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

Re: Archery Scoring( Long reply)

Expand Messages
  • D Humberson
    S ... I do not agree that a dichotomy necessarily exists. ... Against this example, I offer the example of Aethelmearc s top 2 RR scorers, Baron Connor
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 13, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      S


      >From: Chris Nogy <cnogy@...>
      >Reply-To: SCA-Archery@onelist.com
      >To: SCA-Archery@onelist.com
      >Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Archery Scoring
      >Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:36:58 -0700
      >(Snip)
      >Again, I ask (in earnest seriousness) which is more important - being a
      >great
      >archer or having a great score.

      I do not agree that a dichotomy necessarily exists.

      >
      >I have seen Master Leif (arguably Calontir's finest archer, but seldom
      >among
      >the best IKAC scorers, even when he shoots IKACs in earnest) beat many of
      >the
      >scores-list individuals in war competitions or other Inter-Kingdom
      >challenges -
      >in fact his usual ranking is at the top or in the top 1 or 2 percent in
      >each
      >competition he shoots. It is disconcerting to see the routine differences
      >between the posted score level of many folks and their actual shooting
      >abilities - it brings back an old statement - "You can make the numbers say
      >anything you want". But I would put my money on Master Leif anytime - he
      >has
      >proven his skill in the field and on the line more times than I care to
      >remember.

      Against this example, I offer the example of Aethelmearc's top 2 RR scorers,
      Baron Connor Bowsplitter and Master(at Arms) Cormac Dubh. They are both
      Ludicrous Bowmen, and either one will vacuum any roving range or stump shoot
      you care to construct. They are excellent shots, whether at a 100 yard
      sentry in a clout or at a 20 yard bull.

      >
      >This is what I mean - there is a discrepancy between the running scores
      >that we
      >record and the daily results many archers deliver - myself included. I
      >have
      >great days (far above my average ability), good days (a little better than
      >average), average days, and poor days. I can turn in an impressive top
      >score
      >in anything during a season, but that will not reflect my actual repeatable
      >abilities, and I am not the archer that my great days would make me look
      >like.

      This observation seems to set a high value on consistency, which I agree is
      important, but relegates peak performance to a lesser value. This may be
      the core of my disagreement with you, Kaz - I see both as important, both as
      motivational.

      >But I judge myself on my daily performance, not on my best seasonal score -
      >that would be like a fighter asking to be judged on his best single tourney
      >performance in a year, rahter than his overall daily ability.
      >

      I'd point out that, if that fighter's best performance is in Crown, we may
      'judge' him King:-)

      >I feel like running score systems and awards and rank based on them promote
      >the
      >wrong type of achievement,

      A point here. The only awards tied to RR scores, with which I am familiar,
      are the archery rank badges, which in Aethelmearc confer no precedence. If
      any kingdom does tie armidgerous awards to the RR, I'd love to hear about
      it.

      What is ".. the wrong type of achievement"? Do you object to the numeric
      aspect of scoring, to the objective nature of the ranking, or to some other
      aspects of this round?

      >and that a system like the Fyrd and Huscarl system
      >in Calontir (admittedly not perfect, but it works pretty well) which brings
      >about discussion within the order covering routine skill and behavior and
      >attitude and knowlege, not just a recorded score, makes more sense within
      >our
      >Society. It promotes a level of skill and involvement that cannot be
      >promoted
      >by running scores. It puts the focus on involvement and consistency and
      >the
      >routine display of your real skill within the environment of the line - and
      >it
      >encourages you to be seen and known and then your skill is respected
      >without
      >having to have a running score system.
      >

      Consistent skill is highly desirable, indeed. How does recognizing skill
      degrade deportment, or lessen involvement? In Aethelmearc the Scarlet
      Guard, a GOA polling order for Archery, promotes exactly the sort of
      behaviors you espouse( and sets a very high standard for the rest of us),
      but it coexists quite well with a RR ranking system.

      I would be the first to deny that RR scores tell the whole tale about an
      archer, but they do provide a real value both to newcomers and to the
      regulars. To the archers I marshal, I emphasize that RR scores will show
      you your own improvement, or lack of it. The ranks do provide incentive,
      and I regularly see people working harder on form, release, or speed as they
      approach the next 'cookie'. Speaking as a marshal, anything which gets
      people out and shooting is a big step forward by me.

      --- Philosophical Musing Alert ---

      Target archery is a competitive sport. We shoot clouts, wands and wreaths;
      Royal Rounds, IKAC's, roving ranges, grinders, and endless other inventive
      and fun rounds; we shoot for ourselves, our local groups and our kingdoms.
      Formal or informal, when archers get together they will find out who shoots
      best that day.

      Formal scoring is not limited to IKAC's or Royal Rounds, either. Our last
      King's Champion final shoot was a 10 target, 3 station timed friend/foe
      shoot, but each target had explicit scoring zones and a defined value for
      each zone. Friendly hits cost a specific value as well. This did not
      detract, so far as I could see, from the enjoyment felt by any of those
      skillful enough to make the finals.

      If you like unscored 'fun shoots', enjoy them. If you enjoy hunting gold
      rondels, may you shoot a 6-way Robin Hood in the X. Why try to dictate what
      sorts of archery are available to others?

      --- End Alert ---

      >(snip)
      >What say you?
      >

      Lots, as this post attests.

      Ragnar Ketilsson
    • Bob & Nancy Upson
      ... An Tir has apparently been clueless enough to make the Ludicrous Bowman an official ranking. Allegedly it carries a _Grant_. Bozos. ... The round itself
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 13, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        > A point here. The only awards tied to RR scores, with which I am familiar,
        > are the archery rank badges, which in Aethelmearc confer no precedence. If
        > any kingdom does tie armidgerous awards to the RR, I'd love to hear about
        > it.

        An Tir has apparently been clueless enough to make the Ludicrous
        Bowman an official ranking. Allegedly it carries a _Grant_. Bozos.

        > What is ".. the wrong type of achievement"? Do you object to the numeric
        > aspect of scoring, to the objective nature of the ranking, or to some other
        > aspects of this round?

        The round itself is harmless enough, albeit totally mundane and not
        related in the least bit to period archery; it's the totally overinflated
        sense of importance often attached to RRs that makes them a
        problem.

        > I would be the first to deny that RR scores tell the whole tale about an
        > archer, but they do provide a real value both to newcomers and to the
        > regulars.

        It is newcomers that are cheated the most by RRs, IMHO. There
        is often so much pressure to shoot RRs that new archers are
        pushed into shoots that not only don't aid in their developement but
        actually work agaisnt it. Not to mention the fact that too much
        focus on RRs means little or no focus on period shoots.

        > To the archers I marshal, I emphasize that RR scores will show
        > you your own improvement, or lack of it. The ranks do provide incentive,
        > and I regularly see people working harder on form, release, or speed as they
        > approach the next 'cookie'. Speaking as a marshal, anything which gets
        > people out and shooting is a big step forward by me.

        Wouldn't it be preferable in the SCA to encourage them to come
        out and shoot something *period* than just to "come out and
        shoot?"

        Macsen
      • Chris Nogy
        As many of you know, I am a proponent of period archery. I believe that the greatest accomplishment we can attain as SCA archers is to find a way to spend a
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 13, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          As many of you know, I am a proponent of period archery. I believe that the
          greatest accomplishment we can attain as SCA archers is to find a way to spend
          a great deal of shooting time participating in 'period' shoots, with all the
          attendant period philosophy.

          I cannot find in my research any running scores competitions within the period
          we study. I can find instances where a name was associated with victory in a
          contest. I cannot find a "close gets points" competition, but I can find
          hit-or-miss competitions. The most obscure references I have ever seen with an
          explanation of the targets being shot in the Lutrell Psalter (which look like 3
          ring targets) say that this was an artistic interpretation of a stuffed garland
          (a garland with a wound rope core) and not a variable-score target.

          The finest archers of period gained their fame on the basis of their abilities
          of the bow in daily use, not from some recorded set of scores.

          If RR or IKAC scores are so good at helping a person judge their own
          advancement, then make them regular parts of archery practices - that would
          achieve the same end. But I would like to see them done away with in any
          official capacity because too many folks rely on them and them alone to pick
          champions teams at large wars, to justify elevations into orders, and other
          things that make these scores the perceived primary indicator of ability of
          archers - and they fail miserably at that job.

          Yes I know Connor Bowsplitter, and until Pennsic I did not know that he was a
          Ludicrous Bowman. He used to shoot (and maybe still does) with my first ever
          crossbow. I knew of his skill because I heard archers talk of him for years,
          and because I have had the opportunity to shoot against him.

          But people like Leif and Conner do not kill my case. Any archer with the skill
          to do well any time they go out can score an impressive set of numbers in any
          of our competitions. But not every archer that scores impressive numbers shows
          that level of skill. The man makes the numbers, the numbers do not make the
          man. And if all we know is the numbers, we never know what the man is capable
          of (except that he was capable of at least one good score).

          All my proposals are based on getting to know the man through interaction, not
          just getting to know the name because of numbers on a page generated somewhere
          far away. Legends are built on the merit of a man, and diluted by putting too
          many unknowns based solely on numbers.

          I cannot find any reason that modern archers cannot gain the recognition they
          deserve following this particular mindset either - it does not keep one from
          becoming well known as an archer - it just requires that you do a little more
          to promote yourself within the organization, and that if it is universal
          recognition you want, then you go out and seek it.

          We defend to the point of destroying one discussion list the right to shoot in
          a modern style with modern gear, and we defend with strong words the right to
          shoot with a modern mindset. All these things are justified by saying

          "If these things bring more archers to the line, then they are great."

          But I put it to you - if I allowed compounds in Calontir, I guarantee I would
          bring many more archers to the line, and I don't believe it would be a good
          thing. A good thing would be bringing many folks to the line who had an
          understanding of the mission of our Medieval Recreation Group and did not have
          to have that understanding modified later in order to get there. Sheer numbers
          are not the basis of judging something a 'good thing'.

          I applaud the efforts of those who are trying to organize the period archery
          company. I still believe, however, that the goals of that company should be
          the goals of archers in the SCA - you could form a more limited company (say,
          the Agincourt Archers) and be exclusive, but to ask that archers in a medieval
          recreation society be expected to hold some type of medieval mindset and use
          some types of medieval gear within a structure of competition and activities
          that is consistent with the Middle Ages still doesn't seem too outlandish to
          me...

          Kaz
        • D Humberson
          Macsen, Note the origination date on my post. This is the second long post that I ve seen come through days after I made it. I m scanning headers when I
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 30, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Macsen,

            Note the origination date on my post. This is the second long post that
            I've seen come through days after I made it. I'm scanning headers when I
            finish my mail, and will respond to you privately with my results.
            Meanwhile, you raise some good points, so I'm going to respond with some
            further thoughts.

            >From: "Bob & Nancy Upson" <wyvern@...>
            >Reply-To: SCA-Archery@onelist.com
            >To: SCA-Archery@onelist.com
            >Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Archery Scoring( Long reply)
            >Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:54:38 -0400
            >
            > > A point here. The only awards tied to RR scores, with which I am
            >familiar,
            > > are the archery rank badges, which in Aethelmearc confer no precedence.
            >If
            > > any kingdom does tie armidgerous awards to the RR, I'd love to hear
            >about
            > > it.
            >
            >An Tir has apparently been clueless enough to make the Ludicrous
            >Bowman an official ranking. Allegedly it carries a _Grant_. Bozos.
            >
            So much for 'just us chickens' shooting. Lady Tudor-Glitz takes up archery?

            > > What is ".. the wrong type of achievement"? Do you object to the
            >numeric
            > > aspect of scoring, to the objective nature of the ranking, or to some
            >other
            > > aspects of this round?
            >
            >The round itself is harmless enough, albeit totally mundane and not
            >related in the least bit to period archery; it's the totally overinflated
            >sense of importance often attached to RRs that makes them a
            >problem.
            >
            OTOH, a shooter's name on a RR ranking list may be the only time he sees
            that name recognized by his kingdom after his AOA. I do see that sort of
            recognition as a real aid in keeping folks interested both in archery and in
            the SCA. Somebody using their ranking to play "I'm better than you" needs
            to be called on that behavior.


            > > I would be the first to deny that RR scores tell the whole tale about an
            > > archer, but they do provide a real value both to newcomers and to the
            > > regulars.
            >
            >It is newcomers that are cheated the most by RRs, IMHO. There
            >is often so much pressure to shoot RRs that new archers are
            >pushed into shoots that not only don't aid in their developement but
            >actually work agaisnt it. Not to mention the fact that too much
            >focus on RRs means little or no focus on period shoots.
            >

            Here I can only speak for my own group, but in the last 6 - 8 weeks we've
            shot RR's, 5 and 10 yard grouping practice( 5 yd with eyes closed is next,
            now that I've got a 36" mat), wands, 70 yd random distance walkups, IKACs,
            and a horseback shoot. It was a sawhorse, but we shot horseback! Of those,
            RR's were about 80% of the total ends.

            > > To the archers I marshal, I emphasize that RR scores will show
            > > you your own improvement, or lack of it. The ranks do provide
            >incentive,
            > > and I regularly see people working harder on form, release, or speed as
            >they
            > > approach the next 'cookie'. Speaking as a marshal, anything which gets
            > > people out and shooting is a big step forward by me.
            >
            >Wouldn't it be preferable in the SCA to encourage them to come
            >out and shoot something *period* than just to "come out and
            >shoot?"
            >
            >Macsen
            >
            If the shooters aren't there, how can they try anything different? Most of
            the new shooters I see are only new to the SCA - I'd say less than a third
            have not drawn a bow before. Wherever they come from, the shooting mix I
            offer is actually a bit lighter on RR's than the mix they request, and the
            difference is exactly those more period shoots to which you refer.

            I can and do nudge folks to try the next step, whether in garb, equipment,
            accessories, or style. Spence Colby recently pointed out to me that this is
            a SCAdian martial art which can be practiced with equipment, style, garb and
            weapons documentably identical to those used in period.

            In no way do I disagree with the goal of encouraging more period shooting,
            but I do not see a coercive approach as fruitful. The proportion of RR's
            shot at BMDL practices is high, but it is high by request of the shooters.
            They do ask for some of the other targets at times, and they do come back.
            How far they go is up to them, but some will keep going just as some will
            find a plateau and stay there. If both groups have learned something about
            period archery while shooting their SCAonly/pseudoperiod/totally modern
            RR's, had fun doing it, and keep shooting, I see that as a win all around.

            BTW, Happy New Year

            Ragnar Ketilsson
            Ragnar
          • aleksei1@xxxx.xxx
            There will be a lot of snippage here... On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:31:04 -0800 Chris Nogy ... promote activities that 80% of the time are
            Message 5 of 9 , 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.
            • Chris Nogy
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 31, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                > From: "D Humberson" <dhumbers@...>, on 10/31/99 1:59 AM:

                > Here I can only speak for my own group, but in the last 6 - 8 weeks we've
                > shot RR's, 5 and 10 yard grouping practice( 5 yd with eyes closed is next,
                > now that I've got a 36" mat), wands, 70 yd random distance walkups, IKACs,
                > and a horseback shoot. It was a sawhorse, but we shot horseback! Of those,
                > RR's were about 80% of the total ends.
                >

                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?). 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.

                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.

                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?

                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.

                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. In my mind, too many marshals fall back and punt to a
                RR or an IKAC because it is easy to set up and run, and requires the least
                effort on the part of the marshal. I have had my share of failures with some
                of my competition setups, but I have never fallen back and punted to the
                easiest thing for ME to do - I always try to provide something that will
                stretch the archers skill and enthusiasm, not just another 72 arrows.

                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. But if it were not, we would expect it to be done. Sure, we
                would get more calligraphers if we started accepting ball point pens and paint
                markers as a new standard of excellence, but the quality of work would be
                noticably inferior when judged against the work of period artists. Not
                inferior in itself, but inferior in context. We allow calligraphers to use
                disposable pens (or computers or light tables or erasable inks or watercolor
                markers) in their quest to learn their skill, so that they can focus on design
                ideas or lyout formats or many other artistic pursuits, but when it counts, we
                don't give awards for that work, we give awards and recognition for the good
                stuff. And we don't let folks reach a plateau of watercolor markers and bic
                pens - they go past that point or their work is seldom if ever used.

                In my opinion, archers can use different equipment in their quest for knowlege,
                but when it counts it should be the good stuff. 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
              • ATruemark@xxx.xxx
                Greetings unto the list I have been following, with interest, the debate concerning rankings, royal rounds, period shoots and the lot. Thus far I have seen no
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 31, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Greetings unto the list

                  I have been following, with interest, the debate concerning rankings, royal
                  rounds, period shoots and the lot. Thus far I have seen no posts from those
                  of us fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to have achieved Ludicrous scores in
                  the Royal Rounds. This is despite what I have perceived to be some
                  less-than-kind remarks directed our way. Everyone is entitled to have their
                  opinions, and often they serve as a spur to new thinking and positive change,
                  both of which I favor. However...

                  >An Tir has apparently been clueless enough to make the Ludicrous
                  >Bowman an official ranking. Allegedly it carries a _Grant_. Bozos.

                  This particular statement finally got to me. Yes, AnTir has made the 120+
                  Royal Round average an official ranking, with the title "Ludicrous Bowman."
                  No, the rank does not carry a Grant, anymore than Apprentice Archer or any
                  other rank. To state this, when the veracity of the information is readily
                  available, shows irresponsibility and laziness on the part of the author.
                  And then to follow it with a derogatory remark that blankets an entire
                  Kingdom, reduces the author to mere boorishness. Shame on you!

                  The making a new rank was simply the acknowledgment that such scores could be
                  accomplished. The precedent lay with the creating of the rank "Grandmaster,"
                  which followed "Master," when someone demonstrated ability in the Royal Round
                  equal to these designations. Nothing more, nothing less.

                  I have a Grant level award, called in AnTir the Jambe de Lion, which is an
                  arts and sciences award for excellence in a given endeavor. I received mine
                  for excellence in archery, as measured, not only by the Royal Round, but
                  combat archery, teaching, manufacture of archery related equipment, promotion
                  of archery....I was also recently invited into the Order of the Grey Goose
                  Shaft, AnTir's highest archery specific award, based largely (but not limited
                  to), the things referenced above. Both awards were based on recognition of
                  excellence, not RR scores.

                  At Pennsic this year I shot with the East Kingdom Champions Team, and met
                  many wonderful people. I was also, pointedly, told by Master Li Kung Lo that
                  I may be good at RR's, but I had a ways to go in the styles of targets and
                  venues used in the East. And you know what? He was correct. That is my new
                  challenge, as are some of the (better) ideas occasioned by the current debate.

                  To have consistently achieved royal round scores over 120 means exactly that
                  - I have specialized a style of shooting that allows me to accomplish this.
                  But it has also pushed me well beyond any limits I previously considered and
                  continues to present new and higher challenges. And anyone who has ever shot
                  with me knows that I strive for very high levels of competence, whether it is
                  with recurve, traditional longbow, or traditional crossbow. That is what I
                  like to do in my SCA archery quest.
                  Rather than denigrating the effort it takes to achieve such scoring, remember
                  the effort that comprises your own individual excellence and realize that we
                  all are trying to be our best - whatever the standard of measurement.

                  In Service,

                  HL Andras Truemark, OGGS
                  Ludicrous Bowman, AnTir
                  (And not ashamed of it!)
                • Bob & Nancy Upson
                  ... The statement says, allegedly. Look it up. I ve heard comments from credible people to that effect or I wouldn t have mentioned it at all. As for
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 31, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > >An Tir has apparently been clueless enough to make the Ludicrous
                    > >Bowman an official ranking. Allegedly it carries a _Grant_. Bozos.
                    >
                    > This particular statement finally got to me. Yes, AnTir has made the 120+
                    > Royal Round average an official ranking, with the title "Ludicrous Bowman."
                    > No, the rank does not carry a Grant, anymore than Apprentice Archer or any
                    > other rank. To state this, when the veracity of the information is readily
                    > available, shows irresponsibility and laziness on the part of the author.

                    The statement says, "allegedly." Look it up. I've heard comments
                    from credible people to that effect or I wouldn't have mentioned it at
                    all. As for "irresponsibility and laziness," well Andrass, let's just
                    say I'll take your comments under advisement for what they are
                    worth.

                    > And then to follow it with a derogatory remark that blankets an entire
                    > Kingdom, reduces the author to mere boorishness. Shame on you!

                    I'll stand my my assessment. If the people of An Tir -- particularly
                    the archers -- are clueless enough to allow their Crown to make
                    "Ludicrous Bowman" an official rank, I can't see that they have
                    much of a position to throw stones.

                    > The making a new rank was simply the acknowledgment that such scores could be
                    > accomplished. The precedent lay with the creating of the rank "Grandmaster,"
                    > which followed "Master," when someone demonstrated ability in the Royal Round
                    > equal to these designations. Nothing more, nothing less.

                    So find a better name. "Ludicrous" was meant as a joke.
                    Adopting it as "official" demonstrates, at best, a lack of imagination.

                    > I have a Grant level award, called in AnTir the Jambe de Lion, which is an
                    > arts and sciences award for excellence in a given endeavor. I received mine
                    > for excellence in archery, as measured, not only by the Royal Round, but
                    > combat archery, teaching, manufacture of archery related equipment, promotion
                    > of archery....I was also recently invited into the Order of the Grey Goose
                    > Shaft, AnTir's highest archery specific award, based largely (but not limited
                    > to), the things referenced above. Both awards were based on recognition of
                    > excellence, not RR scores.

                    You're too humble, Andrass, don't forget your proposal for An Tir
                    Rangers. I'm told that you, and nobody else, would instantly
                    qualify if such a proposal was adopted.

                    > At Pennsic this year I shot with the East Kingdom Champions Team, and met

                    Thank heavens I didn't this year. Your brilliance might have been a
                    distraction. It's a shame that politics encourages Kings to invite
                    out-kingdom archers onto the team.

                    > Rather than denigrating the effort it takes to achieve such scoring, remember
                    > the effort that comprises your own individual excellence and realize that we
                    > all are trying to be our best - whatever the standard of measurement.

                    I don't recall ever denigrating your effort or any other LB's. I believe
                    I clearly denigrated your _kingdom_ for losing sight of the SCA's
                    mandate and by being distracted by mundane paper punching.

                    Macsen
                  • Yaakov or Ralph
                    Greetings to all on this list, Well let me be next Ludicrous to make comments on the ranking system of archery and how an archer is perceived. This will
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 31, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Greetings to all on this list,

                      Well let me be next Ludicrous to make comments on the ranking system of
                      archery and how an archer is perceived. This will strictly be my opinion and
                      lot looking for heated debate.

                      For these of you who don't know me, I am Lord Yaakov Avrham ben Obadiah,
                      Ludicrous Bowman of the Knowne World that lives in the Kingdom of the East
                      in the Barony of the Bridge. I have been evolved as an archer for 3 years
                      now with the SCA and I had set some goals for myself. The day I made Master
                      Bowman was one of the most honored days to remember till I went to Pennsic
                      that year. That war season I made Grand Master and was awarded at Pennsic
                      XXVII in East Kingdom court. What does all this mean, I can shoot a target
                      real good and then there is always the rank of Ludicrous Bowman.

                      This past Pennsic I was given the honor of being presented in Great Court.
                      It was a very emotional experience. I was standing with the good folks whom
                      I call Peers. To have the opportunity to shoot with such Lords of the Knowne
                      World would only make me a better archer. During the Champions shoot I had
                      the chance to shoot against 3 other Ludicrous Bowman and to me it wasn't
                      about winning or loosing.

                      Everyone that competes in any archery tournament is a champion in my eyes.
                      You are promoting the art and skill that you love. But one of things that I
                      have learned of the years, is to be calm and stay relaxed and you will
                      perform at your best. So I go in to shoot with the who cares about winning
                      attitude. If someone comes to me and says it was fun to shoot with you,
                      that's all the thanks I need to be a winner. So what does all this lead to,
                      is simple really.

                      There are two types of archers, there are target archers and the tournament
                      archers. There are a few that excel at both but those are a rare breed. To
                      rank a target archer is easy, look at the royal round list for the Kingdom.
                      I feel that the list that is published needs to be expanded to state what
                      type bow is being used for that average. I would like to see it broken down
                      this way.

                      For hand bowman
                      Rank, SCA Name, Location, Long Bow, Recurve, Adv.

                      For crossbowmen
                      Rank, SCA Name, Location, Sited (y/n), Adv.

                      Its more work for the Kingdom score keeper than maybe they want. To see this
                      sort of list gives a better perspective on how people are doing at royal
                      rounds. You will also see some of us that would be on the list 2 or 3 times.
                      I know a few people that shoot 3 royal rounds, each with a different bow
                      (I'm guilty). So this leads us to those whom compete, and think that is all
                      of us.

                      I have seen some archers that do real well at shoots at smaller events and
                      don't do as well at a high profiled one. This doesn't mean, there not
                      competitive, they are. To shoot well at a high profile shoot takes
                      experience and learning from the past events. I compete at K&Q Archery and
                      make the final, the pressure is there and this year I did well but never
                      achieved the end result. I made an error that I haven't done in a long
                      while, I treated the final round as a speed shoot and blew it. It was still
                      a fun shoot and I learned from it. One thing I am guilty of far to much is
                      to have a liquid with me so I don't dehydrate.

                      Being prepared for the shoot is the most important part of being an archer
                      to me and I do a poor job sometimes. I still haven't learned from my
                      mistakes but I am getting better. So there is a lot here that I had to say,
                      some of topic that I felt relevant, most how I feel about the ranking
                      system. I closing thought, I like the fact that the Ludicrous isn't an
                      official rank with the exception of An Tir and hope it stays that way.

                      Lord Yaakov Avraham ben Obadiah
                      (Silly) Ludicrous Bowman of the Knowne World
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.