the features of the bow to the Zone Committee who then put in a submission for the following AGM.
In those days, there were only two kinds of longbow - the classic English traditional longbow which nobody had seen in reality, and the commoner Howard Hill American semi-longbow which had become the standard because of its common use and acceptance. Some Howard Hill designs had a built in reflex in the limbs but most did not.
The ABA AGM at the time accepted the Howard Hill design as the standard and the rules were written with a description of this bow in mind, but not excluding the English pattern bow or anything similar.
That was a long time ago and I do not know if the definition in ABA has been changed since that time.
Later organizations such as 3DAAA made up their own rules according to what people were shooting in their comps and IFAA did much the same, but relied principally on the Howard Hill design as the standard.
This is how the present definitions originated I believe. However, the whole thing blew up when an American bowmaker called Century21 designed a bow with a deflexed-reflexed limb design, seriously lacking in length which it passed off as a 'longbow' in its advertising. It was advertised as having outstanding performance. People bought it under that premise and began to complain when they were not allowed to use it under existing definitions.
A whole plethora of bows come on the scene following Century21's design which were called longbows even though some of them were less than 60 inches in length. Because the limbs of these designs did not have a full recurve like the standard recurved bows, they were often slotted into the only other division left - the longbow division - because nobody knew what to do with them probably, and also that the manufacturer called them a longbow (without consulting with anyone beforehand on the possible problems that would create).
Since those times, the problem has continued, and we have all of the debate above on this site an other sites.
Personally, I have a very clear idea of what constitutes a longbow. It fits my understanding of the historical bow if it meets the criterion of
1, long relative to its user (at least shoulder height)
2. may be made from any kind of material
3. may be of any cross-section (flat, D-section, oval, round, etc.)
4. limbs must curve only toward the belly when braced (a straight-edge must touch at only one place between handle and nock).
5. when the bow is braced the string must not touch the bow anywhere along the limb except at the nocks.
6. the long axis of the handle must be vertical and in line the long axis of the bow.
7. all sides of the handle must be within 2mm of being parallel to its opposite (straight handled).
This is a very broad definition and admits all kinds of historical longbow up until the development of the deflexed-reflexed limb bows which do not meet 4 - 7 above.
Others do not agree depending upon what kind of bow they have purchased/preferred, and this debate will continue ad infinitum.
The reality of life is that any definition from time to time will be the outcome of the factions within organizations at the time who will push their own views. None of us is exempt from that.
Different designs will occur from time to time, and their users will want to climb onto an existing bandwagon. If their bows don't conform, they will want the rules changed to suit.
Because of this, I continue to believe that today, the comps can be divided between two broad bow styles of traditional and compound. I have never felt disavantaged with my old fashioned bows against any of the recurves or latterday interpretations of longbow. However, the problem of having 4 disciplines in practice in Australia will perpetuate the problem unless and until each decides to sit down together to standardise definitions.
When I practised well, I could give anyone a run for their money. And for a lot of my early comp shooting days in ABA, I also shot much better than the great majority of most compound shooters even with their greater advantage. I did get to be an A-grade shooter with my longbows, so the style of bow is not a necessary disadvantage.
Dennis La Varenne
_________________
Dennis La Varenne
Philologus: What is the chief point in shooting, that every man laboureth to come to?
Toxophilus: To hit the mark.
(Toxophilus Book II - Roger Ascham 1544) "
Perhaps we need to go back to a full compass selfbow for the definition?
Daryl.
I could not do a 'quote' from a different thread going back to 2008.
Within the context of the job description given to Dennis at the time he presented an honest opinion to ABA regarding bow description.
The lack of longbow styles in popular use not appearing at ABA shoots at this time had a bearing the outcome.
In those days, there were only two kinds of longbow - the classic English traditional longbow which nobody had seen in reality, and the commoner Howard Hill American semi-longbow which had become the standard because of its common use and acceptance. Some Howard Hill designs had a built in reflex in the limbs but most did not.
"To everyone,
In response to Daryl's question quoted in Perry's post above, I remember way back in the late 1980s or early 1990s, I was asked by the then Zone H division of ABA to put up a definition of a longbow for consideration by the next AGM of ABA at that time. I believe the ABA definition at the time was not very specific and open to very wide interpretation.
The question arose because I was one of the very few people actually using one seriously in Victoria at the time and the majority of shooters being compunders, wanted input from someone who actually used one. I was often asked to be on bow checking duty at shoots for the specific purpose of checking longbows only.
I showed them what I was using and explained the features of the bow to the Zone Committee who then put in a submission for the following AGM.
In those days, there were only two kinds of longbow - the classic English traditional longbow which nobody had seen in reality, and the commoner Howard Hill American semi-longbow which had become the standard because of its common use and acceptance. Some Howard Hill designs had a built in reflex in the limbs but most did not.
The ABA AGM at the time accepted the Howard Hill design as the standard and the rules were written with a description of this bow in mind, but not excluding the English pattern bow or anything similar.
That was a long time ago and I do not know if the definition in ABA has been changed since that time.
Later organizations such as 3DAAA made up their own rules according to what people were shooting in their comps and IFAA did much the same, but relied principally on the Howard Hill design as the standard.
This is how the present definitions originated I believe. However, the whole thing blew up when an American bowmaker called Century21 designed a bow with a deflexed-reflexed limb design, seriously lacking in length which it passed off as a 'longbow' in its advertising. It was advertised as having outstanding performance. People bought it under that premise and began to complain when they were not allowed to use it under existing definitions.
A whole plethora of bows come on the scene following Century21's design which were called longbows even though some of them were less than 60 inches in length. Because the limbs of these designs did not have a full recurve like the standard recurved bows, they were often slotted into the only other division left - the longbow division - because nobody knew what to do with them probably, and also that the manufacturer called them a longbow (without consulting with anyone beforehand on the possible problems that would create).
Since those times, the problem has continued, and we have all of the debate above on this site an other sites.
Personally, I have a very clear idea of what constitutes a longbow. It fits my understanding of the historical bow if it meets the criterion of
1, long relative to its user (at least shoulder height)
2. may be made from any kind of material
3. may be of any cross-section (flat, D-section, oval, round, etc.)
4. limbs must curve only toward the belly when braced (a straight-edge must touch at only one place between handle and nock).
5. when the bow is braced the string must not touch the bow anywhere along the limb except at the nocks.
6. the long axis of the handle must be vertical and in line the long axis of the bow.
7. all sides of the handle must be within 2mm of being parallel to its opposite (straight handled).
This is a very broad definition and admits all kinds of historical longbow up until the development of the deflexed-reflexed limb bows which do not meet 4 - 7 above.
Others do not agree depending upon what kind of bow they have purchased/preferred, and this debate will continue ad infinitum.
The reality of life is that any definition from time to time will be the outcome of the factions within organizations at the time who will push their own views. None of us is exempt from that.
Different designs will occur from time to time, and their users will want to climb onto an existing bandwagon. If their bows don't conform, they will want the rules changed to suit.
Because of this, I continue to believe that today, the comps can be divided between two broad bow styles of traditional and compound. I have never felt disavantaged with my old fashioned bows against any of the recurves or latterday interpretations of longbow. However, the problem of having 4 disciplines in practice in Australia will perpetuate the problem unless and until each decides to sit down together to standardise definitions.
When I practised well, I could give anyone a run for their money. And for a lot of my early comp shooting days in ABA, I also shot much better than the great majority of most compound shooters even with their greater advantage. I did get to be an A-grade shooter with my longbows, so the style of bow is not a necessary disadvantage.
Dennis La Varenne
_________________
Dennis La Varenne
Philologus: What is the chief point in shooting, that every man laboureth to come to?
Toxophilus: To hit the mark.
(Toxophilus Book II - Roger Ascham 1544) "
Perhaps we need to go back to a full compass selfbow for the definition?
Daryl.
"And you must not stick for a groat or twelvepence more than another man would give, if it be a good bow.
For a good bow twice paid for, is better than an ill bow once broken. [Ascham]
“If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?” [Einstein]
I am old enough to make my own decisions....Just not young enough to remember what I decided!....
For a good bow twice paid for, is better than an ill bow once broken. [Ascham]
“If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?” [Einstein]
I am old enough to make my own decisions....Just not young enough to remember what I decided!....
Re: Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
I can feel a feel a pain in the proverbial coming on AGAIN 
Since 08 ABA has introduced a number of changes in an attempt to better reflect the Aussie Traditional Archers demographic of today. It's death for an organization such as them not to remain relevant, they are trying not only to be relevant but reflect their member's wishes which should be acknowledged. Those remotely interested in ABA comp need to get out and support them instead of sniping, a thing I'm sick and tired of doing and listening too.
3DAAA have moved there Trad division rules more in line with IBO, the parent organization of 3DAAA, unfortunately Australia does not have the diversity or numbers that compete in IBO comp so the recent rule change doesn't fit the Aussie 3D scene as neatly as they did in 08 in my view. They need to think again and we need to support them more so they know what we want as a whole not as individuals. If I hear a Trad shooter whinge again- It's their game [Compounder's ] I'll scream. It's everyone's game who wishes to play it folks
But I hear folks are talking at last with open minds when I do get out to shoots, some are comfortable in their skin for the last many decades, that's fine so long as they don't judge , others are looking forward that should be fine too as long as they are not being judgmental Traditional Archery has always been a reflection of the state of the art in technology and sometimes sadly human nature.
Speaking for myself, Primitive Archery has given me immense pleasure and taught me a lot. But at present I'm enjoying the versatility of the modern ILF takedown deflex reflex and recurve bow for hunting or target use, it does not matter to me wood or alloy riser, carbon lams, foam cores or wood core, fiberglass lams. If folks don't like me competing beside them, it's their loss. Look ahead folks the wave is coming ! And I'm still getting immense pleasure and learning.
I've evolved in other area's as-well since 08. I've learned a lot more about the barebow disciplines of gap shooting, string and face walking and now I recognize all of them as every bit as legitimate in Traditional archery as Instinctive. Thing is the path I'm on just now puts me at odds with some of the rules and guidelines I had a hand in drafting. A rule I specifically remember compromising on simply as I did not believe most folks understood just what an ILF bow is and as such are not comfortable with them.
The rules and guidelines that where drafted tried to be inclusive and in the context of what I just said have ended up being somewhat exclusive in a vain attempt to compromise and keep folks happy. A line was drawn in the sand. Trouble was there is a narrow focus all to common in Traditional Archery A focus I feel had it's origins around the 1950's and broadly speaking seemed to hover around the Traditional Archery ideal that greats like Howard Hill and Fred Bear had created around them was the root of the conflict the rules and guidelines we wrote together generated.
Still they remain a good start, and have worked well at the shoots I've attended. I understand Rob has made one or two changes that work very well for the Wiseman's Ferry shoot. I will be getting down to this shoot this year. Really looking forward to it.
Despite where I'm at now I do not want new divisions created for ILF bows, for string or face walkers so they can win a Trophy. Too many divisions is clumsy and expensive. I just want folks to get over it, understand that in 2010 string walking, face walking , gap shooting , deflex reflex limbs and ILF takedown systems are part of the Traditional archery landscape have been for a very long time.
I still believe the basic framework is very workable. I would like to see alternative barebow shooting methods accepted beside what is called Instinctive. I would like to see ILF and other adjustable limb systems included beside the accepted T/D recurve or T/D deflex reflex
Greybeard, you are right, the Hill style and minor variants where all that was readily available and as such where reflected in the opinion Denis offered, fair enough in those day's. The deflex reflex design did exist it just was not marketed or commercially available likely due to the focus I eluded too earlier
The doors open folks.
regards Jacko
Since 08 ABA has introduced a number of changes in an attempt to better reflect the Aussie Traditional Archers demographic of today. It's death for an organization such as them not to remain relevant, they are trying not only to be relevant but reflect their member's wishes which should be acknowledged. Those remotely interested in ABA comp need to get out and support them instead of sniping, a thing I'm sick and tired of doing and listening too.
3DAAA have moved there Trad division rules more in line with IBO, the parent organization of 3DAAA, unfortunately Australia does not have the diversity or numbers that compete in IBO comp so the recent rule change doesn't fit the Aussie 3D scene as neatly as they did in 08 in my view. They need to think again and we need to support them more so they know what we want as a whole not as individuals. If I hear a Trad shooter whinge again- It's their game [Compounder's ] I'll scream. It's everyone's game who wishes to play it folks
But I hear folks are talking at last with open minds when I do get out to shoots, some are comfortable in their skin for the last many decades, that's fine
so long as they don't judge , others are looking forward that should be fine too as long as they are not being judgmental Traditional Archery has always been a reflection of the state of the art in technology and sometimes sadly human nature. Speaking for myself, Primitive Archery has given me immense pleasure and taught me a lot. But at present I'm enjoying the versatility of the modern ILF takedown deflex reflex and recurve bow for hunting or target use, it does not matter to me wood or alloy riser, carbon lams, foam cores or wood core, fiberglass lams. If folks don't like me competing beside them, it's their loss. Look ahead folks the wave is coming ! And I'm still getting immense pleasure and learning.
I've evolved in other area's as-well since 08. I've learned a lot more about the barebow disciplines of gap shooting, string and face walking and now I recognize all of them as every bit as legitimate in Traditional archery as Instinctive. Thing is the path I'm on just now puts me at odds with some of the rules and guidelines I had a hand in drafting. A rule I specifically remember compromising on simply as I did not believe most folks understood just what an ILF bow is and as such are not comfortable with them.
The rules and guidelines that where drafted tried to be inclusive and in the context of what I just said have ended up being somewhat exclusive in a vain attempt to compromise and keep folks happy. A line was drawn in the sand. Trouble was there is a narrow focus all to common in Traditional Archery A focus I feel had it's origins around the 1950's and broadly speaking seemed to hover around the Traditional Archery ideal that greats like Howard Hill and Fred Bear had created around them was the root of the conflict the rules and guidelines we wrote together generated.
Still they remain a good start, and have worked well at the shoots I've attended. I understand Rob has made one or two changes that work very well for the Wiseman's Ferry shoot. I will be getting down to this shoot this year. Really looking forward to it.
Despite where I'm at now I do not want new divisions created for ILF bows, for string or face walkers so they can win a Trophy. Too many divisions is clumsy and expensive. I just want folks to get over it, understand that in 2010 string walking, face walking , gap shooting , deflex reflex limbs and ILF takedown systems are part of the Traditional archery landscape have been for a very long time.
I still believe the basic framework is very workable. I would like to see alternative barebow shooting methods accepted beside what is called Instinctive. I would like to see ILF and other adjustable limb systems included beside the accepted T/D recurve or T/D deflex reflex
Greybeard, you are right, the Hill style and minor variants where all that was readily available and as such where reflected in the opinion Denis offered, fair enough in those day's. The deflex reflex design did exist it just was not marketed or commercially available likely due to the focus I eluded too earlier
The doors open folks.
regards Jacko
"To my deep morticication my father once said to me, 'You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.' "
- Charles Darwin
- Charles Darwin
Re: Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
Perry, I can tell by your body language in your Avatar that you over longwinded debates on the rules 
Steve
Steve
http://www.stevenjawerth.weebly.com
On Christ the solid rock I stand, All other ground is sinking sand. Edward Mote, 1797-1874
On Christ the solid rock I stand, All other ground is sinking sand. Edward Mote, 1797-1874
-
Mick Smith
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:09 pm
- Location: Surf Coast Victoria
Re: Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
Nah, we don't want to go there really, do we?I don't think the rules are all that important. What sort of advantage can someone gain by shooting one particular design of bow over another, particularly as there are divisions in place already separating the most widely performing types of bows? In my book, it's probably in the vicinity of about 5% only.
Some people like to think that 'traditional' archery is something static, something that should never change, but it must be obvious to all that this simply isn't the case at all. New bow designs are coming along all the time. The whole world of 'traditional' archery is evolving. The organising bodies need to keep abreast of the times in order to remain relevant. It evens seems that so called primative bows are also evolving, perhaps though not to the same extent.
I would like to see some people change their perspectives on where modern fiberglass limbed 'horsebows' belong in the scheme of things. It's common practice down here in Victoria to include them in with historic bows, which doesn't agree with the 2008 rules, as laid out by Perry, Greybeard and Grahame. I don't happen to shoot one, so I may be biased, but I really can't see them as historically correct bows by any stretch of the imagination. True, they might perform like a historic horsebow, but then again I'm sure there's other bows that would also perform much like an Asiatic bow, that are currently classed as modern.
In my mind at least, this question of where horsebows should fit into the scheme of things is the final small hurdle on the road to uniform trad rules.
Mick
There is no use focusing on aiming if you don't execute the shot well enough to hit what your are aiming at.
Re: Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
Now there are the words from a confident man!Mick Smith wrote: the final small hurdle on the road to uniform trad rules.
Mick
Steve
http://www.stevenjawerth.weebly.com
On Christ the solid rock I stand, All other ground is sinking sand. Edward Mote, 1797-1874
On Christ the solid rock I stand, All other ground is sinking sand. Edward Mote, 1797-1874
Re: Rules... aaagggghhhhh...........
The story behind that Avatar last November - I was indeed feed up - My mate stirring sod he is moments before shot a pig with my Marlin .44 magnum after I had put a fatal shot in and was quite happy to let bleed out , it was in the order of 46 C and humid, we had staked several tyres, it was so hot the hydraulic jacks [ note plural ] had failed to operate as the fluid had lost viscosity, the mechanical Jack had seized, we could not break the bead on the 15" rims and 10" wide tyres with tyre levers, crowbars or F'in big hammers until we used the property's Grader blade as a press and a Dust storm had blown in. There was 2 of us on a clapped out 200 cc Ag bike with no foot pegs and me seated on the dog rack - Had an absolute ball over those 5 days
Mick, Yes I remember the Horse-bow saga. Must get around to either building one or buying one to round out the collection. Still feel if they are constructed of modern material they are a modern recurve, seemingly a small hurdle
regards Jacko
moments before shot a pig with my Marlin .44 magnum after I had put a fatal shot in and was quite happy to let bleed out , it was in the order of 46 C and humid, we had staked several tyres, it was so hot the hydraulic jacks [ note plural ] had failed to operate as the fluid had lost viscosity, the mechanical Jack had seized, we could not break the bead on the 15" rims and 10" wide tyres with tyre levers, crowbars or F'in big hammers until we used the property's Grader blade as a press and a Dust storm had blown in. There was 2 of us on a clapped out 200 cc Ag bike with no foot pegs and me seated on the dog rack - Had an absolute ball over those 5 days Mick, Yes I remember the Horse-bow saga. Must get around to either building one or buying one to round out the collection. Still feel if they are constructed of modern material they are a modern recurve, seemingly a small hurdle
regards Jacko
"To my deep morticication my father once said to me, 'You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family.' "
- Charles Darwin
- Charles Darwin