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

RE: [SCA-Archery] About Armguards and such

Expand Messages
  • Dan Scheid
    I said nothing about long range shots. I said that using a short draw worked for them. And could work for her. As for going to firearms . didn t we all.
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 8, 2008
      I said nothing about long range shots. I said that using a short draw worked
      for them. And could work for her. As for going to firearms . didn't we all.
      Damales


      > [Original Message]
      > From: Dan Scheid <damales@...>
      > To: <SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com>
      > Date: 3/8/2008 6:48:56 PM
      > Subject: RE: [SCA-Archery] About Armguards and such
      >
      >
      >
      > I have to agree with Padraig here, and Im going to be blunt we are adults
      > after all... Try pulling to your breast and lower your anchor point to
      > your chin.
      >
      > You may need a stronger bow to have enough kick for the shorter draw. The
      > American Indians drew a very short draw. (Arm to belly) bow held flat,
      >
      > and hunted and feed and protected themselves.
      >
      > Damales
      >
      > --
      > There is a certain error in the citing of Native American archery. The
      eastern(woodland)
      indians were excellant stalkers, being able to get very close to their prey
      before shooting.
      The plains indians did most of their hunting from horseback, as well as
      being able to sneak
      up on their targets. Both did their shooting from fairly close range. The
      incredibly long-range
      shots that the indians always seem to be taking at the horse soldiers and
      cowboys is largely a
      figment of Hollywood's imagination. Also, as soon as they could the
      indians went to firearms;
      much more effective.
      Gardr Gunnarsson



      --
      [Email to SCA-Archery-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to leave this list]

      Yahoo! Groups Links




      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG.
      Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1319 - Release Date: 3/8/2008
      10:14 AM


      No virus found in this outgoing message.
      Checked by AVG.
      Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1319 - Release Date: 3/8/2008
      10:14 AM
    • Nest verch Tangwistel
      When I have a new woman shooting I always tell them to pull the string to the side of the breast closest to the bow, not across the front. Unless you have a
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 9, 2008
        When I have a new woman shooting I always tell them to pull the string to the side of the breast closest to the bow, not across the front. Unless you have a really long bow the angle between the two halves of the string (above and below the arrow nock) should be small enough that the string will only touch the breast lightly. It is also important to make sure the bow arm shoulder is not being pulled way back. that tends to be a mstake new people make because they are afraid of letting the string get that close to your bow arm, but then it can reach across the front of the chest.

        I hope I am making myself clear. It is a little hard to explain online.

        Nest

        Lady Teresa of Blackwell Hall <eyesofblue5_2@...> wrote:
        Thank you for your E-mail, these sound like good solutions.

        I was surprised that I had so much personal pain and suffering
        and yet still managed to put the arrows where they needed to go.
        I enjoyed being able to hit the target, and my friends enjoyed
        watching me do the ouwie dance. So next time I will be armed
        with wrist brace, arm guard, frisbee and corset. Just a few
        more layers and I will be ready for combat archery!

        Thank you again.

        YIS Lady Teresa






        ---------------------------------
        Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • blkknighti@aol.com
        This is how Lenny Cardinale taught women to shoot. My wife was under his tutelage for some time and I was privy to much of his wisdom. It works well for
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 9, 2008
          This is how Lenny Cardinale taught women to shoot. My wife was under his
          tutelage for some time and I was privy to much of his wisdom. It works well for
          anyone with more than small breasts. He ventured to say that when done
          properly it may even help stabilize the archers overall set when at full draw or the
          string at release. This came from watching slo-mo video of the process. There
          really shouldn't be any breast armor because if the string is hitting the
          breast as it passes it also will effect the strings path and adversly effect the
          arrow flight. I have seen first hand the damage to a nipple that made even me
          wince. ( I know your all smiling.... it was on a very overweight shirtless
          male) I would advise do NOT draw the string over your breast if they are ample and
          it simply isn't nescessary or wise.

          Another period source for the use of bracer (armguard) and three fingered
          "shooting" glove on the draw hand is the illumination in the "History of Tarquin"
          (15th century) found in the Zamora Cathedral Treasury in Spain.

          Richard

          In a message dated 3/9/08 5:38:19 PM, eastarch@... writes:


          > When I have a new woman shooting I always tell them to pull the string to
          > the side of the breast closest to the bow, not across the front. Unless you
          > have a really long bow the angle between the two halves of the string (above
          > and below the arrow nock) should be small enough that the string will only
          > touch the breast lightly. It is also important to make sure the bow arm shoulder
          > is not being pulled way back. that tends to be a mstake new people make
          > because they are afraid of letting the string get that close to your bow arm, but
          > then it can reach across the front of the chest.
          >   
          >   I hope I am making myself clear. It is a little hard to explain online.
          >   
          >   Nest
          >




          **************
          It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
          Finance.
          (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • logantheboweyder
          The Teton (Lakota) Sioux first got introduced to horses around 1720. Assigning them any profeciency and tradition in horseback archery hunting might be more
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 10, 2008
            The Teton (Lakota) Sioux first got introduced to horses around 1720.
            Assigning them any profeciency and tradition in horseback archery
            hunting might be more attributable to hollywood, wishful thinking, or
            historical revisionism, rather than having a firm basis in fact.
            Certainly they did not have horseback archery in period times, as the
            horse had been extinct in North America until reintroduction by the
            conquistadores. Louis & Clark wrote that most of the native Americans
            that they came across were completely unfamiliar with the horse. From
            the time that the horse was introduced to the time that the firearm
            was introduced is such a short interval that, at best, only a handful
            of generations even had an opportunity to do it.

            Logan

            --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grossberg" <geejayem@...>
            wrote:

            > The plains indians did most of their hunting from horseback, as well
            as being able to sneak up on their targets.

            > Gardr Gunnarsson
            >
          • Michael Grossberg
            ... From: logantheboweyder To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com Sent: 3/10/2008 10:01:56 AM Subject: [SCA-Archery] Re: About Armguards and such The Teton (Lakota)
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 10, 2008
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: logantheboweyder
              To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: 3/10/2008 10:01:56 AM
              Subject: [SCA-Archery] Re: About Armguards and such


              The Teton (Lakota) Sioux first got introduced to horses around 1720.
              Assigning them any profeciency and tradition in horseback archery
              hunting might be more attributable to hollywood, wishful thinking, or
              historical revisionism, rather than having a firm basis in fact.
              Certainly they did not have horseback archery in period times, as the
              horse had been extinct in North America until reintroduction by the
              conquistadores. Louis & Clark wrote that most of the native Americans
              that they came across were completely unfamiliar with the horse. From
              the time that the horse was introduced to the time that the firearm
              was introduced is such a short interval that, at best, only a handful
              of generations even had an opportunity to do it.

              Logan

              True, before the Spanish arrived, the Native Americans made do with dogs
              as beasts of burden, and didn't ride *them*. However, they were still
              champions
              at sneaking up on their prey. Indian bows were, compared to, say, English
              longbows,
              fairly weak. They didn't have the need for weapons that could hurl an
              arrow long distances.
            • Brad Boda d'Aylward
              This sounds like an instance of Bow Creep or drawing the string across in front of the body with the bow arm angled from the sholder. Getting a *straight*
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 10, 2008
                This sounds like an instance of 'Bow Creep' or drawing the string across in
                front of the body with the bow arm angled from the sholder. Getting a
                *straight* line from the bow hand through the left shoulder to the right
                shoulder (right handed archer) and drawing straight into the side of the
                breast allows the string to go straight away from the breast. The head
                should not be bent over into the string but held upright and draw the string
                to the anchor point. To get the 'arch' to the back and that *straight* line
                I tell archers to 'pinch a quarter between their shoulder blades'. I've seen
                rather well endowed women shoot comfortably this way and avoid the 'titty
                whack' <G>.

                Brad


                Subject: [SCA-Archery] About Armguards and such


                >
                >
                >
                > As to the other "problem" you mentioned, make sure that the string hits
                you
                > on the outside of the anatomy and does not land between the lovely ladies.
                > The other option is to add a Frisbee to your archery gear and place it
                > between your nether garment (note how carefully p.c. I am trying to be and
                > ignore that red glow in the sky over Michigan) and your anatomy. The
                > Frisbee will serve a similar function to the armguard and the placement
                > means no taping or other annoyances are needed. I assume that you do not
                > wish to use the Amazon solution. Self mutilation is such a drag!
                >
                >
                >
                > I hope this helps some, rather than further muddying the waters,
                >
                >
                >
                > Padraig MacRaighne
                >
              • arturdubh
                The thing about making generalizations about anything, is that there are ALWAYS exceptions. Examples: The Natives of the Great Lakes Region are known to have
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 10, 2008
                  The thing about making generalizations about anything, is that there
                  are ALWAYS exceptions.

                  Examples: The Natives of the Great Lakes Region are known to have
                  used ash self-bows, most likely capable of the same range as the ELB.
                  The "Nez Perce" of the Pacific Northwest (primarily modern Idaho) are
                  known to have made, used and traded hornbows (prized for their
                  strength and durability). source: Dr. Grayson's website.

                  To say that "Indian bows were, compared to, say, English longbows,
                  fairly weak" is just too much of a generalization. Same with saying
                  that Native Americans did not become proficient in horseback archery:
                  There were relatively few "tribes" which possesed the "White Man's
                  weapon" (and those that did have guns did not have enough for every
                  hunter - and guns were prized for their advantage in **war**). In the
                  short time between the (re)introduction of the horse and the arrival
                  of the "White Man", the Nez Perces alone became such proficient horse-
                  people that, from all the descriptions I have ever read, they rivaled
                  even the Mongols in riding and breeding; Lewis & Clark wrote that the
                  herds they saw were better than any breed the "White Man" possesed.

                  I have no doubt that many (no, not all) "tribes" had "warriors"
                  capable of supreme horse archery -- even in the latter decades of the
                  19th century, when "all the Indians" had firearms.

                  --Artúr - Never believed the Hollywood version of European archery,
                  either...where every peasant had a hand-crafted yew self-bow that
                  even the King would pay a ransom for.


                  --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grossberg"
                  <geejayem@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: logantheboweyder
                  > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: 3/10/2008 10:01:56 AM
                  > Subject: [SCA-Archery] Re: About Armguards and such
                  >
                  >
                  > The Teton (Lakota) Sioux first got introduced to horses around
                  1720.
                  > Assigning them any profeciency and tradition in horseback archery
                  > hunting might be more attributable to hollywood, wishful thinking,
                  or
                  > historical revisionism, rather than having a firm basis in fact.
                  > Certainly they did not have horseback archery in period times, as
                  the
                  > horse had been extinct in North America until reintroduction by the
                  > conquistadores. Louis & Clark wrote that most of the native
                  Americans
                  > that they came across were completely unfamiliar with the horse.
                  From
                  > the time that the horse was introduced to the time that the firearm
                  > was introduced is such a short interval that, at best, only a
                  handful
                  > of generations even had an opportunity to do it.
                  >
                  > Logan
                  >
                  > True, before the Spanish arrived, the Native Americans made do with
                  dogs
                  > as beasts of burden, and didn't ride *them*. However, they were
                  still
                  > champions
                  > at sneaking up on their prey. Indian bows were, compared to, say,
                  English
                  > longbows,
                  > fairly weak. They didn't have the need for weapons that could hurl
                  an
                  > arrow long distances.
                  >
                • ebpayne
                  The Crow had horn bows too, they re just beautiful and still take over a year to make...the problem with generalizing anything about Native Americans is that
                  Message 8 of 15 , Mar 11, 2008
                    The Crow had horn bows too, they're just beautiful and still take
                    over a year to make...the problem with generalizing anything about
                    Native Americans is that there were so many of such different
                    cultures. There were plains peoples who never adopted horses, or had
                    them but only used them as beasts of burden. Horsebow hunting was by
                    no means universal on the Plains. The Lakota were numerous but only
                    one of many.

                    Sorcha

                    --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "arturdubh" <nasionnaich@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > The thing about making generalizations about anything, is that
                    there
                    > are ALWAYS exceptions.
                    >
                    > Examples: The Natives of the Great Lakes Region are known to have
                    > used ash self-bows, most likely capable of the same range as the
                    ELB.
                    > The "Nez Perce" of the Pacific Northwest (primarily modern Idaho)
                    are
                    > known to have made, used and traded hornbows (prized for their
                    > strength and durability). source: Dr. Grayson's website.
                    >
                    > To say that "Indian bows were, compared to, say, English longbows,
                    > fairly weak" is just too much of a generalization. Same with saying
                    > that Native Americans did not become proficient in horseback
                    archery:
                    > There were relatively few "tribes" which possesed the "White Man's
                    > weapon" (and those that did have guns did not have enough for every
                    > hunter - and guns were prized for their advantage in **war**). In
                    the
                    > short time between the (re)introduction of the horse and the
                    arrival
                    > of the "White Man", the Nez Perces alone became such proficient
                    horse-
                    > people that, from all the descriptions I have ever read, they
                    rivaled
                    > even the Mongols in riding and breeding; Lewis & Clark wrote that
                    the
                    > herds they saw were better than any breed the "White Man" possesed.
                    >
                    > I have no doubt that many (no, not all) "tribes" had "warriors"
                    > capable of supreme horse archery -- even in the latter decades of
                    the
                    > 19th century, when "all the Indians" had firearms.
                    >
                    > --Artúr - Never believed the Hollywood version of European archery,
                    > either...where every peasant had a hand-crafted yew self-bow that
                    > even the King would pay a ransom for.
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grossberg"
                    > <geejayem@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ----- Original Message -----
                    > > From: logantheboweyder
                    > > To: SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Sent: 3/10/2008 10:01:56 AM
                    > > Subject: [SCA-Archery] Re: About Armguards and such
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > The Teton (Lakota) Sioux first got introduced to horses around
                    > 1720.
                    > > Assigning them any profeciency and tradition in horseback archery
                    > > hunting might be more attributable to hollywood, wishful
                    thinking,
                    > or
                    > > historical revisionism, rather than having a firm basis in fact.
                    > > Certainly they did not have horseback archery in period times, as
                    > the
                    > > horse had been extinct in North America until reintroduction by
                    the
                    > > conquistadores. Louis & Clark wrote that most of the native
                    > Americans
                    > > that they came across were completely unfamiliar with the horse.
                    > From
                    > > the time that the horse was introduced to the time that the
                    firearm
                    > > was introduced is such a short interval that, at best, only a
                    > handful
                    > > of generations even had an opportunity to do it.
                    > >
                    > > Logan
                    > >
                    > > True, before the Spanish arrived, the Native Americans made do
                    with
                    > dogs
                    > > as beasts of burden, and didn't ride *them*. However, they were
                    > still
                    > > champions
                    > > at sneaking up on their prey. Indian bows were, compared to,
                    say,
                    > English
                    > > longbows,
                    > > fairly weak. They didn't have the need for weapons that could
                    hurl
                    > an
                    > > arrow long distances.
                    > >
                    >
                  • Lady Teresa of Blackwell Hall
                    In addition to the comments already made about the Sioux Indians so far, it is also important to understand the Sioux (Lakota, Dakota and Nakota) were fairly
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 11, 2008
                      In addition to the comments already made about the Sioux Indians so
                      far, it is also important to understand the Sioux (Lakota, Dakota and
                      Nakota) were fairly recent arrivals to the plains region. Prior to
                      the horse and gun period, the tribe that dominated this are were the
                      Mandan. They were mound builders, hunter/gatherers and
                      farmer/planters. Small bands of Mandan were still living in the
                      Dakotas when Lewis and Clark explored this area.

                      Archealogical evidence shows a "stampede/drive em off a cliff" method
                      of hunting buffalo. Sioux bows were short (2-3 ft long) 1 1/2 to 2"
                      wide, very stiff and sineu backed. Having seen them shot, they are
                      very powerful at short ranges, best suited for rabbit and grouse
                      hunting. War parties used spears and war clubs in human fights. If
                      the Sioux fired arrows at a wagon train, it was more for harrasment
                      and the fear factor than to actually do harm.

                      YIS Lady Teresa, in the heart of Sioux Country


                      --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "logantheboweyder"
                      <logantheboweyder@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > The Teton (Lakota) Sioux first got introduced to horses around
                      1720.
                      > Assigning them any profeciency and tradition in horseback archery
                      > hunting might be more attributable to hollywood, wishful thinking,
                      or
                      > historical revisionism, rather than having a firm basis in fact.
                      > Certainly they did not have horseback archery in period times, as
                      the
                      > horse had been extinct in North America until reintroduction by the
                      > conquistadores. Louis & Clark wrote that most of the native
                      Americans
                      > that they came across were completely unfamiliar with the horse.
                      From
                      > the time that the horse was introduced to the time that the firearm
                      > was introduced is such a short interval that, at best, only a
                      handful
                      > of generations even had an opportunity to do it.
                      >
                      > Logan
                      >
                      > --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Grossberg" <geejayem@>
                      > wrote:
                      >
                      > > The plains indians did most of their hunting from horseback, as
                      well
                      > as being able to sneak up on their targets.
                      >
                      > > Gardr Gunnarsson
                      > >
                      >
                    • Lord Godwin FitzGilbert de Strigoil
                      ... SNIP ... This also describes the bows that the Welsh were using, at the time of Gerald of Wales writing of his journey across Wales, circa 1100. Where he
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 12, 2008
                        > Re: About Armguards and such
                        SNIP
                        >
                        >Archealogical evidence shows a "stampede/drive em off a cliff" method
                        >
                        >of hunting buffalo. Sioux bows were short (2-3 ft long) 1 1/2 to 2"
                        >
                        >wide, very stiff and sineu backed. Having seen them shot, they are
                        >
                        >very powerful at short ranges, best suited for rabbit and grouse
                        >
                        >hunting. War parties used spears and war clubs in human fights. If
                        >
                        >the Sioux fired arrows at a wagon train, it was more for harrasment
                        >
                        >and the fear factor than to actually do harm.
                        >
                        >YIS Lady Teresa, in the heart of Sioux Country


                        This also describes the bows that the Welsh were using, at the time of Gerald of
                        Wales writing of his journey across Wales, circa 1100. Where he describes the
                        Welsh bow as short, rough and twisted as though made from several branches...
                        describing the short elm bow.

                        It is indeed interesting to see the progress of archery in cultures who never had
                        contact with other, but yet their progress and day to day life, is striking similar.

                        Godwin
                        ---- Msg sent via CableONE.net MyMail - http://www.cableone.net
                      • jameswolfden
                        I am going to have to respectfully disagree on this point. Gerald never describes the bow as being short. Most translations have it at rude, uncouth, and
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 12, 2008
                          I am going to have to respectfully disagree on this point. Gerald never
                          describes the bow as being short. Most translations have it at rude,
                          uncouth, and stout. Stout means strong.

                          There is little from Gerald's description that lets us know its length
                          or how it compares to the more familiar English Longbow except that Elm
                          was favoured over Yew.

                          Pure speculation on my part but I believe that the Welsh bow was pretty
                          much an English Longbow and that's why we don't hear any more about it
                          other than Gerald of Wales comments.


                          James Wolfden

                          --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Lord Godwin FitzGilbert de Strigoil
                          <archergodwin@...> wrote:
                          > This also describes the bows that the Welsh were using, at the time
                          of Gerald of
                          > Wales writing of his journey across Wales, circa 1100. Where he
                          describes the
                          > Welsh bow as short, rough and twisted as though made from several
                          branches...
                          > describing the short elm bow.
                          >
                          > It is indeed interesting to see the progress of archery in cultures
                          who never had
                          > contact with other, but yet their progress and day to day life, is
                          striking similar.
                          >
                          > Godwin
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.