I agree with Bisch!

This is what a recurve looked like back in Howard's prime.  I enjoy this vintage look but I'm not the archer Mr. Hill was by any measure.  It could be that someone with his abilities can tell the difference instantly compared to a Hill Longbow once it is in their hand.  



This picture is one I made as a sinew backed recure some years back for my son.  It is nearly identical in style to the Fred Bear bow above.  Certainly not like the sleek looking fiberglass laminated bows we consider traditional today and since the 60's.

The rest of us mere mortals, at the stunted yardage we normally shoot, I suspect this old Bear can shoot right along side of an old Hill bow.  We need to take into consideration that Howard had a knack of hitting targets and killing game at distances many rifle hunters can't duplicate.  
Fred Bear perfected the recurve whilst Howard immortalized the Longbow.  They were both great archers, entrepreneurs and marketers.  And we love the acclaim the both brought to this wonderful sport.

Didn't Hill famously say (where in print I don't know) that he wasn't "skilled enough" to shoot a short recurve bow accurately? I assume that the disdain for the alleged instability/sensitivity of a recurve which John Schulz expresses in his book reflected the influence of his mentor Howard Hill.

What Bisch said!

I have a howard hill 1965 catalog which is available through Cornell press . There are 9 different models of recurves in it but only one longbow ! A couple of those are kids bows. I have heard from someone that knew howard that when they first came out he took a negative stance on them because he could not make them and hence couldn't sell them . Obviously by 65 things changed.