Some of us who have been around since the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria sailed, are growing a little weary of the ignorance of our archery history; particularly what was mainstream in archery and bowhunting many decades ago.
Todays newborn traditionalist wants to decide and dictate what is and what is not traditional in archery and bowhunting. And, I can understand that it is indeed new to many folks. We've established a whole generation that only knows what has happened in their lifetime. The sad part is they really don't want to look past the date of their birth and realize there was a living, breathing society that was there and did that.
What is most amazing to me, is the loathing of so-called traditionalists, toward bow sights and other things that were quite prevalent forty years ago. Especially in light of the fact that many folks aren't well adapted to shooting a bow in the raw.
I think it's time to look at what was traditional in 1967, as opposed to 2007: For instance, the average bowhunter was using some kind of sight on his or her bow; whether it was a Merrill Heart Shot, purchased at the local sporting goods store, or a match stick, taped on to accomodate a certain distance.
Archers and bowhunters were using sights since the 1930's, and by the 1960's there were more who did than who didn't. I was considered an oddball for shooting without them in 1967 and was just one of only two guys at our local archery club who shot barebow. Sights were the tradition in the 1960's.
Archers of the 60's were concerned with hitting what they were shooting at, and were not concerned whether or not their brothers and sisters would condemn them for not being of a certain ilk. Bowhunters, especially, were under scritiny....as they have been since the first modern bow season was established, so it was important that they be effective. The bow sight could make a very average shot a good shot and that is why ninety percent of the archers and hunters used them. It wasn't about personna.....it was about effect.
I think this would be a good time to get our heads out of the sand and become more accepting of real traditional equipment. Some folks will never enjoy the ability to shoot well barebow, and they should not be castigated for that; rather they should be encouraged to use the traditional bow sight and learn the joys of accuracy. It's pretty pious of us to think there is only one way to do it....and it's historically inaccurate to boot.
Those who want to remain steadfast to the barebow mantra, by all means do, but also realize it's not for everyone...and those who can't are no less traditional than you.
I don't use bow sights, but I see they should be used more by those who are turning, or returning to traditional archery, and no archer should be making them feel inferior, just because they aren't doing it the way we "think" it should be done. A sight isn't wheels or let off....it's a long way from it. About sixty years, as a matter of fact.
Well said, as usual. Thanks Mr. Stout.
Well said George!
There are "traditional" archers out there that should really have sights on there bow,,but they are too scared to do so because of what the "others" might say! Ones equipment should be what they are most comfortable & effective with. If that is a recurve or longbow with sights then so be it, equipment is a personal choice.
I hunt with selfbows,cane arrows & trade-points that I make myself. Not because they are "primitive" or "traditional" but because I like to make them! But I do most of my hunting from portable treestands, blinds and such. I use store bought calls and some camo. There are those that will scoff at me and say thats not right,,but it is what works for ME. In my opinion the "tradition" in traditional archery stands more for " traditional values,ethics,and companionships".
Thanks for getting out the soapbox George. Who's next?
I haven't noticed people on this forum being "castigated" because they use sights on their bows. I have noticed people on this forum to be pretty much accepting of what a person likes to shoot. Anything contrary to this would be the exception rather than the rule; IMHO.
I also think bowhunters in 2007 are just as much concerned with hitting what they are shooting at as those were in the 60's.
What I have noticed, (on other sites) is those who are contemptious of those who shoot barebow and especially those who choose to shoot instictive.
I probably should have some ...but....NOT! Aint gonna happen
well said, Mr Stout. If you buy an older recurve, you'll often notice the sight holes. I shot aN Indian in the 60's without sights. For those who don't recall or weren't around, They used to take a field-any field and put up those round mats and shoot away at them on Saturdays-men a nd women. They shot at max 80 yds and many used low poundage bows with sights. It was fun.
I agree that some newcomers have a differeing view of what our heritage-just weren't here to live it.
Moenga....this forum is one of the best for not having issues about this subject. I originally posted this on another that is not so accepting. I feel, however, that there many here who can learn from what some of us have experienced. Some songs just need sung every now and then. :saywhat:
George well put.
I think the overall message applies to all aspects of legal hunting. From gun hunters, dog hunters, trappers, compounds, etc. We all need to accept each other in the means we choose to use, as long as they are legal.
While I may choose not to use dogs, or choose to shoot a bare bow, my choice does not give me any grounds to chastise or tell others how they should hunt. We do not have to sit by the campfire and sing songs, but we all need to make a unified front against attacks on our sport.
Driving divisions among hunters is a slippery slope we are already heading toward. United we stand, divided we may only meet each other in the meat section of the grocery store.
George,
Excellent post.Thanks for your input.
Well said,Great post!!!
Very well said George :0)
Thank you Mr Stout.
George:
Although I agree with the concept of your post, I found just the opposite (bowsights) on the west coast. The rare one was the guy using sights. Sights did not really come into use until the compound raised its head.
Bob
Bob....I think the western folks held on more than anyone. Just goes to show the dichotomy of styles within the sport. East of the Mississippi, it was a different story.
I have bought/seen plenty of old bows from out west for sale on the auction site that had holes driled in them for sights.
George... thanks a bunch for your post... after an incident this season where a doe got spine shot, I decided that my shooting was not 100% good enough so i threw an old fred bear pin sight on my recurve for the season rather than pick up my wheels again.
But i did have some concerns about how it would go over with the gang... i should have known better!!!!
Thanks again, RHino
IMO, archery and bowhunting began another skin shedding change as early as the late 40's.
What I noticed in the Nor'East was a changeover from self and backed longbows to composite wood/glass recurves.
Bounty and innovation abounded in the US and recurve development was in full swing. The efficiency and flat out speed of these kinda engines just made sense to paper punchers and hunters alike.
My Dad was an archer and bowhunter, and he turned me onto Howard Hill, and the longbow, in '55. My archery bible was LE Stemmler's 1953 edition of his " The Essentials of Archery (http://www.tradgang.com/rob/ta/eoa/) " (go on, click on the link and enjoy!) - real heady stuff for a young lad of ten, and full of the kinda bows I'd seen Flynn and company touting in "Robin Hood" - and the bowhunting tackle and info was read and reread 'till the print nearly melted off the pages. We had longbows and cedar arras. There was never talk about bow sights since we were rovers and hunters, not target archers.
I believe that the increased public interest in target archery, from a non-hunting standpoint, and the use of sights, trickled over to bowhunting. Hey, it was a post-war decade of "innovation" and "space age development", and Madison Avenue marketing hype was blossoming. The more radical the idea the more it seemed to garner interest and even popularity - and this doesn't mean that the "new idea" was ultimately the best, or even better.
You stick a hatpin into yer hunting stickbow's riser and use it as a sight of sorts and call that "traditional", I've got no problem with that at all. You stick on a Chek-It sight with a bubble crosshair 2x scope with windage and elevation gears and I'll argue that ain't traditional bowhunting.
Same could be said about longbow design - there are those (namely, the characters that run the IFAA) who'll tell ya that a modern hybrid longbow is NOT a longbow, that only straight limbed or "D" braced longbows ARE longbows. I've got my opinions 'bout that, too.
So, "traditional" is at best an ambiguous word that ultimately you will define yerself. Whether or not others will agree with you is something to either ponder or dismiss.
I instinctively shoot a take down 3pc hybrid longbow and carbon arras. I am a traditional bowhunter. YMMV.
Rob....there's quite a lot between a hatpin and a bubble crosshair 2X scope. But that's how we seem to recognize things....either one extreme or another. You know as much as anyone there's an in-between in everthing 8^).
Sometimes the best labels are no labels. Labels, I believe, are for clothing.
QuoteOriginally posted by George D. Stout:
Rob....there's quite a lot between a hatpin and a bubble crosshair 2X scope. But that's how we seem to recognize things....either one extreme or another.
The sight thingy is easy for me to suss out - a fixed pin or two versus a movable pin (or scope or whatever the heck). :cool:
You know as much as anyone there's an in-between in everthing 8^).
Oh yeah ... :D
Sometimes the best labels are no labels. Labels, I believe, are for clothing.
Impossible not to label *everything* - in our society, that's a way of life - whether or not one choose's to deal with label's is just another freedom of choice here in the good ol' US of A (well, at least for now :rolleyes: )
....
Thanks George,
I feel we all need to stick together regardless of traditional, compound, crossbow, rifle, whatever. Doesn't mean you have to follow suit, or agree with someone's values/morals, but have respect for what someone else decides to use as a weapon or hobby. As Sportsmen, if we don't pull together, we all will lose in the long run.
Well put Mr. Stout I always emjoyed your posts they are well said. But when did traditional archery start? It is a serious question I was wondering what people think of when-what we know as "traditional" archery actually begin.
I would agree for most of us on here, modern recurves-longbows, it starts around the 30s. for the self bow guys they can claim and older heritage than that, like pre history. Then the english longbow crew? probably 15-16 hundreds?
We may be sayin thhat we are settin our own new precedance(sp?)?? who knows.
good post, we need to be banded together not standing on islands.
J
J-dog...We would not even be having this discussion if the compound had not been invented and accepted universally. We did not use the term "traditional archery" prior to that. That's why labeling can be deceiving.
QuoteOriginally posted by J-dog:
... But when did traditional archery start? It is a serious question I was wondering what people think of when-what we know as "traditional" archery actually begin. ...
Depends on what you consider "traditional archery" to be. It's all about labels, and whether or not you believe in 'em.
If you consider the 14th century ELB to be "traditional", what did that 14th century archer consider "traditional"? Who were his role models for archery tackle? See what I mean? Time is in the moment, and everything is always moving forward, like it or not ... 'lest we all might be shooting selfbows and not have the "traditional" advantages of polymer laminates of glass, wood, graphite and carbon. ;)
Good post George.
Now you have those self appointed Trad Police cowering in the corner.
Pete
As with any thing, there will always be cliques, extremists, people who think they are the elite, etc. Yes, this is a great forum full of accepting, helpfull, kind people. I hope it will alwys remain that way. I always say, do what works for you and I'll stick with my way. I think most of us here are agreed with what traditional means for us. Let's continue to enjoy this sport, hobby.... together.
I worked all summer being a golf caddy, 1959 or 1960 or so, saving my money.
I bought a solid fiberglass bow, it had corked glued to the front of the bow and came with a big hat pin as a sight. You had to stick the pin into the cork and by trial and error by moving it up or down, pushing it in or pulling it out a little, to sight it in!
George, you are right on!
Well said George and I will add that I have been to many shoots and to me most guys should be using them!! I know they are not allowed at most shoots but most guys(sorry)are not too great of shots. I have a buddy who shot league spots in 1965 and there was 56 guys and 4 women in the league and all but 5 shot sights. I would rather guys hit what they shoot than just talk about it. Shawn
Great post and well said!
Good job George, cut the X with that one.
I have been very successful with a trad bow more so than with wheels but I still miss more deer than I'd like so from Aug to Dec I will probably have sight on my bow from now on.
No sights in the spring and summer for play but when it comes time for business I'm nailing down more accuracy.
I always thought the target was what you concentrated on and the archer was nothing but a bow holder. Hold it right, release it the same way, and the arrows find their way. When I think about aiming too much, the arrow gets confused. But hey, that's me. If the pins and other doodads help you hold the bow, more power to ya. Sorta makes a nice bow look like a Triangle Peg Board Game at a Cracker Barrel restaurant, though.
(The game board is a triangle with 15 holes in the same shape as bowing pins, except with an extra row. The game starts with pegs (golf tees) in all the holes except one; the goal is to jump pegs one at a time, removing the jumped peg until only one peg remains.)
A good friend told me a "Trad" archer was anyone with less than 5 years experience.. Kinda rings true sometime..
I do think most of us old dogs don't really think of ourselves as "Trad" rather archers, bow hunters what ever but we just like stick bows.. Seems most of the rhetoric comes from those trying to be someone or some thing they really don't understand..However if we use 1967 as the base line and I can live with that, I wonder why we can't talk about those broadheads with movable parts.. They have been around at least as long as the Old Bear Razorhead.
I don't have a thing against sights as a non-traditional bow accessory.
I simply don't like them because they complicate things. In the field, plenty can go wrong wityout be relying on twitchy equipment.
I shoot barebow because it is simple, rugged and a challenge. None of that changes because someone else puts sights on their own bow.
The only problem with those that make others feel inferior,is that they do not realize that they are actually bringing themselves down and discrediting what they're trying to hold up.
Thank you, well said
Carl
Well said George.I too remember putting sights on my recurve in the early 70's and alot of people in the midwest were too.I think it helped alot in getting your form down.Still today I shoot my recurve vertical probably a left over from the sight days,but I shoot instinctive now. Ben
Sometimes, folks worry to much about the other guy. Do your own thing and let others do thiers. This sport is big enough for all kinds of different styles :campfire:
QuoteOriginally posted by NightHawk:
Sometimes, folks worry to much about the other guy. Do your own thing and let others do thiers. This sport is big enough for all kinds of different styles :campfire:
DITTO :archer:
David
It seems to me that the debate about what constitutes "traditional" archery should be an informed, somewhat personal decision. I personally choose wood & fiberglass of the 1950's-early 1960's, with no sights and wood arrows fletched with real feathers. I bought a dozen aluminum to try once, and they actually do fly better out of a couple bows I've purchased since starting this hobby. But don't like them (As my mentor says "they sound like conduit.")
Now, if you want to shoot a DAS Kinetic with sights, carbon arrows, etc., (or anything else with sights and other bells and whistles for that matter) you can. I won't. But, just like many things in life, I only get to be the High Sheriff of me, not you (as Bill Cosby said "who made you the Jello Sheriff of the house?").
I kinda draw the line with wheels and let-off, and would venture to say most would. If this "traditional archery" thing where all about effectiveness and consistency, I'd still be hunting with my .30-06 and Burris 2x7 instead of really enjoying seeing how close I can get to a wild game animal and learning how to hunt rather than shoot well in the field.
Anyway, my two cents.
"Those who want to remain steadfast to the barebow mantra, by all means do, but also realize it's not for everyone...and those who can't are no less traditional than you". Well said, George.
RonP
QuoteOriginally posted by George D. Stout:
J-dog...We would not even be having this discussion if the compound had not been invented and accepted universally. We did not use the term "traditional archery" prior to that. That's why labeling can be deceiving.
Which begs the question....Why was the compound invented and just who was it who accepted it universally?
Don't kid yourself. Archers all but killed what we call "Traditional Archery", not the compound. Seems today we like to forget that little chapter when we talk about our history.
There are no hard answers to what is and isn't Traditional Archery today. That doesn't mean everything should be acceptable. Fortunately, there are those who have strong beliefs through both sides of the argument. Those who hold fast to traditions and those who want freedom to progress. The traditional side keeps our values and identity while the progressive keep us moving forward. Combined, both groups ensure our survival and allow those in the middle a comfortable place to sit.
Back in the 50's and 60's the main goal for any archer, bare bow or free style, was to get the arrow to hit where they intended it to hit. So, no one was looked down on or up to because of their tackle choices. When a new idea or shooting style came along lots of people would try it and if it worked for them they adopted it. I don't ever remember hearing the debates I currently see. What is also missing, it seems, is that back then even the average archer was pretty familiar with his equipment and all the guys I hung with could tune their own equipment, make their own strings and had no problems asking other to watch them shoot and critique their form when their accuracy went south. I totally agree with Shaun Leonard that a lot of trad shooters would be better off with a sight than withour one. At some of the shoots I go to the trad archers tend to shoot very poorly. Makes me nervous about them hunting.
In an old Ye Sylvan Archery magazine ad in the 30's there it was stated that two things were neede to be a competent archer. One was good, well tuned equipment. The other was good consistent form. Not much has changed since then except all the argueing on some sites. It seems to me that if you are having trouble with consistent accuracy putting a sight on your bow for the purpose of analyzing your form can teach a lot about how to shoot well.
Molson....I was talking about the term "traditional archery." Not about who did what regarding acceptance of the compound. There was no need for that label prior to that time...it was still just archery. That was the catalyst that created the term that is now so ambiguous.
George, its always great to read your posts and I especially agree with this one. I've been involved and interested in archery and bowhunting for forty plus years and equipment controversies and "labeling" have always made me uncomfortable. Like you, I personally don't use sights but have no problem with them whatsoever-heck, I only shot a compound for about a month and gave it up, but I don't have a problem with those who use them. I'm always a little concerned that the pointless formation of factions within will ultimately weaken our position on larger and more exigent isuues like preserving our bowhunting privs. Grant
Very well said George.
I figure thats the explanation for the holes drilled in the riser of my Browning Safari II recurve from the late 60s. Im even considering putting a sight back on it now that my bow season is over, so I can work on my form. Hopefully it will aid in building a bit of muscle memory and improving my accuracy and range. My biggest struggle this year was to stay the course and not fall back into using my compound and the only reasons I would consider going back was accuracy and range.
Be aware that there can easily be great differences between instinctive form and freestyle (sight) form.
A bowsight is intended to be the sole point-of-aim device, and there are mandatory form changes that go along with its use. This WILL involve setting up a bow with regards to the sight, arrow plate/pressure point, arrows, shooting style - but there are other factors, too. One would be best served to seek out a competent coach when learning to properly use a bowsight. Not really knowing what yer doing can be a severe detriment to your shooting accuracy.
Form and tackle aside, the bugaboo with using bowsights is trying to estimate unmarked distances. This can be somewhat overcome by using extremely fast arrows at typical short hunting distances, or by premarking distances around yer treestand or blind.
Back in the day, some of us used fixed multi-pin bowsights on recurves with moderate to good success. The common denominator was/is always the archer.
If you are a bowhunter/rover that's struggling with shooting consistency/accuracy, seek out a competent coach and don't look for what may be a crutch that will never serve you well. Mixing different styles of shooting is not a good prescription for becoming an accurate archer/bowhunter.
"Traditional" will always be in the mind of the be in the mind, heart and soul of the beholder. I think that's a good thing. :cool:
George, I agree with you (somewhat) and understand your point. I just think it's important to remember what we did to ourselves.
It's too easy to say, "before the compound" and take no responsibility for what happened leading up to and after the compound. We chose to develope the term, "Traditional Archery". We chose to label ourselves and we chose to promote ourselves in a different way. That is a part of our history too.
Sights or no sights...What's that question really about?
Go back and count the number of labels in these posts to describe those who disagree with use of sights. "Pointless", "arrogant", "elite" and on it goes. Who on either side is any better? We all want what we want, don't we?
Regardless of what you choose to accept, you should remember the choice exists because others have different views. You don't have to agree, in fact, I'd rather you didn't. I might like to try carbons someday and you might like to try wood. Without each other, we might not have either.
Rob- Right on. Is it a crutch or is it a style choice? Makes a difference doesn't it?
Aside from the notion of what should qualify as being "traditional", it is an often hyped fallacy that it is within EVERYONE's ability to learn to shoot a bow accurately without relying on sights. Learning to shoot a bow without sights is a skill that requires dedication, time and yes, some modicum of ability.
Just like everyone can learn to hit a baseball, but not everyone can learn to hit WELL, the same is true of shooting a bow (any bow) without using sights. Anyone can learn to shoot without sights, but not everyone can learn to shoot ACCURATELY without using sights.
Took my meds so my memory is working now. The compound was great because it let you more easily hold at full draw to align your sight, point of aim etc. Many used sights on their recurves, not many shot longbows in those days, many had kisser buttons and/or peeps, no sights viewed the point of the arrow thru the peep, a hot hunting setup was a mascara brush for an arrow rest and a finishing nail for a sight with a peep on the string. We used to spray paint the natural color alum arrows with red paint so we could find them, the good old days.
I firmly believe that "Traditional bowhunting" is much better defined by the individuals mindset and attitude about the hunt than by the particular equipment he or she may choose to hunt with.
I know a few oldtimers who shoot older wheel bows with no sights, no mechanical releases and who won't shoot over twenty yards ever. In my mind even these fellows are true trad hunters.
Well said George. Our first and formost responsability is a humane kill. Whatever equipment we choose to hunt with is a distant second.
-Sharps
My "old school" tribute to Earl Hoyt Jr. Yes I am hunting with this bow this season,, with a sight.
JDS III
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m123/JDS3_2006/100_1402.jpg)
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m123/JDS3_2006/100_1403.jpg)
QuoteOriginally posted by JDS3:
My "old school" tribute to Earl Hoyt Jr. Yes I am hunting with this bow this season,, with a sight.
JDS III
Just Beautiful. A work of art.
One of my most nostalgic recurves - I've had at least 4 Hoyt Pro Medalists and 1 Pro Hunter, and competed for a decade with the Medalists (both freestyle fingers and release aid).
Just gorgeous, the classic Hoyts, Wing Presentations and Slimlines, Bear Tamerlanes and Alaskans, Damon Howatts, and many many more were the high points in the 60's and 70's Art of the Modern Recurve, IMO.
George I read your post and could not agree more. I am fortunate enough to come from an archery rich family. My dad was and still is at 84 an instictive archer and won National tournaments in 1957 in Chicago, came in 10th that year in Watkins Glenn,New York, 1st place in 1958 in Chicago and took 1st again in Chicago in 1959. My uncle, Clif McGrane was a site shooter as we called them and he was as good as they got with a site. He took 2nd in Grayling in 1958 where there were 1400 archers shooting in this National Event. Probably the best female archer in her day was a freestyle shooter by the name of Ann Marsten from Michigan who at 16 years old won a 1955 National Tournament.
Those types of tournaments are a thing of the past. Field archery, target archery and hunter rounds are no longer shot. As a 58 year old who has shot a bow for 50 years ,I have many fond memories of tournament shooting. There were just as many site shooters as instinctive shooters.
Jon Stewart
QuoteOriginally posted by Labs4me:
Aside from the notion of what should qualify as being "traditional", it is an often hyped fallacy that it is within EVERYONE's ability to learn to shoot a bow accurately without relying on sights. Learning to shoot a bow without sights is a skill that requires dedication, time and yes, some modicum of ability.
Just like everyone can learn to hit a baseball, but not everyone can learn to hit WELL, the same is true of shooting a bow (any bow) without using sights. Anyone can learn to shoot without sights, but not everyone can learn to shoot ACCURATELY without using sights.
WHAM!!!! Drove that nail with one great
BIG hammer.
Great post George. You sure come up with some thoughtful posts!
In the late fifties through about 1968 I belonged to an archery club that was in a league with 7 other clubs. These clubs were distributed over southern Illinois with one being in Missouri. Every Sunday there was a shoot at one of the clubs. It was attended by shooters from all the other clubs. Then the next Sunday another club would hold the shoot. The schedule was drawn up before the season started just like a baseball or football season.
All the shoots were NFAA sanctioned and attendance was great. There was always more than 200 shooters in attendance. Believe me EVERYONE took every advantage they could to win. And a few even mounted "Heartshot" sights on their hunting bows. We did not know what traditional archery was. In all eight clubs, absolutely no one shot a longbow. The recurve was king. The longbow was considered by most at that time to be inferior to the recurve. Earl Hoyt's bows were dominent in our area. Shooters in the barebow classes ALL walked the string to to be able to shoot their best scores.
I say all this to show that at THAT particular time we were not a whole lot different than the compound shooter of today. We all wanted to win and that meant shooting the most accurate equipment. When Allen invented the compound most people were slow to take it up because the first ones were pretty ugly. But after a few years everybody was getting beat by the compound so most joined in and bought one.
A few stickbow shooters simply quit shooting tournaments rather than switch. The ones that stayed with recurves were forgotten or looked down on. Only after the resurgence of the stickbow was the term "traditional" used. Now I fear we have a few that shoot "traditional" only to be hip, which is not all bad because a few of them will stay with it and be an asset to our ranks.
Sorry to be so long winded but sometimes I get carried away.
I agree with what you have said George except for one thing that you and others have said or insinuated(sp). That is that new/young "trad" guys are not concerned with hitting what they are shooting at. I am a "new guy" and started shooting stickbows(note the avoidance of the word "trad") back in February after many years with a compound. Now I will admit that I switched at least partly because I think this stuff is cool and I wanted to shoot instinctively, but never have I discounted the need to be accurate. I am not as accurate as I would like to be but I simply live with my current limitations. I work hard on my shooting but do not plan on using a sight. On the other hand, it does not bother me in the least if a guy wants to put one on his bow.
Shawn said that he thought a lot of guys should put a sight on their bow because they are not good shots. Maybe so, maybe not. Maybe they should practice more. Maybe some of you "expert shots" should offer to help them with their shooting instead of dismissing them as "trad wannabes".
Alot of this discussion comes down to old vs new. Newer guys should look to older ones for advice and help and not think that all "trad" started the day they decided to pick up a stick bow. Older, more experiences shooters should offer advice and help to those just starting out so they get a firm foundation of fundamentals but don't chastise them if they choose to do things differently.
Mark
IMHO, you either aim with a bowsight or you don't.
I have been in this sport since '55 and I've learned some things about shooting a bow the easy way ... and some the hard way - usually when things hit me upsides my head after lotsa frustration.
It's quite rare to find an archer/bowhunter that can devise an accurate consistent aiming system that uses both a physical sight and an inner virtual aiming methodology. Choose one or the other.
If you use a sight to "tune up" yer accuracy, that aiming process will not help your instinctive aiming. Choose one or the other.
In any event, particularly if yer a newbie to stickbows, as a first time archer or metriculating over from wheel bows, you would do best to get a competent coach. Archery is a form game and an aiming sport, not at all radically different from bowling or darts or golf.
So, in getting back to George's original post - IMO I agree that there's nothing "non-traditional" about stickbows and bowsights; bowsights have been around for many many centuries. Bowsights are not a panacea for improved accuracy and they all have limitations and compromises.
What matters most to a bowhunter is what will that bowsight do for me? How should I use it to my advantage? Can it improve my accuracy in taking game? Nothing else should matter.
Where are these archery coaches I hear you guys speak of? I would guess it would be easier to find Jimmie Hoffa than an archery coach where I live. Especially if you want one who coaches barebow instinctive shooting.
For most of us, learning to shoot a barebow is a self-taught skill. I use this site and the advice of others that I know who shoot, but for the most part what I know about shooting and traditional archery is a product of my own research and trial and error.
Mark
Mark, it is difficult to find coaches....it wasn't thirty years ago; however, in your state of Alabama, I'm sure there are many older archers who competed and are capable of teaching archery form, and that's basically what is needed. Most guys who shoot badly, lack proper form, and it only takes about five minutes or so to correct the basics.
Guys coming from shooting compounds actually are better equipped to handle the change, since they are probably understanding of archery form. The basics don't change much, but the devil is in the details.
Also, much can be garnered from books, such as Jay Kidwell's treatise, and some older ones that can be found via places like abebooks.com.
Being an old timer I really appreciate the post George. I agree with you in most of what you brought up. I don't believe for a minute that the compound was responsible for the term "traditional" archery. When the compound first came out in my neck of the woods a bunch of people went to them and we still called it archery or bowhunting...no traditional in front of any of it. I also agree that "many" of the recurve/longbow shooters should consider using sights because it's noramlly accepted at the 3d shoots I attend to have horrible scores if you shoot this type of equipment. This has nothing to do with being a new or old recurve/longbow shooter either. Some people can master it some cannot.
Bill Kissner- Simply wonderful!!!! Finally, an accurate description of what the attitudes toward archery equipment were at the time leading up to the compound.
Bill Kissner - Yup, exactly the same for us in the Nor'East from around '58 to about '67, then on through the late 70's when the compound took a firm hold. No one used that 'traditional' word, you did what you hadda do to score on the field or target course (which quickly prompted new and 'inventive' competition classes, geez there were a TON of classes and a gazillion trophies!)- but most of us went back to instinctive aiming when hunting. I was deeply involved in target archery from the early to the late 60's and formed a club of 250+ ... chartered a parcel of city land for a 56 target field course, a 24 target NAA range and a full 180 yard clout shoot field. Most of us hunted together as well, a great group of fellers. Ah, those were the dayze!
If you can't hit the target with your barebow get closer.
I believe the word "traditional" came about after the compound craze to identify it and give it "identity" by participating archers as an original form of archery before the compound days. The word "traditional" became a problem when certain mindsets within the traditional group made newcomers and oldtimers feel as though their equipment had to meet their ideology. That continues today....and their is some frustration caused by it. I feel like times are changing though. I believe the good old days are now. We have a broad base of all facets of "Traditional Archery" to choose from. From most any ideologies to most any equipment a person chooses.Good post George. :D
I think it's time to look at what was traditional in 1967, as opposed to 2007
Nothing was "Traditional" is was just archery The term traditional as we use it today didn't come about until compounds. 1967 is well before compounds.
When it did it simply ment a recurve or longbbow and it didn't include all the bells and whistles you could and can get on compounds, all of which will work better with any compound than todays best recurves.
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico:
... 1967 is well before compounds. ...
H. Allen patented the first compound in '67 and as soon as the word got out by mid '68 there was the Allen compound and then there were all the other "old fashioned traditional bows" (meaning, at that time, recurves).
Hey guys...how bout we all agree on a term. "Traditional" means... not compound. Nothing else.
ChuckC
Rico....none of these "terms" will do us any good in a brick fight 8^). However, discussions such as these are always provocative and may keep us from getting dementia....or at least hold it off for awhile.
Now....what were we talking about?
Rob....that confound bow did not take off until Tom Jennings wrapped his paws around it and pushed it like crazy in the early 1970's. Prior to that it was like any other novelty that not many people were interested in. A few guys from California....well there you go 8^). Tom was quite a salesman and almost single-handedly sold that bow to the masses through hands-on advertising.
QuoteOriginally posted by George D. Stout:
... Rob....that confound bow did not take off until Tom Jennings wrapped his paws around it and pushed it like crazy in the early 1970's. Prior to that it was like any other novelty that not many people were interested in. A few guys from California....well there you go 8^). Tom was quite a salesman and almost single-handedly sold that bow to the masses through hands-on advertising.
Not in my experience in the New England area - more than a few guys were buying Allens in '68 and '69 for both target and hunting. The Allen target guys were *cleaning up* the shoots and that also started the compound/recurve classes, which spurred on the Allen, and then Jennings and PSE marketing and sales took off. All of that alone single handedly brought up the 'traditional' word - IMO, because it was so radical a bow design, unlike the difference between a longbow and recurve where 'traditional' was never a spoken word.
Whatever, the bottom line to me is that they're all words and you can make any word fit or not, as you like. We're good at that. :D
Rob....That's a fact. I remember old Tom at Forksville, Pa., Bowhunter Festival, standing at the target line with a quiver full of arrows and a wood-riser Jennings compound. That was the first one I ever saw in the raw. I think it weight about six pounds. That was about 1973 or 74.
George, I appreciate your post. I shoot a Widow with a Merrill sight and have noticed that not all 'traditional' archers are as gracious as yourself.
I was visiting a southern state and heard that they had a traditional shoot on a particular weekend. I thought it would be fun to go and meet some other archers and shoot some 3d targets. I called and found out that Saturday was the recreational shooting day, and Sunday was the competitive shooting day. I explained that I used a sight and asked if that would be a problem, and told them that I would only be able to come to the Saturday recreational shoot anyways.
Well, to make a long story short, I was told that I could not even shoot the course on Saturday as long as I had a sight on my bow. I could understand them not wanting me to shoot in the competition, but just getting along side some fellas and shooting to have a good time? Oh well.
Well, I took my boys out with their longbows and we had a ball stump shooting on some farm land and I never did make it to the 'traditional event'.
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but George, I sure give you a :thumbsup: for the initial post.
Way back when I shot a compound I had a guy say that I was shooting it the "traditional way". I guess because I had no sights and was using a tab.
thanks George. That was excellent
Alex
I still every now and then shoot my ole Bear with
patched Merrill sight holes. Ive been bowhunting now for 49 years, and still get after it come bow season. (Have Bow Will Travel) Always Traditional
Old School. Regards Carl
The term 'traditional' is a real word that applies to many things including archery, both in concept (see the dictionary) and in practice (its used a million times every day in spoken word and written narrative). So lets forget about that whole 'it never existed' theory. It did, and it does. But exactly how its defined relative to archery is the never-ending debate. It could reasonably be applied to any archery procedure, process, or article of gear that we wish to put it in front of..and debated that way. But we'll never all agree to its 'suitability', whether we're discussing bows, arrows, aiming techniques, clothing or even morals/ethics. About the only thing we CAN all agree to is that our own personal definition is the absolute right one, lol...which of course solves nothing in the finding-common-ground department. By default we have all agreed to disagree. If thats not a stubborn traditionalist characteristic I don't know what is.
The case that George makes is interesting but by no means definitive and in some ways overly presumptive. What might be seen as obvious 'misunderstandings' by some may actually make lots of sense to others, and vice-versa. And who can say one side or the other isn't at least partly right?
One thing's for sure...there is no 'absolute truth' to be gained by bean-counting. Why we shoot and what we shoot is affected by so much more than the sum of encyclopedic-like research or recitations of chapter-and-verse statistics. What we each see and believe to be traditional is borne much more of our own experiences, convictions and aspirations than of the preachings of self-appointed experts, and rightfully so.
I have my perspectives on what traditional is. You have yours. How about we let the hunting laws, tournament rules and our own convictions decide how to apply the term for a given situation and avoid wielding our personal opinions like fire-and-brimstome gospel from the bully pulpit. We can all benefit from being less 'rigorous' in our attempts to persuade/ dissuade and more accomodating in our attempts to understand.
Long about '93, I happened across an issue of Traditional Bowhunter magazine in a local grocery store. Prior to that, I knew nothing of recurves or longbows, instinctive shooting, or any other thing that had to do with traditional archery, even though I'd been bowhunting for about seven years.
There wasn't talk of sights, or carbons, or metal risers or any of this stuff that's new but isn't really new because it existed before. There was talk of simplicity, challenge, dedication, self-reliance and so on. A genuine love of something bigger than what you held in your hand. That is what drew me to this sport. Something more than I already had.
I can tell you this, if the stories in Traditional Bowhunter magazine read, "I estimated 20 yds and leveled my 20 yd pin" instead of, "concentrate and pick a spot" I would not have seen the difference and would not have even had the slightest curiousity. Why would I?
That's not how it read though, and I saw there was something else out there worth pursuing. For me, it wasn't the promise of better scores, or better accuracy, or more game kills. It was the promise of "Traditional Archery". If you've done any reading about it at all, I don't need to explain it.
"Traditional Archery" is not a way of life for me, although I'm guilty of making that statement before. It's a way out of my way of life. It takes me away from what is, to a place similar to what was, but can never be again. That to me is something special, and something worth being loyal to.
The truth is, I'm not going to treat you different if you show up to hunt with sights strapped to your longbow. It's your choice. But I might give you a look and in the back of my head, I'll be thinking you're missing something.
Tsp - That is one of the best posts I have ever read concerning this subject. Well thought out and very well put. My hats off to you. I put in for a Moose permit every year. If I ever get lucky enough to draw one ,like to stop by to meet you. Maybe fling a few arrows (The "Traditional" way).
Excellent thread. Great job George. I'm with pseman - a new "trad guy". I know I'm lucky to have a few willing coaches/mentors that are more than willing to help when asked. A couple books have helped a lot also. But my whole "trad" experience has been complimented and accelerated by this website - the ideas, the support and encouragement, the camaradarie... that I see and feel here have been invaluable to me. THANKS!! and Happy Thanksgiving.
tsp....what you say is true about the word tradition and traditional; however, what seems to drift over people's heads is the "term" was not used to define the genre prior to the compound. To sit and cerebralize all of the connections is fine...but it's not at all what I was referring to.
I hate the term because it is so ambiguous; just look how folks can't even understand what I said in the first place. Tangents are like that road not taken in the woods, and folks veer-off rather easily. My only inference regarding the stupid term is this: It was not used to define the shooting of stickbows prior to the compound. That's it...nothing else...nada!!!!!!
I am quite aware of the definition of tradition and traditional and how they apply to everything in the universe. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
The gist is....that some folks want to believe that sights are for compounds and will make "traditional equipment" nothing more than compound bows. Sights were here prior to the compound....before we used the term to define the genre!!!!!!!
George, I admire your persistence and your posts usually make for pretty good reads. But you need to let go on this one, buddy. Most folks aren't nearly as far out in left field as you seem to think they are when it comes to understanding what's trad. I'll bet that most understand your position very well and quite a few probably even respect your point of view. Its just that they are just as cock-sure it's wrong as you are that it's right, lol.
Freedom for each of us to form our own opinions and pick our own path...its a wonderful thing. Hey, maybe THATS the real gist here!
Oh for pete's sake 8^)...
Shoot well, TSP and have a great season. Some day you will be a TBSP. Just kidding 8^).
Lol...thanks George. I'll make you a deal. I'll be more tablespoony about expanding my ideas in the genre of trad beancounting if you'll be less 'stout' in your traditionally nontraditional mindset. :) :campfire:
You got it my friend. Peace....out.
ttt
Webster's definition of traditional is "(of a person or group) adhering to tradition, or to a particular tradition"
tradition is defined as this "the transmissions of customs or beliefs from generation to generation"
Customs very from place to place and beliefs very from individual to individual. This in and of itself makes defining "Traditional" archery arbitrary.
I am sure that generationally passed down traditions for somebody who is of Crow heritage is vastly different then what someone might receive in Southern Michigan.
I simply like to tell people I bow hunt. If they ask me what bow do you shoot I just say a "recurve".
For me traditions have been passed down not by Fred Bear or Howard Hill. They are two generations ago. They are not the people who speak to me today. The people that have helped me are Fred G, Ron Laclair, Fred Eichler, Brooks Johnson and many on here.
If you want to label yourself a Traditional hunter then do the one thing that is truly our "tradition". Introduce someone to the sport with your customs and beliefs and pass it on to the next generation. I am trying to with my daughter.
Thanks for your insight Mr. Stout. I like to shoot, "I like it alot".
QuoteOriginally posted by HATCHCHASER:
I like to shoot, "I like it alot".
Yup, ditto here Wally.
And George....we don't need no stinkin sights (said with appropriate thick mexican accent and tounge firmly planted in cheek). :goldtooth:
Referring to your starting post, very well said, it is about acceptance, and understanding, they only know what they have been taught.
It is kind alike that with everything, people have a tendency to develop their personification of what something should be. It is like the establishment of this country and its constitution, it is and was founded on principles that are not followed today.
It is the same as traditional archery some people are trying to " change history " so that it makes their ideology look like truth.
That's the biggest part of traditional archery, accepting it for what it is, and not for what we can make it.
I have said the same thing about the word of God. God has excepted us for what we are, so therefore Jesus Christ has taken up where we fail if we allow Him.
The same thing with traditional archery, we cannot make it something it is not, just to please our convenience or shape our world. Some people want to keep traditional archery at a fast pace and I think it's more about slowing down, and the phrase " last is more"
Pastor Carl
I agree about the sights JC, but I have to humor my friends. Wow....I thought this one had gone to the great beyond. :rolleyes:
Very true, George. I was one of those folks with a simple but sturdy pin sight on my Shakespeare Sierra back in the early 70's...
Also, I think we all regarded them more as weapons than the functional works of art we tend to do now.
Pretty much everyone I knew either painted their bows, or to a lesser degree used camo limb covers (we called them socks).
Can you younger guys imagine slapping a coat of flat green spray paint on your new Widow, Blacktail, or even Chek-Mate? :eek:
George, yer too popular for that....obviously heydeerman thinks so too!
George great post and well said per usual. I remember those days well. I too was the exception to the rule back in the days, being one of the few in my area not shooting a sight.(nut) :bigsmyl:
George, I watched this thread last year and I couldn't agree with you more. Even in the eighties I was kind of surprised when I heard myself referred to as a "traditional" shooter-I was doing the same thing in '68 and was just a bowhunter. Many of my friends shot with sights and I don't recall any friction resulting from it. Occasionally one may suggest I use one too if I was having a bad patch of shooting, LOL. Without going overlong, I feel we often do ourselves a disservice by making too many valuative distinctions between methods of aiming, draw weights and arrow materials. The drive to improve is largely responsible for the high quality conventional equipment available to today's archer. My Dad used to tell me "Don't measure "my" corn in "your" bucket. I try to remember that. Grant
NDTerminator....I still paint some hunting bows:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/oldearcher46/Hawkeyepainted004.jpg)
Great post.
I believe that a big part of "traditional" archery is each man shooting what works best for him.
I think most would agree that shooting traditional gear is not just shooting the gear, but also the mentality that goes with it. Traditional shoots bring a different breed of hunter then the rest of the compound world. That is one of the biggest draw for me.
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm299/bowdart/widowbow002-1.jpg)
Still trying to get pix sizes correct. If this works, an old "Widow" with holes drilled and tapped for sights or whatever was popular in the 50's. The limbs on this bow are numbered 5143. This bow was used all over Europe by my old friend (deceased)when he was over there in the Army. Target archery was very popular at that time in Europe and I believe it still is since a friend of mine from Pampa sells a lot of bows over there.
I'd be one or another of the ancient "hordes" that were building laminated bows "traditional?" way back when stuck a stick on a bow to gain an advantage. The Chinese were pretty innovative also.
By the way, my mutt in the background is doing what she does best besides eat. Didn't use her for target. She finds my arrows for me occasionally.
Wow, I can't believe I read this whole thing! As usual, George gives us something to jaw about and mull over. The neat part of this site as opposed to some others is that we can do it in a civil manner. As much as I hate to admit it, I too am getting to be one of the old-timers. I don't care much whether I am considered traditional or not as long as it is understood that I am a hunter first. I tried a compound for about a week...not for me, but I don't have a problem with their use. The same could be said for sights. If they work for you, fine. I don't think they make me shoot any better because when I make a bad shot, more often than not, it's because I plucked the string. Sights won't fix that, only practice will.
As long as what you hunt with is legal and ethical, you will hear no criticism from me. We need to support hunting, period.
(http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm299/bowdart/widowbow003-1-1.jpg)
Old "widow" still shoots well even with the hodgepodge of arrows I grabbed. Coulda put sights on it but like 39coupe, it wouldn't help plucking. This 40 MPH wind factor either. 50 yr. old or so bow and 63 yr. old shooter, I guess we be traditional in some manner.
George; Love ya buddy- but I just plain disagree.
I don't think that the traditional way of bowhunting goes back to just the days of Pope and Young; but thousands and thousands and thousands of years before that.
The societies that hung onto it; and the last of them on this continent - 'ISHI' did not have a sight on the bow.
I did live the Howard Hill; Fred Bear times too; and I remember that what fascinated people about Fred Bear was that he went out intending to shoot game at very close ranges.
The "BUSH BOW" was made to make it easier to work through bushes to get closer to game.
Oh yes - I know about tigers and other things; and yes Fred put a sight on his bows sometimes- but there is still the elephant in your room that you seem to be trying to ignore.
Go to a traditional bow shoot; and people are there not to use "George Jetson" era additions to their bows; but instead to shoot the traditional way........which as I pointed out goes back further than your lifetime or mine...the oldest bow still in existance is 7,500 years old; and there were no tap holes in it from a sight pin.
YEP came the age of the Atom Bomb and we were trying to make everything technologically easier. This led to all kinds of technology; the roots might be a hat pin stuck in cork; but chopping that root off left us with the idea of NOT using sights and trigger releases; and stabilizers and keeping pullies and wheels and cams and lighted this and that: OFF our bows. All this technology headed in the direction we know not where; but we do know away from: TRADITIONAL BOWHUNTING.
As far as those that insist on pointing out that at traditional shoots- a lot of people do not shoot as accurately as you THINK they should be; do remember.... that while target archery in groups is a sport; for every one person there; there are a thousand that are NOT THERE. A lot of us do not like shooting in front of people; because their concentration and perhaps 'purpose' is interfered with- so they don't show up.
Target archery is one thing; bowhunting is another.
I seem to remember the top target in the country missing a buck at 20 yards--- completely!!
I have shot horribly on targets in front of others; and made great shots while hunting.
Target archery is one world; bowhunting is another; and while they do overlap; they are not the same world.
In Rufus' picture of his deer target; how many of those arrows would have killed the deer; and how many would have won an archery tournament?
Traditional bowhunting and Traditional Target Archery perhaps should not- and cannot be compared...
Love ya George; and there is nothing better than a good Stout beer - but gotta disagree: with respect.
To judge one on the performance in another is not fair.
I hate shooting in front of others; and I love bowhunting.
I have made perfect shots at close range; and that is where I belong; and want to be.
:campfire: :archer:
First arrow killed the deer of coarse. Real deer wouldn't let me target practice probably. :archer:
Brian, you're welcome at my camfire any day 8^).
Yes, but buy the time they reach the auction site they could have changed hands 10 times and moved 2,000 miles.
I was shooting in the 1960 in Oregon, but only by myself and have no idea whether lots of people used sights.
We're all using a traditional site at the moment.lol javascript:void(0)
Wink
thanks George; and the same for you :campfire: :archer:
I hope you don't mind that I start my campfires with a bic lighter.....
:bigsmyl:
as a older hunter 66 years young. I have to say that in the 60's a lot of us did use the tape on Reynold sight or heart sight. I also went and shot compound for many years as well as the recurve. Over time it seems that if you use a sight in a traditional bow you are not excepted. But when I think back it also was the 60's that gave use archers first fiberglass log arrows, and then the easton 20-20 logs that I was shooting for about a doz years...now in today traditonal market a lot of us have gone over to carbon and no one says a word, are they not traditionl, maybe for some that want a bow that is hand made by them-selfs, wood arrows with stone points. But for me I sure do not have the skills to make my own outfit. I just say, if the bow is hand held with no let- off use anything you want on it to make you a better hunter. Now if I could find a tape on sight I sure would tape one on to see if I could shoot better.I may even get a kisser and try that to see if I can improve my skill by making sure I come to the same draw extension with each shot. Now I hope my views will not cause anyone to start email me with you are not a traditional archer letter...but I would do almost anything to make myself a better hunter. If that means a sight so be it. I also shoot daily to keep my eye, but after all these years without using a sight I still am a 20 yard hunter.
Bill
Good on ya George. I was taught to shoot a recurve in the early 70's with a pin sight made of foam taped onto the riser and dress makers pins for the sights. I only shoot barebow but I do realise barebow is not for everybody...Glenn...
Sweet old bill, in my drastically messy, can't find anything basement, I have an old Merrill sight. It has holes for screws but it can be taped on. I will send it to anyone who wants it for the cost of postage 8^). I also have a 4 pin Martin hunting sight that bolts to a quiver attachment. Anyone who wants to try a sight just PM me and I'll send it to you to try....with complete anonymity 8^).
Well...I found some old peeps and kisser buttons from my archery shop days.
I am very fortunate that I am able to shoot fairly well without sights. I have no problem at all with folks who use a sight, I wish more folks did. It seems like the folks that thump their chest the most about being a traditional guy are the worst shots I know. I spend a lot of time promoting archery here in Texas with the LSBA (state origination). I meet hundreds of bowhunters a year. When someone asks " are you a Trad guy" I always say NO I'm a guy who loves to hunt with recurvers and longbows.
I would a whole lot rather see someone shoot well, with a sight on there bow. Than shoot poorly and then bash everyone around them for shooting well. I'm sure there are folks that shoot poorly at 3-D and then shoot flawlessly at animals but I have never had the pleasure of hunting with one.
George has been doing this since before I was born in 1967 and probably has forgotten more about archery than I know. My opinion is that if you need a sight on a stickbow to be deadly at 15 steps or less you need more practice. By all means shoot a sight before wounding game without one. My Dad bowhunted in the early 60's thru the early 70's he had a single pin on his hunting bows. They did want to hit what aiming at when they may have had one shot at one deer per season.