Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Archery Annoyances | Why Olympic Shooters "Suck"
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2017
- According to some people, Olympic-style archers are incapable of using their bows without their sights and fancy gear, and this is the "evidence":
Archery Challenge: 30 metres without sights or stabilisers!:
• Archery Challenge: 30 ...
===
Follow me on Facebook:
/ nusensei
As a new traditional archer... I'm just happy to hit the target...
Same. I hope you've gotten better in these three years, but after ~2 weeks I feel seen by this comment lol
@@NestorKYAT Practice, practice, practice!
I shoot traditional bows, and I fully agree with this. Give those three guys 10 mins practise at gap shooting, and let them take the time with each shot that they usually do, and my guess is they would get good very quickly.
If you display some skill, then someone says "now let's see you do that with (x,y,z)" it usually means "I can't do that."
Iron Pirate and let’s be honest, the same would have happened the other way around. Give someone who is used to a bow with a certain weight distribution and to aim with his bare eye, an Olympic bow and see how he manages with a completely different weight distribution and having a rod between his eye and the target.
I too love asking marathon runners to sprint and using it as evidence that they suck at running.
That's funny. I literally LOLed. :)
ROFL
@Akatosh Dragon God of Time
I bet their jog is as fast as most people's run.
Beautiful icon Ms Lambert.
I didnt realize removing attachments from your bow made your energy delivery system anaerobic.
I'm a traditional archer. And Nusensei is right.
Only NuSensei 😂😂😂😂
Stick an F1 driver into a Rally car and see how well they do, and vicerversa; different discipline and equipment, go figure they didn't do as well as some asshats expected them to...
No its not
Remove traction control and the like from F1 car would be more like it
You guys compare bows and guns
F1 hasn't had TC since 2009.
they will be excellent.
F1 drivers can drive anything.
@@sevenrats It was an analogy; replace F1 driver with bus driver if it helps you to get the point...
A little bit like asking a sniper to 'no scope' a target whilst shooting from the hip...
Going with that analogy, it's more like putting a sniper in a position where they have to fight in close quarters using a pistol. If they have the training and familiarity with that weapon and scenario, they'll do okay. If a pistol-shooter has never used a scoped rifle, they're not going to perform well on their first shot. It all comes down to practice and experience. Anyone who says they can do better than these three Olympians in this challenge...is probably not lying, but it's not much of a boast.
All I meant Bob, was that a Bow it's in Olympic set up makes use of a sight and very specific anchor point and technique etc not to mention stabilisation aids. The archers in the vid don't have use of any of their regular aids or techniques (due to speed shooting) and shorter range. I thought it a fair comparison 😊
snipers should be good at math and range estimation . if he cant triangulate it doesn't matter if he has a scoop or not . the sight is just a reference to help the archer triangulate
Morten Jacobsen - I really can't see how a scoop factors into the equation Morten? We're talking serious archery here, not ice cream making.
SCOPE typo, aiming device , sight.
When I was researching archery before my first class, I was almost lead down the extreme traditional path, partly because there's also a group that view that firearms should be modern yet bows should be as basic as possible to balance or something like that. Anyway, my class actually used bare compound bows and occasionally a hunter would swing by and let us use their bow, which immediately made us fond of sights.
Now, this is where the biggest change seem to come in as I was the only one in the class to not end up buying a compound bow and a target recurve with sights seem to align more with barebow than a compound with sights. Whenever I used a fully setup compound it was practically automatic bullseyes yet my recurve adds more variables I have to control and will likely transfer over to a traditional style pretty easy with some practice with a barebow.
I remember people scoffing at me for being a .22lr bench rest shooter but I learned in my first competition when everyone has the same equipment you do, your equipment is no longer an advantage and it comes down to who has the highest skill set, the calmest nerves and ice water in their veins.
Yeah, ISSF shooters also get this a lot.
Many Traditional archers cannot do what Olympic shooters do because their sport is way different than what is required for Olympic shooters. Traditional archery simulates hunting which is to hit a target (animal) with the first or second shot from varying distances. Their "kill" zone which scores the highest points is about the size of 9 point ring on an Olympic target face. Their "critical" Hit or wound is about the size of the 6 point ring. Their challenge is to hit from one target to the next at varying distances while conforming to outside terrain. The premise of Olympic shooting is not just to hit a target 2 or 3 times but to hit the center of the target (which is less than 2 inches across) 30 consecutive times. In other tournaments it can be 60 or 90 shots at the same distance. Olympic archery is all about consistence and precision. Any trad archer can say they can hit a target every single time but most cannot get the very center of the target every time.
Disagree, longbows were not for hunting and do not simulate hunting
Traditional hunting bows may do that, longbows definitely not, hence their distinction, moving round a hunting terrain with a longbow is cumbersome and would alert any prey to your presence .
You're legitimately not familiar with historical archery are you?
Dave longbows can be used for hunting, I’ve seen a few longbow trad hunters.
Longbows were used for hunting humans on the battlefield. The comments RE: kill zone area above are incorrect regarding the size, because the size of the kill zone ring depends on the size of prey, so a large boar will have a larger kill zone than a Turkey! Also, this is why the scores required on the target field for barebow are lower than that for Olympic for awards, because it is recognised as being more difficult to achieve them. So, it’s always nice to exceed the Olympic scores whilst using barebow 😜
So, trad shooters say, that modern equipment gives Olympic archers the advantage to be a good shooter. It's all about the technology they say, right?
Well, if trad shooting elitists claim, that Olympic archers are useless without their modern olympic recurve bows - because they can't shoot accurately with barebows - then by that very same logic it must mean, that traditional shooters would be better archers with Olympic recurve bows than Olympic archers.
So why don't those trad shooters go and buy Olympic recurve bows with the best sights and stabilizers - and win all the world cup matches, tournaments and Olympic medals?
I mean, they must be able to do so, because a good archer is defined by how accurately he/she can shoot with barebow - and if "useless archer" can win Olympic medals with modern recurve - imagine how amazing a good traditional barebow shooter will be with the same modern equipment...
Maybe those trad elitist archers don't care about Olympic medals?
Maybe they are too modern for them :)
Would they need to be stronger if they changed to traditional bows?
There are definite advantages for Olympic archers in achieving accuracy, as you say, large stabilisers, sights, etc. But I find there’s something primeval about shooting barebow, the simplicity of it, the rawness. If for example shooting field, or 3D, there’s no standing around trying to work out what distance to set your sight, you just point and shoot. It’s faster, more instinctive, more satisfying. And if hunting, the game has likely moved on before you’ve worked out how to set your sights, so it’s more useful not to use them.
They would do extremely well with just regular bows but i do not think that all this fancy technology should be used for the olympics, it should just be a regular bow because of tradition
@@impelcrato9258 I personally would like to see all kind of archery in Olympics, traditional or modern; recurve, longbows, 3d-shooting, horse bows, compound shooting etc. I like archery in general, so the more different kinds, the better. It would also educate people and make them see that archery is a broad field with many subcategories, all a bit different, but something for everyone.
I use both, and like both end of the story
As a traditional archer (very traditional - Wooden longbow) it is my experience that freestyle (Olympic) archers shoot traditional very well indeed given a little time to adjust to the equipment, gap-shooting etc - because a good freestyle shooter has developed a good technique, and the basics of that (back tension, release etc) can transfer to the other style. In fact the need for absolute repeatable consistency in Olympic archery probably leads to developing a better technique than many traditional shooters.
I agree, and I'll vouch for it from personal experience having also shot Western traditional and Eastern traditional. The fundamentals are the same, and freestyle archers tend to have more structured progression due to their regular training and competition. In contrast, many traditional shooters are self-taught or develop their own technique through experimentation. It's harder for a traditional shooter to follow the same precise process as a freestyle shooter, and in my opinion, a freestyle shooter will adjust to traditional faster than the other way around.
In general I'd agree with that. Mind you there are traditional archers who do work on developing a good technique, it is, for instance, recorded that when Howard Hill taught anyone to shoot he made them spend 2 or 3 weeks working on good form with a blank boss before using any kind of target. In my more humble way I have tried to do the same.
There's an interesting chapter in the 'Traditional Bowyer's BIble' vol 4 where the wood bow hunting archer JIm Hamm works on form (and mental approach) with the help of a good compound target archer.
I began archery with olympic bows. But whenever my aiming gear for whatever reason lost its’ settings, I (naturally) missed. Plus if I tried to shoot without my aiming aids, I had no chance to hit the target, at least decently. So I said to myself “this is not the way archery was supposed to be” and I changed to totally traditional archery (“horse bows”). If I don ‘t hit the target, it ‘s my fault, not my aiming gears’ and if I hit it, it ‘s exclusively my accomplishment. I have developed a sensation of where the arrow is going to hit. Off course much less accuracy and smaller distances, but I accept it. Pardon me the analogy, it ‘s like having sex with 2 condoms on (olympic archery) and without them (traditional archery). At least for me. Huge respect for the olympic archery, but I am not going back!
I shoot a recurve bare bow, and I've shot two compounds. I didn't like the let off at the end of the draw, it felt unnatural to me, since I had shot recurve for such a long time prior. the look of other bows dont appeal to me that much either, and the option to have a bunch of attachments intimidated me. iv e never been near an Olympic style bow. I shoot recurve cause it's simple, fun, and I'm a sucker for things that seem or are medieval-y.
you're exactly right by the way, each discipline is different and should not be compared, nor is there a "better" discipline.
as a trad archer that just migrated to WA Barebow, i wholeheartedly agree with you.
shooting trad does not make one skill-wise any more superior than others. my own transition from trad (hoyt buffalo) to hoyt horizon pro barebow is far from easy and while the basics of shooting are the same, the advanced things are very different. it is just like starting from zero, and never like walk in the park.
your remarks on some trad archers that alergic to all bells and whistles on the bow actually not far from the truth. i have the same issue with some local traditional archers in my country that view other forms of archery with disdain. to them, traditional bows that have centreshot and arrow shelf (like bear kodiak, bearpaw, black widow) are not traditional and even refuse to be considered as trad, due to cultural reasons. this is the very reason i am unable to enter many local trad tournaments despite shooting trad bow because my bow is not considered trad by them.
of course one of my biggest wish is to have Barebow, Instinctive Bow, and Longbow classes in all World Archery events. and certainly i respect those that do other archery disciplines as much as i respect myself. but i will never tolerate those that belittle other archers by thinking that they are superior than others.
Who told you the hoyt buffalo is a trad bow its not a compound so it must be traditional ?? its metal so iy must compete in the bear bow division. A wooden bow with shelf is allowed in wa events . Some historic purist stlil belie the world is flat and a bow must be shoot "instinctive" and if you introduce silence to them, its will make archery too complicated not being able to even phantom the the fact that a sight has no bearing on arrow flight its just another reference point. otherwise beginners would be shooting gold all the time .
Morten Jacobsen it was designed and marketed as a trad, and this is not unique given that some other similar bows (Sky Archery TDX, Dalaa, Tribe Archery Halo, to name a few) are also marketed as trad. or to be more precise, modern traditional. yet i am aware that because of its metal riser it must be shot in WA Barebow category. in which i accept with no qualms at all.
wooden trad bows with shelf like what you said, can be shot in WA events as either Instinctive Bow or Longbow. and i do agree with you that some people are so primitive or hostile they refuse to accept any other forms of archery. forget about pin sights; they even hostile to gap shooting or string-walking technique for the same reasons. for us, all those are just simply reference points to be accurate.
Not even the fire of Prometheus can enlighten the darkest of closed minds .
It's amazing how people will trash other people's disciplines because it's not what they do. I'm an asiatic trad archer. That's my discipline. However, I love, appreciate, and respect modern recurve (whichI ownbut am not as good with), longbow, compound, olympic, and hunting disciplines as well. Love this video, NuSensei. Keep up the amazing content.
started traditional and always stayed with it(flatbow), never shot compound or olympic recurve. but i do have some knowledge about them, both technique and equipment wise. not because i plan to shoot it but to better understand their challenges and trying to help them if they have problems. i also tend to have better contact with such shooters because i dont bias them as "needing technology to hit something" and just start talking.
Compound bow hunter here. I learned to shoot at a fairly young age (6 or 7) on a fiberglass. Around the time I was 14 or 15 I received my first compound bow but as it was a hand me down from my dad who kept his sights for his new bow, I had to keep shooting no sights, and using a finger tab. Most of this was entirely learning the techniques, and training the muscles to be able to shoot a bow properly. A few years later (17 or 18) I bought my first bow had a job and was able to buy my own sights and mechanical release and haven't gone back since. Being a hunter and needing precise shots I don't have a reason to not other than to just mess around. But I will say having the experience of learning to shoot bare bow if I was on a trip and had some sort of mishap such as the sights were damages and unusable I could if I have a target re-sight my bow for use w/o pins to an usable degree.
horseback Archer here, never do hunting though. I think there's nothing wrong with using stabilizer or sight like that. Its like every other martial art class, some are just starting to sound arrogant and belittle other style. I think its people choice to shoot slow but accurate (well accuracy is the most important thing anyway) no need to judge like those guys. Keep the Good work!
Personally, one thing that I love about archery is that there as so many styles, each with its own type of equipment, technique and goals. Something for everyone :-) There are masters in each type and it is ridiculous to compare the various kinds of archery in terms of "what is better". It's like asking who are the better musicians : jazz pianists or church organists ? people choose their genre of archery based on their own personality, their background, their finances and their reason to take up archery (recreation ?, love of competition ?, hunting ?, connection to their cultural roots ?, fascination with certain types of gear ? ). Instinctive shooters will not be as accurate at 70 meters as olympic style archers, horseback archers will not be as accurate as gap shooting field archers when standing still but as a rule will shoot much faster than other archers. Traditional English war bow enthusiasts use poundages which would give most other archers hernias. Different strokes for different folks :-) All archers deserve respect, regardless of their equipment or technique choices.
You have a valid point in regards to the practice aspect. However, I think the whole discussion is more of a traditional problem that affects all types of sports. The advancement of technology in sports equipment was always problematic for 'traditional' practitioners of that particular sport. Using technology to 'improve' your results is frowned upon by 'traditionalists' because to them it takes away (or at least minimizes) the skill component of the sport. If you use a stabilizer or sight to improve aim, to them you are taking away part of the 'natural' skill/practice component of learning to use your own body (mainly arms and back in this case) to aim. That the distance at which you shoot (70m vs. 30m) is also increased in the same step is not important to a 'traditionalist', because for them there is no need to increase the distance in the first place. They ask: Why would you need to shoot at 70m at all? Just so you can justify using a stabilizer/sight? Why not stay at 30m and do it the traditional way?
Thinking about it, this is not limited to sports but to any kind of activity that requires some kind of skill or practice. For example: Ask someone who is able to navigate by a traditional low-tech compass (or even better: just by looking at the sun/stars/firmament) what they think about a person that uses a GPS system to find their ways. The traditional guy will laugh and say that the GPS dude has absolutely no navigational skills and he would be right. In that case it doesn't even matter that the traditional guy would probably be unable to properly setup a GPS device (i.e. the technological gear), because he doesn't see the need to use it at all. Why would you want to use an expensive GPS device if you can navigate with your own eyes? There is a certain charm about doing things the traditional way, with just your body and your senses as tools and zero technology. I can fully understand why someone who can do something (no matter whether it's a sport or anything else) 'bare hands' without any fuzz or technology would feel some kind of 'superiority' over someone who uses technology even (or especially!) when the use of technology enables you to 'do more' in whatever discipline we're talking about (like shooting 70m instead of 30).
There is really nothing anyone could do about it, though. There is not really a way to reconcile both viewpoints because the mindsets behind both are completely opposite: The tradionalist says 'Why would you want to do more than HUMANLY possible?' (i.e. something that requires you to use 'superhuman' technology)" and the 'technology guy' says 'Why would you not want to go to the maximum that is PHYSICALLY possible?' (i.e. something that is not limited by human physiology but only by technical advancement).
I hope you know what I'm getting at. The traditionalist would be the one buying an old Jeep Wrangler and say 'Runs damn fine in every terrain' and not care that it's uncomfortable as hell, while the technology guy would buy the newest Jeep Grand Cherokee with air conditioning and all that and say 'Why would you not take advantage of these luxiouries when they are available?'
The two parties will never be able to find common ground and that is not even a bad thing. Both viewpoints are completely valid: Technology and people who push it forward bring lots of good to the world (especially in medicine, of course), but traditionalist who can do everything 'bare hands' are also needed to take care of things when technology fails and to remind us not to let technology get out of hand.
Maybe the two parties should just leave each other be instead of focussing their energy on trying to convice somebody of their own viewpoint when that person is so fundamentally different. ;)
I don't know much about archery or navigation, but as a student of science, I find all manner of traditionalists extremely weird. If you are a traditionalist, and say you prefer not to use technology, chances are 100% that you are using it. Technology is application of science and if you happen to be alive and old enough to use your common sense or even 'centuries of inherited culture' to keep on living, you are already using several branches of science.If you are using a curved wood with a string to shoot a stick, you are using the principle of elasticity, potential energy of the stretched string, projectile motion, and no navigation without equipment doesn't mean you are not using science or technology. So, it is more of a problem with a particular tech which makes even less sense. If Mankind preferred the 'traditional' club over the 'witchcraft' bow and arrow, we'd be DEAD.
Amitabha Kusari in the case of gps it is important to learn to navigate without it as satelites can be turned off during war etc.
Otherwise I'm mostly with you
EMPs don't work the way you think they do you dumb shit.
This is bullshit, do you honestly think over all time in the wars they just glued together wood and put on a string? Absolutely not, in fact they had ways to find crappy bows and remove them. We use those same techniques today. Only difference is where our level of craftsmanship compared to what was once available is much better. There has always been a stride to make high end equipment even in ancient times. This is a massive oversight in your comment. There are still to this day wood bows hand made limbs that are better then carbon, foam core, fiber glass, and in some cases spring steal. Its like black smithing, any imperfections in the build will affect it and a skilled person can tell the difference.
Olympic style shooter here. Picked up the style on the second week of my training course. our course was three-week training, so we tried barebow and sighted in the first and second week. Once I picked up a sighted bow, I never looked back lol. I mostly shoot 20 yrds in 60cm face (Portsmouth Round) or outdoor Albion round, but I still own a Regim Impala 62'' field bow and shoot 30 yards 120cm face for fun. It's not a problem to prove who is the best, the guys trying to comparing with two styles already forgot why they pick up archery originally, don't battle with others, try to beat yourself. Got extra energy to figure out who is better? why not pick up your bow and beat your PB and prove to yourself , you are the best lol
barebow shooter her, i'm with you on this, we like different styles but we can both geek out over archery, who cares what flings your arrow towards the target, as long as you don`t hit any of the other people there
I mostly agree, but Im dissapointed that you press on that barebow is not harder.
Every extra piece of ecipment put on a barebow is designed to make archery easier, simple as that.
Im not saying anyone one or style is better.
john Mullholand Hunter as well, One thing I’ve been told is that if you’re not 101% sure that you’re shot will kill, then don’t take it. I prefer barebow myself because It’s just as good as using a sight for hunting if you practice enough.
This video is golden when you start goofing around at 5:20 xD
Good breakdown. A traditional archer here that uses no gear aside from a finger tab. I have shot with Olympic style archers and let them shoot mine. They were good. Damn good. Ok, way better than I will ever get at anything.... I think the clear answer though is that its preference. Comparing skill in the two is like comparing stock car racing with formula one, both cars, both go fast, aside from that they are different contests. I don't like Olympic archery for one reason and one reason alone. I bought a nice compound rig a few years back and a friend took a shot with it and fubar'd the string. I took it to a local shot to be repaired and the bill came to $275. I now shoot a bare bones Martin Jaguar #50 and I can fix, tune and replace everything myself. I can carry all the parts and tools I need and the most expensive element are new limbs at around $145. Its not that I am cheap, I just spend a lot of time in the outdoors and often carry my bow broken down in my backpack. I am not a hunter, just travel off the map occasionally and its nice to have my bow with me and while I could buy a Win&Win I couldn't repair it or bounce it around in my bag without blowing up my mastercard. :) Great videos NuSensei.
Archers should seek what matters the most for then.
If hitting a long range target is the thing for you: olympic recurve.
If accuracy means everything: Compound
Tradition and history: Trad Archery
Variability and adaptability? Barebow.
I couldn't care less for what people say about other style archery's, but please don't use a traditional bow and start complaining about accuracy or use a O. Recurve and complain that it's too slow.
And there are competitions of about everything. No excuse to force yourself to do O.Recurve just because it's Olympcs.
If you want a unique colour on a hunting bow and still use all Olympic recurve accessories, what bow would be best..?
Get this right, the re curve bow is not something Olymipic Archery came up with. It has been around long before them and run bare bow for accuracy at range. I have seen re curve shooters bare bow land accurately at 50 to 100 yards and group. Its simply an excuse that this can be done bare bow and rather a fundamental training skill you should have learned before going fancy. I shot compound mostly and randomly grab a re curve to develop my form better than go back. It made a massive difference training with no equipment every day then shoot the fancy stuff.
Makes sense. Just do want you enjoy.
For some reasons humans off all ages really like to bully people who try to be different, at least until they are successful.
I don't get the technology arguments. Its not the point of the video. It's about the comments by people who didn't understand the video is what is discussed. Also archery exists due to advancement in technology. Technology will always get more advanced, but ultimately just do what you enjoy.
I shoot trad split finger and do 3d competitions- I like the challenge and variety of different terrain and unmarked distances. tried Olympic archery- nice to see the arrow fly 70m but got bored very quickly. that's just me though
I don't shoot any "serious" competitions besides the fun tournaments we have between the local clubs on the various 3d courses but I fully agree with you.
I'd say our way of shooting is "trying to get a hit" vs the Olympic "trying not to miss"
Does that make sense?
I shoot traditional. Mostly because I can’t afford an Olympic bow. I personally think that traditional is a much better way to work on the basic archery technique. Just because there are less technical aspects to take into account. I think Olympic archery is much more personalized and thus allows for shooting at greater distances. I would imagine that even with a sight without proper technique that sight is practically useless.
I agree with some of what you say but no as a hunter and archer practicing at further ranges helps you with shot placement at closer ranges however closer ranges don’t help you with further. So if you’re hitting golds at 70 meters you shouldn’t have a problem at 30 in fact at 30 you would be Robin hooding a lot of them.
People are haters NU, true archers respect every level of archery whether it's Olympic style, compound, or tecreational. I never understood why people are so ignorant towards one another in the archery field.
I‘m in a traditional archery club. Well, not so traditional, there‘s just no Olympic archers. It‘s a mixed bag. It turns mostly about 3D tournaments and training on targets up to 70m. We have: Hungarian archers (including tippy hats), the barefoot viking that takes his short off to show his viking tattoos, the fantasy guy/girl, the wanna be american. Compound shooters are either casual or: (there‘s recurve guys like that too) THE HUNTER; all in camo, massive stickers on the car „born to hunt!“. But he „hunter“ never hunts because it‘s forbidden in Switzerland. Most of them show up maybe once a month for „training“. I‘m there at least every other day (recurve hunting bow). Everybody want‘s to tell me how i have to ancher, release, posture or whatever. And they don‘t hit well at all. Whenever i look at someone to observe what i could change, it would be olympic archers.
Traditional archers are far more elitarian than most olympic or competitive compound archers i know. I‘m not very good in archery (but not very bad either) but i won‘t school anyone unless he/she asks me to. My main goal is consistancy. Flexible anchor guys don‘t impress me. But i listen to them and it‘s often ridiculous. Olympic archery is the peak of precision archery (also competitive compound) in my opinion. Have fun in whaever you do and let others have their fun aswell
Good point! Totally agree especially with professional archers who dedicate so many hours on the same practice.
That said an archer as a mindset should be in a way researching the various of many styles to improve himself.
NuSensei - "Elitist traditional Archers" post crap on a fun video.
Also NuSensei: Let me tell you why you can only shoot a longbow in this particular way.
🤦🏻♂️
You can shoot whatever way you want. There's a reason why one method is the predominant method. I don't buy the sensationalist bullshit of "secrets" of a longbow with supposed advantages made by someone with poor technique on the spot with no research or testing based entirely on anecdotal evidence.
You know there's an Olympic archer who shoots right-handed with a left-handed with the arrow on the other side using an inverted two-finger grip. It works for him and he's a national-level shooter. But he's also from a country with very little support for archery and a low bar for representation. No one's going to knock him for shooting in an extremely unorthodox way, but no one's going to teach it either. We don't call this the "Secrets of the Olympic Recurve".
@@NUSensei oh, I fully agree with you on the "sensation, such secret! Very wow!" part, that's just clickbait.
On the content of those videos itself.... I think it doesn't harm to disagree on certain matters, at least it didn't until people got worked up over everything.
I have a quite strange stance when shooting myself due to a body deformity which doesn't impact my everyday life but if I shoot a bow I kinda look like a hunchback since it's the only way I'm not going to be sore afterwards... 🤷♂️
BUT - regardless of all that I wish you a great week, hope you stay healthy and thank you for the effort you put into your videos, cause whether I agree with all you say or not, the effort and knowledge deserve to be acknowledged from an objective point of view.
Best regards from Austria
Man, if I was about to shoot at the Olympics, I'd never risk my bare fingers on a 50lbs bow. Just imagine if it catches your nerve in the joint by accident. Damn.
I get the same comments from recurve archers now that I have switched to a compound...... It's still archery.
i shoot compound and wife picked up recurve today I caught myself just watching her shoot, i even tried her bow minus wrong hand and was like nope lol then i shot with a left hand and was okay.. I love all archery traditional amazes me cause I got sights releases let off what not
You make an excellent point. Its silly to try to draw any conclusions from a video of guys messing around. Personally, I have the utmost respect for archers of all stripes and especially the discipline and skill it takes to compete in the Olympics.
Since you asked about trad archery, I'll just chime in that I am a trad archer for the following reasons: 1) its cheap - a couple hundred bucks for a decent bow and set of arrows is all you need 2) its beautiful - I love wood and leather and natural materials, so trad scratches that itch 3) its fun - I just want to fling arrows with decent accuracy, not train hours a day and have to make micro-adjustments to a bunch of gear. I would love to try other archery disciplines, but time and money pretty much keeps me at traditional.
In all fairness they should have developed a sight picture to release the arrows to. You miss then adjust till you can reference where to hold. The speed shooting aspect is simply slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Another words in Army Basic Training talk, go as quick as your technique can handle. I will note that speed shooting takes learning to not pay attention to your body. You should naturally grab and move without thinking. Obviously these guys did not practice this. Also in 6 months near daily practice I accomplished 12 arrows quite a few times in under a minute. So if your fit and practice its doable. Now I will also note that at the range I picked up bare bow re curves and grouped 20 yards at a tennis ball size within about 3 sessions 15 minutes or so. Then I applied my speed shooting technique and the group was a softball.
So in the end its in your form and application of method. I practiced more of a combat archery method of training. As I drew the arrow I was moving into position. At the back of the draw they arrow was release immediately. Past 40 yards I had to add about 1-3 seconds to sight in and then release. I have not tried past 20 yards with a re curve bare bow, so Ill update this later once I find a range and have a re curve bow. Yes your correct the fingers will hurt if not used to doing the finger thing, gloves are common. Though I might say use the thumb ring method instead for this type of archery if your serious. Also about how they don't have reference points to hold their fingers, that is bullshit. You should be pulling the string at the same spot no matter what. This applies to traditional and compound bows regardless if you use thumb ring, fingers, or a release. Yes some people run release without the loop on the string or several loops.
lm a barebow elite in my country Mexico, l actually seen Serrano shoot first hand and l can say the following. He is an awesome archer in olympic, the thing with archery that many people avoid talking about is the fact of how difficult it is to keep consistent precision as distance increases, the increase in difficulty is not lineal but logaritmical, so those who can shoot at 30m, 40 or 50 dont see much of a challenge to shot at a 70m target, and is not really, but hitting the gold within that target each time is extremely difficult, you can achieve it but it takes special equipment, the problem is that often that equipment is seen as a handycap which is not (has been very difficult for me to switch to olympic) to make it worse the slow pace of the sport make it seem efortless to many outsiders. barebow on the other hand has more kind of practical accuaracy and freedom where you can even shoot moving targets but you cannot really expect to hit the exact same spot each time. So Olympic shooters aparently suck because of the perception that is created around them, not because of lack of skill. That said l hold my beer up for those who can achieve the consistency of archers like Serrano or Brady.
Isn't the saying "it's the poor craftsman who blames his tools" ? That being said I believe you are very correct. Why judge other people? Do what makes you happy. Enjoy how the world unfolds before you and reserve your judgements. When tempted to judge others you should realize what your anger or elitism stems from. Don't hate, elevate.
I respect all kind of archery, from Compound with magnification to PVC pipes with some random strings. It's all fun and games, especialy when you hit the gold.
I'm a traditional shooter, I first started with compound, but then I switched to recurve and barebow, I never really had interest in Olympic Archery, but I want to try it. And I agree with you, you are right.
People on internet: They can't hit anything!
People after they tried it with bow: OK
This maybe true but....... In target competition you're always shooting at a know distance and on flat ground. 3D traditional archers shoot in a more "Difficult" environment. Varying distances, up slope, down slope, in the woods, through brush etc, being very good at judging distances (a must). While each has to practice for the shooting environment they compete in. 3D barebow has more variables to overcome
I think the real problem with the whole thing is the "my way is better than yours" attitude. We all need to learn to appreciate all aspects of our sport/craft/profession/etc. Every technique has it's time and place, and they all have value for one reason or another. To be limited to one view or another does nothing but hold you back. Why can't we all do what we like to do and appreciate what we don't? I'm not really into figure skating, but I can appreciate the talent and commitment it takes to be good at it just like I can appreciate the the different kinds of archery even if I don't find them all equally entertaining. It's all just a matter of elitism and people trying to feel superior to one another. It doesn't do society or anyone any good to limit yourself like that. Expand your mind and learn to appreciate as much as possible. It's called progress :)
To start I am a traditional archer, instinctive, off the shelf, bare bow shooter.
To answer the question that you posed I began shooting compound and did so for a number of years but dropped it out of disinterest, this is one of the factors that lead me to shoot trad upon returning to archer. Upon picking up trad I learned that I knew very little about archery and the skill sets for it, I had little to no training with my compound and treated it much like a rifle and doing so I was able to have kill zone grouping with minimal practice and horrible form. This does lead me to having a little less respect for compound shooters, but I do recognize the difference between just a compound shooter and a competitive compound shooter that can shoot regular 300’s, that takes a lot of dedication and trained skill. But the biggest issue I have with my compound brethren is they are all stressed, they get mad when they shoot 9’s in a round and shooting 10’s is just expected for them they have less fun and much less satisfaction in shooting well. Shooting instinctive I’m ecstatic if I get 3 9’s, getting a well-placed tight group is far more satisfying than it ever was shooting compound.
On the side of Olympic style I do agree that it requires less skill, sub Olympic level, this belief comes from my experiences at my club. One of my fellow bare bow shooters decided to try stabilizers and within a few rounds had tightened her accuracy and precision by 3 to 4 rings. Another example is one of the instructors had me try a short stabilizer on my bow for a practice session and same as my friend after a few rounds I was producing tighter more accurate groups, the stabilizer was compensating for errors in my skills. Again this brought less enjoyment because it felt more like the achievement of the engineer not my achievement as an archer.
I personally have never shot a full Olympic set up and honestly have no plans to, I personally think the setup looks ridiculous and it holds no interest for me, if I want to sight in a weapon and shoot distance I have rifles. On that note though I recognize the separate set of skills that go with siting in any weapon, the skills to hold it steading, and the discipline required to execute a precision shot.
I would like to also make a distinction between any Olympic athlete and the rest of, regardless of sport they have spent countless years training and perfecting their skills for the world arena. After watching these archers shoot, as NUsensei pointed out, the time constraint was a huge factor and not one they are trained for. Speed shooting with any ranged weapons is a very specialize subskill that takes years of practice, simply training your mind for quick target acquisition takes years.
So in conclusion I do believe that when comparing archers of the same point level at the same distance, as this is really the only quantitative measuring device we have, that bare bow shooting take more skill than Olympic, which takes more skill than compound. But most importantly have fun, as I’ve repeatedly said I shoot the style I do because I find it enjoyable and get more satisfaction from my achievements, if you get the same from shooting Olympic or compound then shoot Olympic or compound, hell shoot a PVC bow in your backyard if that’s what you enjoy. Just remember we as archers get to rag on each other but never let a non-archer rag on one of your brethren for their choice in style, they have not earned it.
As always great video, and I shall enjoy the discussion that follows.
Hi Nu , me again, your right of course, I shoot longbow, because it's such a hoot to shoot. I'm glad you bought this to the attention of trad shooters, but having said that it is a small minority of macho knuckle heads that need to know. Most informed archers respect the rights of other archers to shoot what floats their boat. Keep smiling Nu, it's going to be this way forever.
I'm a compound archer that has also shot traditional barebow. I can see the draw for both of the styles, but my desire for long distance accuracy makes me more amenable to compound. I respect Olympic for that same reason, but the ability to use a higher poundage bow for longer (due to the let-off) pushes me further toward my compound bows. I enjoy that extra punch that comes from more power, the extra distance, and the aesthetics of many of the newer compound styles. I shoot a Browning Boss Raptor set at 70lbs (around a 35lb hold), and hope to add an Elite Victory (39 a/a) to my collection. That being said, I also own a traditional crossbow, a modern crossbow, and a fiberglass bow (from when I first started shooting at eight years old).
I love archery , any bow any style . each style has there own challenge's and requires the right tool for the job . would you take a hunting bow to a competition ? Or take a competition bow hunting ? Of course not......asking an Olympic shooter to make a snap shot is unrealistic unless there hunters and are used to making time sensitive shots . that being said , if you want to be good at something you have to practice .
glad you made this video, so much common sense. I shot Olympic Archery in my 20's. 30 years latter I'm back doing archery. I'm shooting a traditional bow now. to try to compare the two is like comparing two different martial arts. yes they are sort of the same but no they're not lol!
If these critics felt that they Olympic recurve archers have less skills, 2020 and 2024 Olympic along gold medals ARE WAITING FOR THEM. I’m NOT mad nor triggered, SHOW ME & I’LL LEARN!
I shoot only traditional asiatic. But hey look im subscribed to nusensei’s channel. I’ll get any advice available. People who think any style of archery/archer is better than the other are the one’s who suck. Everybody has a reason why they took up a certain style.
I'm definitely a longbow guy myself. Mostly because I find its historical context really interesting but also because hitting those shots just feels much more satisfying for me. And still this topic annoys me so much. I have a huge respect for olympic archers and can't get why people love bashing them. So I would like to challenge every traditional archer to try out the different styles of archery and figure out none of them is actually super easy. Great video and a pretty important topic
Those “horrendous” results are very simple to explain. Olympic style archer are used to a bow with different characteristics than that of barebow shooters, thus, when given a bow with a different balance and such, their bodies automatically move in the way it would when shooting the bow they are used to. If you give a barebow shooter an Olympic style bow, he would encounter the same problem.
I always did wonder why Olympic archers casually all cheat. I wouldn't claim to be a pro BMX biker if I had stabilizers on..
Is it cheating if the rules allow it? All archers in that division use the same equipment, so no archer has an unfair advantage.
@@NUSensei - Just seems wack.
@@OGSinisterPotato If so, your expectations might be somewhat anachronistic. In modern sport shooting, if rules allow scopes, air rifles and custom grips, you shouldn't expect athletes to be using muzzle-loading muskets from 300 years ago. There are events where people do compete in more traditional and historical styles, but modern target archery is a precision sport with equipment specialised for that goal.
@@NUSensei - Exactly. All wack. Traditional is impressive, regardless of the sport. Seems more personal, less mechanical.
I know it's an old video, but as more I watch, as more I see similarities to golf. Both are a mental sport and in both you have your growing expectations. Which are never as good as you think they are. I will start with archery and then I'll see i have learned my lesson from playing golf... Or maybe not... 🤪
I stopped the video at 8:29 and wanted to take a guess, that it's because they practice with the stabilizer, sight and everything else that when one thing is taken off it's foreign to how they hold it, how to shoot it and how to hold the weight differently. kinda like going from using a microwave or an oven to cook, to using an open fire, same basic rules cook the food but it's different.
Edit: I never actually seen the video but diddnt know about the timed shoot or distance difference.
Hunting with a recurve bow at 70 meters just means you'll annoy the animal and lose your arrow.
set up def factored into that video. barebow and trad, a 30 yard crawl or gap takes doing your homework to find. think of it like plotting a sight mark. to compare is trivial. no good to talk down another persons shooting. encouragement is sportsmanship and in the end, we're all chasing our own scores.
If you don't do your homework, you're not going to pass, no matter what kind of bow you are using.
i'm a crossbowman... we get shit on from everyone... even from other crossbowmen
Most people don't understand that archery is splitted like gun and rifle shoting. Olympic vs trad style is like scoperifle vs muselloader blackpowder. Totaly difrent style and method
"50 pound on the finger , is gonna sting a bit."
Bro , 30 pound is already giving me blisters after 30 shots without glove.
Olympic style.
The raw archaic nature and flexibility of bare shooting is great.
This is what a bow was invented for thousands of years ago.
Yet, precision, high tech gear and consistancy are what fascinate me the most.
Being able to hit a target over and over again within a 10 centimeter range due to endless practice and high precision gear feels great (if only I could do that).
The tiniest mistske can ruin your shot. Knowing this I aim towards mental strength and balance by practicing olympic style.
Bare shooting being a lot more relaxed in my opinion does not make me feel the competetive factor that pushes me towards constant improvement as much as with olympic style.
I don't feel the urge to do my absolute best in order to get a result I can live with as bare shooting offers less precision to begin with.
That's why I do mostly olympic style shooting.
I think you miss the point completely. Trad primitive field shooting. has a different skill set. In trad field, we are not allowed to use anything other than wood and bamboo sinew etc .to make our bows. Further more, we are not allowed to any type of aid e.g. arrow rest, stabilisers or any type of sight. We shoot at distances from10yards to 80yards and are both uphill, downhill and on the flat. All distances are different and archers do not ever know the distance in advance. Our targets are all different shapes and sizes, including 1D, 2D and 3D. Our release is only one above and two below, no release aid is allowed. Our courses are all different. To learn all this takes a long time. As regards its popularity trad field archery We shoot as our forefathers did. It will not become as popular as target archery because it would take a huge amount of cameras to film it, henceforth TV coverage is out of the question. So it cannot become a spectator sport. Henceforth, no Olympics. In effect we have so much more to learn than Olympic archers. So Archers from different disciplines are different and will not be able to compete fairly unless they are ttaught in both disciplines.
Thats a precise human quality. We do not have software in our heads from birth as birds do. But we can get incredibly great at something we train.
I’ve seen outdoor Olympic finals and I agree it’s better then indoor , I still say it’s more fair, since you have to know how to adjust for wind , but dang that target is very far away .. too bad , there’s like a million door house sitting as a back stop 😱 (well it was in the background of the target ) but no one saw it as a safety thing ..
Currently I'm a traditional archer and it is a lot of fun. But I started as a olympic style archer and also did some WA barebow shooting and I think I got profound skill in all three styles. In my opinion it is silly to argue which style is better since they all cater to a different philosophy and mindset.
But as an instructor at our archery club I teach every new archer olympic style shooting since in my opinion this teaches the best posture and techniqe which can be adapted to any other style later on.
I've seen some terrible form on shooters who started with trad. archery.
Traditional archer here. Mostly for medieval recreation and hunting. I have used compounds before and don't have a problem with them. i haven't had a chance to use Olympic equipment yet. I prefer traditional because it is simpler and there is less stuff to tinker and fiddle with that i feel can sometimes get in the way of putting pointy sticks down range. Just my opinion.
i`m a barebow shooter (not a good one) my reason for this is i don`t want to fiddle with a sight, or anything really, i work in IT-support fixing other peoples problems all day, i don`t want to pile one more problems, like the sight being a bit off or stabilizer, or if a compound bow, the release breaking.
i just want to pull the string back and let the arrow go, i find it relaxing.
without all the extra stuff on my bow i know when i miss, it`s because i didn`t focus on my shooting, and when i hit i know that i did that, i deserve a 100% credit (something i didn`t feel with all the other stuff on the bow, but that is just me)
and i realize that olympic, compound and trad is 3 different disciplines requiring 3 different training technics, and i respect that, i even find it more entertaining to watch youth compound tournaments, they actually react when they get good shoots, and they seem to have more fun then the adults, that look missurable when they don`t get a 10, if they react at all.
that being said, i`m the only barebow shooter in the small club we have, so when i get a chance to say that a compound bow is not a "real" bow i take it, they laugh at me every time i have to dig one of my arrows out of the target frames
I shot Recurve for about 3 months before switching to Instinctive, and I have respect for both. I had my own problems with Recurve style but I can't ever say it's easy or not really archery,both require different set of skills and have different goals. I never had a chance to shoot compound but it's just because I don't like the concept of it, I'm sure it takes skill too to get it right.
I shoot traditional but I do get exposed to a lot of Olympic shooting at the range im going to with one of my friends (who shoots olympic style btw) so I can tell you that its just as difficult and when I try his bow and his equipment I have to take new things into consideration just like Nu sensei said. I just happened to prefer traditional bows because of how they look and that I don't feel comfy with all the clickers and sights.
Nicely said. Also surely these guys doing this promoted the skill of bear bow archers?
I'm a primitive selfbow shooter. And to reinforce your point as someone who makes their own gear, archery is consistency ... period. If you want to be great at every bow and distance you have to train at every bow and distance. Personally I'm not a fan of modern Olympic style archery but ... my gear comes from a nearby tree give or take hours of labor... If I could afford a competition bow I would get one just to practice that style. I believe in ground up training, starting with as basic as can be and moving up. I like primitive because it's a secure foot in the door. I can get good in primitive, then trad then Olympic. The only difference I see is the ease of backwards compatibility. I feel I can train into modern archery easier as a primitive archer than a modern archer could "devolve" into primitive. It doesn't make one easier or harder it only secures which one you want to have as your base and for some it's contemporary and for others it's bare bone.
I'll actually disagree on the last part. Olympic archery is more technical and has more steps to focus on, while traditional and primitive is barebones fundamentals. Someone who trains in Olympic freestyle should be able to re-acquire fundamentals on primitive bows with more ease. In comparison, traditional shooters often have a harder time moving to freestyle because of the additional complexity.
There have been some really great comments in here (!) and it's made me re-assess what I like about archery. I'm a freestyle recurve shooter, but we shoot barebow and compound sometimes in classes or training just for fun. I enjoy shooting all of them, but I love shooting freestyle recurve partly for the zen of it.
Shooting barebow is mentally hard, you have to calculate, gap, string walk, remember which twig your aiming point is, etc, and that can be fun, but it exhausts me. Compound is fun because drawing/holding is now easy, but yes, now there is a LOT of pressure on aiming. Miss the X and you suck.
Having a sight takes the mental barebow aspect out, and having a recurve takes the X-ring pressure off. I feel perfectly calm and at peace when shooting recurve, I love making my tight little group, but I'm not so good that hitting that X occasionally still makes me happy.
Everyone has their happy place.
It's just the new distance they are not familiar with, give them 20 mins practice and they will be hitting center groupings. I've shot lots of different bows at different distances. It's the same thing every time, your first few shots are off until your body and mind adjust and re-calibrate, then you improve very fast. Check out my Saxon recurve bow video I uploaded 2 days ago. When I first got it at the start of the video my grouping was terrible (first shots with a new bow) Then by the end of the video I was hitting a tight grouping all dead on.
Give these guys a break, i'm not an Olympic style archer either, I only shoot traditional, I personally don't like compound or modern OB's.
My background is traditional shooting for both hunting and target shooting. For 20 years I made fun of the guys "with training wheels". When I finally picked up a compound bow, I quickly realized I was wrong for "shaming" my training wheels bow shooting friends. Each style of archery requires specific skills that must be developed.
Nowadays, I enjoy all styles of archery.
@5:21 cracked me up! LOL Keep up your fine work!
I think it is great that professional people do these kinds of challenges. Especially if they use them to raise money for a charity if there is a charge for attendance. I feel it boosts confidence in those just starting out as it shows how bad you are if you don't have any practice time or proper instructions under your belt.
People today don't seem to take the time to read and comprehend before attacking, instead of thinking through things before saying anything. :( I feel that there would be less hate comments if people did.
There was a video where a polo rider who never jumped, does show jumping, and then people started going "what an idiot on a horse" - the same situation. Gosh, people love to judge, even all the more, the less they know about the subject they are refering to...
As a "fun shooter" I shoot compound, Olympic recurve and barebow they're all a different challenge and I wouldn't attempt to shoot 70 metres with the barebow or speed shoot the Olympic recurve , I'm never going to be good enough to shoot in top competition but that's not why I'm shooting, it's fun I love it no matter which style bow I'm using at the time and to be honest if it stops being fun then I'll stop shooting so stop knocking Olympic shooters for having fun
This is like comparing a marathon runner to a 100m sprint runner
Honestly after going from traditional to compound and back, traditional archery is fucking hard! I'm having trouble hitting my target consistently from even at point-blank range. I can probably hit golds with my Barnett Vortex compound out to... I want to say 40 meters. Mind you, not consistently because it's not exactly the BEST bow out there, but confidently? Yeah. Give me a chance to dial in my pin sight and I'll probably be able to confidently hit golds at 40 or even 50 meters. Barebow? Pfft, screw that! I'm standing 5 feet from a hay bale in my back yard unloading 100-200 arrows a day from my SWA Tigershark recurve to work on my form and strengthen my body because I'm over-bowed. Having fun though... I love the feeling of a 55 pound bow coming off my fingers, and when I get the burn in my back from using it properly? Nothing beats it.
speaking of annoyances..people(non archers, some neighbors visiting in our house) commenting how bad your shot, teasing you cant hit the target while watching you practice...im a beginner for fuck sake and i can't concentrate.
totally going to give this a try! I am a traditional archer i have a lot of practice and i want to give a try to exactly what he says. I've never loosed an arrow past 40 meters.
Does anyone think this is a reasonable comment? I would have thought [and hoped] the Olympic shooters would have done a bit better. As I'm writing this it occurred to me, the video actually proves a couple of well aimed shots are worth whole hell of a lot of poorly aimed ones.
I'm sure these Olympic shooters would be seriously good after only a few weeks. Different discipline all-together, but they'd have lots of transferable skills and lots of strict discipline that would help them nail the targets after they'd got a barebow system sorted. I'm not a fan of the olympic style of shooting because of the politics and the whole style, but each to their own. With all the kit on my bow - sight, stabilisers etc i'd be rubbish at 70 meters, probably wouldn't even put all my arrows on the target face - so big respect to these guys, and good on them for having some fun.
Hey, here's a suggestion. Give an experienced archer a slingshot and see how they do. I bet they do great. I've been shooting slingshots for years and just started taking up archery seriously. I feel my slingshottery was a great prep for shooting bows. ;-)
Just one small correction... Brady shoots the 18 meter indoor very very well. He has shot a couple of 300's and a lot of 298, 299's perfect scores, he was the first in history.
anyone out of his element will be expected to have less success. i love all shooting sports, and prefer to shoot bare bow no sling low lb compound with no sights. i aim with the arrow tip shooting tilted because its fun for me. imo people should learn to shoot instinctually first , i have found it to help others and encourage everyone to occasionally shoot from outside their comfort zone. practice is the only style that works. happy shooting
Hey, i don't know if you'll be reading this and the thing i'm gonna ask is completely irrelevant to the topic but i'll still ask. Recently i got my first bow kit and with it came all the things that you expect in a bow kit (finger tab, bow bag, arrows) but now I got this weird thing with it, it's white, has a screw sticking out of it from one side, it's ergonomical and the size of a ping pong ball. The shape is some sort of triangle with smooth corners. My question is what is this thing exactly?
I thought that video was a lot of fun to watch and nothing more. It was great to see these guys just fling some arrows and have a good time. There will always be "elitists," we just ignore them and keep shooting. Each shooter needs to find their way and go with it... forget about what others think about it. Just enjoy the sport and challenge yourself to grow a little each time you fling arrows.
I shoot a recurve barebow and it always makes me uncomfortable when people say stuff like “oh, you’re so good because that’s way harder!” Like, no. Stop. I tried it with a sight once and I still sucked 😂
Hello Mr NUSenei!
Have you ever fired an arrow in your videos?
I am new to bowsports (I never have shoot an arrow so far), but i have watched 3 videos now , and i am ready to watch the first shoot! :)
Now I shot bare bow for years and I've moved on to Olympic because I feel there's more potential there.
I can only give my personal opinion as a random example of a barebow archer. I bear no ill will toward those who practice any style; however, I'm not as fond of Olympic style for a few reasons:
First, that the skillset seems intentionally divorced, to some extent, from its historical usage. The equipment used, as well as the techniques used for drawing and aiming, and even the focus on only shooting from a specific distance, would all be impractical in a historical context. Not to say that I really dislike target archery, it's just that without an unlimited budget and unlimited time to put into it, I prefer to focus on the types of archery that I personally find more interesting.
Second, I dislike the way that Olympic archery has sort of taken over, as far as Olympic competition goes. For firearms enthusiasts, the Olympics have a fairly wide variety in terms of types of events and equipment used. For archery, it is a specific type of bow, with a specific list of equipment and techniques allowed, at 70 m static targets...and that's it. I would love to see, for example, barebow shooting at moving targets (an archery equivalent to skeet and trap, basically), or shooting at different targets of unknown range (with any kit, really; I simply believe that the challenge of estimating distance would make it fascinating as a competition), or something of that nature, but there just isn't.
Third, the rules just seem...arbitrary. Sort of like sport fencing, really (which I also enjoy, but to which my first point applies and, to an extent, my second). I kind of want to do some research on why they decided to allow foresights, clickers, plungers, and stabilizers, then decided that peep sights, release aids and cams were too much (although to be fair, compound is also weird to me; it's like somebody decided to make something as crossbow-like as they possibly could, while keeping it a bow if only by technicality). At a glance, it seems like they just rolled dice to determine where to draw the line there as far as allowing equipment that improves the accuracy and precision of what is, at its heart, an elegantly simple machine.
As far as drawing 50# with bare fingers, all I can say is that drawing ~63# with bare fingers kind of sucks, although I'd probably be able to manage it for a dozen or so shots easily enough. Not really sure if it would affect my accuracy though (probably at least a bit). I'm sure it was the unfamiliarity that was the real issue with their performance. I honestly can't imagine spending that much time shooting at the same distance. I like to shoot at a variety of distances when I can.
1) Modern sport archery *is* divorced from historical archery. The origins of modern target shooting come from Victorian-era longbows, which were used by the gentry as a hobby and were never intended to be used for warfare. This is the time of the Industrial Revolution. Comparing modern target archery negatively to historical war archery makes as much sense as comparing paintball to modern infantry. The "it's not practical" argument is easily debunked with the simple fact that is it not intended to be a practical skill.
2) Olympic archery hasn't taken over. Considering the massive market for traditional archery gear, I'm of the belief that traditional shooting is more popular than modern target shooting. The thing, however, is that archery is very fragmented. Modern target archery is better organised, funded and supported through World Archery and affiliated national associations, and has attained Olympic status (though only for one discipline). There are, however, numerous other competition formats at national and international level - Field is immensely popular, as well as 3D, which tend to favour traditional shooters.
3) Both Compound and Recurve bows are divisions in World Archery. The International Olympic Committee decides what goes into the Olympic Games schedules, and that process is rather detached from the reality due to politics, logistics and so on (basically they want to see enough variety in events rather than duplicate events). WA run Compound and Recurve divisions in all their other international events, so this is not an arbitrary choice. The evolution of modern equipment is in line with the availability of modern manufacturing technology. Sport archery has always been about attaining the highest degree of accuracy and precision, and traditional equipment was the bottleneck. Look at footage of 1950s World Championships and you'll see that even at close distance, the groupings are sometimes mind-boggling for a world-class archer. With better arrow materials, bow materials and the advent of sights, the skill of an archer is better shown with the skill ceiling lifted. An archer who has streamlined their technique and can shoot consistently is now able to guarantee hits on the gold; previously the inconsistencies in equipment left a lot to chance.
I really don't understand why people think this way and act a type of way over the style someone shoots I shoot full traditional bare bow and I'm not too shabby, but if I picked up an Olympic bow with sights I feel like I would be trash. They are just different. There's always someone more primitive than you and you would do well to remember that not fellow trad guys.
As the video went on, I could see Nu getting more and more ticked off about it. As a beginner traditional shooter, it breaks my heart to see that so many people have that hatred against Olympic-style shooters. I thought the point of archery was to hit the target, regardless of what bow you used. Even if the equipment WAS a crutch, who cares? It's fun, it's challenging, it's rewarding, and it's still archery.
When I first started with barebow I hit one of those ice mountain water bottles, from like 15 20 feet away, I was fully expecting to miss as my aim wasn't that good but I hit it on my first shot right in the middle
I think that we can't lose all the point of archery: our ancestors use it to survive in combat and bring food to the table.
So, I understand that olympic shooting is a sport, but the practice shouldn't be so distant from the bows original purpose.
Is the same thing about olympic fencing and HEMA or AMMA guys. The HEMA dudes say that, today, if a regular competition swordman need to pick an actual rapier and defend himself, he will probably die. An actual rapier is a weapon, the competition Epee is almost a long and flexible pencil.
To me, is a little weird see people that are really good on sport but can't have at least good (even not amazing) results on barebow shooting.
We are not our ancestors. Most of us will not use it combat, and don't use it to bring food onto the table. Let sport be sport. Keep entertainment for what it is. We live in a society where we pay money to munch on popcorn while others run around on a rectangular field tossing an inflated pigskin around. Those who want to learn survival skills should; but at the same time should not judge sport for not being a survival skill.
Hi NuSensei, I am a recurve archer from the Philippines. I have a question in mind regarding Why does top tier recurve archers those that are in rank 1,2,3 uses aluminum riser and not carbon riser? Is there something in aluminum risers that they prefer, if there is then what is it?
Anyway. Thanks in advance. More power to your channel.
This really depends on what era and event. Go back 5-10 years ago, and the W&W Inno CXT carbon riser was dominant. Nowadays you see more Hoyt and W&W aluminium risers in top events. Why? It might be a performance and preference. Aluminium bows are generally heavier and feel more steady in the hand, which explains the riser in popularity of the Inno AXT over its carbon counterparts, but a large number of Rio Olympians used the Nano Max and Inno CXT. Another reason might simply be sponsorship: Hoyt bows are generally more popular, possibly because Hoyt is more aggressive in sponsoring and marketing for athletes, and all Hoyt target bows are aluminium.
I started with cheap bare bow now I'm using Olympic style bow and I bought a compound bow my next bill is going to be bare bow I want to learn all three
This reminds me so much of rivalry of people who compare pool and snooker.
Absolutely agree!
I started bare bow but for the last 5 months I only shoot my Olympic bow. Today I took out my longbow and couldn't even find the target!
compound because it feels so nice, im gonna need to get into Olympic if i ever want to do anything other than hunt and have fun