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

Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: discussion of peerage recognition - Phasing out modern Recurves

Expand Messages
  • 'Merry' Toirdhealbhach Mirywoder Lutre
    ... Could I trouble you to be more specific and classify things in terms of materials used, design, appearance, etc? I m wondering for a couple of different
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 15, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      James Koch wrote:
      > chapters. Now I am going to get myself in trouble. Let's phase out
      > the modern recurve bows. We don't have to ban them. Just require
      >
      Could I trouble you to be more specific and classify things in terms of
      materials used, design, appearance, etc?

      I'm wondering for a couple of different reasons, the first being that
      some people seem to have the idea that despite recurves predating SCA
      period in the Roman Empire, Near, Mid, and Far-Eastern cultures, that
      the recurve bow is post period.

      It's difficult with all things being called 'recurve' as this can
      include any of the following elements.

      1. Compositing Modern - Modern adhesives, fiberglass, carbon, wood,
      et. al.,
      2. Compositing Period - Period adhesives, bamboo, sinew, horn, bone,
      wood, et. al.,
      3. Windows - I think it's safe to assume that these are firmly in the
      'modern' realm
      4. Shelfs/rests Period - another gray area as flight shooting and
      other type of short-arrow shooting was done with special
      bow-mounted and glove-mounted overdraws, which are prohibited in
      the SCA due to (I believe) safety considerations. I think grips
      very often incorporated a very rudimentary shelf made of horn,
      bone and/or leather. Being small organic components, these are
      not nearly as easily documented.
      5. Shelfs/rests Modern - Shelfs in windows, plastic rests,
      drop-aways, clickers, etc
      6. Nocking Points - this is a sore subject with me in general as the
      people of the middle ages were just as intelligent as we are
      today, and if an artist failed to detail it in a painting where
      the bow itself is a simple line, it doesn't by any stretch of the
      imagination mean that they did not use some sort of
      physical/visual cheater to make nocking position consistent, such
      as a piece of thread tied on, or a piece of thread or stick
      between string-strands. Bowstrings being the most perishable
      portion of the equipment of course. Even if they used some sort
      of crimp on metal (I can't imagine that they did), we'd never know
      because an artist would never have depicted it, and the string it
      would have been attached to rotted away ages ago. (ok.. a lot of
      this is assumption on my part... I'm open to being corrected if
      people have documentation to the contrary.... or being reinforced
      if people have documentation to the affirmative)

      Those are all with regards to things that are obviously visible on
      inspection... Where does the definition fall with regards to period and
      pre-period bows that look entirely period but conceal modern
      construction and materials i.e., all of the horsebow manufacturers
      commonly seen on the line, Kassai, Grózer, Tóth, etc that use fiberglass
      instead of sinew and modern CA glues instead of fish swim bladders, but
      then cover them with leather?

      I assume that modern takedowns can be thrown under the bus :) Er
      mass-transit-chariot-contrivance.

      Thanks in advance.

      --

      // Merry

      ----------
      'Merry' Toirdhealbhach Mirywoder Lutre
      Shire of Standing Stones; Formerly: Philippe Sebastian LeLutre
      Christian M. Cepel --- 573.999.2370 --- Columbia, MO
      http://Thistledowne.org/ http://ShireOfStandingStones.org/
      ICQ:12384980 YIM/AOL:Bramblethorne MSN:Merry@ShireOfS.....

      'Toirdhealbhach' anglicized Tirloughe (1576), modernly 'Turlough',
      pronounced 'TIR' or 'TUR' + 'low', 'logh', 'lock', or 'loch'



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • jameswolfden
      When I hear the term modern recurve, I know exactly what is meant. Bringing up period recurves is not neccessary. Nobody has ever suggested phasing out
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 15, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        When I hear the term modern recurve, I know exactly what is meant.
        Bringing up period recurves is not neccessary. Nobody has ever
        suggested phasing out recurves, just the blatently modern ones with
        the sight window cut out of the riser.

        1. compositing modern - if the materials used give an advantage over
        those in period then I would avoid them. I would be fine with the
        old 10 foot rule. If it looked period from 10 feet away, then I
        wouldn't worry too much about material. I am sure some of the real
        hornbow enthusiast might give some argument over whether horsebows
        built with modern materials have any real advantage over a real
        hornbow.

        2. compositing period - if its period its allowed

        3. sight windows - probably the most easily recognizable aspect of a
        modern bow except for the large takedown knobs.

        4. period rests - if it existed in period, it should be allowed. I
        don't know of any specific SCA wide prohibition on period rests
        including sipars and arrow guides. I have heard of people
        demonstrating the use of such things. Obviously, safety should be
        considered.

        My simple definition of a period bow is that if the bow was
        originally designed to shoot off the hand, it is a period bow. I
        have no problem if people want to put some cork in the handle wrap
        or glue some leather or wood to build up a rest. They may have been
        used in period or they may not have. There is not really a need for
        them but they are pretty much invisible to the casual spectator.

        Modern arrow rests - doesn't really belong on a period bow.

        Nocking points - I can live with nocking points. It does provide a
        safety mechanism. I have shoot without. From reading Toxophilus, I
        infer that they were not used. My translation below on his comments
        about nocking.

        "To nock well is the easiest point of all, and there in is no
        cunning ,but only diligent heed giving, to set his shaft neither too
        high nor too low, but even straight <with> his bow. Inconsistent
        nocking makes a man loose his length.

        And besides that, if the shaft hand be high and the bow hand low, or
        contrary, both the bow is in ieopardy of breaking, and the shaft, if
        it be little, will start: yf it be great it will hobble. Nock the
        cock feather upward always as I told you when I described the
        feather. And be sure always that your string slip not out of the
        nock, for then al is in ieopardy of breaking."

        Inconsistent nocking makes me infer that there was no nocking point
        used which would have made nocking more consistent. It would
        eliminate the possibility of setting the shaft too high or too low.

        If we also look at the comments about the bow hand being either high
        or low, it suggests that there wasn't a consistent way to hold the
        bow. This could be because there was no handle wrap. This is
        consistent with examination of the Mary Rose bows. And, no, I am not
        suggesting we ban handle wraps.

        Takedown bows - the socketed longbow takedowns pretty much look like
        longbows when they are put together. It's not obvious that they are
        takedowns.

        All that said, modern recurves are not likely to ever be phased out.
        However, I don't think if we are looking at peerage recognition, we
        should consider skill with modern equipment like centershot bows
        (longbow or recurve). The challenge should be more than just
        shooting well, it should be looking at how period we play the game.

        Just my opinion,
        James Wolfden




        --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, 'Merry' Toirdhealbhach Mirywoder
        Lutre <Merry@...> wrote:
        >
        > James Koch wrote:
        > > chapters. Now I am going to get myself in trouble. Let's phase
        out
        > > the modern recurve bows. We don't have to ban them. Just
        require
        > >
        > Could I trouble you to be more specific and classify things in
        terms of
        > materials used, design, appearance, etc?
        >
        > I'm wondering for a couple of different reasons, the first being
        that
        > some people seem to have the idea that despite recurves predating
        SCA
        > period in the Roman Empire, Near, Mid, and Far-Eastern cultures,
        that
        > the recurve bow is post period.
        >
        > It's difficult with all things being called 'recurve' as this can
        > include any of the following elements.
        >
        > 1. Compositing Modern - Modern adhesives, fiberglass, carbon,
        wood,
        > et. al.,
        > 2. Compositing Period - Period adhesives, bamboo, sinew, horn,
        bone,
        > wood, et. al.,
        > 3. Windows - I think it's safe to assume that these are firmly
        in the
        > 'modern' realm
        > 4. Shelfs/rests Period - another gray area as flight shooting
        and
        > other type of short-arrow shooting was done with special
        > bow-mounted and glove-mounted overdraws, which are
        prohibited in
        > the SCA due to (I believe) safety considerations. I think
        grips
        > very often incorporated a very rudimentary shelf made of
        horn,
        > bone and/or leather. Being small organic components, these
        are
        > not nearly as easily documented.
        > 5. Shelfs/rests Modern - Shelfs in windows, plastic rests,
        > drop-aways, clickers, etc
        > 6. Nocking Points - this is a sore subject with me in general
        as the
        > people of the middle ages were just as intelligent as we are
        > today, and if an artist failed to detail it in a painting
        where
        > the bow itself is a simple line, it doesn't by any stretch
        of the
        > imagination mean that they did not use some sort of
        > physical/visual cheater to make nocking position consistent,
        such
        > as a piece of thread tied on, or a piece of thread or stick
        > between string-strands. Bowstrings being the most perishable
        > portion of the equipment of course. Even if they used some
        sort
        > of crimp on metal (I can't imagine that they did), we'd
        never know
        > because an artist would never have depicted it, and the
        string it
        > would have been attached to rotted away ages ago. (ok.. a
        lot of
        > this is assumption on my part... I'm open to being corrected
        if
        > people have documentation to the contrary.... or being
        reinforced
        > if people have documentation to the affirmative)
        >
        > Those are all with regards to things that are obviously visible on
        > inspection... Where does the definition fall with regards to
        period and
        > pre-period bows that look entirely period but conceal modern
        > construction and materials i.e., all of the horsebow manufacturers
        > commonly seen on the line, Kassai, Grózer, Tóth, etc that use
        fiberglass
        > instead of sinew and modern CA glues instead of fish swim
        bladders, but
        > then cover them with leather?
        >
        > I assume that modern takedowns can be thrown under the bus :) Er
        > mass-transit-chariot-contrivance.
        >
        > Thanks in advance.
        >
        > --
        >
        > // Merry
        >
        > ----------
        > 'Merry' Toirdhealbhach Mirywoder Lutre
        > Shire of Standing Stones; Formerly: Philippe Sebastian LeLutre
        > Christian M. Cepel --- 573.999.2370 --- Columbia, MO
        > http://Thistledowne.org/ http://ShireOfStandingStones.org/
        > ICQ:12384980 YIM/AOL:Bramblethorne MSN:Merry@ShireOfS.....
        >
        > 'Toirdhealbhach' anglicized Tirloughe (1576), modernly 'Turlough',
        > pronounced 'TIR' or 'TUR' + 'low', 'logh', 'lock', or 'loch'
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • 'Merry' Toirdhealbhach Mirywoder Lutre
        Thanks for an excellent response. You ve cleared some things up for me, and given me further oomph to move Toxophilus higher on my to-read list. ... -- //
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 15, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for an excellent response. You've cleared some things up for
          me, and given me further 'oomph' to move Toxophilus higher on my to-read
          list.

          jameswolfden wrote:
          > When I hear the term modern recurve, I know exactly what is meant.
          > Bringing up period recurves is not neccessary. Nobody has ever
          > suggested phasing out recurves, just the blatently modern ones with
          > the sight window cut out of the riser.
          >
          > 1. compositing modern - if the materials used give an advantage over
          > those in period then I would avoid them. I would be fine with the
          > old 10 foot rule. If it looked period from 10 feet away, then I
          > wouldn't worry too much about material. I am sure some of the real
          > hornbow enthusiast might give some argument over whether horsebows
          > built with modern materials have any real advantage over a real
          > hornbow.
          >
          > 2. compositing period - if its period its allowed
          >
          > 3. sight windows - probably the most easily recognizable aspect of a
          > modern bow except for the large takedown knobs.
          >
          > 4. period rests - if it existed in period, it should be allowed. I
          > don't know of any specific SCA wide prohibition on period rests
          > including sipars and arrow guides. I have heard of people
          > demonstrating the use of such things. Obviously, safety should be
          > considered.
          >
          > My simple definition of a period bow is that if the bow was
          > originally designed to shoot off the hand, it is a period bow. I
          > have no problem if people want to put some cork in the handle wrap
          > or glue some leather or wood to build up a rest. They may have been
          > used in period or they may not have. There is not really a need for
          > them but they are pretty much invisible to the casual spectator.
          >
          > Modern arrow rests - doesn't really belong on a period bow.
          >
          > Nocking points - I can live with nocking points. It does provide a
          > safety mechanism. I have shoot without. From reading Toxophilus, I
          > infer that they were not used. My translation below on his comments
          > about nocking.
          >
          > "To nock well is the easiest point of all, and there in is no
          > cunning ,but only diligent heed giving, to set his shaft neither too
          > high nor too low, but even straight <with> his bow. Inconsistent
          > nocking makes a man loose his length.
          >
          > And besides that, if the shaft hand be high and the bow hand low, or
          > contrary, both the bow is in ieopardy of breaking, and the shaft, if
          > it be little, will start: yf it be great it will hobble. Nock the
          > cock feather upward always as I told you when I described the
          > feather. And be sure always that your string slip not out of the
          > nock, for then al is in ieopardy of breaking."
          >
          > Inconsistent nocking makes me infer that there was no nocking point
          > used which would have made nocking more consistent. It would
          > eliminate the possibility of setting the shaft too high or too low.
          >
          > If we also look at the comments about the bow hand being either high
          > or low, it suggests that there wasn't a consistent way to hold the
          > bow. This could be because there was no handle wrap. This is
          > consistent with examination of the Mary Rose bows. And, no, I am not
          > suggesting we ban handle wraps.
          >
          > Takedown bows - the socketed longbow takedowns pretty much look like
          > longbows when they are put together. It's not obvious that they are
          > takedowns.
          >
          > All that said, modern recurves are not likely to ever be phased out.
          > However, I don't think if we are looking at peerage recognition, we
          > should consider skill with modern equipment like centershot bows
          > (longbow or recurve). The challenge should be more than just
          > shooting well, it should be looking at how period we play the game.
          >
          > Just my opinion,
          > James Wolfden
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, 'Merry' Toirdhealbhach Mirywoder
          > Lutre <Merry@...> wrote:
          >
          >> James Koch wrote:
          >>
          >>> chapters. Now I am going to get myself in trouble. Let's phase
          >>>
          > out
          >
          >>> the modern recurve bows. We don't have to ban them. Just
          >>>
          > require
          >
          >>>
          >>>
          >> Could I trouble you to be more specific and classify things in
          >>
          > terms of
          >
          >> materials used, design, appearance, etc?
          >>
          >> I'm wondering for a couple of different reasons, the first being
          >>
          > that
          >
          >> some people seem to have the idea that despite recurves predating
          >>
          > SCA
          >
          >> period in the Roman Empire, Near, Mid, and Far-Eastern cultures,
          >>
          > that
          >
          >> the recurve bow is post period.
          >>
          >> It's difficult with all things being called 'recurve' as this can
          >> include any of the following elements.
          >>
          >> 1. Compositing Modern - Modern adhesives, fiberglass, carbon,
          >>
          > wood,
          >
          >> et. al.,
          >> 2. Compositing Period - Period adhesives, bamboo, sinew, horn,
          >>
          > bone,
          >
          >> wood, et. al.,
          >> 3. Windows - I think it's safe to assume that these are firmly
          >>
          > in the
          >
          >> 'modern' realm
          >> 4. Shelfs/rests Period - another gray area as flight shooting
          >>
          > and
          >
          >> other type of short-arrow shooting was done with special
          >> bow-mounted and glove-mounted overdraws, which are
          >>
          > prohibited in
          >
          >> the SCA due to (I believe) safety considerations. I think
          >>
          > grips
          >
          >> very often incorporated a very rudimentary shelf made of
          >>
          > horn,
          >
          >> bone and/or leather. Being small organic components, these
          >>
          > are
          >
          >> not nearly as easily documented.
          >> 5. Shelfs/rests Modern - Shelfs in windows, plastic rests,
          >> drop-aways, clickers, etc
          >> 6. Nocking Points - this is a sore subject with me in general
          >>
          > as the
          >
          >> people of the middle ages were just as intelligent as we are
          >> today, and if an artist failed to detail it in a painting
          >>
          > where
          >
          >> the bow itself is a simple line, it doesn't by any stretch
          >>
          > of the
          >
          >> imagination mean that they did not use some sort of
          >> physical/visual cheater to make nocking position consistent,
          >>
          > such
          >
          >> as a piece of thread tied on, or a piece of thread or stick
          >> between string-strands. Bowstrings being the most perishable
          >> portion of the equipment of course. Even if they used some
          >>
          > sort
          >
          >> of crimp on metal (I can't imagine that they did), we'd
          >>
          > never know
          >
          >> because an artist would never have depicted it, and the
          >>
          > string it
          >
          >> would have been attached to rotted away ages ago. (ok.. a
          >>
          > lot of
          >
          >> this is assumption on my part... I'm open to being corrected
          >>
          > if
          >
          >> people have documentation to the contrary.... or being
          >>
          > reinforced
          >
          >> if people have documentation to the affirmative)
          >>
          >> Those are all with regards to things that are obviously visible on
          >> inspection... Where does the definition fall with regards to
          >>
          > period and
          >
          >> pre-period bows that look entirely period but conceal modern
          >> construction and materials i.e., all of the horsebow manufacturers
          >> commonly seen on the line, Kassai, Grózer, Tóth, etc that use
          >>
          > fiberglass
          >
          >> instead of sinew and modern CA glues instead of fish swim
          >>
          > bladders, but
          >
          >> then cover them with leather?
          >>
          >> I assume that modern takedowns can be thrown under the bus :) Er
          >> mass-transit-chariot-contrivance.
          >>
          >> Thanks in advance.
          >>
          >> --
          >>
          >> // Merry
          >>
          >> ----------
          >> 'Merry' Toirdhealbhach Mirywoder Lutre
          >> Shire of Standing Stones; Formerly: Philippe Sebastian LeLutre
          >> Christian M. Cepel --- 573.999.2370 --- Columbia, MO
          >> http://Thistledowne.org/ http://ShireOfStandingStones.org/
          >> ICQ:12384980 YIM/AOL:Bramblethorne MSN:Merry@ShireOfS.....
          >>
          >> 'Toirdhealbhach' anglicized Tirloughe (1576), modernly 'Turlough',
          >> pronounced 'TIR' or 'TUR' + 'low', 'logh', 'lock', or 'loch'
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          >

          --

          // Merry

          ----------
          'Merry' Toirdhealbhach Mirywoder Lutre
          Shire of Standing Stones; Formerly: Philippe Sebastian LeLutre
          Christian M. Cepel --- 573.999.2370 --- Columbia, MO
          http://Thistledowne.org/ http://ShireOfStandingStones.org/
          ICQ:12384980 YIM/AOL:Bramblethorne MSN:Merry@ShireOfS.....

          'Toirdhealbhach' anglicized Tirloughe (1576), modernly 'Turlough',
          pronounced 'TIR' or 'TUR' + 'low', 'logh', 'lock', or 'loch'



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.