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  

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      

DITTO  

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.