Re: Difference between A&S and Archery
- A new can of worms indeed, and I even have my spoon....
>From: Chris Nogy <cnogy@...>Kaz, I think the answer is 'Yes and No'. The east has an award called the
>Subject: [SCA-Archery] Difference between A&S and Archery
>Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 16:51:34 -0700
>From: Chris Nogy <cnogy@...>
>Sir Jon is heavily promoting the Archery Masterwork Judging as a method to
>accomplish the goals many have set out, and I am in agreement that it can
>nothing but help.
>My question - is it reasonable to say that there should be
>some part of the recognition of the marksman that revolves around a working
>knowlege of period gear in general? And is it reasonable that some part of
>recognition of the craftsman of archer gear should come from at least a
>moderate level of skill with period gear?
>A new can of worms
'Tygers Combatant', a high merit award which is purely for fighting. When I
started playing with porch furniture, the distinction between that award and
knighthood was most carefully drawn, with much attention paid to the
non-martial requirements for the white belt/baldric. I suggest that
something similar be a strong part of any Kingdom's archery program, even
though there is no peerage for archery.
I believe that top gun is an important distinction, that the best shot at a
given tournement or in a given group deserves recognition for their skill,
even if they suffer spiritual BO and can't even spell 'chivalrous'. At the
same time, the man who spends the winter making his own gear and the
summer/fall shooting it has also done something deserving real recognition.
The guy who spends time he could be shooting inside, making creative and fun
roving range targets for other folks to ventilate is also due some
significant attention, IMHO.
The A&S aspect of this game is real, and you cover it succinctly. The
service aspects are also real, and so are the purely martial skills we
exercise every time we step to the line. I say recognize them all, and I
say that the highest recognition should go to that archer able to
demonstrate significant to outstanding achievement in all those areas plus a
demeanor and behavior exemplifying the best ideals of our sport and the SCA.
My contribution to the coming wave of opinion,
PS. Any chance you'll turn up at Pennsic? There are some very fun shoots
- In the West there are the Royal Company of Archers, a grant for target
archery. And the Royal Company of Yeomen, a grant for missile combat. In
both it is expected that the members not only shoot very well, but that
they also have aided their kingdom by service and that they set an
example for others by their gear, knowledge, etc. They are not required
to use only period type gear, but anyone that did would be more highly
> >(big snip)working
> >My question - is it reasonable to say that there should be
> >some part of the recognition of the marksman that revolves around a
> >knowlege of period gear in general? And is it reasonable that some partof
> >theYes to 1 and 2 is the can of worms... i.e. you use the words craftsman and
> >recognition of the craftsman of archer gear should come from at least a
> >moderate level of skill with period gear?
> >A new can of worms
skill in the same sentence. I think there are awards (recognition) for
craftsmanship (being new I can't really say for sure) , however to me the
word skill in the context of your wording means for the use of weapons. Here
is where I am thinking there is not enough recognition (awards etc.) for the
pure period Archer. Having only used a modern fiberglass recurve in the past
I cant really comment on using a period ELB, although I want one. I think
once people realize that there is some difference between a period Looking
archer with a recurve, and a period archer, the recognition of the latter
will improve by some measure.
Just my .02$
Ross Mac Kenzie