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
    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 1 of 3 , Aug 15, 2008
      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.