Modern archery definitely has its own complexities, but I've always wished there was a barebow category as I feel that its more in the spirit of the Olympics of having very little assistance in your chosen field beyond the necessary equipment, meaning that its demonstration a mastery of the artform and understanding of the physics. Stabilisers, sights, etc. just seem to want to remove the human error that is part of what you need to overcome consistently to be top of your field. Just my opinion though!
I partially disagree. Olympic recurve emphasises human error. The critical part of the shot is the millimetre difference in how they align the sight, how close they are to the clicker, and the perfection of their release. It removes the guesswork of aiming - and aiming _is_ guesswork. Even modern barebow shooters deliberately tune their bow so that they are point-on at 50m, so they're effectively zeroing their "sight" (that is, their entire bow) to remove the guesswork of aiming. Traditional shooters actually do the same thing, but if they don't stringwalk or facewalk, this caps their direct shooting ability to around 30m. That's why the dominant competition formats reflect these distances. Modern barebow is 50m on the big target face, Olympic recurve is 70m on the big face, traditional archery is mostly field and 3D at distances seldom more than 30m and usually a lot less. Every discipline of archery requires mastery of form and understanding of physics. The challenge is proportional to the maximum possible precision.
@NUSensei Thanks for your reply and I agree! Just means different forms of the same sport. I definitely think they could add a few more forms of archery like barebow and horseback and obviously have a different points system for each rather than trying to make it all the same which it isn't
@@21centurymagic That's an issue with the Olympics. The Olympics is, unfortunately, a showcase event that some have made to be the premiere event, but that's not the case for archery, which equally has Compound in its most competitive format, and now barebow. Outside of that, there are major events for other archery, including horse archery. But the events are so different that they can't be run under one unified organisation - and arguably they shouldn't be, because that dilutes the amount of support given to each unique discipline. At the end of the day, the Olympics is a bloated multi-sport event that cities can't afford to host. The IOC would rather bring in a more profitable new sport rather than add to the cost of running a similar event.
@@NUSensei “caps at around 30m” at the end of the day most trad archers are shooting 3d targets simulating hunting or they are actually training to hunt. These distances are what a REAL traditional archer would be shooting at. A trad bow hunter would never shoot a beyond 30m unless you want your hunting license taken away and a night behind bars. Theres no comparison to trad archery and olympic recurve. Are you crouching and bending around trees to shoot target with an olympic bow? I think not it’s just a completely different sport imo. Olympic archery is simply a fun sport. It has no value in the real world to me. Traditional archery is a tool. A tool we been using for thousands of years.
@@Lalaafastroli Absolutely right. The problem is that people don't see the sporting form of archery... as a sport, but hold it against the standards of hunting and warfare. They're different things. Sports encourage participation, personal challenge and socialisation. Treat sport archery in the same practical considerations as soccer or volleyball. They generally don't train hard skills that are useful, but develop soft skills that are important for personal growth.
I recently switched from a Korean bow to an Assyrian but still. @ 50m I'm barely able to hit 5/6 arrows consistently. I still got my bow Hunter recurve and with this I could use the arrow point dead center on the target @70m wich Made this much easier but with my Asiatic bow I don't see any chance of hitting even 2/6.
@@treelore7266 This is true. However, you have to examine the evolutionary history of squirrels. Squirrels had much bigger nuts back then. As archers continually killed squirrels with big nuts, only squirrels with smaller nuts survive to this day.
Most important is to have fun. The traditional archer has one advantage over the olympic one. Try going on a hilly forest 3D parcourse with a olmypic setup, and you will soon wish you would only carry a light wooden bow without all the stuff. Especially in asiatic traditional archery there is much more you can try to get good at instead of trying to shoot as far as possible. Speedshootsin, shooting from kneeling or sitting positions, while walking. All things a modern recurve can not do,or at least not that easily. So these are 2 totally different styles each with its own merits.
Absolutely right. Static target is only one form of archery. Asiatic bows are best suited for other styles. If I'm shooting off horseback, I'm obviously not going to use an Olympic bow with stabilisers and sights.
Those results with an asiatic bow are impressive, I shoot asiatic bows from time to time and find the thumb draw to be probably the most unforgiving technique I've encountered so far in archery. At the moment I shoot mostly compound, often get the comments about how it is easier, which it is if you are looking to get the same results as with instinctive/bare bow archery, but when competing against other compound archers in competition where the top spots are often not so far apart, you come to realise that it has its own challenges, and the challenge is what makes it fun in my opinion.
What most people who genuinely think that "you dont need all that gear" don't realize is that they are indirectly calling professional barebow and traditional archers "bad archers" because they can't get the same scores as the freestyle recurve archers. Every top archer, no matter the equipment division, is a good archer because they are competing against others IN THEIR OWN DIVISION.
There's also the assumption that an Olympic archer can't shoot traditional bows. They absolutely can - I am literally doing that throughout the video. I obviously don't shoot scores as good as my Olympic recurve, but _no_ traditional shooter shoots those scores. My results are comparable to most traditional shooters.
@@jasontsang2232 They don't have an Olympic distance round on record. Ferguson supposedly scores fairly average in 3D archery. The objective evaluation is that we cannot say they are at Olympic standard because they never tried the format. I don't believe they would perform any better than any other trad shooter in long distance. Their skills were in stunt shooting, hand eye coordination and short distance.
Thank you for this excellent comparison video. I loved that you highlighted the characteristics of each discipline and its advantages and complexities. More videos like this are needed.
The tough thing with these comparisons is that most people will come in with prejudices, assuming that modern bows are automated tools. Few critics have actually shot them at a competitive distance, and even fewer have shot competitive distances with both. We have to respect the skill ceiling: there's only so much you can do with a traditional bow. When we do demonstrations at our club to beginners, we do 70m shoots with compound, recurve and traditional to show the difference in standards. Sure, everyone will go crazy over the horse bow with whistling arrows and get excited when they hear 5 hits out of 10. But no one bats at eye at the modern bows hitting the gold, even though it takes great skill to reach that level of consistency.
@@NUSensei Totally agree. Here in my country, Puerto Rico, we have the situation where they do not recognize traditional or Asian modalities as a serious discipline. Personally, I am a believer that each modality has its difficulty and merit.
Aaahh excellent timing, yesterday I started shooting 50 meters with my barebow, so it's really nice to hear you talk about some of my own questions 😄 Cue a random little happy new-hobby-rant, ignore if you're not in the mood: I've only actually started archery this year, messing about in my garden for six months self-taught, and I joined a club two months ago - I didn't realise I had a knack for it until I had some really established people at the club gawking over my progress. I mastered the 20 meter in one week, 30 in two, and I've been shooting 40 for a month now. I already managed to get my first two official Archery GB classifications (UK), and I want to get my Archer First Class now, and I need to shoot 50 meters or yards for that! I really want to become a Bowman this calender year (I don't care what Class within the Tier, I just think it sounds so cool). It's really nice to find something new you love to do and are apparently really good at 35 years old! ☺️ I just got some money as a birthday gift for a better bow, so I might see if I can get one that also allows for a sight so I can try recurve properly too. I'm just so excited about all this haha!
Your bow shooting skills are pretty impressive. I'm relatively new to this and shoot european traditional longbow. Nice to see the asian technique in action and at such long range to. I just start to hit a target at maybe 20m consistantly.
Hi Nu Sensei, Just want to leave some thanks. Your videos made my start into archery much easier. Great channel .... keep it up Greetings from Germany onto the other side of the globe Stefan
I just came back to archery after years away. I was a proficient archer with a compound bow at 40m. With 5 years away I still performed well at 18.5 a few days ago, first time picking up a compound bow in 5 years. Until February this year I hadn't touched a bow since my lat compound bow, and because I'm a little crazy I have returned, but with a desire to shoot traditional bows. That went even further recently, I have moved onto horsebows, because, why not? I can get a good vertical grouping, but my ability to pick the hold over/under is still way off. Seems to be, as you said, an anchoring issue. But I am confident I'll be shooting majority 10 rings within a month or two. But I never plan to be an Olympian, I am happy to just shoot 20-30 metres well, good fun for myself.
Two examples, the first is a little off, because it doesn't speak to the actual accuracy. But there was a member of our online group who was a hunter, and traditional shooter. He also coached JOAD. He got interested in target archery from teaching it. And next thing we knew he made it through the US Olympic selection to a spot as an alternate for the Sydney Olympics. If you follow US FITA, the guys who are really good have been somewhat the same names for decades. All the more incredible that a traditional archer/hunter who taught the kids would vault to a position at the top of the sport. What it proves is that there are a lot of traditional shooters who have very good basic fundamentals. The second example is this guy: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8ZMN-3lDBjw.html Jimmy did a deep dive into field archery techniques that were lost to many in the sport, and put a lot of these techniques up on the internet, and they are now mainstream, again.
Es ist fraglos eine große Herausforderung mit einer bespannten " Latte " , auf 70 m einen Pfeil auf die Scheibe zu bringen , es braucht viel Übung aber , wenns dann hinhaut ist es das wunderbare Gefühl , etwas hinbekommen zu haben , wozu ein Profi , mehrere " Krücken " braucht . Hab ca 46 Jahre selbst Bogenschießen betrieben , der Spaß stand dabei immer an erster Stelle und das , hat mein Leben sehr bereichert und mich Demut gelehrt . 😊
Awesome! Thank you. I've been shooting a traditional recurve (arrow rest and nock point, pistol grip and center cut) and wondering why I'm struggling with even hitting a target at anything over 30 meters! LOLs I'm currently doing about as well at 40 meters as you're doing at 70!
it would be cool to see a specific branch of traditional archery in the olympics though with people competing from 30-50m e.g. plus I bet people shooting warbows, far and few between albeit, would do pretty damn good even at 70m
Would really love to try to shoot long distances like 50 and 70lbs with my Asiatic bow. The problem is, I know I'm gonna keep missing, and arrows are expensive so I'm still here at 30 with some additional foams surrounding the target in case I shoot badly. Losing or breaking an arrow would mean breaking my heart and my wallet.
I've hit bullseye 4x with my medieval English Longbow at 30 meters so far, hope to do it one day at 70+ meters. Even I use my English longbow I use the same techniques Olympic Archers string against my nose and part of my hand under my chin. You might do better, with a longbow it be great if you get 6 arrows in a bulls eye at 500 meters
I was having interesting results with an ILF recurve modified to shoot thumb draw... until old injuries resurfaced. I might have been delusional, but I had pretty high expectations/hopes for 80 yards -- I just never quite got there. While I know it would never be remotely close to olympic accuracy, I think barebow, shelf-less archery can push pretty far out there. If I heal, I'll keep trying, and I should have a custom aluminum ILF 'horsebow' soon to do it with.
While it sounds interesting, I'm not sure if ilf sockets can take all the abuse of khatra torque. Any chance I can follow your project? Very interested as a Korean trad Archer.
@@dongleseon8785 That's a good point on the torque. The Samick Discovery I modified (ground off the shelf of a L/hand riser) takes a wee bit of khatra, but I apply it very lightly. I fear you may be on to something otherwise. I presently have a giant billet of T6061 and four blocks of exotic hardwoods, all of which I intend to make ILF risers with, at 17". I've discussed this with a machinist who assures me he can do the cuts with high accuracy, but I'll have to hand finish/grind the final contours and shapes. You can see approximately what the aluminum riser will resemble in my last video, where I show a cumaru version of it. The precision cuts and angles are beyond my ability, so I cannot progress until the machinist has time. Hopefully soon. But yeah, the world's first T6061 ILF asiatic riser is my big dream. Getting closer.
And then there's the compound with tension releases & such... The accuracy, power and ease of learning is just leagues above any traditional bow. I'm happy to group consistently (
It seems like someone at the olympic commitee or another bow shooting related organisation wants the competition to be held at a distance that is way outside the effective range of any bow that is not equipt with sights and stabilizers. What you describe shows that at such a distance no matter how good the shooter is precision falls due to the nature of the human-bow system. hence why these koreans shoot at a two meter target for that distance. So the question is: why not shoot at a closer distance with less technology in play. This comparison might come across as weird, but the olympic javelin does not come with a rocket booster and a guidance system to arificially increase its range. Why has the modern longbow to be so accessoirized?
You have it the other way around. Archery was _always_ a long distance event. The organised shoots from the 19th century are in the 70-90m range. The prestige and majesty of long-distance archery was always valued and marked the origins of archery as a long-distance tool. However, as we know, the capabilities of the tools did not match the goals. With the march of time and improvements to manufacturing and materials, it is now possible to create the "right" tool for precision shooting, not too dissimilar to how track cycling has advanced from penny farthings to modern composite frames. The sport has stayed more or less the same, but the equipment now enables to reach their goal with more agency. Traditional and barebow events are usually shot at shorter distances, but they don't carry the same prestige.
A javelin is nothing like a traditional spear. While we're at it why not traditional canoes, boxers fighting bare knuckles and swimmers swim in fur hides without goggles and swim caps.
Sensei, I'm an Indonesian subscriber and I was wondering if you could give Jemparingan a go and sharing your thoughts on it? It's a form of traditional archery from the island of Java. Thanks for all the lessons you put up, cheers.
I have used a 32lbs recurve at 40m and got about a 50cm wide group, adding a very cheap post sight reduced the group by about half and a compund bow around 40lbs and a better sight halved that resulting in feathers touching after a few arrows were out (I didn't use a release, this would also add some accuracy). The draw weight of the bow has a big influence as well, the 20lbs limbs I had to hold at the sky so I didn't even see the rings. I still had to hold high with the 32lbs but still could see the rings and adjust to center, but with a 60lbs compound you can hold it horizontal at 40m. The gear makes a lot of difference, but so does the archer. Some people can't hit at 40m no matter what.
Well, of course to were not hitting the middle, you have huge feathers on your arrows. If you fletch your woodies with Spider vanes, you would have nothing but gold! Perfect video. (Just kidding about Spider vanes...)
Another way that Olympic archery fakes it is that it is done with impractically light bows, and on stationary targets. Light bows are not unheard of for historic hunting, whether because the archer snuck up to nearly a distance where they could reach out and touch the deer, or because the archer used poison. But in general I would imagine fairly powerful bows were used, for martial or hunting purposes. The other Olympic fake is that most of martial and hunting archery is on moving targets. Even modern hunting largely ignores this. There is an aphorism somewhere in Confucius where he says, as far as I recollect it, "One would no more do X, than one would shoot a bird on the ground". Indicating that when hunting for birds one would flush them and shoot them out of the air. This being before guns. Other examples are shooting off horseback possibly at targets also on horseback. But modern archery, which has many kinds of competition, does not shoot at moving targets, other than occasional novelty targets, as far as I know. And certainly the Olympic does not. And it is sorta too bad. They got rid of the 1440 round, they could have replaced it with something a lot more visual.
Regarding this point, this is often thrown up as a strawman. No one claims that target archery is practical. Target archery emerged in the 18th century as a gentrified sport. As with all sports, the purpose is to encourage participation through friendly competition. The application of archery as a sport is far removed from its origins as hunting, survival and warfare. It should be regarded as any other sport - certainly sports like basketball, golf and tennis don't have real-life applications either, but are pursuits that benefit the individual in society. There are, of course, styles of archery that are closer to their practical and martial roots. However, each style should be held to their own standards and expectations.
I still can't explain it to myself why these 3 pieces recurves are called traditional bows? Didn't they come out beginning of last century. Thank you for the video!
See my video on "The Problem with Traditional Archery": ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yqhpFoAUzOc.html The short version of this is that people will define traditional archery differently. For some, it's the equipment. For others, it's the method. A traditional shooting method would involve no sights or stringwalking. But depending on when the rule set was "frozen in time", the equipment may include modern bow designs and aluminium or carbon arrows. "Traditional" is quite an arbitrary term that can interfere with how people engage with the sport. Looking at Asiatic for example, having a "wooden arrows only" rule would actually leave out a lot of Asiatic archery practitioners, because carbon arrows are easier to match and cheaper to buy. It doesn't alter how the technique is done, but it does present an unfair advantage if wooden arrows and carbon arrows competed against each other. So what do you do? Do you advance the discipline to encourage better shooting? Do you freeze the rules so that you only have what is permitted in that point in time and no more? Or do you divide the categories and dilute an already small pool of archers?
@@NUSensei Thank you for the explanation! And yes, you are absolutely right. It depends on the point of view. Personally for me traditional bow means a bow that hasn't changed its shape and way to shoot for centuries/thousands of years. For example the barebow has a arrow rest/shelf and a riser. That changes the technique of shooting and makes it easier to hit the target, so for me the bearbow is a modern bow. Of course I am quite new to archery and I maybe talking nonsense. :) Will watch your video. Thanks again!
@@dongleseon8785 A thumb ring is considered a release aid under WA rules. That means if you want to shoot with one, there is only one class that allows that, compound. However, your bow is still not a compound and would be disqualified.
Technically, thumb draw isn't considered compound. The thumb ring is considered a release aid, and release aids are only allowed in the compound division. It isn't the fairest description of what a thumb ring does - but no one shoots thumb draw at WA events anyway. It's only more recently that some organisations like ArcheryGB are introducing an Asiatic division, but the low representation in most places makes it challenging to implement a new rule set.
There are 3 other issues that Olympic Archery needs more equipments: 1) sponsorship, 2) sponsorship, 3) sponsorship. If they shorten the distance and put a new category for your homemade woodstick, how can they milk from those newbies' pockets?
Aiming along the eye is only easier when you are shooting are extremely short distances, where the arrow will fly flat and straight towards the target. This might be under 20m. At long distance, you have to aim significantly above the target. At 70m, by drawing to the jaw, I can keep my arrow point on the target as a reference point rather than a vague point above it.
Honestly, if you were always shooting at 70 metres, at a target of the size used, you'd probably be able to compete. Everyone I am seeign talk about this is similar to you, they shoot much shorter distances. Train it for 6 months or so, and see how well you do
The empirical evidence suggest otherwise. Not only do people who train for 70m perform far below modern recurve standards (as shown by the records), even at 50m, the scores for modern barebow (let alone the far less consistent traditional bows) are still far below that of Olympic recurve despite the 20m handicap. Fact is, no one with a traditional bow, no matter how good they are, shoot at the precision of a modern bow. I've competed with people in Asiatic who are exceptionally skilled. They could hit the target about 90% of the time (compared to the
I did not read every comment but. As an Archery educator I feel like practicing safety is as important as teaching safety, two people walked down range while you were shooting.
The field arrangement is compliant to Archery Australia standards. We are permitted to establish separate, independent shooting areas with if there is sufficient spacing as defined in the guidelines.
@NUSensei I forgot that you are based in Australia. That is a fascinating guideline. I personally just couldn't trust that another human is going to make a terrible mistake at my cost. Thank you for clarifying the situation. You are a huge inspiration and treasure to the Archery community.
Alle olympischen Disziplinen wurden aufgrund ihrer weltweiten Verbreitung ausgewählt . sobald traditioneller Bogensport zum Publikumsmagneten wird kann wie beim Fußball auch Sponsoring Werbung und marketing ..... ? Wilst du das?
Aus diesem Grund ist es wichtig, mehrere Arten des Bogenschießens anzubieten. Der Sport kann eine Art Bogenschütze ansprechen, traditionelles Bogenschießen kann eine andere Art unterstützen.
Wish they have the "Traditional" Archery competition in the Olympics. Different category from the modern recurve Archery. No sights, Stabilisers, no clickers or finger triggers, no alloy or carbon fiber bows and arrow. Just traditionally made Recurve Wooden bows. Natural Strings and Arrows.
I don't think anyone would disagree with having them side by side as another event. They showcase different skills at different levels. But the Olympics won't add more similar events for the bloated schedule. Unfortunately, the traditional archery discipline isn't well supported by World Archery, and a big part of it is because it hasn't been very competitive. 3D archery is the main competitive field for traditional.
Let's not forget that Hill competed against other traditional shooters, and he dominated regional tournaments in a time where there were few serious archers. He is no doubt s pioneer, but these days someone doing the same might be called for stat padding.
@@NUSensei If you've ever seen the channel HuntPrimitive, he has a really interesting history of bow technology in the early 20th century. At the time that Howard Hill was active, laminated fiberglass bows were considered "modern" bows and only bows made of natural materials (mostly wood) were called "traditional" bows. The shift to this new bow technology made hunting bows much more affordable to the average person. Prior to that, only very expertly made wooden bows were considered efficient enough for large game hunting, and rifles were a more affordable option. Howard Hill didn't really do any spectacular feats of marksmanship, but he showed people that a wooden longbow is absolutely not a clumsy, imprecise weapon. He became an icon for "traditional" archery even though bows we now call "traditional" would have been called "modern" at his time. Only after compound bows came around did fiberglass recurves become considered "traditional" and wooden bows took on the new name "primitive".
Let's be honest, with all the doohickeys in modern Olympic archery, I'm surprised it hasn't converted to compound bows like they do in the para Olympics.
L'arco tradizionale e' idoneo al combattimento come testimonia la storia. Il combattimento con arco olimpico sarebbe impossibile. io preferisco un arco tradizionale a 20 metri maneggevole, con tiro veloce e poco ingombrante. Ogni arco ha il suo scopo.
Sì, ogni arco ha il suo scopo. Un arciere olimpico non userebbe il suo arco per la caccia. Penso che la maggior parte dei critici dia per scontato che l'arco olimpico sia l'unico arco che possono usare, ma cambieremo l'equipaggiamento per cambiare lo scopo.
Olympic archery is already challenging. No one has achieved a perfect score ever. The top level results still have a significant gap between first and last. And the top tier only represent maybe 0.1% of people who do the sport. It's completely delusional to think that it's easy or not challenging enough. There's no evidence that an archer from the Renaissance would score to the same level. There's no data on which we can make that conclusion. As identified, traditional and historical competitions tend to work on a hit/miss system rather than score, whereas modern archery focuses on precision on target for maximum score. What about Lars Andersen? He hasn't recorded a 70m score.
As a long time archer it makes me very nervous to see people cross the shooting line while you are still firing arrows. It's one of the first things you teach new archers that this line is sacred and nobody crosses it if someone has an arrow plugged into their bow/nobody plugs an arrow into their bow when someone is still out there towards the targets. I understand that missed shots (especially that far off) are very rare amongst experienced archers and if a group of archers agrees on different rules and is willing to risk it, they may do so, but it sets a very bad example for new archers to show this in your videos, since it is a major safety concern.
I understand the concern. However, our range is set up to Archery Australia guidelines, which allows separate parts of the range to run independently provided that there is sufficient spacing between each target so that it isn't possible for someone to walk into the hazard zone in the event of an accident or deflection.
@@NUSensei I totally agree with @andreasels7779 . Bows are weapons. They have to be treated as such at all time : always expect the unexpected and act accordingly. Complacency towards common sense and bad habits shouldn't become the norm, even if some guidelines are allowing them. So many disasters happened due to a miscalculation of risks. It's also often after tragedies that those sacrosanct guidelines are changed, rarely before. With weapons, better be safe than sorry. And even so, nothing is really garanted ... like how the f*** an arrow ended up planted in the wooden parts of a gymnasium roof during an indoor training session ? The answer of a compound archer of my club : he saw, at the exact moment he was releasing one of his shot, a kid head in his sight. So yes, it also makes me very nervous to see archers crossing so casually the shooting line when other archers are shooting. It's not a guideline, it's complacency ...
Is it me or does every shot with a thumb release show a spine issue? They all seem to leave the bow nock right (weak). While they all land on-target with field points, that kind of flight can cause all kinds of funkiness downrange with broadheads. Have you tested broadhead flight with the Eastern style?
I haven't shot broadhead with Eastern style. The thing to keep in mind is that arrow spine charts don't quite match, since the bow design is different and draw lengths are often longer. If you get a decent tune, they will come out straight - my current 400 spine 29" arrows with 150gr points fly out quite well from my 45# Raptor. However, shot execution is going to have a much bigger effect on arrow deflection. If you're using khatra in your shot sequence, and it's not perfectly executed, that's going to make an arrow flick.
We follow range layout guidelines set out by Archery Australia. We measure the minimum spacing threshold, essentially 15 degrees either side from the shooter's position. Targets placed outside this hazard zone can operate independently. This allows ranges to separate the field to allow for safe simultaneous usage.
Remember that you don't _start_ at the 70m distance, and you can actually can see the gold ring at 70m. Camera lenses don't really capture the real depth perception. It is a challenge to align on the furthest distances, but it doesn't prevent people from doing archery and developing their form first on close distance.
Remove the sight from Olympic recurve and they'll be the same as trad archers. It's the same as shooting a rifle with irons and with magnified optics. Both rifles have the same accuracy, it is the sighting system that changes the result. It is not the archer but the equipment used that decide the difference thus the question is incorrect. Or rather, given the same tools, a trad archer and an olympic archer are not different in result. Just to use your example, give Brady a trad bow and see how the result changes.
You vastly underestimate the difference between a true traditional bow and a modern competitive recurve. It is closer to a black powder to a modern bolt action comparision.
@@ehisey actually not, not that much. check trippe threat archery channel, they hav a video of beginner bow vs pro bow comparison where the better shooter has the beginner bow ...
the thing is, we're not measuring the archer based on how well they hit the target per se. We're measure how well they hit the target compared to other archers within the same rules. All equipment advantages cancel out since everyone has the same access to those equipment. It would be silly for a barebow archer to feel bad they can't shoot the same score as olympic recurve. They're both archery, but the context and rules are differen; so they are essentially a different sport. The difference can be summarised as such: Trad archery - How well you can hit the target Olympic Recurve - How well you can hit the 10 ring Compound - How many times you don't miss the 10 ring
You can't say modern archery isn't easier than traditional. If you had the same archer shoot at 50 with a traditional bow and a modern bow with all it's bells and whistles, the modern bow will have tighter groups. That obvious example aside, modern bows and their stabilizers and clickers take off a lot of the "multitasking" involved in traditional archery. It legitimately IS easier to shoot a modern bow...
It's easier to shoot a modern bow at a closer target. By "fixing" issues of traditional bows you can shoot further. What you make up for in "ease" you make up for in distance.
@@anubis520 that's my point though, if you compared by shooting at the same distance, the modern bow will be easier to shoot. If you give someone with no experience a lesson/session with a moden bow and do the same with a traditional bow, the noobie will likely shoot better groups with the modern bow. It's objectively easier to hit tighter groups with a modern bow.
There are two flaws in this comparison: the first is that Olympic recurve normally shoots at 70m for standard competition, not 50m that traditional shooters might; the second is that it isn't the bow that shoots a better group, but the archer using the bow. The problem with using "easy" as a metric is that it relies on a frame of reference, and much of the disagreement is a glass half-empty or half-full perspective. It's "easier" to shoot a traditional bow because you just pull it back and release. It's "easier" to be consistent with a clicker. But shift the perspective and it's "harder" to use a clicker because it requires millimetre precision to correctly use, and it's "harder" to be consistent with a traditional bow. Similarly, it's "easier" to run a race, because all you do is move your arms and legs. It's "harder" to drive a car, because while there is less physical exertion, there is more technical skill involved in driving effectively. But of course it's "easier" to drive around a course than to run around it. But a runner isn't doing the Indianapolis 500 and a driver isn't doing a 42km marathon. These comparisons mean little when they're not competing against each other. Traditional and modern bows don't compete in the same division, they shoot at different distances, and are more suitable for different disciplines and events. The difficulty of an event should reflect the expectations of that event, not in comparison to others.
@@Petruhafication And in regards to newbies automatically shooting better with a modern bow, this actually isn't true from my experience. It _is_ true for compound bows, which do automate part of the shot process. But an unskilled shooter with a modern bow often shoots far worse because they don't know how to use the sights, find the bow too heavy and, most importantly, have no clicker control. On an equal distance, a _good_ archer with a modern bow will shoot better. This doesn't mean that the bow itself is easier to shoot. It's a better tool that lifts the maximum precision possible. There's more involved in shooting a modern bow proficiently compared to the simplicity of a trad bow, albeit with different standards.
FITA is cheating, Of course it is not cheating relative to the other archers, since they all play by the same rules. But FITA removes key skill from the equasion, so in a sense they are not actually shooting archery. Huh? So the big problem with archery is you need to have one point of reference, or though, and you have to stack the other issues so they are kinda automated. So the big three are: Pulling through the shot; initiating through to follow through of the release; and aiming. So back before the 2000s and the rise of the Koreans, and maybe nothing has changed, the way one stacked these three, to greatest success was to focus only on drawing through the shot, and let the other factors just happen. The way you do that is you concentrate on the action of the draw, and allow the release to be triggered by the fall of the clicker, and the sighting to be simplified to the point where the target size, and sight element can center on the target by the natural tendency of the eye to center concentric circles or find the greatest transfer of light. So the technology in the sight element essentially eliminate conscious aiming and releasing. This is taken to an even higher technical plane with compounds where mechanical released that are triggered by back tension are used and sophisticated sights. Some other stuff like stabilization, adjustments for perfect fit, sophisticated rests, etc... are just optimizations, they don't eliminate the need to do archery, they just refine things. But in particular, the clicker eliminated a key skill, or ability that is part of archery. So a more rational question would be how do Olympic champions perform at real archery?
Olimpic sports are a profit business, and all the gear they add again and again, is the proof. In the future, all the work is going to be done by the Bow.
This actually isn't true. The dominant revenue stream for the archery industry is cheap entry-level beginner bows. Low cost, high demand, high quantity. The second profitable sector is compound bowhunting, followed perhaps by traditional bowhunting. Despite the popularity of the target sport, there's very little demand for the newest and best equipment. There's little appeal in buying to-end gear for someone who isn't competing, therefore there is little profit to be had. This is has been validated by shop owners like Archery Supplies, who more often sell the budget level bows for beginners. Archers usually won't need to buy more than one competitive bow. Nothing has been "added" to the freestyle recurve bow since the 1960s, and the bow that _does_ do the work, compound, does its own thing.
Barebow still has an edge at 30m primarily because stringwalking is less prone to error, though the technological gap is not going to matter as much. In 18m indoor, it's almost a level playing field between recurve, barebow and traditional, though that is truly where it is "easier" with the modern bows and styles.
Basically archers nowadays aren’t good enough without all those aid they use , I wanna see just a basic bow in the Olympics and not all those high tech aids
@@hittrewweuy7595 Skill is skill. Give top archers a basic bow and they will still shoot well relative to the competition. Archers back then couldn't hit the pinpoint targets at the distances shot. With better tools, "good enough" has a different standard.
If the Olympics have the world's best archers, then why the need for all the additional equipment, telescoping, sights, and other tools? Why not allow them only to compete with the most basic of archery sets? This way one might get to truly see would be the most accurate and best archer is.
As I said in the video: the equipment is what limits archers. You can't express skill when the result is almost random. The closest distance that a barebow archer can compete at with any semblance of controlled precision is 50m, and that's pushing the limit of fine-tuned modern barebow. As we see from the traditional and longbow scores, it simply isn't possible to score points consistently. Old competitions with these bows was more or less who would miss the target the least at long distance and then scrape together the most points at short distance. It's not a very accessible sport if you literally miss half your shots. That said, the fact that everyone is permitted to use precision equipment for a precision shooting sport shows skill expression on a equal playing field. A target rifle shooter will use a sight; removing the sight doesn't prove that they are more skilled. They already are skilled, but moving back to a less precise method of aim will naturally mean that everyone will shoot less consistently. Finally, the Olympics does not feature the world's best "archers". It is specifically the outdoor target discipline of archery, which is not representative of all archers. Archers of different styles don't compete against each other, so there is no way to compare who the best "archer" is. This is as broad as saying who is the best "artist" between a painter, a sculptor, a fashion designer, a movie director and a rapper.
The purpose of the modern gear is to improve the consistency of the bow and arrow. Since the entire sport of archery is about perfect form, it does not say anything if you have a wider spread with wooden arrows than with carbon ones. This is because you cannot use your technique to offset the material irregularities. Olympics are about target archery, and target bows are the best for it, because they reduce equipment and environmental unpredictability to the maximum.
@@MZF34 Precisely. Why are modern bows designed to look like over-engineered bicycle frames? Because traditional straight-stave bows have significant issues with torque. Bows without centre-shot cutouts are almost impossible to shoot at arrow straight with due to the archer's paradox. It is no fault of the archer, and no lack of skill, that they cannot shoot the same scores with old bows. The argument of skill can be true if the competition distance was much closer, but the biggest influential factor in accuracy is distance. Distance magnifies errors. You can shoot with poor form but still win a short-distance competition because it was good enough.
@@NUSensei this argument could really use a graph with normal distributions, showing that with an equal gap in skill the worse archer is more likely to win at higher variance than at lower variance.
Traditional archery can look badass depending on the activity, movie or video game. Olympic archery on the other hand, looks really nerdy for beta males.
The best archers? This way we should let chess players use engine and check who is more patient to make a move. Nobody would care about such games as most ppl don't care about modern archery. You can watch socer and try to learn some things. You can watch archery and go to sleep i guess. All you can see is ppl using super tech to hit HUGE target. What kind of person you have to be to be interested if this time its going to be 10, 10, 10 or 10, 9, 10 or 10, 9, 9?
I made that point in the video: the world's best archers (in THIS discipline) are capable of scoring near perfect. But this is literally the top 4 in the world. The rest of the scores in the ranking round reflect a much wider spread. And the Olympic athletes represent the elite in the sport, not the average participant. This is like saying that the 100m sprint is too easy because Usain Bolt, or swimming is boring because Michael Phelps wins everything. I don't disagree that the sport is not exactly interesting to watch, but the sport isn't automated to ensure the best results. Far from it.
Obviously this person never tried archery. Sight of the bow is vastly different from a rifle and the consistency is solely from a shooter unlike a rifle which you add a sandbag and you can suddenly take out 200m with dumb iron sight. Yet this guy would be so entertained by Hollywood sniper action movie. Plus, archers don't shoot to entertain other people. If one watched archery in the couch and thought what a boring sports to do, time to get out of the couch and try something for themselves.
I love watching modern recurve tournaments. The skill of these archers is amazing. And the games are one and lost by a few or even one point. Conversely, I really don't enjoy watching soccer.
@@dongleseon8785 I am in archery for about 5 years already. I tried modern archery, compound, barebows. So yeah, keep your Argumentum ad personam and rest of trashtalk to yourself.
@@NUSensei Would anyone care about Usain scoring his records only cause of prosthetics? I understand your point, but I've got different. Thing we can see on onlympics just took name from the real archery.
