traditional or what? - Page 4

Sam Dunham · #61 02-09-2010, 02:43 PM

Hey Rick! We all do get along just fine!!! Thats why Tradtalk is a Great, Greatest place to be a part of.

rusty craine · #62 02-09-2010, 02:44 PM

Getting along together is just not human nature.

. come to think of it what do you think the first bow's purpose was? I bet that it was not for hunting game......just a guess.

rusty

Redbow · #63 02-09-2010, 02:44 PM

NO!
Sheep get along!

Old Sarge · #64 02-09-2010, 02:58 PM

If we all got along all the time what a boring place it would be. Besides my wife would have to find a new hobby instead of fussin at me all the time!

Bigjono · #65 02-09-2010, 06:40 PM

Humans have individual ideas and opinions, that's what makes it fun.

backquiver · #66 02-09-2010, 07:32 PM

Green-Shanks – Wow, that was quite a mouth full… I think I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure I understand what you are asking… Or is there no question, just venting? If just venting, it is of far more interest when it has a purpose – does yours?

I am rather new to this site, and it is always really interesting to witness the course of a thread like this over time, the over-all sentiment put forth by the members. On some sites, if you speak out against the popular opinions, which is usually only a few of the total membership, it just gets really ugly. This one didn’t get nearly as ugly as I’d feared…

What is traditional? That is a much harder question to answer than it was 10,000 years ago. The problem is, how far back do we turn the clock to gauge toxophilite technology? The Asiatic bows of old were far more advanced, design wise, than even the most highly crafted bows of Native Americans. Don’t believe me, take a look at one from 1800 to 1850:
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/visible_bow/visible.htm

Would you call this a traditional bow?

You can argue, with success I think, that the entire thrust of archery has been the same ever since the first bow was built – Shoot faster, farther, and more accurately, as durable as possible. If you don’t think so, look in to the history of the English longbow and why it was advanced.

Is that a traditional bow?

Go back further and ask a question… Let’s say you are in northern Europe, and the glaciers are receding. Those first trees are not of very good wood for bow building. Do you still build a bow? Yes! Do you look for better wood? Yes! Can we generalize this and just ask if there are better materials, should we use them? Yes!

So, to really be traditional, do we have to shoot unbacked selfbows made of crappy wood? Can we back them with sinew? Can we make them of yew? Can we make them of bamboo, wood, and sinew like the Asians? Maybe Osage and rams horn, as did some Native Americans, or can we just say screw it and use aluminum and carbon?

Personally, I like today’s choices. For me, I think laminated bows are OK as traditional. When I want go fast with deadly accuracy – BowTech 101st – I think it has a little wood on the grip… Keeps me in touch with my traditional side…

backquiver · #67 02-09-2010, 07:41 PM

PS - As to my statement above "I think laminated bows are OK as traditional..." Please notice that I didn't state anything about what materials might be used to make those limbs... The ones I make are wood and bamboo... But carbon is cool!

Seven Arrows · #68 02-09-2010, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by backquiver

Green-Shanks – Wow, that was quite a mouth full… I think I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure I understand what you are asking… Or is there no question, just venting? If just venting, it is of far more interest when it has a purpose – does yours?

I am rather new to this site, and it is always really interesting to witness the course of a thread like this over time, the over-all sentiment put forth by the members. On some sites, if you speak out against the popular opinions, which is usually only a few of the total membership, it just gets really ugly. This one didn’t get nearly as ugly as I’d feared…

What is traditional? That is a much harder question to answer than it was 10,000 years ago. The problem is, how far back do we turn the clock to gauge toxophilite technology? The Asiatic bows of old were far more advanced, design wise, than even the most highly crafted bows of Native Americans. Don’t believe me, take a look at one from 1800 to 1850:
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/visible_bow/visible.htm

Would you call this a traditional bow?

You can argue, with success I think, that the entire thrust of archery has been the same ever since the first bow was built – Shoot faster, farther, and more accurately, as durable as possible. If you don’t think so, look in to the history of the English longbow and why it was advanced.

Is that a traditional bow?

Go back further and ask a question… Let’s say you are in northern Europe, and the glaciers are receding. Those first trees are not of very good wood for bow building. Do you still build a bow? Yes! Do you look for better wood? Yes! Can we generalize this and just ask if there are better materials, should we use them? Yes!

So, to really be traditional, do we have to shoot unbacked selfbows made of crappy wood? Can we back them with sinew? Can we make them of yew? Can we make them of bamboo, wood, and sinew like the Asians? Maybe Osage and rams horn, as did some Native Americans, or can we just say screw it and use aluminum and carbon?

Personally, I like today’s choices. For me, I think laminated bows are OK as traditional. When I want go fast with deadly accuracy – BowTech 101st – I think it has a little wood on the grip… Keeps me in touch with my traditional side…

Now that's a good post right there....

estacado · #69 02-10-2010, 07:54 AM

I just purchased a used Blackwidow, about 5 years old. I m now Retro-Traditional. The original Wilson Blackwidow had a metal riser if memory serves. Now I have a bow without all the evil-metal materials in its makeup. Meets the Traditional moniker by going back to basics in materials. Ah, materials seem to be the only criteria for the Trad definition. And, as stated before, it only matters in the 3D venue and competition as defined by the Trad-Mafia. Trolls and the internet foment all sorts of inane discourse. It seems many read too much and should be out having fun flinging arrows, however, and with whatever they choose. The "deceased equine quadruped" is howling for this to stop.

Estacado

Old Sarge · #70 02-10-2010, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seven Arrows

Now that's a good post right there....

Yes, very concise, to the point and sums it all up very well. Bottom line Trad is a bad term and very devisive. I don't like putting people into silos and much prefer to let folks just be Archers in this case. How you fling your arrow is of no importance, just enjoy this great sport.

markd · #71 02-10-2010, 08:36 AM

After about 20 years of this pursuit, I have come to hate/despise the very word "traditional" because of so many narrow minded jerks screaming about what is NOT traditional and what IS!!! It is these very narrow minded hunch over and squatters that are mostly seen hunched over and squatting behind the 3D targets trying to find their arrows in the grass and leaves! I had really rather not be associated with that group. :-) All that matters is what part of the target you pull your arrow out of!!!

backquiver · #72 02-11-2010, 07:47 PM

Our friend Green-Shanks has had me thinking about this a bit more… Funny, but when the stage is set interesting things come about. For example, I was reading the Feb/Mar issue of Traditional Bowhunter. It has an article titled "The Ancient and Modern Loose." The reference is to a paper by Edward S. Morse, 1922. The paper is “Additional Notes on Arrow Release.” I have found a web link to this paper, and am posting it here for your enjoyment. It turns out that the "loose" - or release - has been around just as long as bows and arrows (go figure)! In reading through the article, I wondered if one style can really be considered more traditional than another??? What do you folks think? Can you use a tab, glove, thumb ring, or do we have to use our bare fingers?

I don’t think there is any way of knowing how the ancients grasp the string or released the arrow. I would guess rather differently than most of us do today, but who is to know? How heavy a draw weight did they have, what materials for strings? What wood were those first bows made of? This all goes in to determining the scope of your options for drawing that string. Who is to say what is, or is not traditional? Maybe string walking was tried and tossed aside 5,000 years ago… (Just to hard to use in battle?) Only to be recently rediscovered?

The author of the article in TBM speculates that the art of the release might be stunted by our current “traditional” shoot requirements. Some shoots dictate what is or is not allowed, loose wise, to shoot in a particular match. His thinking is that we might quit trying new things simply because they would not be allowed in competitive shoots. Rather stunting the evolutionary process in this case!

Personally, I wonder if it isn’t more about trying to attempt to level the playing field – so to speak – and keep everyone at the same form, or handicap, depending how you look at it...

Anyway, allowing that some shoots only allow certain styles... I thought we might want to know what the basic styles are in case we show up to a “traditional” shoot some time and get told only Tertiary release style is allowed...

http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/...s/notes01.html

By the way, my personal belief is that we really do need to have some distinction between shoots allowing compounds and those excluding compounds. So, the idea of Traditional and Open kind of makes sense to me. Plus a host of other verbiage to mandate the specifics of a particular shoot. I don’t like the idea of tossing “Traditional” out… It is just to, ah, well, traditional.

Sam Dunham · #73 02-11-2010, 08:02 PM

All the distinctions and definitions are only a grouping for those who label their click from the others. Why should we care unless we attend a shoot that makes you swear allegiance to the local trad click. The most important distinctions are made by those who set the rules for competitions. Will your style and set-up make the definition grade for what you wish to enter? I personally only want the Bow defined by Game& Fish Departments. Other than that, why should we care?

Bigjono · #74 02-12-2010, 05:56 AM

I am not sure who or what the Game & Fish department are, but I do agree that whatever your setup is, if it fits into the rules of the style you shoot then no one should moan about it. I do wish there was some kind of uniformity for equipment among the different federations though. Some allow carbon arrows in AFB some don't, some shoot recurve and AFB in the same class some don't. It would be nice to have one set up and be able to use it wherever and whenever you shoot

mika · #75 02-12-2010, 07:52 AM

Green...! Noticed the amount of intelligent reading sprouts from your pool of spit here?Thanks mate!

r.mika

Redbow · #76 02-12-2010, 12:15 PM

Mika that was a bit strong lol!

All Green is doing is fire starting, which keeps the debate alive.
However the fire starter often gets burned!

Dartwick · #77 02-12-2010, 01:26 PM

I think its kind of silly when some people rant about how everything is traditional just like it is silly when people start excluding whatever level of technology is slightly more than they prefer.

"Traditional" is an unfortunate term but were stuck with it.

The archery experience changes significantly if you add cams and mechanical releases compared to a finger released Dalaa or Warf.

The archery experience changes significantly if you add sights and plungers as compared to a shooting off the shelf.

The experience changes significantly when you use advanced materials for structure and power compared to natural material bows.

The experience changes significantly when you use self bow with a dacron string and modern finishes compared to useng a bow made with materials available to an oboriginal man.

And of course you can split the difference at any level. The problem is our focus on terminology instead of substance. There is noting wrong with noting the differences between tech levels - tech changes the experience and make it easier to shoot, just as their is nothing wrong with using the tech level you enjoy.

Bigjono · #78 02-12-2010, 02:03 PM

I have already stated the as a personal opinion, I am slightly more comfortable with wood and wood being called traditional, but I also have no problem with other materials being used as well. Yes I shoot an AFB, but it is a modern laminated Fox Triple Crown with carbon lams, so I would be a bit of a hypocrite if I banged on about wood I guess. I also shoot carbon arrows out of it some times when the federation allows it and the weather is really cold (i find carbon flies better in the really cold weather than wood????). Enjoyment should be what it's all about at the end of the day.

tuffshot · #79 02-12-2010, 02:25 PM

Never did like labels.
Kinda like being labled as a Biker because one rides a Harley and yet the traditional label is still there even though not to many ride an old Flathead, Knucklehead or a Panhead.