History Channel - Warriors

[youngbowyer]

Hey Steve PLEASE don't go ....     .......
You are one of the most knowlagable guys on this forum

Chris   

I aggree with you Chris! Now where are all those guys that were hating on Steve!?

[Rod]

I go away for a few days and this is what happens? 
Our colonial friends will be thinking that our IQ is in an inverse proportion to our draw weight if you blokes keep this up.   

As Marc has observed, most "factual" TV usually contains a fair amount of BS and it is also true that the contributor, if he does not have the clout to insist upon a very tight contract, will have little or no say in the content, certainly no editorial control.
I have in a different context been on TV a few times for one reason or another and the results invariably contained more than one misrepresentation of the facts.
The only one that did not misrepresent was an interview for an item on Russian Channel 1 News which contained what I thought was a rather good spontaneous sound bite about Robin Hood, but it might not have been used for all I know.
In the past I have had conversation with Hector about misrepresentation in these "popular" history programmes, but what the heck, if you are in business and they get your name right you won't complain too much about the free publicity.

The hard truth is that no-one in their right mind should regard such programmes made for the popular market as a reliable source of hard information, but even so there may be some interesting nuggets here and there.
I will admit that I find the sight of Steve leaping about quite entertaining, but will bite my tongue since I can't handle his draw weight, but compared to Simon Stanley and bearing in mind the advice of Ascham it is rather eccentric and I can only presume that he does it in a misguided effort to increase his distance and decrease his accuracy.

Be that as it may, I expect that Steve will get over it, but if anyone chooses to present themselves as something of an authority then once their head is above the parapet they should expect to see some incoming fire, particularly if they are careless with the evidence.

My personal view is that opinions should be clearly described as such and things presented as fact should be supported with meaningful evidence, with pretty much excludes most popular "history" programmes as a useful source.

But if this can't be handled politely, then don't bring it here.
It will not be tolerated.

Rod.

[Yewboy]

Rod
Kick a man  when he's Down eh? Certainly not the actions of a moderator?

I did not see Steve "leaping about" as you put it, what I did see was Steve doing a rolling loose which does give the archer extra distance, you will find that Mr Stanley also uses this technique when shooting for distance as do the current standard arrow record holder Joe Gibbs and Mark Stretton, so entertaining it may be but effective, certainly, misguided I think not, also if you look at the Ewbs website and the competition results it shows that Steve has won the last 4 competitions, so accurate, he is.
So where you get your ideas from Rod, I do not know?
You obviously haven't watched the top distance archers shoot otherwise you would know what a rolling loose is.
I do however agree with the bits about the filming.

Yewboy

[Yeomanbowman]

Having witnessed Simon Stanley, a heavy bow archer of undoubtedly the highest calibre, shoot on a number of occasion I think he does have a 'follow-through' at the end of his loose.  If you are storing that much energy I think it is inevitable and not an affectation. 
I can also vouch for Steve's accuracy roving.

I didn't take this picture (but it is on-line) so if the photographer doesn't want me to use it I'll remove it immediately.

[alanesq]

Rod: you start by complaining there had been trouble on the forum then proceed to seemingly try to start it again :-(

If the bow is moving forward when the arrow is released this will increase the arrows speed - basic physics (unless they are near to light speed anyway;-)

BTW - Who is that handsome chap stood behind Simon there ;-)

[adb]

It's rather disappointing that we all can't share or experiences & accomplishments in a polite and nonjudgemental fashion, mods included. It seems to be very macho thing for some of you heavy archers. There is more than one way, and maybe we could all share and learn something new. Just a thought.

[african man]

Alanesq - Who ever he is he needs a damn good shave ....

[Yeomanbowman]

BTW - Who is that handsome chap stood behind Simon there ;-)

Not sure Alan,
I think you are in the way 

[Dane]

You know, Rod is right – it does look a bit like a little hopping dance when you loose a war bow.

This stuff is supposed to be fun, guys, and it always seems to become a personality cult and a mean competition between very talented and knowledgeable people tearing each other to shreds over trivial things like a stupid TV show. I hope this section remains alive and healthy.

[Rod]

Rod
Kick a man  when he's Down eh? Certainly not the actions of a moderator?

I did not see Steve "leaping about" as you put it, what I did see was Steve doing a rolling loose which does give the archer extra distance, you will find that Mr Stanley also uses this technique when shooting for distance as do the current standard arrow record holder Joe Gibbs and Mark Stretton, so entertaining it may be but effective, certainly, misguided I think not, also if you look at the Ewbs website and the competition results it shows that Steve has won the last 4 competitions, so accurate, he is.

In the absence of a common system of scoring what does this actually tell us except that he led the field that day?

So where you get your ideas from Rod, I do not know?

From some few years of shooting in the longbow in more than one style at a competitive level and before that from bowhunting small game when I was younger and it was legal here...
And you?

You obviously haven't watched the top distance archers shoot otherwise you would know what a rolling loose is.

I have seen many folks shoot in different weights, styles and disciplines over the years and have a pretty good eye for understanding what I see.

I would suggest that the prime factors in obtaing good distance are a suitable dry fire weight, a well balanced shaft of the right spine and weight plus a clean fluid loose that does not disrupt the arrow's clean departure.
The biggest reducers of distance are letting down or collapsing into the loose and doing anything that might cause a less than clean departure.

In this context, throwing the body forward has relatively little effect that is good and a great deal of potential for introducing errors when shooting at a mark.

What you call a "rolling loose" I would probably in flight or clout shooting terms call a "slashing loose" and in the past I have shot a weak bow with its arrows borrowed from a friend who could not make the distance at clout and recorded a medal score by the use of a "slashing loose and punching the bow into the loose".

If I had thrown out of line during this process I would not have obtained the score, which is the reasoning behind my comment, which acknowledged that it was a distance technique, not one best suited for shooting at a mark where any departure from the aimed line of force during the loose has inevitable consequences in a looser grouping.

Some degree of reaction is likely shooting high draw-weights, but where this reaction or movement comes after the arrow's departure, or is in line, little harm is done.
When it involves letting off, collapsing, throwing up or down or out of line during the shot the arrow will tell the tale.

What you can get away with shooting for distance may well prove grossly inefficient shooting at a mark.

As to why good distances are achieved, observation of the loose and the arrows departure will tell far more than observation of the archers physical reaction to loosing the draw weight.

Leaping forward adds little to the arrows velocity; good rhythm and tempo, and  a fluid loose make a big difference in the same way that a poor rhythm and tempo, a dead or static and less than slick loose all have a large affect on detracting from the cast.

And Ascham writes a good deal of sense even though it is fashionable in some quarters to decry his writing.
But I respect an archer who writes good sense and is modest about his own ability, as is the case with Ascham.

I do however agree with the bits about the filming.

Anyone who has worked with the media without editorial control will tell you the same....

Yewboy

[nick1346]

Hi Rod,

I think it only fair to point out that the rolling loose is only used when shooting at extreme distance. To confuse this with the techniques used when shooting at the marks is a mistake and does not allow you to see the full picture of how these gentlemen shoot. When at the marks, the archer looses in a  more conventional manner allowing him to be far more accurate than with a rolling loose.

 What i will say about the effectiveness of shooting in this manner for distance is that the archers in question attain a greater on average distance than not using it and they are all very experienced archers, so the proof is as we say in the pudding.

To see the difference's in techniques for distance and flight watch this video, the first shot of Mark shows him shooting at a mark and the last image of the archers on the ridge has Mark in the centre shooting for extreme distance. The two are different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_rPxV5Jivg

Nick

[Kviljo]

I'm not totally convinced just yet about the effectivity of the rolling loose. If you se the picture of Stanley, the arrow has left the bow in the second picture, and he haven't moved the bow forward too much from picture 1 to picture 2. The speed you would add to the arrow will be the same as the accelleration you put into the bow during the period you release the arrow and it leaves the string. It's less than half a second, and you won't be able to move it forward that much within half a second. At most a foot, and if my thinking is right, it should be 2 fps extra speed for the arrow. That's not much

Still, if you can do a perfect loose with the correct angle, while rolling forward, the rolling should add a few yards. 5 perhaps?

[nick1346]

I'm not totally convinced just yet about the effectivity of the rolling loose. If you se the picture of Stanley, the arrow has left the bow in the second picture, and he haven't moved the bow forward too much from picture 1 to picture 2. The speed you would add to the arrow will be the same as the accelleration you put into the bow during the period you release the arrow and it leaves the string. It's less than half a second, and you won't be able to move it forward that much within half a second. At most a foot, and if my thinking is right, it should be 2 fps extra speed for the arrow. That's not much

Still, if you can do a perfect loose with the correct angle, while rolling forward, the rolling should add a few yards. 5 perhaps?

Well we can argue things out as much as we wish but practicall experience orverides all. The pictures of Simon miss out the bits which are important so it is easy to call issue with what he is doing. Make no mistake he is an amazingly competent bowman and would not be doing what he is doing unless it actually helped. Sorry about that.

To illiustrate things watch yet another cliip This is Mark Stretton, the bloke who holds the word record for the heavest longobow shot. He has held the standard arrow record and won umpteen compititions, in short he knows what works and does not. Noitce how he rolls before he looses and the way the arrow comes back that much more because of it. Also notice  how his leg does not leave the floor before he has loosed but his positiion changes in a very similar manner  to the pictures of Simon.

http://www.englishwarbow.com/Untitled.wmv

It works, why I do not know, personally I think it aids release rather than adding momentum but it clearly works as most of the record setters use a variance on it and that is after all the ultimate test.

[Kviljo]

Of course, these guys do some really impressive shooting, and the rollong loose looks darn cool. I've tried it a little, and it takes some training to get it right, for sure.

However, practical experience should never be relied upon untill it has been tested as thoroughly as it would be in a scientific experiment. There is a lot of ways to misinterpret "everyday experiences". For example it may well be that it is easier to draw longer when doing the roll. Then it is not the roll that contributes, but the longer draw

It would be interesting to know if the turks did the same thing while flightshooting. I would rather rely on a couple of hundred years experience than a couple of decades.


Pretty cool clip there! Thank you!

[adb]

I think a rolling loose is simply follow through. Like swinging a bat, or a golf club, and we all know what happens when we don't follow through with those activities.