COuld howard hill be to blame for traditional archery's downfall?

[guywithstick]

This is just a little hypothetical story I thought up...

Ok, first of all I know Howard Hill was a great archer. Yes I have a lot of respect for the man. But recently I've been mucking around through aiming methods and form variations throughout the past century. Now most of us know Howard Hill won nearly 200 undefeated field tournaments and took down hundreds of animals including elephants. If you take a look at the pictures of archers during Howard Hills prime (BC(before compounds)) the majority of archers are shooting standing straight up with little cant on their bows, even though weakly spined arrows were used and the bows were nowhere near center shot.

Now here is a crazy little thought of mine. While everyone was shooting standing straight up and not canting they're bows Howard hill was crouched over like a dog humping a football killing elephants and shooting dimes out of the air and what not. The archers of this time were quite accurate as we all know. They took 40-50 yard shots while hunting and dropped game (not the case in recent years). But even though they were accurate there was Howard hill. Dominating the the field courses throughout the US. All those guys with beautiful upright form who held at full draw for twice the time of Howard Hill thought could not beat the man. So at some point and time I bet one of them thought "well He's way more accurate than anyone else. He must be doing something right. Maybe I'll give his method a try." Perfectly logical and human of the feller. Well he must of past this Idea on to other archers. For some I'm sure it worked. And if these people were like me even a little bit like me they were excited and the new method worked for a short time. During this short time maybe they thought "jeez, we've been going about this all wrong! I got to tell everyone about this it works great!" Soon the crouched snap shooting form we all know of swept the nation!

Now I've been there I shot fairly well with this form instinctively for a while. But as far as I've read this form leads to snap shooting and target panic (for most). Target panic is hard to break and In my short archery career I've had it twice and it was terrible. So all these shooters tried to emulate the great Howard Hill. Leading to target panic for a number of archers I'm sure. While this was taking place there was a guy screwing around with pulleys and cables who made a compound bow. This new Item on the market made the archers skeptical at first but it was more accurate. All those archers who tried to emulate the great Howard Hill who ended up with target panic needed a solution to shoot more accurately. This could have put the compound craze into motion. And within a decade the number of recurve and longbow shooters decreased. Not all of them caught target panic from poor form and decided to get a more accurate proven piece of equipment, many of them just wanted the latest and greatest. Once again just human nature. This could very well be the reason we see fewer traditional shooters than compounder's at our local archery ranges.

Of course in later years Howard hills books and movies have sparked a lot of traditional archery interest. Works on both sides I suppose

Yes this probably wasn't how it happened. I wasn't there. It just kinda got me thinking after reading this thread http://www.tradtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7954&page=1&highlight=aiming+method.
Even if this happened Howard Hill still is the greatest archer of all time.

GWS

Ps. sorry for wasting your time

[Viper]

gws -

Don't think that's the case, and you might want to do a little more research. Hill was the best archer of his day, to the best of our knowledge. He typically did NOT "...crouch over like a dog humping a football killing elephants and shooting dimes out of the air and what not." all the time. Look at enough photos and videos and you'll see pretty decent form for the day, and even by todays' standards. There were a few form compromises he made due to the equipment available at the time.

The problem with todays "neo-trad" types is that most don't do enough research and rely on hearsey or conjecture. Worse, is that some are trying to emulate techniques from the 1930 and 40s. Yes, archery has evolved somewhat since that time. (How many people would go to a doctor using equipment and techiques popular 70-80 years ago ??? - I wouldn't.)

Ol' Howard was a great ambassador for archery and always will be, whether he was the greatest of all time may even be debated, but he, with the help of Warner Bros, did make archery more a household word. That's his legacy, how far people want to run with it, is typically where problems arise.

Viper out.

[guywithstick]

Yes I know this isn't how it happened. It could be a bit of a contributer though. I just got a little carried a way. And yes Mr. Howard hill was an excellent ambassador and helped many people join the sport. It's just a hypothetical situation to non-compound archery's downfall that I thought was kinda interesting and I wanted to share. The want for the latest and greatest was the real cause I know.

[CarolinaBob]

Gee guywithstick where did you do you "research" Sounds like nowhere. Have you ever seen any of the Howard Hill videos?

[JackAldridge]

If you are also trying to say shooting 'instinctively' (I know...I know...whatever the heck that is...) leads to snap shooting and target panic I'm sorry....I have to disagree. I think those problems are just as prevalent in any form whether it be trad or compound shooters.
We regularly have shooters for our indoor league who shoot in a stance that looks like they're getting ready for an enema! One even bounces up and down on one foot then the other until he draws and shoots! I don't think he got that style from anyone! I doubt any of them have seen or heard of Howard Hill...and none of them have had any real training. Believe me their scores show it!
While a lot of the old-timers did shoot that way I don't know that any one person was specifically known for it. I think a lot of them shot with the bow tilted to keep the arrow on the shelf of their longbows.
Just my 2 cents worth...

[Papabull]

I don't think that instinctive shooting causes poor form, hunched over shooting, snap shooting or any of the other shooting faults. The only real connection I can think of between the two is that some people believe that if you shoot instinctively, neither form nor consistency nor technique matter and I'm not sure that there are that many people that feel that way. It just sounds so strange when you hear someone say something like that that it sticks in the mind.

For all we know, Howard Hill would be shooting compound bows if he was alive today. He tended to gravitate toward the cutting edge of archery. It would be interesting if he was alive today because I'd love to hear his take on traditional archery today.

[Jacko]

Hang in there with me for a minute - In Australia we love the game of Cricket , In the 1920's through to 1948 a fella by the name of Don Bradman graced the game , at the end of his international career he averaged 99.94 which means everytime he batted he would score on avarage that many runs - the greatest players since then & today average in the low 50's - he was the greatest player Cricket has ever seen just as Howard Hill is the greatest archer in recorded history both shared unconventional form and uncommon ability compared to the norm of the day and it's doubtfull there equals will emerge for an age or two.

In a round about way I see the point as the only way I will ever emulate these men is in my dreams , I sadly lack natures gift I'm afraid . regards Jacko

PS I get target panic bad when my imagined ability overtakes reality - must remember to stay inside my limitations

[Desert Archer]

...both shared unconventional form and uncommon ability...

I think Jacko hit upon the crux of the matter with the above. The problem arises when people think "that" is the only or best way to do it. There's an example from the world of handgun shooting.

A stocky little man named Ed McGivern set some handgun trick shooting records back in the 1930s that still stand today. Watch the old films of him shooting and the word unconventional hardly begins to describe his form and technique. Still, there were people who tried to imitate his every action. For some reason they never could shoot at well as ol' Ed. Wonder why? (smiley face goes here)

Dave

[George Tsoukalas]

guywithstick, Mr Hill was not an instinctive shooter so the underlying premise of your first post is incorrect. Jawge

[Steve Jo]

The problem with todays "neo-trad" types is that

LOL, when I first read that my mind saw

"Neo TARD" I like that better. :)

I see your point, you miss on a couple of details but I understand where you're coming from.

I've seen A LOT of people identify their shooting style as "Hill" Im not sure if they've seen videos of hill shooting and compared to their own 'style' but they are usually not even close.

The point is that they are emulating that style in hope sof achieving that accuracy. It doesnt always work like that.

Good form is good form and I would bet my paycheck that Hill shot a great deal with conventional form before developing his fluid style.

To try to come into the game adopting style withoug first cementing form is a big no no and who is to say that one man's style will fit another anyway?

Good post though, no harm in thinking outside the box.

[JackAldridge]

Would it be fair to say that 'style' comes after achieving a certain level of 'expertise'? After all...if you can't hit the target who cares how you stand!
Also...isn't style many times a form of adaptation to physical hurdles? I'm thinking of Django Reinhardt who although he had lost a couple of fingers on his left hand developed a guitar style still admired today...
I've racked my right thumb so much I can no longer use it to cock a pistol....I had to adapt my own 'style'... :-)

[Jacko]

Seems a common theme that when we emulate others we stuff up or hurt ourselves. regards Jacko

[edmott]

Good George -- I was hoping someone would point out that fact. He was a "split vision" man.

[steve morley]

Howard Hill inspired me to shoot when I read his Biography, who knows how many others he inspired over the years. Think he's done more for Archery than another other modern day Archer, he shot well with good form and was amazingly accurate at any distance,

I don’t know what’s wrong with today’s archers reluctant to shoot past 20 yards and don’t want to practice relying on some sort of voodoo that allows them to be more accurate when it's fur and not foam.

Shooting well only takes a little basic understanding of the mechanics behind the shot process and some regular high quality practice. For me Archery is about discovering my own limitations and then pushing past those boundaries, no other feeling in Archery is better than watching and arrow find its mark, fur or foam.

:2cents:

[George Tsoukalas]

Steve, I agree shooting well is fun. I'm not sure I agree about the vodoo part LOL. It is a fine thing to shoot well. It's also a fine thing to recognize one's limitations.I shoot up to 40 yards while playing in my yard and while stumping but I will not shoot an animal past 20 yards and prefer 15 yard shots. I don't shoot field archery. There's not much of it happening in NH but I really don't enjoy it much anyway so it doesn't matter. Long shots at foam are of for me. Long shots at fur I avoid. BTW I'll use whatever method it takes to get the arrow where I want it to go except for the voodo method. :) Jawge

[George Tsoukalas]

oops-it's late sorry.
"Long shots at foam are ok."

[SteveMcD]

I've read quite a bit about Mr. Hill. So I was kind of scratching my head on this post. Viper, Steve Morley and George... all got it right. :highfive:

[LostHawg]

I think Hill found what worked for him and went with it.

Did pretty good with it if you ask me. ;)

[steve morley]

I'm a little reluctant to comment on Bowhunting when I don’t Bowhunt but I can draw a parallel with practice methods and feel hunting ethics shouldn't be about shooting animals within a set distance (20 yards) it just seems like a distance somebody else pulled out of a hat.

The groups I shoot at 35 yards is the same at 20 yards and on good days the same accuracy out to 40 yards, This took time and a lot of practice to achieve, all this means to me is that I can take these longer shots with confidence and the closer I get the more relaxed and confident I become about making the shot.

For me it's seems logical to have a clear understanding of your own limitations on accuracy and to always try and improve on them, I can imagine what Howard Hill would say if he was told he can only take hunting shots at 20 yards, reckon he looked for new challenges everyday and wouldn't give up till he cracked whatever he was working on, that's why he's the man we admire so much today. You don’t become better by standing still.

sorry I said voodoo maybe it was a bit strong

[George Tsoukalas]

Steve, no need to apologize but thanks. I actually feel comfy shooting at 15 yards. It's the distance at which I feel comfortable shooting at an animal. I'd take a 20 yarder if the situation is right. I do practice out to 40 yards too but that's on foam. Jawge

[Highlander]

Whether he was the greatest of all time may even be debated

Well I am sure the conjecture of whether he was the greatest will go on for a long time!

He/she who tries to wear his mantle will have to be subject to a like for like as a comparison!

People who would like to state this one or that one is better, would have to be willing to have a prune shot of their head with this out dated (HA HA) equipment from 50+ years ago. If that’s not enough this nominee would have to be relied on to hit moving human targets in a safety zone shoot riders on horseback in a safety zone (Robin Hood) shoot in the manner they assume HH shot (we will never no for sure!!!) with wild animals charging at him (no feeders here to entice the quarry). Yes and do all the incredible trick shots as well.

If there is such a person and he can then pick up a Modern appliance and shoot better!

SPEAK THEIR NAME! - let your self be shot at by this person both stationary and moving, and they will be considered!

Best form is what works for an individual for the best results, and not on a medical practitioners understanding of how the human body works, if you can adapt to situations and maintain the critical elements of form when the need arises then you are an archer of a true form!


Assumptions are the fruit of a misplaced shot! Whether or whether not that is of the mind or the body!

[Viper]

Highlander -

Ann Weber Hoyt held National and World titals for 20 years, a feat that has not been matched before or since. Oh, and most of that time she was using a longbow. She also didn't have the Hollywood hype (Warner Bros.) nor Hill's showmanship to add to the legond.

I don't mean to detract anything from Mr Hill, I just don't believe everything that comes out of Hollywood. And anytime you see a video, remember it's been edited.

Lastly, ever wonder exactly why Hill stopped competing after winning 196 matches???

You can believe whatever you like, but regardless of how great Mr. Hill was, given time, peope will be(come) better. As archery "matured", both equipment and techniques improved and as I said in another post, would you really go to a doctor using equipment and training the the 1930's? I wouldn't.

BTW - regarding that "prune shot". Did you happen to notice the wig the guy was wearing - do you really believe that was all hair?

Viper out.

[Redbow]

Django Reinhardt and Don Bradman both in this thread outstanding stuff
Django was in a class all by himself, Bradman may not have done so well with todays class of bowlers?

Traditional Archery is a very strong sub culture in the States and the 20 yard 3d game is hugley popular
At no time did Hill shoot a 20yard ish 3d game.
He lived in a time where real mean shot field, 5 yards out to 80 yards
There was no crouch bent knee shooting, good form was king!
I would go as far as to say that todays 3d crowd has effectivley dumbed down archery to thus silly 17.5 3d average. They shoot it because it is easy and they go home safe in the belife that they shot well if they did not blank an animal and came within 15 points to the likes of a Ken Redding or a Bill Leslie zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

With todays new scoring system for field hill may have had a tough time shooting against some of todays world class feild archers but thats a maybe!

What I can say is that all the old time greats where all fine field archers Hill , Bear , Pearson and a host of others.

It is a shame that the huge crowds at Denton hill ect are not up to shooting field. Hill would be looking at them and shaking his head.

I would love to see any of the thousands of todays 3d trad shooters try field.
You know the game that Hill ruled, then we will see how good the 3d crowd really are.
American trad archery is a joke and it has zero to do with Hill. When the IFAA world bowhunter champs comes to America in 09 we will see just how many Americans are proud to shoot for America.

[BowDonkey]

Redbow, it's 17.3 yds, not 17.5. :) I have some Django Reinhart and a whole lot of other gypsy music. Surprised to see so many know of him. I wish he were still around. Does anyone know of anyone today who plays similar? I heard some awesome gypsy guitar music on NPR, but never got the artists name.

[Desert Archer]

I kind of agree with Redbow...but given my signature line that won't surprise anyone (LOL).

Even though I am a fan of most any guitar music and particularly acoustic guitar, I have also become a fan of Django (and his style) accompanying jazz violinist Stephane Grappelli.

Dave

[Steve]

It is a shame that the huge crowds at Denton hill ect are not up to shooting field.

Can't find a pencil or scorecard on the grounds there - and that is the 17.3 yd mecca!
I got thrown out one year for asking for a card.:) Something about trying to ruin the atmosphere.

Steve

[Highlander]

Now before this goes to far down the wrong road, I don’t intend to try to blemish anyone’s career or record, I am just not of the authority to do this even if I wished!

I don’t even emanate from where many of the greats come from, so who would listen anyway!

Your Nominee, An early member of the archers hall of fame, what more is there to say!

What styles did she shoot was she beaten or was it consecutive records for 20 years, the evidence would say no, was she put in the same rough hunting environments I hope not!
Undoubtedly a very, very good shot!

was there ever a direct competition between the two, were her scores better than his? I dont know!

Could she hold her own if the pressure was on, shooting at someone, I don’t know! Yes there was that wig, yes films get edited, but remember a miss at a human target no matter how much editing with a 65# plus bow may be hard to edit or keep out of the public eye! Maybe he did not miss, so would seem to be the case:- supporting propaganda on the subject!

The man could shoot better with his feet than most people can shoot with there hands!
His record of 11 out 12? moving in-flight clay pigeons can not go un-noticed, yes we have the cinematic hype; but 196 straight tournaments maybe we could say the entrants were vetted to allow him to win?

Then of course we could say why did he quit after 196, well do we, or will we ever truly know the reason: age, technology (not like for like); no for me, I’ll put my faith in what I believe, I would have no problem being under an arrow that Mr Hill shot, as you say my belief could be clouded!

Howard Hill - an Archer in the true sense, as the records would suggest, not just a good shot!



A legend is a legend for the believers in legends with no place of resolve in a clouded mind!

[Viper]

Highlander -

Some conerversations, unfortunately get to a point where where misguded emotion over runs reason. Seems to be a common occurance on the Internet. You really need to do a little more research.

Just to really rock your world:

Given that Warner Bros. made that Hill film clip you keep referring to, and to my understanding they knew a thing or two about movie making, do you know for a fact that when Hill took those fruit shots, the targets where on a man's head and not a maniquine? That's movie making. The possibility of a miss would have ended his career and Warner Bros would not have taken a chance like that on a "Short" or filler film, that 90% of the population didn't care about.

Why did Hill "retire" after 196 wins? Because of his love for hunting??? Sure, that was the press release. Or did he see that there were enough up and coming shooters that it was only a matter or time until someone did best him? In doing so, someone would be known as "the man who beat Howard Hill". Not a proper end to a legend.

Lastly, Pressure??? Trying shooting an International match infront of thousands of people. Try doing that for 20 years. Might be a little more than than you think, but that's Psych 101 and for another discussion.

Do I know any of the speculations above for a fact, no. Not any more than you know any of the things you've posted. If believing in legonds floats yer boat, great, I'm a little more sceptical and prefer to life in the present day.

Viper out.

[Steve Jo]

The shot where Hill shoots the fruit off that guys head is legendary. The guy had a steel cap on under the wig

"the force of the shot causes the arrow to ricochet" the narrator says as you see hill lower the bow and start to step to stunt man

Actually the arrow ricochet'd off that dude's head and had safety precautions not been made there would have been blood.

Either way you slice it Hill was a great advocate for the sport. some legend, a lot action

Greatest of all time? Dont care, and an impossible question to answer. i DO admire the man and am comfortable leaving it at that.

[Highlander]

I am fully aware of theatrical special effects, and how they would impact even early shorts!

Yes the amount of arrows fired would have been well in excess of the final cut! As you say it makes good watching and may float the boats of a few watchers!

He even demonstrated he could hit a Clay pigeon or two in the shorts, but that is not the 11 out of 12 occurrence I mentioned. Also filmmakers would not have taken risks as you mention and there may be some hype to the fact that the shots on the Robin Hood film were actually not a shot at human target even stationary ones as claimed!

We will never know for sure?

Was he scared or pressured in the ways you mentioned on giving up the sport, or was it indeed his love for hunting that influenced the demise in the target career, who knows!

But with primitive non centre shot hand made equipment not what is deemed to be ideally suited to his stature he beat all comers, we have heard the 196 mentioned quite a lot!

My original entry to the thread asked if there was anybody about today that could beat him like for like? As in there lies the only true comparison! It was as simple as that.


Think of this one, why don’t all Archers use HH equipment? Then compare a like for like if they did!



A fact that is in fact in factual is never a factual fact whether proven or not!

H

[Steve Jo]

You truly have a dizzying intellect... :)

You ask a rhetorical question. It cant be answered.

I will give you that Hill was a great man and an advocate for the sport and simply leave it at that.

[Highlander]

It could be thought that the question was or was perceived to be rhetorical but this would imply that it does not justify an answer and that its sole purpose was for some other purpose.

You ask a rhetorical question. It can’t be answered.

This brings us to whether it can be answered or not and by the implication of the answer or consideration of an answer then the question may not be rhetorical at all!

HH archery equipment exists, HH archery equipment get used, are any of the users achieving results similar to that of HH himself?

That question can be answered!
But there were numerous hidden agenda’s in my wording!

So to answer your question; the question is not rhetorical but can’t be answered with a 100% degree of certainty nor does it need to be as long as the answer gives the results the question asks for!

As for:

You truly have a dizzying intellect...

Well that along with the entries in this forum, are in keeping with its title!


An advocate he certainly was!! To blame I think not!!


H


Philosophy is very seldom what it cannot be defined to be!

[JackAldridge]

It could be thought that the question was or was perceived to be rhetorical but this would imply that it does not justify an answer and that its sole purpose was for some other purpose.



This brings us to whether it can be answered or not and by the implication of the answer or consideration of an answer then the question may not be rhetorical at all!

HH archery equipment exists, HH archery equipment get used, are any of the users achieving results similar to that of HH himself?

That question can be answered!
But there were numerous hidden agenda’s in my wording!

So to answer your question; the question is not rhetorical but can’t be answered with a 100% degree of certainty nor does it need to be as long as the answer gives the results the question asks for!

As for:



Well that along with the entries in this forum, are in keeping with its title!


An advocate he certainly was!! To blame I think not!!


H


Philosophy is very seldom what it cannot be defined to be!



Yep...that's pretty darned dizzying!

[blackwidowbowman]

I know you were just throwing some stuff out there, and I don't think Mr. Hill was a contributor to anything that is negative about traditional bowhunting, shooting, or archery in general.

I do believe that most people, at least now-a-days, want it now, they want it easy. They would rather get a little knowledge and run off "half cocked" thinking that they are doing it the right way, rather than putting in the effort to get it right.

Regarding the "Power Archery Technique" that's what it was called, and it dominated target and field archery from the 1920's through the late 40's early 50's. The teachers, coaches, what have you, would make everyone use the same technique, stance, holding the bow the same, foot position, rigid. It was the accepted way of shooting a bow back then. In fact, the Korean Olympic Teams still uses the same, or very similar method for teaching their archers.

Mr. Hill was a throw back for those times to things the way many Indian braves shot their bows. It really was a natural way to shoot for Mr. Hill. Oh, by the way, while many of those guys did shoot at 50 -60 yards, and yes some game was taken, a lot loss, and most of it was missed.

Even when I started bowhunting in the Mid-Sixties there was still a bit of that, and yes bowhunting, even in Michigan where I grew up, a couple hundred miles from "Grayling" where "PaPa Bear" was making bows it was still common for guys to take shots like that.

I can't blame any of that on Mr. Hill, and in fact the reason it isn't being done is in part, except for compound shooters, because of what he taught other bowhunters. Target Panic, and the like was present before Hill, you can read about it's affects as far back as archery is written about. It wasn't called that, but the description can not be missed.

I believe, and this is a personal belief, that if a person learns to shoot the right way they will have less of a chance of every getting it. That goes back to the statement I made earlier about people doing what they think is being done, instead of doing it the way it was being done.

We might be able to blame Mr. Hill for some staged scenes in some of his movies, they had to do things that way to get it on film. You could never say he was responsible for guys getting target panic or moving to the compound bow.

Remember when I said people want it the easy way, I think that can be born out by the fact that our numbers, though growing, are small compared to our compound carrying brothers and sisters. We are unique, not special, because we choose a path more broken, and less traveled.

Maybe I'm just stuck on stupid, but I am loving every challenging step. Thanks Mr. Hill.

[PDJ]

What I think is missed in the H.H. discussion is that he perfected a form that worked for him and many of the descriptions of his style are those of other people.I spent some time with Bob Wesley(a friend and hunting partner of Howards) and form was the most important thing he stressed. Never did he advocate a hunched over snap shooting technique.Howard was a great ambassador for archery in his day but he was still just a man with some great God given talents.I think today if he was shooting the tackle when he was in his prime and shot against someone equally matched he could still hold his own.As far as a hunter it was more than just being a good shot and he learned from good teachers (Seminole Indians).Alot of bs has been written concerning him but from conversations with Bob, Howard was a humble man that was a mighty fine shot(he missed plenty just like all of us).

[Highlander]

I think today if he was shooting the tackle when he was in his prime and shot against someone equally matched he could still hold his own

I am not sure I follow the above (it seems to go with out saying - equally matched, hold his own) but I agree if he was shooting tackle he had made himself whilst in his prime against any archer of today shooting the same equipment or at least the same setup he would definitely not be worrying to much.

Being considered the top in any sport is the acclaim of others, lasting for as long as the others memories last, or another replaces them.

H

[Greywolf]

If one day, If God grants me the ability to shoot half as well Howard Hill I'll be happy. Maybe he already has. I'm very happy designing and shooting my Stykbows.
I use to switch to my Styk when I started punching the trigger with my compound to get rid of it. sorta grounded me, if you know what I mean.
I'm fascinated with Hills style of shooting and I'm in the process of find out about his "style". Be it Split vision, gap or combination of both. I have 3 books and 2 DVDs being delivered to me as I type this.
I take nothing from Hill except knowledge. I had the privilege of shooting with Fred Bear in 1978. I was in awe of his abilities too. even though he held the bow backwards.

[PDJ]

Highlander, what I was trying to say was if another archer had to shoot the same tackle(maybe an 80lb straight limbed bow) wooden arrows and Howard determined the order of the shots I think he would have done quite well.Could Howard shoot - you bet he could was he just a man -certainly and did he do great things for archery-yes!I guess we will never know just how good he was and to build him up to something he wasn't or to say he was less neither are beneficial.

[Highlander]

We all Live in the shadow of Greatness, whether we choose to accept it is another matter, the flawless living man has never been born, some people endevour to highly to discern these flaws, others to follow there lead. Some merely accept the shaded lifestyle and try to gain a Glimmer of what it would be like to overshadow the shadow or cast an even shadow along side it.

Greywolf – in truth only one man new Howard Hills style/s and even he probably did not know within the realms of explanation to 100% certainty, sadly he is gone, beware of what you read especially from shadowing sources!

Let us know what you have read and watched and what you have taken as your findings on the Great man?

The loudness of a Chinese whisper and sincerity of its source are very rarely picked upon to the degree of uncertainty in which it was relayed

H.

[Martin Farrent]

I think Howard Hill is something rare in this sport: A great archer who was genuinely famous and is now sufficiently dead to be the object of projections he can no longer defend himself against.

Best,

Martin

[Bowlim]

The original question is fair enough and not really a character assasination. Even during Hill's active lifetime, like when he was flogging Pearson, most people had moved away from the kind of gear he shot. And even today, most longbows are higher performance than the ones he shot. Following Hill's methods was a hard row to hoe. That said there are a number of folks who have the package. And if you have it, it's got to be a great way to shoot in the field. On the other hand, some of the upright shooters that preceeded him in white clothes archery, were also experimenting with releases and sights, and were shooting known distances and paper. That game always favours the well equipt.

I don't agree with the idea that Hill was an abnormal shooter by orthodox measures. When I studied the mater as fully as I could, no expence spared, I came to the conclusion that three of the guys who were great, and had ample instructional materials out there, Jay Barrs, Randy Ulmer, and HH all shot nearly the same, and all shot a little different from their other contempoararies. They truly shared a package. The only thing i can think of that Hill does that is not orthodox is his right hand release. But it isn't that crazy, and others have made it work, while others still have adapted a more FITA like follow through. If you watch a FITA shooter in slow mo, at least some of them have their fingers moving exclusively forward while the string is released and the hand motion to the rear occurs only after the string is gone. With the kind of cheek weld HH had his style is OK with the fundamentals.

I think Howard was instinctive at speed and gapped on slower shots, though anyone who shoots a ton extends their can't miss, "I know this shot" chip-ins more than the average guy. But I am sure he took dead aim at times. For instance the 165 yard elk shot sounds a lot like a sighted shot since he made minor adjustments twice. I;m not sure what he could have sighted on... I'm sure that if terrorists attacked the Olympic archery range we would see a lot of guys make instinctive shots if they were pressed for time. It's a continueum of sorts.

[CarolinaBob]

In the last few months I have become a Hill junkie. I have watched all of the Hill related dvds I can find and read all of the related books. I believe that I understand why Hill's form was the way that it was. Few "trad" archers of today will ever shoot true Hill style as they would spend the time to learn his very defined anc calculated style. How good was he we can't tell but I assume that he would give, Mr Morley, Yien, Bain and Redbow a run for there money.

[Flint Hills Tex]

I love watching those Harold Hill DVDs! But, you know, I've flown in a glider (plane), with a regular pilot as well as with a stunt pilot. I found both experiences exhilirating. If I were to take up glider flying, I'm sure I'd reach my limits long before doing stunts like loop-de-loops and stalls followed by spiral falls, pulling out of the spin just in time to avoid hitting the ground. My point is, I love watching (or even riding with) a stunt pilot, because they take the art of flying to a higher form, but as for me, I would still get a thrill out of just flying!

The analogy is, while I am working on perfecting my shooting technique, I am having a great time at traditional archery. Sure, you can learn a lot from such artists as Harold Hill, and it's always great to have some higher goal to aspire to. But if my expectations of myself are too high, then I'm just going to get frustrated and give up altogther!

I think that tradtional archery is experiencing a renaissance, brought about in part by 3-D shoots. Compounds made it easy for most any archer to achieve high scores through greater accuracy, but it is attained through the use of technology. We're better off in the archery scene than traditional firearms fans. You hardly hear about anybody going hunting with a muzzle loader!

Last year my son and I were guests of the Lee County Archers in Ft. Myers, FL. They have an active Archery in the Schools Program, so my son got to shoot a Genesis (for those who aren't familiar, a crossover compound with no let off, but rather a constant draw weight between 12 and 28 inches). His score was much better than usual, and he was tempted to give up his recurve. I was able to talk him out of it! I figure, the trend towards compound bows has nothing to do with Howard Hill, but rather with the fact that even a mediocre archer can get good accuracy quickly.

[Redbow]

Carolina Bob
I would love to shoot against a modern day Hill or if I had a time machine, well you get the picture.
But we all know that cannot happen.
I would put money on some of today's great field shooters on beating Hill.
When you take into account the changes in field faces and how they were scored back in the day.
As of this year Larry Yien, he Still holds the field and Hunter records.
So he is there for the taking, and not one person from the 3d hunter crowd has tried to break those records.

Hills day is gone, and he was a fantastic field archer.
It is a crying shame with all the Hill fans out there, not one of them can take on the likes of Yien, Morely ,Reeks and Van Voorhis.
This forum is a great talk resource for archery but there is a time to get away form the PC and actually shoot the talk.

If anyone in this forum would like to shoot head to head with a group of great field archers, just grab your longbow and come down to sunny florida in December and shoot in the North American Field Championships.
I will be there making one more run at larrys long standing records.
Hill died in 1970? almost 40 years ago , you can bet we have moved on since then. Bob why don't you come and shoot nafac and see for yourself?

[CarolinaBob]

Yes it would be interesting, but only if he updated his equipment some, Say hexpine arrows and maybe a Hill Blackbear.

[Redbow]

Bob that Hill blackbear is very intresting.

[TradArcher]

I understand and appreciate the argument you've offered Dana....and certainly Larry Yien's shooting record is a notable accomplishment... Consider that Howard Hill won 194 consecutive field contests...Also a significant accomplishment in any time from my view.

Tom

[steve morley]

I took Howards 194 field wins with a pinch of salt, from previous threads on other forums it's been said that Howard didn't win the USA Nationals. to win 194 tourneys in a row he would have had to shoot every weekend for four years, it is quite possible to do this but he would have missed National tourneys suggesting he may have been selecting his shoots as sure bets.

He was a great Archer but think he was a greater showman and master of spin. long after his death he inspired me to take up Archery like many thousands of Archers over the years, that I think is his true legacy.

Trad Archerys downfall is really only in the USA because of dumbing down 3d distances, IFAA Field and 3D is what Europeans do and they do it well, maybe if hunting became as popular in Europe we would suffer the same fate. :(

[Redbow]

Trad Archer I have to agree that Hills 194 wins are fantastic, no matter what is said here or in any other forum.
It is said that he did infact cherry pick his tournaments?

[TradArcher]

"It is said that he did infact cherry pick his tournaments?"

And many today don't do the same???:):): :boxing:

Tom

[hawgslayer]

:2cents:

In the last 2 seasons I've taken 5 deer. They were all under 20 yards. I like to get "up close and personal". For me, hunting with stick and string isn't seeing how far I could make the shot but how close I can get without getting busted and making that kill shot. Making long shots are not in my game plan.

[Redbow]

TradArcher
I would have to say that the tournament scene today is not the same as it was in Hills day when field reigned supreme.
Field has become a very specialized event with a dedicated core taking part here in the States.
So, to say that there may be individual's cherry picking field tournaments, I would have to respond by saying that their is no evidence for such an assumption.
Currently the best longbow field archer in the states in Tim Van Voorhis of Florida and he shoots both 3d and field at every opportunity.

Is there Cherry picking in modern day traditional 3d, I cannot really say, but by going by Ibo world Championships results one can see that there is no one archer is top of the hill, lol.
So there would be no reason to assume cherry picking in that arena.

Trad Archer may i direct you to take a look at Fred Anderson's fine book, The Traditional way.
It has some interesting insights on Hill.

[steve morley]

Maybe Hill was under pressure to cherry pick his shoots, I would imagine it wouldn't have done his image as top Longbow\exhbition archer in the world any good if he started losing tourneys, Archery was his bread and butter.

in 2002-2003 I went through an amazing high point in my shooting, 18 months unbeaten, even against Recurves and 6 National tourney wins, with work commitments I only managed around 45 tourneys in that period so 194 is amazing even if cherry picked.

I never cherry pick my tourneys, if I lose it's for two reasons, I had a bad day or somebody shot better than me, this is a fact of life and it happens to everybody, if you start to worry about it too much it will affect your shooting.

Today my shooting isn't so hot but I still love to shoot and enjoy competition just as much as now as I did then.:)

[longbowguy]

Southern California was the center of field archery for a good many years after Howard Hill set up the first permanent field courses in El Segundo (near LAX airport) and Pasadena (near the Rose Bowl) in 1935. His correspondence indicates that he finally gave up field archery competition after many false accusations and the fact that some archers would actually leave a competition when the found he was registered. The evidence suggests that lesser men may have driven him from the sport he founded and loved, when he concluded that his presence had become harmful to open competition. It is very sad. - lbg

[Flint Hills Tex]

Trad Archerys downfall is really only in the USA because of dumbing down 3d distances, IFAA Field and 3D is what Europeans do and they do it well, maybe if hunting became as popular in Europe we would suffer the same fate. :(

Steve, I would agree that traditional archery is in better shape in Europe than in the US, though I believe that field is in danger of becoming marginalized by 3-D shoots. I think that is a real shame, because, although a 3-D round is fun to shoot, the field round, whether IFAA or FITA does more to hone your skills for almost every other form of shooting.

But, back on topic, Harold Hill is a household name in Europe, not just in traditional circles, and I've never heard of anybody claiming that he harmed traditional archery in any way. On the contrary, even olympic target archers claim that Hill's skill was an inspiration to them!

[Redbow]

Good Stuff longbowguy!!!!!!

[TradArcher]

Thanks for the referal Dana, though I have read it a number of years ago.

Tom

[traditionalman]

I think compounds made it easier for men and women to shoot a bow. Sights made a good archer over night as long as he/she could judge distance. I love to shoot so practice is fun for me, but many don't want to practice and the compound/crossbow fits their bill. Also in Howards day they shot heavy poundage and many did not want to biuld the strengthn to handle this poundage. I have shot 100 pound longbows and at 59 years old after open heart surgry I still shoot 80 pound longbows and love it. I do so not to impress anyone it is for my own satisfaction.

People got lazy and wanted instant sucsess in their shooting and hunting and a compound did that. Today you can get a compound with a 90% left off, use a release and you don't even have to have a decent release. Don't even have to touch the string. Howard won 196 field championships and quit because of two reasons. One, people thought he cheated, so he let other keep score and they still did not beleive he was that good. He practice everyday of his life shooting over 100 arrows a day. That is how he got to be that good. Second, when they came out with sights on longbows and recurve he thought that was cheating and gave the archer an unfare advantage. You no longer had to practice your shooting a different distances, just learn to judge distance and you hit the target.

Howard Hill was my childhood hero and still is. Howard even said his ability with a bow was a gift from God. He had morals and values he lived by. Not like many bowhunters today who must kill a big buck at any cost even cheating. Yes, I have heard the stories of shooting chained anaimal in the making of his films. I don't know if this is true, but in thoes day many things were different. Shooting a hawk will get you in jail as well as many other animal he shot. Again times were different and the laws were different then.

I think Howard Hill made a big contribution to traditional archery, it is the people who have changed and turned their backs on traditional archery.

[Flint Hills Tex]

I think compounds made it easier for men and women to shoot a bow. Sights made a good archer over night as long as he/she could judge distance. I love to shoot so practice is fun for me, but many don't want to practice and the compound/crossbow fits their bill. Also in Howards day they shot heavy poundage and many did not want to biuld the strengthn to handle this poundage.

I think Howard Hill made a big contribution to traditional archery, it is the people who have changed and turned their backs on traditional archery.

Yes, the issue of instant gratification has been mentioned many times, and I really do believe that our work ethic has changed drastically since Howard Hill was around. Back then, a good man was one who worked hard to reach his goals, and you could work your way up through the company ranks by proving your mettle.

I fear that the days are long gone, when a guy who started working for the railroad on a section gang could, through honesty, diligence and hard, backbreaking work, work his way up to president of the railroad. And that kind of thing wasn't uncommon in other fields as well. Nowadays, guys sit in management who may never even have ridden on a train. They got their MBA and got a nice office job with the railroad after graduation.

The old/dead work ethic carried over to other areas of life as well, including hobbies and sports. I would almost go so far as to say, thank God for the compound bow, without which we might have seen archery die out as a sport in America.

[buff]

I've read most of what is on this site -- didn't have the stomach for all of it ***I have one question did ANY of YOU ever meet HH or Even see him shoot in person?????????? Because if you had a lot of this BS wouldn't be here! If you ever saw him shoot in person all you had to do was walk up and ask him a question and would get a immediate answer from him,because he was acessible to anyone. When he retired he moved to Vincent,Alabama and people were known to walk up and knock on his door and be invited in to talk Archery or hunting. I think it is real easy to talk somebody down if they are not here!!! If YOU question any of his accomplishments or REALLYYYYY want to know about him let me know!!! ONE WHO KNEW HIM --FACE TO FACE.:2cehttp://www.tradtalk.com/forums/images/smilies/2cents.gifnts:

[steve morley]

Hi Buff

I dont think any disrespect was meant towards Howard, it natural to talk about our Archery legends, you were a lucky man to have known him.

As you knew him maybe you can shed some light on his 196 Field wins as the only reference I can find is in Craig's book, nothing on NFAA site and their tourney records go back pre-war.

Did Howard shoot any National tourneys during this time, where did he shoot these tourneys and during what years did he notch up all these amazing wins (an amazing record I doubt will EVER be matched).

Thanks:)

[buff]

look in the encylo-- he won three nat'l champ -- if you look you will find -- I assisted him at some expo. anybody could walk up and ask anything -people would ask him to do a shot they had heard of nd I would help- he was my Great Uncle . If you had ever met and talked to him for just a little while you would not have any doubts he was the real thing -- then if you watched him shoot you would be amazed that a person could talk to you while doing what he was!!

[Bowcephalus]

If YOU question any of his accomplishments or REALLYYYYY want to know about him let me know!!! ONE WHO KNEW HIM --FACE TO FACE.

Gotta call you on that one Buff. You offered yourself as a face to face eyewitness. Then you say:look in the encylo

You offered, Steve asked very specific questions and you have not delivered.

What gives?

[DonNatale]

Quite a bit of debate...

However I honestly believe that any number of methods of shooting or forms can be equally as accurate.

The downfall of archery if any exists probably has more to do with the fact that people will often spend more time reading about form and tweaking a million different little things than shooting arrows. I think it's more a lack of attention span, patience, and the concept of delayed gratification than any other influence.


-Don

[Flint Hills Tex]

Quite a bit of debate...

However I honestly believe that any number of methods of shooting or forms can be equally as accurate.

The downfall of archery if any exists probably has more to do with the fact that people will often spend more time reading about form and tweaking a million different little things than shooting arrows. I think it's more a lack of attention span, patience, and the concept of delayed gratification than any other influence.


-Don

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Don, but I think there are a lot of archers who say the same, but don't practice what they preach. I'm no expert archer, and despite lots of practice and determination, I've just reached a score of 451 in a FITA indoor 600 round, even though it's my 3rd indoor season since taking up archery. Some folks are just gifted and seem to rocket right up to the top, but I needed to work hard to get where I'm at.

Even though the guys at our club will razz me about when I'm gonna start shooting decent scores, it's all in good fun, and they are very supportive. I have seen a number of fellows come and go during the 3 years I've been a member. They come and find that archery is hard, so they quit. Trad archery is even harder than Olympic recurve or compound, so you've got these folks who think they're gonna be the next Robin Hood (they've never even heard of Howard Hill), and when their first arrows miss the butt, they get frustrated and give up.

As I mentioned, John & Jane Q. Public have never heard of Howard Hill, so I really doubt that we can put the blame on him for trad archery's demise. I believe that archery as a sport in general suffers more from the fact that it is so fractured as an organised sport. I mean, you only have ONE NFL, NBA, PGA, NHL and so on and so forth.

But when it comes to archery, we have the NFAA, IBO, ASA, NAA (did I forget anybody? If so, I'm truly sorry!). Same thing over here in Germany (DSB, DBSV, DFBV). And each of these has their own set of rules, their own championships, etc. So there is no equivalent of the World Series or the Super Bowl or the Stanley Cup in the archery world.

If we can't gather all archers under the auspices of one national organisation, how can we expect the public to even be aware of us?

Impossible, you say! Oh, ye of little faith... Last year, Austria's various archery associations banded together to form the Austrian Archery Federation, figuring that "united we stand, divided we fall." This has done more to promote the sport than almost anything else in the history of Austrian archery.

[steve morley]

look in the encylo-- he won three nat'l champ -- if you look you will find

Thanks Buff, can you explain which\what Encylo? What years did he win, thanks for your time.:)