Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

998Re: Archery Scoring( Long reply)

Expand Messages
  • aleksei1@xxxx.xxx
    Oct 31, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      There will be a lot of snippage here...

      On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:31:04 -0800 Chris Nogy <cnogy@...>
      writes:
      >From: Chris Nogy <cnogy@...>


      >Would you say that it is OK for any group within the SCA to consistently
      promote activities that 80% of the time are almost totally non-period?
      > And would you say that the best time for teaching those non-period
      things is at a
      >practice (a place where learning the skills of the SCA is the most
      important
      >thing, not competition?).
      Speaking for our local Barony, we use our practices more for teaching the
      basic techniques of good archery, which haven't changed over the
      centurys. The RR is a good indicator of increased ability to group your
      shots, which comes in handy when trying more 'period' shooting, and falls
      within the space and safety constraints we have.
      > I believe that SCA archery practice should be used to fully ingrain the
      ideals of period archery techniques, as this is the place where most
      folks see and retain the most information.
      What ideal techniques are you speaking of that are different from today?

      >Also, if there was no ranking system associated with the RR, if all you
      got was
      >a score at the end of a round (for your use only, not ever to be used in
      any
      >official ranking system) and it was never recorded or used for ranking
      inside
      >or between groups, do you think the shooters would be as interested in
      RR? I
      >for one find the repetition of routine IKAC or a RR to be almost tedious
      to the
      >point of not shooting if that is all that is offered.
      Over the years, I have found humans to be a competitive group. They will
      find some way of ranking themselves, I guess this is as good a way as
      any.

      >On the other hand, if we had a ranking system associated with some
      purely
      >period shoots (several types of shoots, and a way of combining scores to
      get a
      >better 'overall' picture of an archers ability) do you not think that
      the shooters would be asking for these shoots instead?

      That depends on the shoot and the constraints of the area. A clueless
      new archer probably wouldn't enjoy a York round much, since they'd
      probably be all over the field and may only hit the target a time or two
      out of 144 arrows. The RR and IKAC are good training tools.

      >I agree with Macsen. Giving a Grant for RR performance (no matter how
      high) is
      >quite revolting, and if true has done more to set back the attempts of
      getting
      >more period archery into the context of the SCA than any ten other
      actions to
      >date.

      As a good friend of Andras the Truemark, I can tell you he received
      applause and accolades (and a lot of teasing)from his fellow archers -
      but no grant award

      >I also agree with Macsen's thoughts that more archers on the line is not
      >necessarily the final goal we aim for - more period archers on the line
      should
      >be more important. And it is almost as easy to do, all you as a marshal
      have
      >to provide is a regularly scheduled set of period style shoots and a way
      of
      >scoring them that allows them to see personal improvement. After all,
      if you
      >don't have RR's, you don't teach their importance to new archers, they
      only
      >learn what they are taught (in the beginning, the formative stage) and
      you have
      >successfully led a new person to the practical art of medieval (not
      modern or
      >pseudo-modern) archery.

      I don't believe you are giving enough credit for the intelligence of our
      new archers, or their teachers.
      >
      >We do not hold anything against the leatherworkers and calligraphers
      >for not using fulminated mercury in gilding, because it is a very likely

      >harmful or fatal technique.
      >In my opinion, archers can use different equipment in their quest for
      knowlege,
      >but when it counts it should be the good stuff.

      So, everybody else should be relegated to the 'back forty'?

      Period archery is just as safe as modern archery, there are no inherant
      extra risks, so why do you ask that archers be held to a lower standard
      than we hold everyone else? I still say that if we don't promote
      individuals to be rewarded for reaching a plateau that
      >rests almost exclusively outside of period, and we promote individuals
      being
      >rewarded for going deeper into period, then we end up reaching the same
      >personal goal (we recognize achievement) but we do it in a way
      consistent with
      >the by-laws and charter of the SCA.
      >
      >Kaz
      I do agree that 'periodness' should be rewarded, but basic skill in
      archery must not be ignored. We all must make our own decisions on what
      level we wish to attain, and how we will get there. Without a fiberglass
      recurve, I would not be shooting the yew longbow I now have. Without
      K-Mart special arrows, I would not be making my own self-nock, matched
      arrows. There are those to whom archery is a passion and those who find
      it a pleasant diversion...there is room for both on my line.
      HL Aleksei Zateev
      AnTir
      ___________________________________________________________________
      Get the Internet just the way you want it.
      Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
      Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic