# So about that guy Lars Andersen...



## DrakeLineous (Jul 28, 2013)

Haven't been on here in a while but it's good to be back. Had to take a little break from archery. So there's this video going around about a guy called Lars Andersen doing what looks to be as true to traditional shooting as it gets. Like not what's traditional today but old school, ancient archery type thing. What do you all think? Here's the link if you haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk 

Geez, 18 million views in 3 days. Personally I think it'd be pretty cool to be able to shoot that well and that fast under various circumstances and stimulus not just a take your time/dead silence shot. I tried it while holding just 3 arrows and sorta failed, let alone with 10. I've never been a fan of tournaments since I feel it's taken away too much from what archery came from and what this guy's doing is bringing back the fun and excitement.


----------



## ArjunaWijaya (Jan 25, 2015)

I've never been particularly into speed archery, but I gotta say, he's pretty neat.
Robin-Hooding an incoming arrow in the air? It doesn't get much better than that.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

A lot of inaccuracies in the video like target archers having arrow on the left side makes you shoot with one eye closed, the technique was never lost and various cultures just adopted other drawing techniques, the English Longbow technique is fairly well documented from Medieval books/records.

The Bow is intended as a range weapon, his close shots at multiple imaginary attackers would have him killed very quickly in real life situation, in Hollywood the attacker drops dead instantly but in real battles some attackers would still have 20-40 secs fight in them before being totally incapacitated.

It's good fun stuff and obviously a lot of dedication to attain that speed level, if he thinks his technique is superior in accuracy to all others why isn't he cleaning up on the Danish tourney scene, I know a few Danish tourney Archers and he not shooting/winning any tourneys.

If he got his info from studying pictures from medieval pictures maybe he should consider even today modern day artists, photographers and directors who know bugger all about Archery get depictions horribly wrong.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Steve, I thought the same thing as you. He is fun to watch but it's like watching an acrobatic juggler at the circus. What he does has no application to the real world of archery in any way - not hunting or target shooting. And certainly not warfare.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Lets hope somebody doesn't find this photo in 500 years and rediscover a lost way of shooting the bow 










Too late the technique has already caught on, who want's this guy as a Coach/Instructor. Believe it or not that photo is from an advert promoting archery lessons.


----------



## oneTone (Jun 29, 2013)

It looks like the limbs are on the riser BACKWARDS in the top image (stacking, anyone?) "Get a good grip on that arrow mister!" 

The cast of the middle guy's arrow in the bottom photo is going carry maybe only 10 yds. Oh, there's another reverse-braced bow (or are these some new wave in archery?)... and the flower pots are just so quaint.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

There was a big long thread about this already. Two I think.

It's very entertaining trick shooting, honestly more entertaining than Byron Ferguson (if Lars could put it into a show). 

Does more harm for archery than "tournament shooting" or whatever though. Not really applicable to anything beyond shooting for fun in your yard.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

The fun irony is that it is themed as being a spoof on Hollywood archery, when, in reality, it has all the trademark elements of Hollywood - homespun history to match a story line and camera gratuities to make a scene look like standard proficiency. 

Look, the guy is extremely talented as a speed shooter, but he might have shot his credibility factor in the foot on this one. This came off as an historical documentary as much as Crouching Tiger a documentary on martial arts.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Looking forward to seeing where he places at Vegas this year.


----------



## bjaurelio (Apr 30, 2014)

That video has been spreading all over the place, and my wife and I have had several people post it to us on Facebook because they know we do archery. As others have said, it's an entertaining act but relatively useless in real world application, especially war. Drawing a lightweight bow back about 6in just to fire off 3 arrows in under a second and have them barely stick a thin foam target would do absolutely nothing in a combat situation. There's a brief mention of still being able to penetrate through chain, but those are clearly different arrows, and you don't see the bow or draw length used to fire those arrows. A study of ancient manuscripts and modern tests indicate a heavy war specific arrow sent from a heavy warbow was needed to penetrate armor at any range sufficient to keep a knight from reaching you with his sword.

If his videos were just a, "this is how I enjoy archery by speed shooting and running around," then that would be perfectly fine. The fact that he acts like he's discovered this lost ancient art and everyone else is doing it wrong bugs me. He wants you to believe that he's dispelling Hollywod myths with his exaggerations, but he's perpetuating the worst one that a single arrow/sword slash/bullet anywhere on a body instantly kills a person.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

steve morley said:


> Lets hope somebody doesn't find this photo in 500 years and rediscover a lost way of shooting the bow
> 
> View attachment 2144801
> 
> ...


lmao, thanks to you i just spit coffee all over my desk at the office, this photo made my day hahahahaha


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Sanford that's how I saw it too - it's hard to take seriously, the complaining about 'Hollywood's doing it wrong', then shooting on roller skates in his stunt video. 

Cool archery stunts, but the attitude that he is 'revealing lost secrets' is ridiculous.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

bjaurelio said:


> If his videos were just a, "this is how I enjoy archery by speed shooting and running around," then that would be perfectly fine. The fact that he acts like he's discovered this lost ancient art and everyone else is doing it wrong bugs me. He wants you to believe that he's dispelling Hollywod myths with his exaggerations, but he's perpetuating the worst one that a single arrow/sword slash/bullet anywhere on a body instantly kills a person.


His main archery enthusiasm is in LARP. That's where this was born for him. It's role playing to a made up theme or story, and he just took it to a different level by making a movie of it. Since folks now want to take it more serious than it is, he's pushed the envelope enough to where he's going to have to put up or shut up if he's to move forward as actually having an archery method other than speed shooting arrows. IOW, get out from behind edited tape.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

ya he actually showed up on espn, which is a joke because their are thousands of better '
'PURE shooters'' out there, he looks very awkward too


----------



## TrailLifeTX (Jan 20, 2015)

I don't think Lars comes off as taking himself too seriously - we probably shouldn't either .


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

You guys are all going to be eating your words after the zombie apocalypse happens and all the bullets are gone! I've seen the hobbit, and the lord or the rings, and I know a bow is an effective close combat weapon! (j/k)

But the question of practicality makes me wonder- In the "real world" what practical uses does a bow really have? I mean, if you want to kill something, a gun is far more practical. The only valid justification is to have an extended hunting season. So, beyond hunting, what practical use is being able to shoot 270+? How many of you earn a living with a bow? How many of you at least break even- enough winnings/sponsorships that you can maintain your archery hobby w/o spending any of your own money? How many of you sink tons of your personal dough to shoot a pointy stick at a piece of foam?

If archery is a means of getting outside, fresh air, and exercise, his style of shooting is probably better- def. takers more athleticism to jump in the air and tumble while shooting than standing on a line.

How does his style of shooting compare to cowboy action shooting? What about people practicing mounted archery? Are the y just as silly?

To me, archery is fun. Technically, firing any kind of projectile out of anything is fun really. I've built small trebuchets, totally impractical bun INCREDIBLY fun to watch shoot. I have a sling (David and Golliath style) in my backpack I always have with me and it's fun throwing stones over 100yards on my lunch break. I intend to build/buy an atl-atl at some point. 

I mean seriously, how practical are a lot of our hobbies and recreational activities?

From reading the posts in this thread, the other thread in this forum, and the ones in the bowhunting and general archery forum, it's really interesting to see the totally different atmosphere. Over in the other forums, there's mostly a lot of praise, and amazement. But they are mostly compound shooters so to see a "trad" archer shoot like that is impressive to them. Over here, it seems most of you are offending by his challenge of the way we shoot a bow.

His videos are entertaining. His shooting is impressive. And he's keeping a skill alive that most people never knew existed.

BM


----------



## Lmattaway120189 (Jan 13, 2015)

I think what he does is pretty incredible and most definitely took a ton of time and devotion. There is no doubt archers were a long range weapon. We hunters know all too well that animals (and people, assumingly) do not die instantly from an arrow, even when placed perfectly. So the close range, multiple attacker stuff he's doing may not have been what archers were designed to do. However, discredit him all you want about it not being "applicable" to hunting or target shooting… I'm going to have to disagree. I bet this dude would have a hell of a time shooting pheasants with his stick bow and be better than most of us. Take it for what it is- some dude with a ton of time on his hands who decided to shoot differently than we do now. His information isn't entirely accurate, and he makes some misleading statements (about aiming) in particular… but come on, you're not going to catch me shooting at incoming arrows!


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

I gotta agree with Aaron. Tradtional archery really isn't very practical at all. So of somebody wants to shoot like Lars then why not? I wouldn't be surprised if we see this cat put on some shows live in a few years. Also I take issue with the instance that the bow was not meant for rapid shooting in warfare. The mongolian archers out and out trounced all the forces Europeans could throw at them back in the day and the would ride through enemy ranks firing arrows rapid fire then retreat, regroup, and do it all over again. Mounted Calvary was useless against them. The only reason they stopped was that they figured Europe was a poor backwater and not worth the effort. They used to be known as "the Devils Horseman". Now they used a thumb draw and didn't shoot exactly the same but, I bet their style was pretty darn close.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

If Lars is coming from LARP or similar events then I think what he has to offer WOULD be incredibly valuable. It's a fun way for people to practice something "different" that would be more applicable to D&D or video game/movie characters than normal archery would.

BM makes a good point, that as long as he's enjoying himself more power to him. I think the reason most folks get agitated is the direct shot at the more conventional styles, and the false claim of superiority. For anything "practice" (hunting, winning tournaments, etc.) it's not superior.

I would say that even for birds on the wing it's not all that great. I'll be happy to retract that statement though if someone tries both and reports back. I don't have any pheasants to hunt.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

I bet he could win a lot of mounted archery tournaments with that style


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I think it's really cool that he can do that well enough to even get select scenes to edit into a video. Definitely skill, and a lot of work.

I do fall into the camp that doesn't believe he can do it nearly as well as the video implies.

Rationalizations are a little screwed too.

If somebody wanted to shoot accurately, I would definitely not believe that's a good route to take.

But, I can say, I can't do that, and it'd be neat if I could


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Lmattaway120189 said:


> discredit him all you want about it not being "applicable" to hunting or target shooting… I'm going to have to disagree. I bet this dude would have a hell of a time shooting pheasants with his stick bow and be better than most of us.



I might be interested in taking that bet. How much?


> but come on, you're not going to catch me shooting at incoming arrows!


I don't think we're going to catch him shooting an incoming arrow.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Lmattaway120189 said:


> I bet this dude would have a hell of a time shooting pheasants with his stick bow and be better than most of us.particular…


ill take that bet


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Somebody tell Mr. Wells that a compound is too slow on the draw to be effective for wing shooting.

http://youtu.be/ZxQPOsDgPO4


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

steve morley said:


> Lets hope somebody doesn't find this photo in 500 years and rediscover a lost way of shooting the bow
> 
> View attachment 2144801
> 
> ...


I did find these two photos funny. Caption under the top photo of the guy with the funny grip on the upside down recurve says: "Only if you find meaning working hard for a goal." To translate this exactly from Spanish to English would result in an awkward English sentence. But that is what it means. 

I have to wonder what his "goal" really is. Maybe see how many ways to mess up a photo? Let's count them - the easy ones. Both hands gripping both bow and arrow incorrectly. That's easy. Then he has the bow upside down. It took me a second look to see the third egregious error similar to the other photo. The guy in the suit has his limbs on backwards too. Very funny photo.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

kegan said:


> Somebody tell Mr. Wells that a compound is too slow on the draw to be effective for wing shooting.
> 
> http://youtu.be/ZxQPOsDgPO4


tim wells is a hell of a shot, probably one of the best, and he shoots his compound bare, insanely stupidly talented bowhunter


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

steve morley said:


> Lets hope somebody doesn't find this photo in 500 years and rediscover a lost way of shooting the bow
> 
> View attachment 2144801
> 
> ...


Or the "lost footage" from the first avengers movie, where hawkeye, greatest fictional archer in history has his bow drawn with his arrow off his rest.


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

kegan said:


> Somebody tell Mr. Wells that a compound is too slow on the draw to be effective for wing shooting.
> 
> http://youtu.be/ZxQPOsDgPO4


Thats a great video.


----------



## richl35 (May 15, 2013)

Lars has perfected what he does, that's for sure. Extremely entertaining and difficult I am sure. He is one in a million making, what would be for me anyway, one in a million shots. I applaud the effort and drive he must have had to get that good.


----------



## jeeckel (Mar 22, 2013)

not my cup of tea, but you can bet he has worked damn hard at his game. wish I had that much energy lol


----------



## Foxrod5.0 (Sep 3, 2010)

wouldn't want to take him on in one on one bow duel, that's for sure


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> ill take that bet


I would put my action that he is a hell of a pheasant shooter. Wish we could actually get him down here and give it a whirl.


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

jakeemt said:


> I would put my action that he is a hell of a pheasant shooter. Wish we could actually get him down here and give it a whirl.


I honestly dont think he could hit much of anything other then a large disc from a few feet.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

His passion is awesome though, pretty cool video none the less, I can't do that type of archery or maneuvers that's for sure lol


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> His passion is awesome though, pretty cool video none the less, I can't do that type of archery or maneuvers that's for sure lol


I agree.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

Tradbow Guy said:


> I honestly dont think he could hit much of anything other then a large disc from a few feet.


Well we will have to agree to disagree then.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Tradbow Guy said:


> I honestly dont think he could hit much of anything other then a large disc from a few feet.


Well he did shoot the arrow out of the air that was shot towards him, pretty amazing and never seen that done before, I would never want to try such a trick as it seems more of a recipe for disaster, it would be for me anyway lol


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

When i 1st time saw mr Wells video where he shoot long distans goose in flite. I dought it was fake. But it isn't


----------



## WillAdams (Jun 6, 2009)

There needs to be an out takes reel where he confesses how many takes were needed for each shot.

I'd also hate to be an archery coach or range safety officer in the near future.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

steve morley said:


> Well he did shoot the arrow out of the air that was shot towards him, pretty amazing and never seen that done before, I would never want to try such a trick as it seems more of a recipe for disaster, it would be for me anyway lol


Maybe he did but that's not what I saw. I saw him shoot up into the air. Then I saw him pick a broken arrow off the floor. Did he shoot it?

I want to try splitting an arrow on a blade. I can hit a string pretty often so I should be able to hit a blade. I just have to find a blade that is capable of splitting my steel field points.

Incidentally, have any of you tried shooting off the other side of the bow (right side for a right handed shooter)? I have a solid glass bow with a molded plastic handle and small shelf on each side...so it can be shot right or left handed.

I know they shoot this way with a thumb release but I used my usual 3-under. It looked like that's what Lars was doing in the video but I'm not sure. The arrows I used are tuned pretty well to the bow for "normal" shooting.

Admittedly, it all felt a bit awkward and I only took two shots because the results were so crazy. The arrow bounced off the strike plate hard and took an abrupt right turn. The first shot was from about 12 yards and the second was from just a few feet but neither hit the target bag. 

I think there's a good reason that we right handed shooters shoot off the left side of the bow. LOL


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

steve morley said:


> Well he did shoot the arrow out of the air that was shot towards him, pretty amazing and never seen that done before, I would never want to try such a trick as it seems more of a recipe for disaster, it would be for me anyway lol


That arrow was traveling mighty slow to have been shot by a bow of any reasonable poundage...


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

steve morley said:


> Well he did shoot the arrow out of the air that was shot towards him, pretty amazing and never seen that done before, I would never want to try such a trick as it seems more of a recipe for disaster, it would be for me anyway lol


He revealed that it took him several try's with a very light and slow moving arrow made specifically to break. Another article posted from a skeptic said that its unclear in the video if he actually hit the arrow, as another poster here has pointed out.


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

jakeemt said:


> Well we will have to agree to disagree then.


Agreed :wink:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

jakeemt said:


> Well we will have to agree to disagree then.


Maybe but Lars Anderson has put these videos out there in public and a fair number of people are calling BS. He made the decision to expose it to public scrutiny.

It seems to me that he has two choices. He can keep making video and wild claims for the faithful believers or he can put his stuff out where we can get a better look.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

MGF said:


> Maybe but Lars Anderson has put these videos out there in public and a fair number of people are calling BS. He made the decision to expose it to public scrutiny.
> 
> It seems to me that he has two choices. He can keep making video and wild claims for the faithful believers or he can put his stuff out where we can get a better look.


----------



## nhns4 (Sep 25, 2010)

Its cool but not practical for me.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

jakeemt said:


> View attachment 2145819


You can always resort to personal attacks when you don't have anything else.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

Lol relax MGF. Not a personal attack just having fun.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

While I'm sure it took lots of practice, and is a discipline in and of itself, I couldn't help but think of this guy in terms of it's usefulness.





 
In my opinion, what Lars does has as much to do with archery as what this guy does has to do with fighting.


In addition to that, by his own admission, it might not be all its cracked up to be.

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/larsandersen.asp

KPC


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

What does cowboy action shooting have to do with marksmanship? Does that mean people who practice it are like Lars?

I see a lot of people here sitting on high horses...

Do you have the same attitude towards people practicing Kyudo (I think I used that right) or mounted archery? Totally impractical...

Not trying to defend Lars, but just like a lot of you are looking at his video through your own bias filter and are offended by what you see- I read this thread through my own bias filter and I see a lot of irony.

BM


----------



## hobbs4421 (May 20, 2006)

It's pretty impressive in the fact that few could duplicate it. I'm brand new to traditional archery, so I probably shouldn't comment on how effective it would be in tournaments and warfare.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Aronnax said:


> Not trying to defend Lars, but just like a lot of you are looking at his video through your own bias filter and are offended by what you see- I read this thread through my own bias filter and I see a lot of irony.
> 
> BM


I look at his practiced speed shooting as very interesting and talented at that. I look at his accuracy application from a highly edited video just as I would viewing the Hunger Games. There's two parts to this, as there is in any movie - the base element of the actor and the fictional element of making it apply where it really didn't. Seems to me that this video is a sign of the times. YouTube is notorious for making the unreal look real. Someone makes a good video, fact or fiction, but because the storyline and pictures look real and fit our interest, it must be real, all of it.

I can't see why someone liking the Hunger Games but discounting the "tricks" in it as not being real life is any different than what folks are doing with this video. When it's no longer cinema and done in real life, THEN it's real. Till then, it's entertainment.


----------



## yougoteem (Feb 3, 2004)

steve morley said:


> Lets hope somebody doesn't find this photo in 500 years and rediscover a lost way of shooting the bow
> 
> View attachment 2144801
> 
> ...


Either the guy in the middle is falling over or he is pee'ing his pants from being in pain from the string smacking his arm.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Sanford said:


> I look at his practiced speed shooting as very interesting and talented at that. I look at his accuracy application from a highly edited video just as I would viewing the Hunger Games. There's two parts to this, as there is in any movie - the base element of the actor and the fictional element of making it apply where it really didn't. Seems to me that this video is a sign of the times. YouTube is notorious for making the unreal look real. Someone makes a good video, fact or fiction, but because the storyline and pictures look real and fit our interest, it must be real, all of it.
> 
> I can's see why someone liking the Hunger Games but discounting the "tricks" in it as not being real life is any different than what folks are doing with this video. When it's no longer cinema and done in real life, THEN it's real. Till then, it's entertainment.


Not a fair comparison. While the Hunger Games is an entertaining movie, I like the Elven Archery in the Hobbit/LOTR better. But those are big budget CGI flicks, where Lars _is _actually performing his tricks. If you read the snopes article, he admits he edits out the misses, but he's still doing the shooting that is shown in the video.

Also it is interesting that most everyone here assumes that's the only way he knows how to shoot a bow, fast and sloppy and only the _lucky_ hits make it into the video. I know I keep going back to this but I think it's a good analogy, but do you all also assume that a cowboy action shooter's breadth of skills don't exceed a quick draw firing wax bullets at balloons at 10ft? I'm willing to bet that most cowboy action shooters can pick up a "normal" gun and shoot quite proficiently in the more conventional sense. Maybe not Olympic marksmanship good, but probably better than most of us.

BM


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Aronnax said:


> Also it is interesting that most everyone here assumes that's the only way he knows how to shoot a bow, fast and sloppy and only the _lucky_ hits make it into the video.


I don't think that's an accurate assessment of what we've seen on the forums. If anything, I think we've seen a lot of assumptions made the other way. All I can tell you is that the video pegs my BS meter.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Aronnax said:


> Also it is interesting that most everyone here assumes that's the only way he knows how to shoot a bow, fast and sloppy and only the _lucky_ hits make it into the video.
> BM


Not for me, but the reverse of this is that he doesn't hit the mark every single time first try as the video implies. 14 tries is a big number for some. So, how to you make a real documentary of a shooting style different than entertainment? You document its efficacy or you doctor its efficacy? If doctored, then it's entertainment.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Aronnax said:


> I'm willing to bet that most cowboy action shooters can pick up a "normal" gun and shoot quite proficiently in the more conventional sense. Maybe not Olympic marksmanship good, but probably better than most of us.
> 
> BM


Case in point. I've only been to one "cowboy action" shooting event and I only got the chance to talk to a couple of the participants...not statistically significant. However, there was no basis on which to judge their "real" shooting. The one just hasn't been demonstrated to be a reliable indicator of the other.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Not for me, but the reverse of this is that he doesn't hit the mark every single time first try as the video implies. 14 tries is a big number for some. So, how to you make a real documentary of a shooting style different than entertainment? You document its efficacy or you doctor its efficacy? If doctored, then it's entertainment.


In a pinch he could do like other trick shooters and perform his tricks in front of an audience. Or he could do like Jimmy Blackmon does ad let the camera role through all of the shots.

You're right. It's a sign of the times and, IMO, it's NOT a good sign.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> In a pinch he could do like other trick shooters and perform his tricks in front of an audience. Or he could do like Jimmy Blackmon does ad let the camera role through all of the shots.
> 
> You're right. It's a sign of the times and, IMO, it's NOT a good sign.


I could say I discovered a long lost aiming method and document how good it is on Youtube. In a day of shooting, I could muster up a 300 NFAA, maybe 60x to boot, but we know I would have to leave out all the misses from the video and go through a lot of target faces. That leaves you to determine; "is it live, or is it Memorex". 

Being honest, I admit to all the retakes. So, being honest, I made you an entertaining video.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Lars has competition


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

steve morley said:


> Lars has competition


haha i got a decent laugh out of that


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Sanford said:


> Not for me, but the reverse of this is that he doesn't hit the mark every single time first try as the video implies. 14 tries is a big number for some. So, how to you make a real documentary of a shooting style different than entertainment? You document its efficacy or you doctor its efficacy? If doctored, then it's entertainment.


Is this a documentary of a technique or is a demonstration of the capabilities of a technique?

As far as I'm concerned, Lars as the capability to shoot an arrow out of the air. He has the capability to catch an arrow out of the air, and fire it back at the shooter. Can he do it 100% of the time? Doesn't matter. Continued practice improves the success rate. Is it even possible, in the time it takes a projectile in flight to reach you, to knock, draw and fire and arrow using a Mediterranean draw, arrow opposite side of the bow as the draw arm? I don't think so. I feel that Lars has successfully demonstrated that it is, at the very least, _possible_ using his technique.

I throw a yo-yo from time to time. There are some difficult tricks that I am able to perform. I can't do them 100% of the time, but I have been able to do them, and I can do them again, it just takes a few tires. Some yo-yoers have personal competitions seeing how many times they can consecutively land a trick. When I'm really in the grove I can do some complex tricks with my eyes close (I do it for the kids to demonstrate "muscle memory"). Sometimes I miss a simple trapeze. It's incredibly annoying to miss a trapeze a few times consecutively (but a good yo-yoer can make a miss look intentional to the uninitiated  ).

Having the capability to do a thing is not the same thing has having proficiency in doing that thing.

BM


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Aronnax said:


> Having the capability to do a thing is not the same thing has having proficiency in doing that thing.
> 
> BM


Right! I can flip a coin for heads but the ratio never changes from 50/50, tails/heads, on odds. He is what he is, it is what it is, so why not just shoot fast and show what "it" and "you" can do with that style. Good point though, if he is just demonstrating a technique. But, if my technique is to show you how I can flip and control for heads? Fine line to walk there. Showing a technique and skill together imply two things are integrated when they may not be. Showing a technique with a doctored outcome is what's at issue. Same as me doctoring a target face and showing how well a technique works.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Sanford said:


> Showing a technique and skill together imply two things are integrated when they may not be. Showing a technique with a doctored outcome is what's at issue. Same as me doctoring a target face and showing how well a technique works.


So in your mind, you believe that he's falsely implying in the video that he can do those feats with some high level of consistency?

In exhibition shooting (which is how I view his demonstrations), how many consecutive times do you need to perform a trick to get your name in the record books?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Knapp
I saw Tom Knapp on a tv show doing his 8 clay pigeon with the pump shotgun trick. It took him several tries before he nailed it. But once he did it that one time, he rejoiced, the audience applauded, his name went down the record books and that was it. I didn't see anyone ask, "But can you do it again?"

BM


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Aronnax said:


> Is this a documentary of a technique or is a demonstration of the capabilities of a technique?
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, Lars as the capability to shoot an arrow out of the air. He has the capability to catch an arrow out of the air, and fire it back at the shooter. Can he do it 100% of the time? Doesn't matter. Continued practice improves the success rate. Is it even possible, in the time it takes a projectile in flight to reach you, to knock, draw and fire and arrow using a Mediterranean draw, arrow opposite side of the bow as the draw arm? I don't think so. I feel that Lars has successfully demonstrated that it is, at the very least, _possible_ using his technique.
> 
> BM


I don't think Lars even demonstrated that he could shoot down an arrow... notice the bow wasn't in the shot and the arrow he shot was going incredibly slow, above his head. He wouldn't hardly turn around before he was struck by a real arrow traveling at real speeds. Same thing for the catch an arrow and fire it back... good luck trying that for real.

That's what I think has some folks goat-this is great entertainment, it is just presented as facts and a new awesome way to shoot that looks good to the uninitiated.


----------



## Wobbley (Sep 26, 2014)

This video could increase participation in Archery. Hopefully nobody takes this video as being instructional.

If people show up at your archery club, shop, or yurt going on about this video try not to turn them off by immediately dumping on this guy. They will see it as haters gonna hate.

Offer to help them learn how to shoot. Tell them Lars did not do a backflip and nail a 90M bullseye on his first day.

Knock, draw, shoot. Knock, draw, shoot. Knock, draw, shoot. 

Just like the rest of us.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Aronnax said:


> So in your mind, you believe that he's falsely implying in the video that he can do those feats with some high level of consistency?
> 
> In exhibition shooting (which is how I view his demonstrations), how many consecutive times do you need to perform a trick to get your name in the record books?
> 
> ...


I think showing the warts lends to credibility. Keeps it real. It just takes far more effort to shoot lots of video, cut-n-paste, and make it look seamless than it does to just film it outright. I always ask the BIG QUESTION. Why?


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Sanford said:


> I think showing the warts lends to credibility. Keeps it real. It just takes far more effort to shoot lots of video, cut-n-paste, and make it look seamless than it does to just film it outright. I always ask the BIG QUESTION. Why?


Why the edits? I don't know? Maybe to make the video flow with the narration? Why make the video in the first place? I don't know either. Maybe for fame? Why do any exhibition shooters do what they do?

BM


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Aronnax said:


> So in your mind, you believe that he's falsely implying in the video that he can do those feats with some high level of consistency?


That about sums it up.


> In exhibition shooting (which is how I view his demonstrations), how many consecutive times do you need to perform a trick to get your name in the record books?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Knapp
> I saw Tom Knapp on a tv show doing his 8 clay pigeon with the pump shotgun trick. It took him several tries before he nailed it. But once he did it that one time, he rejoiced, the audience applauded, his name went down the record books and that was it. I didn't see anyone ask, "But can you do it again?"
> ...


To get in a record book, you have to break the record...whatever it is.

Trick shooters who perform in public have to hit often "enough" or they won't have an audience.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Aronnax said:


> Why the edits? I don't know? Maybe to make the video flow with the narration? Why make the video in the first place? I don't know either. Maybe for fame? Why do any exhibition shooters do what they do?
> 
> BM


I think most exhibition shooters get paid.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

patrick2cents said:


> I don't think Lars even demonstrated that he could shoot down an arrow... notice the bow wasn't in the shot and the arrow he shot was going incredibly slow, above his head. He wouldn't hardly turn around before he was struck by a real arrow traveling at real speeds. Same thing for the catch an arrow and fire it back... good luck trying that for real.
> 
> That's what I think has some folks goat-this is great entertainment, it is just presented as facts and a new awesome way to shoot that looks good to the uninitiated.


Mythbusters did an episode of the martial artist catching an arrow in flight legend, and I think they found it to be at least plausible. 

So, are you then saying that it's not an incoming arrow unless it's traveling at a "real" speed? How fast does it need to be going before you will consider it a real arrow? I would think it a safe bet his assistant didn't fire it directly at him for safety reasons. Literally a "do or die" situation there.

In the snopes article, he explains how that shot was done.

BM


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Aronnax said:


> Why the edits? I don't know? Maybe to make the video flow with the narration? Why make the video in the first place? I don't know either. Maybe for fame? Why do any exhibition shooters do what they do?BM


That's probably the most interesting question there is about this, his motive(s). I think his first video was spot on for his intent in showing how he developed his speed shooting skill. This second one? Part history lesson, part exhibition shooting? Just came off too hokey for what he started as doing. Then, the selected shot clips and staged gear admission, which is admirable on his part to disclose. Maybe he just wanted to show some things he learned, or things as he interpreted them, and somewhere in the translation, other folks gave him way too much credit, credit he wasn't seeking to begin with.

One thing for sure, this go round raised more questions than answers if he's to adhere to what's being billed as he. Next round ought to be interesting.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

MGF said:


> That about sums it up.
> 
> To get in a record book, you have to break the record...whatever it is.
> 
> Trick shooters who perform in public have to hit often "enough" or they won't have an audience.


Have you read the threads about this video in the bowhunting forum? It's funny to me how many of those guys say things like, "Wow", "Incredible", "I feel inadequate", etc., but over here there is, by a vast majority, a bunch of bruised egos.

After my first post (I mentioned slinging) I went over to the slinging.org forums, for old time's sake, and found another thread about Lars's latest video. They all have a very similar sentiment as is over here. A lot of them hold on the the belief that the sling offers a higher rate of fire than a bow, and a greater range (don't argue that with me, don't know and don't care if it's true or not). He's challenged that belief with this video, and just like over here, a lot of bruised egos and people calling him a fraud.

I'm sure someone in a psych profession could draw more meaningful conclusions from that observation than me.

BM


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Aronnax said:


> Have you read the threads about this video in the bowhunting forum? It's funny to me how many of those guys say things like, "Wow", "Incredible", "I feel inadequate", etc., but over here there is, by a vast majority, a bunch of bruised egos.
> 
> After my first post (I mentioned slinging) I went over to the slinging.org forums, for old time's sake, and found another thread about Lars's latest video. They all have a very similar sentiment as is over here. A lot of them hold on the the belief that the sling offers a higher rate of fire than a bow, and a greater range (don't argue that with me, don't know and don't care if it's true or not). He's challenged that belief with this video, and just like over here, a lot of bruised egos and people calling him a fraud.
> 
> ...


Aronnax, as for credible responses, there's one or two over on another site from a person who does shoot at the same range with Lars. I thought it very nice how he put it. Lars shoots fast. Claims nothing more to it than that, nothing less. What other folks read into it is interesting, yes. Besides, it doesn't take much to get a rise out of a bowhunter forum


----------



## wacker stacker (Feb 2, 2006)

This thread verifies that most folks would rather just bash someone that has an impressive skill then admit they are doing something pretty amazing even if it isn't particle in their circles!ukey:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Aronnax said:


> Have you read the threads about this video in the bowhunting forum? It's funny to me how many of those guys say things like, "Wow", "Incredible", "I feel inadequate", etc., but over here there is, by a vast majority, a bunch of bruised egos.
> 
> After my first post (I mentioned slinging) I went over to the slinging.org forums, for old time's sake, and found another thread about Lars's latest video. They all have a very similar sentiment as is over here. A lot of them hold on the the belief that the sling offers a higher rate of fire than a bow, and a greater range (don't argue that with me, don't know and don't care if it's true or not). He's challenged that belief with this video, and just like over here, a lot of bruised egos and people calling him a fraud.
> 
> ...


 

Again, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I didn't make any claims.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Aronnax, as for credible responses, there's one or two over on another site from a person who does shoot at the same range with Lars. I thought it very nice how he put it. Lars shoots fast. Claims nothing more to it than that, nothing less. What other folks read into it is interesting, yes. Besides, it doesn't take much to get a rise out of a bowhunter forum


Because there was so much speculation regarding lars' incredible accuracy and what a great bird hunter he would be, I asked if he hunted or participated in club shoots. The reply (from the poster who shoots in the same club) was that Lars is good at shooting fast and that's all....my paraphrasing but it's pretty close.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Aronnax said:


> but over here there is, by a vast majority, a bunch of bruised egos.
> 
> BM


Don't how anybody can have a bruised ego unless they're wanting to shoot the same style and I'm guessing 90% are quite happy with our own archery pursuits, as you know each different style requires dedication to reach a certain skill level and it would be very hard to mix say combat style and a tourney style and be equally skilled in both. 

I found the video entertaining and some great shots but I didn't feel it was a real combat style and certainly didn't like the inaccurate historical commentary, it seemed more of a movie style. I do enjoy Kassai Lajos combat style which never was lost and rediscovered, seems more practical in a real world combat situation and a lot more graceful compared to Lars bouncing off walls and sitting at a table.


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

GEREP said:


> While I'm sure it took lots of practice, and is a discipline in and of itself, I couldn't help but think of this guy in terms of it's usefulness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Roflmao GEREP, or this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yy...&feature=player_detailpage&x-yt-ts=1422411861


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

Aronnax said:


> What does cowboy action shooting have to do with marksmanship? Does that mean people who practice it are like Lars?
> 
> I see a lot of people here sitting on high horses...
> 
> ...


Were sitting on OUR high horse? Maybe you missed the part where Lars Anderson said modern archery does not work except in hollywood movies, Back quivers do not work except in hollywood movies. Modern archers only stand still and shoot with one eye. Do cowboy action shooters say that AR-15's do not work? And that 3 point harnesses do not work? And that they'd reinvented the lost art of practical shooting?


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

Aronnax said:


> Not a fair comparison. While the Hunger Games is an entertaining movie, I like the Elven Archery in the Hobbit/LOTR better. But those are big budget CGI flicks, where Lars _is _actually performing his tricks. If you read the snopes article, he admits he edits out the misses, but he's still doing the shooting that is shown in the video.
> 
> Also it is interesting that most everyone here assumes that's the only way he knows how to shoot a bow, fast and sloppy and only the _lucky_ hits make it into the video. I know I keep going back to this but I think it's a good analogy, but do you all also assume that a cowboy action shooter's breadth of skills don't exceed a quick draw firing wax bullets at balloons at 10ft? I'm willing to bet that most cowboy action shooters can pick up a "normal" gun and shoot quite proficiently in the more conventional sense. Maybe not Olympic marksmanship good, but probably better than most of us.
> 
> BM


Its a fair assumption to say its the only way he knows since it said "Lars anderson had to forget the other ways of archery". So he forgot how to shoot any other way :wink:


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

MGF said:


> In a pinch he could do like other trick shooters and perform his tricks in front of an audience.


This is why I call BS. The fact that after I saw his other video a couple years ago, I could find nothing on him on the net. No live shows, no people talking about seeing him do things, none of him explaining his methods, ANYTHING. Kind of like the guys on youtube that do all kinds of basketball trick shots that are insane. They admit it takes thousands of shots and they dont go around saying they reinvented the lost art of basketball and that this way of basketball is more practical. I think thats why Lars draws ire. Everyone thinks what he does is pretty neat but when he goes around saying its better, more practical, and all this junk people are gonna call BS. Just admit your a trick shot show and people have no problem with it. Come on man, "Target archery was not known in the past?" As if there werent tons of medieval archery tournys. When you go around and make bold claims expect people to call you on them.


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

Aronnax said:


> As far as I'm concerned, Lars as the capability to shoot an arrow out of the air.


Does he? Cause he admits the arrow he shoots out of the air is slow moving and a specially designed arrow made to break up. So if someone takes a bow draws it 3 inches back with a fake arrow on it and i blow it out of the air I have the ability to shoot an arrow out of the air?


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

Sanford said:


> That's probably the most interesting question there is about this, his motive(s). I think his first video was spot on for his intent in showing how he developed his speed shooting skill. This second one? Part history lesson, part exhibition shooting? Just came off too hokey for what he started as doing. Then, the selected shot clips and staged gear admission, which is admirable on his part to disclose. Maybe he just wanted to show some things he learned, or things as he interpreted them, and somewhere in the translation, other folks gave him way too much credit, credit he wasn't seeking to begin with.
> 
> One thing for sure, this go round raised more questions than answers if he's to adhere to what's being billed as he. Next round ought to be interesting.


Sanford i've very much like to read these posts can you point me to them please?


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Tradbow Guy said:


> Were sitting on OUR high horse? Maybe you missed the part where Lars Anderson said modern archery does not work except in hollywood movies, Back quivers do not work except in hollywood movies. Modern archers only stand still and shoot with one eye. Do cowboy action shooters say that AR-15's do not work? And that 3 point harnesses do not work? And that they'd reinvented the lost art of practical shooting?


Exactly... the first time I watched the video I was at work and watched it with the sound off... it was pretty entertaining and I thought it an interesting exhibit. When I heard the narrative, it was over the top with claims about "archery" and how awesome the narrator thinks he is.


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

I think that fast shooting is maynly to do with horseback riding. This Finnish guy trains here for that. And shoots on good drowleight. I'm not expert or know this archer.
http://youtu.be/2B_aM03k9rs


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Tradbow Guy said:


> Were sitting on OUR high horse? Maybe you missed the part where Lars Anderson said modern archery does not work except in hollywood movies, Back quivers do not work except in hollywood movies. Modern archers only stand still and shoot with one eye. Do cowboy action shooters say that AR-15's do not work? And that 3 point harnesses do not work? And that they'd reinvented the lost art of practical shooting?


Yup, you got me there. That's a very valid argument.

Funny difference between Lars and cowboy actions shooters- It's well accepted that cowboy movie shootouts and that the quick draw duel are Hollywood inventions. Instead of rediscovering some lost art they are practicing the fictional invention...

If someone were to start an IDPA, run and gun, 3 gun, type competition for archery, I would think Lars's techniques might gain some legitimacy. 

BM


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

Aronnax said:


> Yup, you got me there. That's a very valid argument.
> 
> Funny difference between Lars and cowboy actions shooters- It's well accepted that cowboy movie shootouts and that the quick draw duel are Hollywood inventions. Instead of rediscovering some lost art they are practicing the fictional invention...
> 
> ...


I see absolutely nothing wrong with lars techniques. I would love to see him shoot in person because if nothing else the guy is certainly entertaining, and FAST. What I dont understand is why he doesn't simply present his style for what it is, speed shooting, and go from there. Instead he tried to pretty much invalidate every other form of archery as inferior. There probably was some ancient form of archery that mimiced his style closely, but there was without a doubt ancient forms of archery that also mimicked modern day archery. Archery did, and still does vary quite a bit from culture to culture. If you watch the african tribes shoot their bows it is a lot different from anything we do in the west. Some of them use arrows at are as long as a man, and bows that are only a few feet long to shoot them.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

One thing I would question is those saying that his archery has no combat application. Sure, not with a lightweight bow, but what about with an actual war bow? What we need is someone to work up the ability to shoot like this but with say a 100 lb bow. Drawing at half draw allows Lars to shoot really fast, but even drawing at full draw, while slower, would still be very fast by archery standards. Someone that could do this, with accuracy, with a war bow would be really impressive and also contribute to our historical understanding. I also wonder if a half draw with a war bow would be similar to a full draw with a lighter bow (say for shooting enemies up close?). 

Lars himself has said that he had tried using a heavier bow, but at his age (50), it was causing him injuries. But he may well have changed archery where this type of shooting will now become a new form of archery sport that will get a lot of new, younger people into archery, and perhaps they can then work up to the war bow resistances. 

Regarding his skill, I agree fully that he needs to do a video or two with no edits, him just shooting on the fly, to show what accuracy he is really capable of. I'd say in particular just for reasons of historical curiosity as well, because there are many now seriously interested in the historical aspects of this, and want to know how on-the-spot one could be at shooting like this. I would say that his tricks such as catching an arrow in mid-air and especially shooting an arrow in mid-air likely required multiple takes, however, the fact that he is even capable of doing such a trick still shows a remarkable level of skill.


----------



## Wobbley (Sep 26, 2014)

K3N5 said:


> But he may well have changed archery where this type of shooting will now become a new form of archery sport that will get a lot of new, younger people into archery,


And that is the part of this story I care about. 

I did some looking up on Lars Anderson. He is coming at archery in part from LARP (Live Action Role Play). There are already thousands of young people doing this. YouTube is packed with videos of this. 

And I have seen a few come into archery shops since this video hit. 

I don't care what version of archery you try to learn. Trad, 3D, Olympic, Lars LARP (TM), day 1 is going to be a steep learning day. Not only that, but if archery really is for you, you will inevitably learn more than one form.

So when Newbies show up, try to help. Do not tell them that Lars is a showboat and that shooting a semi-automatic 20lb bow at 5 yards is pointless. (I can hear you choking on those words right now.)

Be friendly. Get them started safely. Many of these kids will quit LARP as they get older because of the usual kids, wife, family, job. But they might stick with archery.

We may end up with new members of the archery tribe because of this Lars guy. Tribes grow or die.


----------



## bjaurelio (Apr 30, 2014)

Aronnax said:


> What does cowboy action shooting have to do with marksmanship? Does that mean people who practice it are like Lars?
> 
> I see a lot of people here sitting on high horses...
> 
> ...


As others have mentioned, there's nothing wrong with practicing different styles. It's when you claim complete superiority over all other styles through crazy exaggerations and outright lies.

I think those who practice mounted archery are really good archers to practice their art. Mounted archers are actually upset with his video. Lars actually takes some techniques from them such as holding arrows in the bow or draw hand and firing on the opposite side of the bow with a thumb release. The problem is he claims them as his own as if he rediscovered some ancient lost art that no one else practices. Plenty of his history is simply bad as well (using butted mail instead of rivited mail, looking at pictures rather than reading texts, using a work of fiction as the one text cited, and claimang a 2,500yr old motif is 5,000 years old). Then his form of a half draw with a low poundage bow that has nothing to do with historical or warfare archery makes actual historical archers look bad.

In short, the problem is he claims superior speed and accuracy from rediscovering lost ancient secrets about archery in warfare. In reality, he only has speed with poor accuracy, bad history, and no relevance to combat archery.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

bjaurelio said:


> I think those who practice mounted archery are really good archers to practice their art. Mounted archers are actually upset with his video. Lars actually takes some techniques from them such as holding arrows in the bow or draw hand and firing on the opposite side of the bow with a thumb release. The problem is he claims them as his own as if he rediscovered some ancient lost art that no one else practices.


In a way, hasn't he, as no one else currently shoots the way he does, hence the controversy and popularity of his videos. On the one hand, it may seem a stretch for him to say that he has rediscovered some lost way of archery, but on the other hand, it also seems a stretch to claim that no one else has done this form of archery until Lars, which then raises the issue of why has it been forgotten? 



> Plenty of his history is simply bad as well (using butted mail instead of rivited mail, looking at pictures rather than reading texts, using a work of fiction as the one text cited, and claimang a 2,500yr old motif is 5,000 years old). Then his form of a half draw with a low poundage bow that has nothing to do with historical or warfare archery makes actual historical archers look bad.


Which text was the work of fiction? Also, looking at pictures is not necessarily bad history. That depends on who did the pictures and when. It isn't so cut-and-dried as claiming that they are pictures, so therefore they must be inaccurate. On the low poundage bow, the thing is that Lars himself has acknowledged that archers of the time would have used a much stronger bow. He is not claiming that archers of the time used the bow of the low resistance that he uses. 

Being an amateur, I don't know enough about bows right now, but would a war bow drawn at half-length have the force of say a weaker bow at full draw? For example, would a 100 lb bow at half draw be the same as a 50 lb bow at full draw? If so, then drawing at halfway could have been a way to shoot at enemies that were close up using a war bow. 



> In short, the problem is he claims superior speed and accuracy from rediscovering lost ancient secrets about archery in warfare. In reality, he only has speed with poor accuracy, bad history, and no relevance to combat archery.


I don't think anybody knows for sure his accuracy. On the one hand, his videos include edits. On the other hand, anyone who can shoot an arrow out of the air is likely capable of a high degree of accuracy, even if it requires multiple takes. A big component to be tested by someone is to develop this with a war bow. Also remember, combat archery varied. Longbowmen for example were for massive volleys of fire at the enemy. Mongol warriors rode into battle with two bows, one for short range and one for long range. And so forth. One other thing is that certain historical inaccuracies in Lars's claims does not mean his whole premise is incorrect.


----------



## Zurf (Mar 8, 2014)

He can hit a lot of things close to him. It's fun. I'd love to have given that a try. That said, it's COMPLETELY different from the kind of archery he was suggesting that he replaced. As many have said, just because one technique is useful in certain circumstances doesn't mean that it replaces all approaches. 

That Archery Tag stuff would be a blast with this guy on your team. Close targets, lightweight bows, fast shooting, low consequence. It'd be good times for sure. 

- Zurf


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Another interesting thing about the half-way draw technique is that it is done in conjunction with pushing the bow forward. This thus allows Lars to move his drawing arm only half the distance of a full draw, but yet get the same result as a full draw by pushing the bow forward at the same time. So it essentially lets him do half draws while firing with what are really full draws.


----------



## Bobman (Dec 18, 2004)

some say it wouldn't work in combat....maybe not with one guy but his contention is they all trained like this...picture the results if there was a 100 guys shooting like this and a 100 more with pikes and swords helping them. They would be pretty badass IMO. 

Yeah bows don't kill right away, but if I had to have a sword fight with someone I would prefer to have him "softened up" with a couple arrows in him even if it was in his legs. 

Especially against a invading foreign army not trained like this.

I think they would be hell to fight, also someone said try it with a 100lb warbow yet we have a thread where everyone agrees a 40 lb bow will shoot thru an deer or kill an elk


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

He has rediscovered an ancient way of shooting 

The ancient Elvish way  

Demonstrated here by Legolis  






All joking aside 

This type of shooting is very popular today with a younger crowd very imto the fiction of archery 

If you search speed shooting it is predominately a younger crowd that has been attracted to archery thru movies like lord of the rings etc 

It's all good and Lars is a very talented fellow and I commend him for finding the ancient elvish ways of handling a bow


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Legolis uses the technique where he shoots on the left side of the bow, not right-side like Lars does.


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

He'd probably make it though a couple of rounds of America's Got Talent.


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

Looks like Lars is inspiring quite the following. Is that a pvc bow, dowel rod arrows and electrical tape fletching?


----------



## GBUSA (Jun 6, 2013)

Bobman said:


> some say it wouldn't work in combat....maybe not with one guy but his contention is they all trained like this...picture the results if there was a 100 guys shooting like this and a 100 more with pikes and swords helping them. They would be pretty badass IMO.
> 
> Yeah bows don't kill right away, but if I had to have a sword fight with someone I would prefer to have him "softened up" with a couple arrows in him even if it was in his legs.
> 
> ...


Perspective is everything.

That deer gets hit by 40# at 20 yards by a modern arrow shot from a high efficiency bow.

The English bowmen were expected to kill their armored human opponents at 7X the distance hence the 150# warbows.
They trained from childhood so they could both draw a bow that heavy and also hit their targets at distance shooting the required number of arrows per minute.

So perhaps he could kill a poor farmer without armor from close range if he himself lived long enough to get a shot off.
His skill set would be better served in policing the feasts and royal balls.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> Legolis uses the technique where he shoots on the left side of the bow, not right-side like Lars does.


My point exactly 

Legolis does not have a style he is a fictitious ellf


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Bobman said:


> some say it wouldn't work in combat....maybe not with one guy but his contention is they all trained like this...picture the results if there was a 100 guys shooting like this and a 100 more with pikes and swords helping them. They would be pretty badass IMO.
> 
> Yeah bows don't kill right away, but if I had to have a sword fight with someone I would prefer to have him "softened up" with a couple arrows in him even if it was in his legs.
> 
> ...


There is no question that the bow has changed the course of history 

From the English Longbow Men that fired volleys at extreme range to asiatic and other horse bowman that held arrows in their bow hand and shot from horseback 

But a guy running around with a 20 pound bow and a handful of arrows on a battle field I have a feeling was not a force to be reckoned with  

Again 

Look up this style of shooting on UTube and by and by its a bunch of kids inspired by a fiction 

Nothing wrong with it and I am for what ever floats your boat and brings more people into archery 

But it is what it is


----------



## longbowdude (Jun 9, 2005)

If he can even come close to that accuracy in a un-cut video then he is one of the best. 

A long time ago I videoed my self shooting a robin hood. Everyone I showed the video to was very impressed. If all 30-40 shots I took @ 15 yards during the attempt had been on the video they would not of been so impressed.

I guess its a good thing if he brings in more shooters though.


----------



## bjaurelio (Apr 30, 2014)

K3N5 said:


> In a way, hasn't he, as no one else currently shoots the way he does, hence the controversy and popularity of his videos. On the one hand, it may seem a stretch for him to say that he has rediscovered some lost way of archery, but on the other hand, it also seems a stretch to claim that no one else has done this form of archery until Lars, which then raises the issue of why has it been forgotten?


My point was that people do shoot that way. It's a small community, but there are still mounted archery competitions. They shoot a quick style holding arrows in bow or draw hand. It was never forgotten. Only, mounted archers actually come to full draw and have a consistent shot.



K3N5 said:


> Which text was the work of fiction? Also, looking at pictures is not necessarily bad history. That depends on who did the pictures and when. It isn't so cut-and-dried as claiming that they are pictures, so therefore they must be inaccurate. On the low poundage bow, the thing is that Lars himself has acknowledged that archers of the time would have used a much stronger bow. He is not claiming that archers of the time used the bow of the low resistance that he uses.


The Arab Archery quote is from a folktale. Looking at pictures is not necessarily bad history, but when what is widely recognized as inacuracies for artistic purposes (to not bisect the line of the arrow) is taken to mean that the arrow was placed on the opposite side of the bow using a mediterranean draw is bad history.


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Also, claiming that one can use the bow hand to "fling" the arrow forward by tipping your bow as you shoot and add more power is downright absurd; and it is a bad interpretation of the art he was looking at.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

This is a case of someone who is not really an archer to start off with (he was apparently a LARP'er) finding something entertaining to do and then acting like that gives him some sort of credibility as an instructor. It doesn't.

The difference between guys like Lars and guys like Byron Ferguson? Live audience. If Lars _can_ do this on demand in front of people, then he DOES have something to offer. Otherwise, he's just another entertaining youtube clip. Nothing more. As long as he's having fun that doesn't matter, but don't insult other styles.


----------



## Longbow91115 (May 4, 2009)

patrick2cents said:


> Also, claiming that one can use the bow hand to "fling" the arrow forward by tipping your bow as you shoot and add more power is downright absurd; and it is a bad interpretation of the art he was looking at.


It only works off of a shelf.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

bjaurelio said:


> My point was that people do shoot that way. It's a small community, but there are still mounted archery competitions. They shoot a quick style holding arrows in bow or draw hand. It was never forgotten. Only, mounted archers actually come to full draw and have a consistent shot.


The word "forgotten" is a bit arbitrary. If "forgotten" in the sense of completely and totally forgotten to all of humanity, then no. But if "forgotten" in the sense of not known to most practicing archers and the general public, then most likely yes. Also, I doubt that these mounted archers can loose the arrows that fast or they would likely be posting videos of themselves shooting like this as well. 

Your point though that mounted archers can do this is very interesting, because I have seen some say that Lars's style would never work for mounted archery because how would one control the horse while holding the bow and holding arrows in the draw hand? So some Lars critics say the style is nonsense because it wouldn't be applicable on horseback, others such as yourself say it has never been forgotten. 



> The Arab Archery quote is from a folktale. Looking at pictures is not necessarily bad history, but when what is widely recognized as inacuracies for artistic purposes (to not bisect the line of the arrow) is taken to mean that the arrow was placed on the opposite side of the bow using a mediterranean draw is bad history.


When you say "widely recognized" though, is this by modern archers who may have gotten it wrong, historians, etc...? According to the book Saracen Archery, the Arab draw is on the right side of the bow while the modern European draw is on the left side. Regarding the rapid-loosing of the arrows, the book Saracen Archery says that the Arab archers were expected to be able to loose three arrows in 1.5 seconds. It then cites the book "Crusading Warfare" by R.C. Smail in which the Crusader William of Tyre describes how the Arab cavalryman would shoot so quickly: "The Saracen cavalry...began to shoot thicker and faster than one could believe possible." 

The book Arab Archery talks about the capability of loosing multiple arrows in succession, which it calls "shower shooting." Some critics have made the point that this technique is listed in the area of the book labeled as "stunt shooting," however if you read that portion of the text on the stunts, they are not all for showmanship, but instead multiple ones are described as having combat application. It might be something in the translation, but I think by the label "stunt shooting," that the book really means techniques for shooting that require a really high degree of skill. 

The shower shooting technique has two origin stories, one being that a man named Bustam (apparently an archery master I get the impression as I haven't read the whole text) once saw a hawk repeatedly swooping down on a stork, attacking it repeatedly, and he got the idea from that. The other is that the (I am assuming) ruler named Kisra ordered him to shoot a lion in his presence. He did and the lion didn't die. Kisra said that the bow and arrow was an inferior weapon because in the time it would take the bowman to loose another arrow, they would likely be killed, and thus it was too dangerous for the hunter or warrior. Bustam gave this thought, and thus devised the showering technique.

Regarding holding multiple arrows in the draw hand, that is also shown in the pictures.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

patrick2cents said:


> Also, claiming that one can use the bow hand to "fling" the arrow forward by tipping your bow as you shoot and add more power is downright absurd; and it is a bad interpretation of the art he was looking at.


I don't think that is what he is claiming, but I may be mistaken. I interpreted it that he means you can reduce the draw needed by the drawing hand by having part of it made up by the bow hand pushing forward. This also allows only a half draw of the bowstring while creating a full draw, and thus allowing rapid-fire shooting. It also would reduce the resistance on the drawing arm/hand, and thus allow a person to say use a 100 lb bow while only having to draw half the amount, or pull it half way.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

kegan said:


> This is a case of someone who is not really an archer to start off with (he was apparently a LARP'er) finding something entertaining to do and then acting like that gives him some sort of credibility as an instructor. It doesn't.
> 
> The difference between guys like Lars and guys like Byron Ferguson? Live audience. If Lars _can_ do this on demand in front of people, then he DOES have something to offer. Otherwise, he's just another entertaining youtube clip. Nothing more. As long as he's having fun that doesn't matter, but don't insult other styles.


I would disagree that it doesn't give him credibility as an instructor, BUT as you said, live audience. Someone really needs to get where they can do this with a war bow and live, then that would be awesome. Otherwise, as much as I defend Lars right now, I still view him myself a bit skeptically for this reason.


----------



## youngling (Feb 5, 2015)

First time watching the video I thought to myself, "This looks kind of funky."
But after a couple more views I realised that under certain circumstances, such as being on the battle-field or fighting off bad guys,
it makes sense. 
I would love to learn to shoot like Mr. Andersen. Man, I need to call that dude up and see if he gives lessons, lol. c:
I'm pretty sure if I tried to imitate him, I'd end up hurting myself. I'm way too clumsy for such things. :nervous s


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Kids


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

K3N5 said:


> I would disagree that it doesn't give him credibility as an instructor, BUT as you said, live audience. Someone really needs to get where they can do this with a war bow and live, then that would be awesome. Otherwise, as much as I defend Lars right now, I still view him myself a bit skeptically for this reason.


If he had a show in Pittsburgh where he did this stuff in front of a live audience with a 25# bow, I'd buy tickets to the show in a heartbeat. If he wrote a book on how he does it, I'd probably buy that too. I wouldn't practice it, but it would be incredibly entertaining to read about and watch. 

He's incredibly entertaining, but editing is a powerful tool. Had he not made digs towards other techniques and offered his style as "superior" I doubt his video would be receiving half the negative feedback it is.


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

What is Lars teknic for. Badleground and horseback. There are situations in badlefield that you attacing enemy on high speed and you are 1 against 12 so you shoot 3-5 quick arrows from distans that infentry can't touch you and horse away. Quick in and out.


----------



## Longbow91115 (May 4, 2009)

kegan said:


> If he had a show in Pittsburgh where he did this stuff in front of a live audience with a 25# bow, I'd buy tickets to the show in a heartbeat. If he wrote a book on how he does it, I'd probably buy that too. I wouldn't practice it, but it would be incredibly entertaining to read about and watch.
> 
> He's incredibly entertaining, but editing is a powerful tool. Had he not made digs towards other techniques and offered his style as "superior" I doubt his video would be receiving half the negative feedback it is.


If I was a bowyer I'd have one of my bows in his hand. Good or bad it's generated a lot of conversation.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

He is best at what he does I'll give him that, but what is he doing exactly? First off, his video is full of historical inaccuracies and dishonesty about all other forms of archery in order to fit his agenda. It is like one of those cheap infomercials, and it was advertising how perfect his method of shooting is (with a lot of editing), and showing how clunky and impractical other forms of archery are by deliberately doing them wrong. He is performing trick shooting, very good trick shooting, but it has no practicality in any historical context, not hunting, warfare, small scale battle, or even ambushing for that matter. He has a lot of gaul to say he is the one doing it the right and "forgotten" way and everyone else is doing it wrong. Lastly, his video is tailored to cater to those ignorant in history and archery, and it worked well at grabbing a lot positive attention from the ignorant masses. To those of you dissing his critics like myself for being a bit abrasive, remember he started this with his dishonesty and shady methods of pushing his agenda by making a direct assault on our own forms of archery and spitting in the face of those with the most rudimentary knowledge of history in an archery context. If he had just made an honest video demonstrating his trick shooting skills, I would applaud him.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

New video response to Lars:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Great video 

Gonna upset a lot of kids  

But I thought it was all taken from historical Elvin writings


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Arrowwood said:


> New video response to Lars:



Beautiful.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

EthanJM said:


> He is best at what he does I'll give him that, but what is he doing exactly? First off, his video is full of historical inaccuracies and dishonesty about all other forms of archery in order to fit his agenda. It is like one of those cheap infomercials, and it was advertising how perfect his method of shooting is (with a lot of editing), and showing how clunky and impractical other forms of archery are by deliberately doing them wrong. He is performing trick shooting, very good trick shooting, but it has no practicality in any historical context, not hunting, warfare, small scale battle, or even ambushing for that matter. He has a lot of gaul to say he is the one doing it the right and "forgotten" way and everyone else is doing it wrong. Lastly, his video is tailored to cater to those ignorant in history and archery, and it worked well at grabbing a lot positive attention from the ignorant masses. To those of you dissing his critics like myself for being a bit abrasive, remember he started this with his dishonesty and shady methods of pushing his agenda by making a direct assault on our own forms of archery and spitting in the face of those with the most rudimentary knowledge of history in an archery context. If he had just made an honest video demonstrating his trick shooting skills, I would applaud him.


According to the books Saracen Archery and Arab Archery, and accounts by Crusaders, it does have military and hunting application. Hunting application would be if you come upon a predator say and need to kill it immediately before it can reach and attack you, which could require loosing multiple arrows very quickly.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Arrowwood said:


> New video response to Lars:


1) Why is what Lars doing trick shooting and what most target archers today do not a form of trick shooting as well? I mean modern target archery, unless they are using a war bow resistance, is no less a trick either, IMO. 

2) The claim that you can't go by historical images is a weak one. It depends on what the image shows. Why would multiple images show archers holding multiple arrows in the draw hand if they clearly did not? That would mean flat-out lying on the part of the artists, not a simple mistake. Showing the arrow being drawn on the right side as opposed to the left side could be a simple mistake and may not be historically accurate but showing arrows in the draw hand is much more questionable about being historically inaccurate. As the narrator says later on with regards to quipment (back quiver) pictures versus pictures of technique, certain areas of art are much less prone ot historical inaccuracy. I would think something like holding the arrows in the draw hand fall there. 

3) Regarding the issue of whether the techniques are forgotten, as I've said before, it would be a stretch to say Lars is the first to discover these techniques. So it is probably more likely that he did rediscover them in some fashion. 

4) On the book Arab Archery, the video makes some excellent points. On the aspect of horsemanship, I think that is meant with regards to the archery would probably be used by cavalry and not foot archers. 

5) Agree that catching the arrow in mid-air is a trick, not something with combat application.

6) The video makes a mistake in claiming that Lars claimed archers practice on stationary targets. He said that archers today stand still, whereas in the past they more would have moved around. This is precisely what many of the pictures from manuscripts the narrator uses to counter Lars's claim show (such as riding on horseback while shooting and a man running while shooting).

7) Agree on the issue about shooting from the left side of the bow, but while one can still shoot quickly from the left side, they cannot shoot as fast as when shooting from the right side.

8) The back quiver for use in medieval combat is mostly a Hollywood myth. That said, Lars is wrong to claim that the back quiver itself is strictly a Hollywood myth.

9) Agree on the issue of splitting an arrow and Lars needing to show which source he relied on. 

10) The narrator criticizes Lars on his bow having an easy pull, but Lars himself has said that a war archer would have used a much stronger bow. He said that at his age, using such bows was giving him injuries. 

11) Agree that Lars is wrong to claim that the arrows in draw hand method was universal everywhere. 

12) The text that claims the Saracens could loose three arrows in 1.5 seconds is "Saracen Archery." As for how the Saracens measured seconds, it wouldn't have been actual seconds but an equivalent measurement that equals 1.5 seconds. I very much would like to know the sources the authors of the book used to arrive at that number (for example, maybe someone needs to find the text (s) they used in the original language and translate them).


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

that lady is hot, i could listen to her all day


----------



## Castmaster (May 2, 2013)

Wow, her video is actually better than Lars. I bet she scores higher on a 300 round too.


----------



## Matt H (Aug 23, 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi#Tools_and_equipment
otzi the 'iceman'

a man who lived around 3,300 BCE,[2][3] more precisely between 3359 and 3105 BCE.

Other items found with the Iceman were a copper axe with a yew handle, a flint-bladed knife with an ash handle and a quiver of 14 arrows with viburnum and dogwood shafts. Two of the arrows, which were broken, were tipped with flint and had fletching (stabilizing fins), while the other 12 were unfinished and untipped."

we can see use of quivers is at least 5,000 years old. some people probably put them on their backs in that 5000 year time span.

in the end i think it's all more situational than prescribed technique. if youre flinging arrows in a battle and get stuck in a close quarters melee and you run out of arrows and have to pick some up are you going to take the time to stick them in a quiver? or will you grab as many arrows as you can and hold onto them with your draw hand while you continue battling? this is assuming archers aren't carrying some sort of other weapon like a club, mace, sword, or axe...

there are a lot of videos that look impressive if people don't know whats really going on


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> Another interesting thing about the half-way draw technique is that it is done in conjunction with pushing the bow forward. This thus allows Lars to move his drawing arm only half the distance of a full draw, but yet get the same result as a full draw by pushing the bow forward at the same time. So it essentially lets him do half draws while firing with what are really full draws.


This is absolutely ridiculous. How is pushing one arm forward going to create a longer draw? Think about a more traditional draw, the bow arm is already extended, then your draw arm pulls back to a complete anchor, for your average man this is 28", if the bow is rated at 50# @28" this means he will be pulling 50#. Now explain to me how pushing your bow arm forward, and pulling your draw arm half way back making a draw less than 20" will create the results as a full draw.


----------



## erotomaniac1928 (Sep 28, 2014)

Arrowwood said:


> New video response to Lars:


Haha that's great. Well done


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

EthanJM said:


> This is absolutely ridiculous. How is pushing one arm forward going to create a longer draw? Think about a more traditional draw, the bow arm is already extended, then your draw arm pulls back to a complete anchor, for your average man this is 28", if the bow is rated at 50# @28" this means he will be pulling 50#. Now explain to me how pushing your bow arm forward, and pulling your draw arm half way back making a draw less than 20" will create the results as a full draw.


Imagine you can draw by the drawing arm pulling backwards 28 inches, or the drawing arm pulling back 14 inches and the bow arm pushing forward 14 inches at the same time. This thus creates the full 28 inch draw but with the drawing arm only having to travel half the distance overall (because the bow arm travels forward the other half).


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> Imagine you can draw by the drawing arm pulling backwards 28 inches, or the drawing arm pulling back 14 inches and the bow arm pushing forward 14 inches at the same time. This thus creates the full 28 inch draw but with the drawing arm only having to travel half the distance overall (because the bow arm travels forward the other half).


What?! The bow arm is already extended with a proper draw. Extending your arm earlier or later does not make a difference in the length of the draw. All he is doing is extending his arm later rather than earlier, and his actual draw arm is not fully drawing back, he is probably drawing less than 20 inches in a lot of those shots. 
You already get proper extension, stability, and back tension with a proper draw, I cannot think of a single advantage to his technique.


----------



## SandraLAVixen (Jan 3, 2015)

I saw his video, and a few rebutals, they are all interesting and entertaining. 

I'm abstaining from forming any opinions as I'm new here.  But I do want to say that what Lars says about film makers "forgetting" about history; there are directors from all walks of life and some do their research more than others and others do do their research but sometimes forsake the reality of film for the gains of entertainment. Not all directors have "forgotten" though.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

Omg you guys reach in your skirts and un bunch your panties. 6 pages really?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

jakeemt said:


> Omg you guys reach in your skirts and un bunch your panties. 6 pages really?


Hey, you ought to see what happens when some target archer suggests there's only one way to shoot a bow!  Flannel gets all knotted up.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

jakeemt said:


> Omg you guys reach in your skirts and un bunch your panties. 6 pages really?


It is an archery forum with a lot of people who are very passionate about it, and in one fell swoop this guy came in and took a dump on it with downright lies and misrepresentation and got a lot of attention doing so.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

EthanJM said:


> What?! The bow arm is already extended with a proper draw. Extending your arm earlier or later does not make a difference in the length of the draw. All he is doing is extending his arm later rather than earlier, and his actual draw arm is not fully drawing back, he is probably drawing less than 20 inches in a lot of those shots.
> You already get proper extension, stability, and back tension with a proper draw, I cannot think of a single advantage to his technique.


I see. One question I have, but does a bow pulled halfway have half the draw weight? For example, if one pulls a 100 lb bow halfway and looses an arrow, is that the equivalent of a 50 lb bow pulled all the way?


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

jakeemt said:


> Omg you guys reach in your skirts and un bunch your panties. 6 pages really?


It is understandable because Lars makes some big claims and history is very important.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> I see. One question I have, but does a bow pulled halfway have half the draw weight? For example, if one pulls a 100 lb bow halfway and looses an arrow, is that the equivalent of a 50 lb bow pulled all the way?


There's not a direct linear relationship of one unit of draw for one unit of force, but even if halved in draw weight, you have halved the power stroke. The arrow will go slower than a normal 50 pound bow would throw it at twice the draw length.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> I see. One question I have, but does a bow pulled halfway have half the draw weight? For example, if one pulls a 100 lb bow halfway and looses an arrow, is that the equivalent of a 50 lb bow pulled all the way?


In short, a heavier bow pulled back half way will shoot faster than the lighter bow pulled back half way, but it is more complicated than that. A longer draw allows the arrow to accelerate for a longer period of time, it is probably equally as important as the draw weight itself. A 50# bow at full draw will be much more powerful than a 100# bow at half draw, much much more. Proof of concept, look at the crossbow. Have you ever seen a video of a medieval crossbow which is like 400#? At first it sounds extremely impressive, that is until you see it in action and realize it is less powerful than a lot of bows. That is because the draw on medieval crossbows had a very short draw (power stroke), around 8" or even less. That is why it wasn't uncommon for crossbows of this period to be around 1,000#, they just had to to make up for such a short power stroke. Here, check this out, this little crossbow is 320#, but not all that powerful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se_N8CrooPY
Here is a full sized 400# medieval crossbow. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTQx5RXfrl0
Modern crossbows are so much more powerful than the old ones pound per pound because they are utilizing a power stroke of around 10 to 14 inches. But even then much weaker than a fully drawn vertical bow pound per pound.

So a bow pulled to half draw is highly inefficient no matter which way you look at it. The only way you could make it equivalent in power to a fully drawn war bow (or even hunting for for that matter) is if you had one so damn heavy that it could never be pulled to full draw if you wanted to, and even at half draw, when you venture into draw weights that high it will never work with the form you see Lars using in that video, even with proper back tension to achieve maximum strength most people would not be able to pull it even half draw. It would be like taking a crossbow prod off the crossbow and trying to use it as a little bow, not going to happen.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

One thing I am curious about, but for the talk of speed shooting not being applicable to combat, wouldn't that have depended on the combat? For example, being able to speed shoot would have allowed horse archers to be very skilled in quickly loosing arrows while on horseback. I suppose one also would need to know the tactics such horse archers used while in combat, but for example if they rode in more closely and loosed arrows in a “hit-and-run” type of attack, speed shooting could have been a very viable way to shoot I'd think. If at a greater distance where accuracy was more important, then perhaps not, but as said, there are multiple accounts of Crusaders talking about how fast the Saracens and so forth were, which meant that even if not using a technique of holding multiple arrows in the draw hand, they were fast shooters nonetheless overall.

Also, another thing to keep in mind was if doing such tactics as a group, the horse archers might only need to be “so” accurate. I mean if you have say ten archers riding in and each of them losing say 5 arrows each at the enemy, and the enemy is a large crowded group, well that’s 50 arrows showering the enemy, and then they ride back out again and another such attack comes in. I think it also would depend on the organization of the enemy. If the enemy are on foot, then the main point is to just pound the enemy army with arrows. So each archer just rides in and looses arrows like a drive-by shooting. Such speed shooting would of course however have to be done with a war bow resistance. 

On the other hand, if going against enemy cavalry, if the enemy cavalry are more spread out where specific aim is needed, then slower, accurate shooting is what would win.


----------



## KingDongle (Feb 6, 2015)

I'm just recently rediscovering my passion for archery discipline, so I'm not really in a place to get really bent out of shape about it,... but while Lars's "stunts" (and video editing) are somewhat impressive to a certain point, I found the narration pretentious and insulting to the archery community. If Lars was just jumping around and shooting in a "star wars kid" manner, i think this whole viral video would have been received much more gracefully. 

Kanye West = bad for the rap scene
Jeff ***** = bad for the art scene
Lars Andersen= bad for the archery scene


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

K3N5, shooting as many arrows as you can isn't new. Lars sure as heck didn't "reinvent" that. He has a faster method, but it has short comings (like short drawing) that would make it far less useful than taking that extra .6 seconds to pull the bow to 32" rather than 18". I also don't think jumping off of walls and spinning while shooting was particularly applicable to war either.

Stop trying to find grains of truth in his video, and just accept him for the goofy, entertaining guy that he is. Nothing wrong with being goofy, but you can't really take him all that seriously while he's riding a Harley slowly shooting at six paces. Howard Hill was a big proponent of shooting quickly... and accurately. He actually did it in front of other people though, and used that skill to kill a charging buffalo off of horse back... using a back quiver and holding the arrow on the left side of the bow.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Exactly, nobody is doubting that speed archery existed and was very useful in certain applications, but there is a wrong way to do it and a right way. Why in the world would you make a half draw instead of just pulling full draw and snap shooting it? I guess the reason is his form is only applicable with a half draw. Watch this and notice how he is actually actually making a full draw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs0poHibsSg


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

kegan said:


> K3N5, shooting as many arrows as you can isn't new. Lars sure as heck didn't "reinvent" that. He has a faster method, but it has short comings (like short drawing) that would make it far less useful than taking that extra .6 seconds to pull the bow to 32" rather than 18". I also don't think jumping off of walls and spinning while shooting was particularly applicable to war either.


Shooting as many arrows as you can at the speed Lars does Lars didn't invent, he likely rediscovered (as it would be very odd that nobody else in history had that technique). Jumping off of walls and spinning is just for show and sport in order to show skill. And even if taking the extra time to pull to a full draw, that still would allow the archer to loose arrows more quickly that other forms of archery allow. 



> Stop trying to find grains of truth in his video, and just accept him for the goofy, entertaining guy that he is. Nothing wrong with being goofy, but you can't really take him all that seriously while he's riding a Harley slowly shooting at six paces. Howard Hill was a big proponent of shooting quickly... and accurately. He actually did it in front of other people though, and used that skill to kill a charging buffalo off of horse back... using a back quiver and holding the arrow on the left side of the bow.


I'm not trying to find grains of truth, so much as I do not buy all of the criticisms of his video. I could flip it on you and say, "Stop trying to find faults in his video and just accept him as what he is, someone who has rediscovered a form of archery that most everyone had forgotten about." This would be wrong too. Two criticisms I've pointed out for example are on the one hand people saying his archery wouldn't apply to horse archers because one couldn't hold the arrows like that while controlling the horse, yet then others have said that his claim to have rediscovered that technique for holding the arrows is incorrect because modern horse archery practitioners have had such a technique for a long time. In addition, while criticism of technique such as drawing the arrow on the left or right as portrayed in pictures are legitimate, criticisms of things like pictures showing the archer holding the arrows in the draw hand are less so, as those would rank along depictions of equipment like quills. An artist could easily mess up which side of the bow is used, but much less so whether the archer is holding arrows in the draw hand or not. 

And one can very much shoot quickly, repeatedly, holding the arrow on the left side of the bow from horse back (I've seen a video of a man doing it). But it will be quick, accurate shooting, as opposed to more rapid-fire shooting, which would be likely for closer range, hit-and-run style tactics. I agree that Lars should do some live demonstrations.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

EthanJM said:


> Exactly, nobody is doubting that speed archery existed and was very useful in certain applications, but there is a wrong way to do it and a right way. Why in the world would you make a half draw instead of just pulling full draw and snap shooting it? I guess the reason is his form is only applicable with a half draw. Watch this and notice how he is actually actually making a full draw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs0poHibsSg


Does a half-draw mean half the resistance of the bow? For example, does drawing a 100 lb bow halfway make 50 lbs resistance? If so, then such a draw I could imagine would only be applicable at really close range to shoot people. Otherwise, a full draw is needed. But a person could still shoot very quickly using Lars's style with a full draw.


----------



## Zurf (Mar 8, 2014)

As I understand it, half draw means half the usual DISTANCE of the draw. So if bow is intended to be drawn to 24", then a half draw is 12". If a bow is intended to be drawn 28", then a half draw is 14". Etc. When we say that a bow has a certain draw weight, that weight is measured at a given draw length. Half of that draw length is half drawn. Draw weight vs. draw length is not expressed linearly with a stickbow. Half the intended draw length does not necessarily relate to half the draw weight. As you draw farther and farther back, the draw weight increases exponentially. When the exponential effort reaches a near vertical (or at least a rapidly accelerating curve), the bow is said to be "stacking". 

So, no, drawing a 50# draw weight bow back 1/2 of the intended draw length is not the same as drawing a 25# draw weight bow to its intended length.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Zurf said:


> So, no, drawing a 50# draw weight bow back 1/2 of the intended draw length is not the same as drawing a 25# draw weight bow to its intended length.


Exactly right, but lets just say theoretically half draw was half weight, even then the power would be even further reduced because of the shorter power stroke. Drawing to 50# @15" or even @18" will not give nearly the same power as 50# @28", not even close. Power stroke is extremely important, I'd wager just as important if not more so than draw weight. K3N5, I gave you a pretty detailed explanation above, and referenced crossbows as an example.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Zurf said:


> As I understand it, half draw means half the usual DISTANCE of the draw. So if bow is intended to be drawn to 24", then a half draw is 12". If a bow is intended to be drawn 28", then a half draw is 14". Etc. When we say that a bow has a certain draw weight, that weight is measured at a given draw length. Half of that draw length is half drawn. Draw weight vs. draw length is not expressed linearly with a stickbow. Half the intended draw length does not necessarily relate to half the draw weight. As you draw farther and farther back, the draw weight increases exponentially. When the exponential effort reaches a near vertical (or at least a rapidly accelerating curve), the bow is said to be "stacking".
> 
> So, no, drawing a 50# draw weight bow back 1/2 of the intended draw length is not the same as drawing a 25# draw weight bow to its intended length.


I see, thank you for the information.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

EthanJM said:


> Exactly right, but lets just say theoretically half draw was half weight, even then the power would be even further reduced because of the shorter power stroke. Drawing to 50# @15" or even @18" will not give nearly the same power as 50# @28", not even close. Power stroke is extremely important, I'd wager just as important if not more so than draw weight. K3N5, I gave you a pretty detailed explanation above, and referenced crossbows as an example.


EthanJM, my apologies, I didn't see that detailed post you gave above, thank you for it though. Yours and Zurf's cleared up a lot for me there. I was wondering as I had suspected that draw distance probably wasn't linearly related to draw weight. Also didn't know about the importance of draw distance.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

If the draw was linear, for the sake of simplicity, brace height 7 1/4", full draw of 28" would have power stroke 28-1 3/4 -7 1/4=19". Half draw to 14", power stroke 5". Draw weight estimate on a bow 40# @28, about 10#, more or less. roughly speaking, 1/4 power stroke by 1/4 draw weight, about 1/16 the energy.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

K3N5, did I read correctly that you haven't been in archery very long?

You won't get particularly good distance or performance out of an arrow that was designed to be shot at full draw if you half draw the bow. Many hunters find that losing as much as 1" of draw can produce very different results on game... which doesn't wear armor.

As for the video, I have no issue with what he does or how he does. However, if I took him seriously then his claims would be as arrogant as they are outlandish. However, there's no actual support for any of this- so I don't take him as anything more than an entertaining goof.


----------



## longbowdude (Jun 9, 2005)

erotomaniac1928 said:


> Haha that's great. Well done


Yeah! Very impressive!


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

kegan said:


> k3n5, did i read correctly that you haven't been in archery very long?
> 
> You won't get particularly good distance or performance out of an arrow that was designed to be shot at full draw if you half draw the bow. Many hunters find that losing as much as 1" of draw can produce very different results on game... Which doesn't wear armor.
> 
> As for the video, i have no issue with what he does or how he does. However, if i took him seriously then his claims would be as arrogant as they are outlandish. However, there's no actual support for any of this- so i don't take him as anything more than an entertaining goof.


x 10!!!!!!


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

kegan said:


> K3N5, did I read correctly that you haven't been in archery very long?
> 
> You won't get particularly good distance or performance out of an arrow that was designed to be shot at full draw if you half draw the bow. Many hunters find that losing as much as 1" of draw can produce very different results on game... which doesn't wear armor.
> 
> As for the video, I have no issue with what he does or how he does. However, if I took him seriously then his claims would be as arrogant as they are outlandish. However, there's no actual support for any of this- so I don't take him as anything more than an entertaining goof.


Yes, new to archery. I would disagree that there is no support for certain of his claims though. However, some of his claims are outlandish.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

It's the outlandish ones that are the issue.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Had he not insulted other forms of archery and said some of the lame brain things he did the video would have been greeted with not much less than unanimous applause.


----------



## Knygathin (Feb 10, 2015)

Can anyone identify the brand name of the small black, recurved bow Lars uses? Clearly visible at 1:55 into the video.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

Knygathin said:


> Can anyone identify the brand name of the small black, recurved bow Lars uses? Clearly visible at 1:55 into the video.


Don't know the brand, but think he borrowed it from his 6 year old nephew.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

He might as well have been throwing lawn darts - that's how little it has to do with archery. Zero application to target, hunting or war - the bow is/was a stand off weapon, that was its advantage. Do a spinning back flip and shoot some guy with a battle ax five times with your 15 lb now at 10 yards and he's going to cut your head off before bleeding out - a totally pointless parlor trick.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Matt, your missing the point though ...
He rediscovered lost archery techniques :zip: .........
The battle axe won't work against him as he has a force field around him that protects him from battle axes, wizards power balls and dragons bane ... If you don't believe him , just ask the others kids he plays Dungeons and Dragons with ........


----------



## Castmaster (May 2, 2013)

benofthehood said:


> Matt, your missing the point though ...
> He rediscovered lost archery techniques :zip: .........
> The battle axe won't work against him as he has a force field around him that protects him from battle axes, wizards power balls and dragons bane ... If you don't believe him , just ask the others kids he plays Dungeons and Dragons with ........


This just made my day:set1_rolf2:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Here's, as I said before, a sign of the times we live in.

A guy who isn't shooting his bow in public, never competed in a tournament, never taken an animal with bow, and shooting a kid's bow with modified duct tape nocks on his arrows, is now the most popular archer in the world. To the public at large, the non-archery community, and then some archers to boot, he "will" be known as the World's Greatest Archer and never left from in front of a camera. 

Seems unreal until you think about it, how we have come to separate our reality from our entertainment. I guess one could say Hill got his fame the same way, just he did have a public personality as well and prior accomplishments to support.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Matt_Potter said:


> He might as well have been throwing lawn darts - that's how little it has to do with archery. Zero application to target, hunting or war - the bow is/was a stand off weapon, that was its advantage. Do a spinning back flip and shoot some guy with a battle ax five times with your 15 lb now at 10 yards and he's going to cut your head off before bleeding out - a totally pointless parlor trick.


To be fair though, target archery has little war or hunting application either unless done with a stronger bow.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Sanford said:


> Here's, as I said before, a sign of the times we live in.
> 
> A guy who isn't shooting his bow in public, never competed in a tournament, never taken an animal with bow, and shooting a kid's bow with modified duct tape nocks on his arrows, is now the most popular archer in the world. To the public at large, the non-archery community, and then some archers to boot, he "will" be known as the World's Greatest Archer and never left from in front of a camera.
> 
> Seems unreal until you think about it, how we have come to separate our reality from our entertainment. I guess one could say Hill got his fame the same way, just he did have a public personality as well and prior accomplishments to support.


I don't think it's a sign of the times so much as just cluelessness on people's part. And most people aren't skeptics enough. Most view his videos and think he's the greatest and that's that. Only a fraction will view the videos and then think, "Hmm...I wonder what the archery community thinks of him. I'll bet if I ask them, they'll have some legitimate criticisms of him..."


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

K3N5 said:


> To be fair though, target archery has little war or hunting application either unless done with a stronger bow.


target archery is very directly applicable to hunting. And draw weights aren't all that far off. The mechanics, form, tuning and aiming are all the same; it is just what's on the end of the arrow and where the arrow is shot that is different.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

K3N5 said:


> To be fair though, target archery has little war or hunting application either unless done with a stronger bow.


Tell you what I shoot 3D with a 45lb bow - I hunt with a 45 lb bow - why don't you try standing behind a broadside elk, let me shoot it and we will see how that "target bow" does?? I've been lucky enough to shoot with some of the best hunters/target archers in the country and they all shoot bows within 5-10 pounds of each other for target and hunting. These are guys who step up to the line and compete for all the world to see they don't hide in the editing room. Most folks have no clue what an amazing performance Dewayne Martin put on at The Vegas shoot a 286 vegas face score is real world class archery not parlor tricks.

Matt


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Last thing I wanted to add I have never mentioned about Lars Andersen is his equipment. If you didn't know, as Sanford already said, his nocks are modified. They are an inch wide! That alone should blow a huge hole in his claims. With nocks like that, it would be impossible to get good arrow flight, I bet his arrow flight is atrocious.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Sanford said:


> Here's, as I said before, a sign of the times we live in.
> 
> A guy who isn't shooting his bow in public, never competed in a tournament, never taken an animal with bow, and shooting a kid's bow with modified duct tape nocks on his arrows, is now the most popular archer in the world. To the public at large, the non-archery community, and then some archers to boot, he "will" be known as the World's Greatest Archer and never left from in front of a camera.
> 
> Seems unreal until you think about it, how we have come to separate our reality from our entertainment. I guess one could say Hill got his fame the same way, just he did have a public personality as well and prior accomplishments to support.


Rather depressing isn't it


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> To be fair though, target archery has little war or hunting application either unless done with a stronger bow.


That could not be more untrue 

I am not a target archer but I've killed more stuff than the plague and I aspire to be a target archer 

Till you see guy group arrows in a cup all day long you have not seen what can be done with a single string 

Lars seems like a fun kid and he made a neat video showing some crazy trick shooting 

None of what he shows has any use in the hunting or combat world unless you are an elf in the lord of the rings  

A modern bow I would wager of 60 pounds problae can throw arrows better than a 100 pound self bow of old 

Olympic Archerys at times are shooting 50 + pounds 

If I ou can't hit a target than you cannot hit a deer or a guy running at you with a battle axe

I do not know what makes a video go viral but this one has and at the right time 

With a whole new young generation of archers weaned on the hunger games and other fantasy archery shows it was timed perfectly 

But alas 

I wish todays new shooters were more enamelred with a feat like Dwayne just accomplished more so than a Video like this 

But it is a fiction non the less


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

whats hilarious, if you look at the comments on his video on youtube, you see the video game freaks coming out who know literally zero about archery defend this guy and claim him as the best archer in the world, and they will rage troll on anyone who claims anyone else is better than lars, and the trolls are kids, and they love the fact they see a guy use the same bow as their video game character


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

> Lars seems like a fun kid and he made a neat video showing some crazy trick shooting


Lars is 51. Older than every other "kid" in the playground, at best he is the Boo Radley of the Danish nerfball warriors.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Valachi said:


> Lars is 51. Older than every other "kid" in the playground, at best he is the Boo Radley of the Danish nerfball warriors.


He looks great for his age


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

lol


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

JParanee said:


> That could not be more untrue
> 
> I am not a target archer but I've killed more stuff than the plague and I aspire to be a target archer
> 
> ...


It might have been applicable for skirmish tactics on horseback, however a likely flaw in that is that as has been pointed out, Lars uses modified nocks. Those probably mess up the flight of his arrows a lot (I would be very interested in seeing how those arrows fly over a long distance). Also would be curious at how fast one can loose ordinary arrows when using the technique of holding multiple arrows in the draw hand.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

So to sum it up, the opinion of most on this forum is that Lars's style of archery has too many drawbacks


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> So to sum it up, the opinion of most on this forum is that Lars's style of archery has too many drawbacks


It's not that it has drawbacks it's that its fiction based and really just another form of trick shooting 

Not applicable for hunting , warfare , or target


----------



## Zurf (Mar 8, 2014)

SteveB said:


> Don't know the brand, but think he borrowed it from his 6 year old nephew.


OK. That was funny.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> To be fair though, target archery has little war or hunting application either unless done with a stronger bow.


Others have already replied, but I guess I will too. In practice, there is not much different between target archers and hunters, target shooters often shoot for a good score, but in the end they are shooting for a single small target, in a target shooters case it is the bulls eye. Hunters practice much the same way, but usually instead of keeping score, they oftentimes measure their group size, the smaller the better, and if they were taking score like in target archery, the smaller the group around the bulls eye, the better the score. Of course this is not the only way they practice, there is also stump shooting (great way to practice to make your first arrow count), 3d shooting, woods walking, etc. But either way, they are all shooting arrows into targets. I guess the biggest difference in the end will be how the hunter has to learn to be a good stalker, might have to pull a shot with less than optimal form and terrain, and has to deal with obstacles. But the biggest part of training for any archer is to hit what you are aiming for, and that means target shooting whether you are keeping score or not.
Personally, I am a target shooter, but I practice in many of the conventional ways hunters practice, I have never kept score. But I don't see any reason why I couldn't successfully hunt if I wanted to.


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

*Lars Andersen Secrets Revealed*


----------



## lakshwadeep (Jul 23, 2009)

My problem is with all these claims suggest Lars has resurrected ancient forms of archery that died out. Well, they didn't all die out. In Korea, Japan, Turkey, England, America, there were traditional archers who can trace their style's lineages hundreds of years back. As a traditional archer myself, I think he must have been using a weak bow to be pulling such short draws (okay short for many Asian archers) and putting speed as more important than accuracy. The example of shooting chain mail is stupid. Of course an arrow can get through chain mail. Try armor instead.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

JParanee said:


> It's not that it has drawbacks it's that its fiction based and really just another form of trick shooting
> 
> Not applicable for hunting , warfare , or target


I think you missed the joke there. In archery, you "draw back" the arrow and string to shoot, and Lars's rapid-fire archery has a lot of "draw backs," but his style also thus has drawbacks as in faults.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> I think you missed the joke there. In archery, you "draw back" the arrow and string to shoot, and Lars's rapid-fire archery has a lot of "draw backs," but his style also thus has drawbacks as in faults.



Now I get it


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

You know, on this claim that Lars uses modified nocks, I am wondering if that is really true now. If you watch his videos closely, it looks like he is using arrows with regular nocks.


----------



## Pentlatch (Jan 18, 2005)

Has anyone read the book where Lars quotes to have learned the shower shooting technique ? It is here if anyone cares to read it , http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/faris-elmer/arab-archery/

The arrow shower technique is considered to be the ultimate in skill by the various people of the middle east who for brevity sake I will use the term Persians .. you know the people who had an unbroken military archery tradition for thousands of years up until the gun came along . Their mastery of military archery makes European military archery look rather quaint in comparison. 

Persian horseback archery could be highly effective as demonstrated in the destruction of an entire Roman army at the Battle of Carrhae http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/carrhae-harran-town-in-mesopotamia-where-in-may-53-b

There are times when fast shooting was highly effective in war . Don't be too hard on a 50 year old Danish guy who re-discovered an old technique .


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Pentlatch said:


> Don't be too hard on a 50 year old Danish guy who re-discovered an old technique .


... But he didn't. He, at best, "rediscovered" a way to hold the arrows in your drawing hand. 

Certainly isn't the massive "game changer" he claims it to be.


----------



## Pentlatch (Jan 18, 2005)

Nice animation of the Battle of Carrhae https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b61XHRfFQmk


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Pentlatch said:


> Has anyone read the book where Lars quotes to have learned the shower shooting technique ? It is here if anyone cares to read it , http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/faris-elmer/arab-archery/
> 
> The arrow shower technique is considered to be the ultimate in skill by the various people of the middle east who for brevity sake I will use the term Persians .. you know the people who had an unbroken military archery tradition for thousands of years up until the gun came along . Their mastery of military archery makes European military archery look rather quaint in comparison.


I have read that link before. Actually, I have always found parallels in it to our more Western shooting methods. I don't recall a shower technique mentioned in it. What chapter? Second, much of what's in there is not much in alignment with the Lars video.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Pentlatch said:


> Nice animation of the Battle of Carrhae https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b61XHRfFQmk


Great stuff 

But again it shows archers using high volume volleys of fire with heavy composite bows not riding in and shooting up close like an elf in a lord of the rings movie 

As in all historical accounts where archery has turned the tide of a battle it is used as artillery 

Plus it also shows that the archers had to carry huge volumes of arrows in quivers and on back up camels not just a few in their hands


----------



## Wobbley (Sep 26, 2014)

The shower technique is called Time On Target in modern artillery. Some things never change. 

Side note, TOT is more useful against stationary targets or fixed positions.


----------



## erotomaniac1928 (Sep 28, 2014)

Sanford said:


> Here's, as I said before, a sign of the times we live in.


If I were to say right now Jimi Hendrix is a crap guitarist, a number of people even on this forum would strongly disagree. The truth is, Jimi had terrible technique and an overall lack of phrasing/musicality. Was he creative? Yes. Top echelon of guitarists? Not close. But the public has built him into this legend. Classical guitarists just shrug and accept no one will believe us. Lars has become much of the same thing, to a lesser degree. It's not a sign of the times as much as it's the old adage "ignorance is bliss". When you don't understand something it's easy to be impressed by the gimmick.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

JParanee said:


> Great stuff
> 
> But again it shows archers using high volume volleys of fire with heavy composite bows not riding in and shooting up close like an elf in a lord of the rings movie
> 
> ...


That is not true. The Mongols slaughtered the European forces they came up against through their horseback archery.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

kegan said:


> ... But he didn't. He, at best, "rediscovered" a way to hold the arrows in your drawing hand.
> 
> Certainly isn't the massive "game changer" he claims it to be.


If one can rapid-loose those arrows, it is a game changer in certain ways. Because he certainly can't be the only one to have discovered that technique. It would mean a change in what is possible with archery. The rapid-loosing of the arrows hinges on three things:

1) Draw distance
2) Draw resistance
3) Nocks

Some have pointed out that Lars half-draws a weak bow. This is true, but the thing is, even if he was fully drawing the bow, he still would be able to loose arrows a lot more quickly than other archery methods. Just not "as" quickly as with the half-draw. In terms of using the weak bow, theoretically one should be able to do the same with a war bow resistance. Regarding the nocks, some have claimed that Lars is using half-inch wide nocks. This I think is from the video of the Asian guy who runs The Bow Channel on Youtube. The thing is, if you watch closely Lars's video, it becomes apparent that he is not using half-inch-wide nocks, but rather conventional arrows. 

However, his arrows are slightly different than the one's the Asian guy is using. The Asian guy's slant inward, whereas Lars's slant outward, which probably makes a difference in how fast one can nock the arrows.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Sanford said:


> I have read that link before. Actually, I have always found parallels in it to our more Western shooting methods. I don't recall a shower technique mentioned in it. What chapter? Second, much of what's in there is not much in alignment with the Lars video.


Regarding the shower technique, scroll down to page 86 at this link of the book "Arab Archery" (use your mouse to drag the scroll bar and the page numbers will be listed while doing that): http://www.tuba-archery.com/article/arab-archery.pdf


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

erotomaniac1928 said:


> If I were to say right now Jimi Hendrix is a crap guitarist, a number of people even on this forum would strongly disagree. The truth is, Jimi had terrible technique and an overall lack of phrasing/musicality. Was he creative? Yes. Top echelon of guitarists? Not close. But the public has built him into this legend. Classical guitarists just shrug and accept no one will believe us. Lars has become much of the same thing, to a lesser degree. It's not a sign of the times as much as it's the old adage "ignorance is bliss". When you don't understand something it's easy to be impressed by the gimmick.


Yeah, I fully understand what you mean, and that is a whole discussion worth on its own. Yes, we do know that if it was based on real and exhibited talent, the best in talent wise, we would have to empty much of our Hall of Fames for new names no one recognizes. I always thought Johnny Cash couldn't carry a tune in a bucket, but he had the personality that appealed for time(s). Hendrix had his appeal for the time in persona. But, they were out there showing what they really can or can't do and the public made the decision based on that.

In this regard, the Lars video represents more of what can be made in Hollywood fashion but passed off as a real performance. Youtube has spawned a way to get instant fame, and the public could care less if it's real or not. I'm not saying in the past, before instant video, such wasn't part of the act as well. We just now "more" allow the blending of fantasy and reality without worrying or questioning the staging part. But then, folks will go to concerts of all lip-sync and have a blast. I guess there was a time when that was considered a forgery.


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

In Finland we have saying that "One argue about fense and fensepost"


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> Regarding the shower technique, scroll down to page 86 at this link of the book "Arab Archery" (use your mouse to drag the scroll bar and the page numbers will be listed while doing that): http://www.tuba-archery.com/article/arab-archery.pdf


Yes, I see that in this expanded version. I wonder why Lars ignored all the other 20 or so stunts mentioned, including the non-stunt shooting aspects? Or, ignored the very next chapter on how to make a quiver. It seems to be a comprehensive book on all things archery.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

K3N5, please explain how his technique is a "game changer"?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

erotomaniac1928 said:


> If I were to say right now Jimi Hendrix is a crap guitarist, a number of people even on this forum would strongly disagree. The truth is, Jimi had terrible technique and an overall lack of phrasing/musicality. Was he creative? Yes. Top echelon of guitarists? Not close. But the public has built him into this legend. Classical guitarists just shrug and accept no one will believe us. Lars has become much of the same thing, to a lesser degree. It's not a sign of the times as much as it's the old adage "ignorance is bliss". When you don't understand something it's easy to be impressed by the gimmick.



Very well put

Today's new archers just do not understand trick shooting and video


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

erotomaniac1928 said:


> If I were to say right now Jimi Hendrix is a crap guitarist, a number of people even on this forum would strongly disagree. The truth is, Jimi had terrible technique and an overall lack of phrasing/musicality. Was he creative? Yes. Top echelon of guitarists? Not close. But the public has built him into this legend. Classical guitarists just shrug and accept no one will believe us. Lars has become much of the same thing, to a lesser degree. It's not a sign of the times as much as it's the old adage "ignorance is bliss". When you don't understand something it's easy to be impressed by the gimmick.


I don't know if that comparison works. Whether Lars's technique is horrible or not depends on how one looks at it.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

kegan said:


> K3N5, please explain how his technique is a "game changer"?


I said it could be a game changer. It would be a game changer in that if one can loose arrows that quickly, then it completely changes what was previously thought to be possible with archery, and thus what the ancients may well have been capable of doing with archery. To be a real game changer though, it needs to be done with a war bow resistance and full draws, and regular arrows (which it looks like Lars is in fact using).


----------



## bushcraftbrandon (Feb 11, 2009)

Valachi said:


>


hahahahahah, lame, perfect loved it.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

K3N5 said:


> I said it could be a game changer. It would be a game changer in that if one can loose arrows that quickly, then it completely changes what was previously thought to be possible with archery, and thus what the ancients may well have been capable of doing with archery. To be a real game changer though, it needs to be done with a war bow resistance and full draws, and regular arrows (which it looks like Lars is in fact using).


Ok but how does that change *anything*? If ancient armies were able to shoot faster, that proves nothing more than accuracy and ease winning out; after all, it was all replaced with gun powder anyway. If this speed was so superior it doesn't amount to a hill of beans because it was still abandoned for firearms. 

If you're trying to go for the "what's possible" argument then it also falls short there because slinging a bunch of arrows all over the place from a light bow does nothing. 

It's not a matter of opinion whether his "style" is horrible it comes down to whether or not he can hit his mark. So far, there's no real proof he can do that with any actual consistency. Again, it changes nothing.


----------



## Burnteyes (Jan 29, 2011)

Pre armor why would a bow need to be war bow pull? A 30# bow with sharp points would seem like plenty to stop a human?


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

*How Lars Became Danish Champion - Yikes!!!!!*

ukey:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Burnteyes said:


> Pre armor why would a bow need to be war bow pull? A 30# bow with sharp points would seem like plenty to stop a human?


Heavy layered leather would be enough to stop a ~50# selfbow depending on the point and arrow type.

The combat archery video really explains a lot. Not that I see anything wrong with it- heck, if he had posted his video catering to that he would truly be offering something new. He didn't though.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Valachi said:


> ukey:


I'm the reigning US champion of left handed mushroom picking (while wearing a read hat) too

The phrase "dumb a--" comes to mind while watching that vid.


----------



## Wobbley (Sep 26, 2014)

If I was much younger I would probably be into nerf archery. It looks amusing.

But for me, I think that hip has sold.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

kegan said:


> Ok but how does that change *anything*? If ancient armies were able to shoot faster, that proves nothing more than accuracy and ease winning out; after all, it was all replaced with gun powder anyway. If this speed was so superior it doesn't amount to a hill of beans because it was still abandoned for firearms.
> 
> If you're trying to go for the "what's possible" argument then it also falls short there because slinging a bunch of arrows all over the place from a light bow does nothing.
> 
> It's not a matter of opinion whether his "style" is horrible it comes down to whether or not he can hit his mark. So far, there's no real proof he can do that with any actual consistency. Again, it changes nothing.


Two points:

1) Provided he can really shoot how he claims, then it is unlikely he is the first person in thousands of years to have discovered this technique of shooting

2) It changes around what is possible with archery. It also changes around what the skills of the ancient masters might really have been. Now this doesn't mean that they used such skills in battle; such speed shooting might well have been the equivalent of say when a martial artist does things like break bricks or boards. But it nonetheless could change our understanding regarding the actual level of skill and capability that such archers had. 

I do believe that Lars is very accurate though because otherwise, how could he split an arrow or shoot an arrow out of the air? Even if that took multiple takes, you still have to be very accurate to even pull something like that off with multiple takes.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Burnteyes said:


> Pre armor why would a bow need to be war bow pull? A 30# bow with sharp points would seem like plenty to stop a human?


A few reasons:

1) Because even if the opponent is unarmored, if shooting at them from any kind of distance, the bow needs some significant force to propel it to the target

2) Because if the arrow is shot with a light amount of force, it can hit and penetrate, but probably won't have much stopping power on the person. So you instead want an arrow that will wallop the person with some real force to shock their system.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

K3N5 said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1) Provided he can really shoot how he claims, then it is unlikely he is the first person in thousands of years to have discovered this technique of shooting
> 
> ...


Ok given that the only subject you have posted on is this Lars guy I'm guessing you have an ax to grind but, please don't tell us he is accurate. Take away his editing table and back him up to 20 yards and my 7 year old son would wipe the floor with him. There is this time proven thing called form and technique that he has none of. Are you and archer? Or are you some D&D kid sitting in his basement?


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

*Video Editor can make arrows out of pixels -*


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

*Lars Live Watching His Video - But Lars Does Not Perform Live*








Lars is grinning like the Cheshire Cat. The "live" studio talking heads are on a morning TV show in Australia, and Lars is grinning from his artist studio in Denmark. All Lars does "live" is hold a bow and watch his video. I bet Lars could produce a video that would show Brian Williams bailing out of a helicopter if you gave him another two years to photoshop!


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Matt_Potter said:


> Ok given that the only subject you have posted on is this Lars guy I'm guessing you have an ax to grind but, please don't tell us he is accurate. Take away his editing table and back him up to 20 yards and my 7 year old son would wipe the floor with him. There is this time proven thing called form and technique that he has none of. Are you and archer? Or are you some D&D kid sitting in his basement?


I am a beginning archer. As for his form and technique, if it works, then it's a legitimate form and technique. But unless he is somehow faking it via a special effects move, than I can very much tell you he is accurate as you can't split an arrow or shoot an arrow out of the air if you aren't highly accurate already, editing or not.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> A few reasons:
> 
> 1) Because even if the opponent is unarmored, if shooting at them from any kind of distance, the bow needs some significant force to propel it to the target
> 
> 2) Because if the arrow is shot with a light amount of force, it can hit and penetrate, but probably won't have much stopping power on the person. So you instead want an arrow that will wallop the person with some real force to shock their system.


An arrow doesn't "shock" anything. It cuts and kills by hemorrhage.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> I am a beginning archer. As for his form and technique, if it works, then it's a legitimate form and technique. But unless he is somehow faking it via a special effects move, than I can very much tell you he is accurate as you can't split an arrow or shoot an arrow out of the air if you aren't highly accurate already, editing or not.


It's staged, highly edited "movie magic". That's a kind way of saying that it's BS.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

MGF said:


> It's staged, highly edited "movie magic". That's a kind way of saying that it's BS.


Unless completely special effects, then some of Lars tricks/stunts are not BS. Regarding his rapid-shooting, that depends on some variables I mentioned in a previous post.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

K3N5 said:


> I do believe that Lars is very accurate though because otherwise, how could he split an arrow or shoot an arrow out of the air? Even if that took multiple takes, you still have to be very accurate to even pull something like that off with multiple takes.


http://youtu.be/ugI7C2l_4FE

This is almost 7 years ago, back when I was in highschool. I did this routine for my high school talent show. I'm shooting a 70# hickory flatbow I had built. If you skip ahead to 2:25 I start shooting discs out of the air, moving down in size to a ping pong ball, which you can see me send flying to the right past my brother.

I was a crappy shot. On targets, in the woods. I could hit stuff here at thirty feet fine, but I've come a long way as a shooter. It really doesn't take much to put a few cool tricks together, it's even easier if you take two years to edit the best takes together.


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

Video is all about pixels. Lars is a 51 year old artist. The blurry video he edited is hilarious. I admire Lars for his marketing skills, but he is P.T. Barnum, not Genghis Khan.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> Or are you some D&D kid sitting in his basement?


Hey now, my friends talked me into D&D:wink:. 

They're just getting into real archery and even they had the good sense to scrutinize the plausibility of Lars' video, though.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

kegan said:


> it's even easier if you take two years to edit the best takes together.


I agree, although how do you know if he took two years? I am still skeptical though that one can shoot an arrow out of the air and split an arrow without good accuracy.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

K3N5 said:


> I agree, although how do you know if he took two years? I am still skeptical though that one can shoot an arrow out of the air and split an arrow without good accuracy.


He has released only two videos, and this is his first in two years. 

I would suggest you set up some incredibly difficult shot for yourself and just keep trying it. I hit a nickel out of the air with an 80# bow a year before I did the talent show, and it only took me three days worth of trying (something like 300 shots). I got it though- and as I said, I couldn't shoot worth a darn. If I video tapes it and edited it into a video with a few Robin Hoods and other neat shots you'd think I knew what I was doing. I didn't, I just had a lot of time on my hands to keep trying over and over.


----------



## cubefx (May 8, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> I agree, although how do you know if he took two years? I am still skeptical though that one can shoot an arrow out of the air and split an arrow without good accuracy.


It is impossible to split the arrow in half. Especially incoming one. Best case scenario you will deflect it. You can't split a metal point.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> That is not true. The Mongols slaughtered the European forces they came up against through their horseback archery.


That is true but they were on horses and pulling heavier bows 

Lars is jumping around with a kids bow


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> A few reasons:
> 
> 1) Because even if the opponent is unarmored, if shooting at them from any kind of distance, the bow needs some significant force to propel it to the target
> 
> 2) Because if the arrow is shot with a light amount of force, it can hit and penetrate, but probably won't have much stopping power on the person. So you instead want an arrow that will wallop the person with some real force to shock their system.


You obviously are lost here 

Have you ever shot a bow or killed anything with a bow ? 

What do you want us to say 

Lars is the best archer of all time and he is the world champion at fictional archery


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Summary,

Lars is a talented and entertaining guy

Lars' knowledge of history is probably off and many of his claims are hyperbole

Lars will get a lot of attention because he has flash and style. The non archery community will eat him up.

Youtube will continue to make folks like Lars, internet stars

Archery, as we on this forum practice it, is boring to most non archer observers

The general public prefers showmen to practitioners

So we are getting what we expect. No surprise here. 

That's all I have. I will probably continue to watch his videos when convenient. I certainly won't seek them out.


----------



## jhipple86 (Feb 11, 2015)

i think what he does is pretty cool and looks like a lot of fun. if he's having fun and enjoys it, that's all that matters.


----------



## Charon (Apr 17, 2011)

jhipple86 said:


> ...if he's having fun and enjoys it, that's all that matters.


No, it is NOT all that matters.

Not when he makes claims that what you and I and the rest of the Archery community does is meaningless and based on lies. Especially when actually its is his own claims that are based on lies and misinformation and heavily edited and falsified video. 

Its a bunch of ignorant crap, normally beneath notice and worthy only of contempt except for the lies he is perpetrating and misinformation he is spreading as "truth" and how this only serves to confuse and misinform the public in general and people new to Archery in particular.


----------



## Pentlatch (Jan 18, 2005)

Charon said:


> Its a bunch of ignorant crap, normally beneath notice and worthy only of contempt except for the lies he is perpetrating and misinformation he is spreading as "truth" and how this only serves to confuse and misinform the public in general and people new to Archery in particular.


Charon - remain calm , breathe deep ... and exhale slowly ... it's only a youtube video . The earth is still spinning . 

Lars is having fun and showing how there is more than one way to shoot a bow . 

It is truly funny how people get worked up over this . Pass the popcorn.:wink:


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

cubefx said:


> It is impossible to split the arrow in half. Especially incoming one. Best case scenario you will deflect it. You can't split a metal point.


You split it down a blade that is stationary.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

JParanee said:


> You obviously are lost here
> 
> Have you ever shot a bow or killed anything with a bow ?
> 
> ...


Shooting an animal that can be allowed to run a distance before dropping is different than shooting a person who you want to die as quickly as possible. There is a reason why war bows had a high amount of draw resistance.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Summary,
> 
> Lars is a talented and entertaining guy
> 
> ...


I would seek to do both, slower but more target archery and quick-fire archery.


----------



## erotomaniac1928 (Sep 28, 2014)

K3N5,

Are you affiliated with Lars in any way? Apologies if you've answered that, but I can't see any other reason to continue to argue in circles with some of the more experienced archers here.


----------



## Charon (Apr 17, 2011)

Pentlatch said:


> Charon - remain calm , breathe deep ... and exhale slowly ... it's only a youtube video . The earth is still spinning .
> 
> Lars is having fun and showing how there is more than one way to shoot a bow .
> 
> It is truly funny how people get worked up over this . Pass the popcorn.:wink:


So what I'm getting from that is that its all fine and dandy to run about spreading pure BS and attempting to pass it off as the truth as long as one is "having fun" with it?


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Charon said:


> So what I'm getting from that is that its all fine and dandy to run about spreading pure BS and attempting to pass it off as the truth as long as one is "having fun" with it?


Exactly. 

Anyway, regarding his modified nocks, here is a still taken from this video. http://uthube.com/uthube/YtVideo/Index?videoId=ns7j9FKb_Y4 


This says half inch, I read somewhere else it was an inch. Whatever, they are grossly wide regardless.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

K3N5 said:


> I would seek to do both, slower but more target archery and quick-fire archery.


Quick fire archery is interesting, but eventually, it will saturate the market. Now I would certainly watch a quick fire archery competition.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> Shooting an animal that can be allowed to run a distance before dropping is different than shooting a person who you want to die as quickly as possible. There is a reason why war bows had a high amount of draw resistance.


Are you under the impression that an animal or person hit with an arrow launched by a bow with heavier draw weight dies any faster? A hole all the way through is exactly the same size as another.

war bows had a high amount of draw weight for two reasons. First, they weren't particularly efficient. Second, they were trying to send bodkins through plate mail armor. BTW, Lars' arrows aren't going through plate mail.


----------



## Pentlatch (Jan 18, 2005)

Lars video has over 26.7 million hits on youtube ... each hit is pissing off Charon more and more and just think .. Lars gets money from youtube every time someone watches it , heavens to betsy ! the horror , the horror ... etc . 

Here is one response https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU4PSENakKw that raises some good points , although he keeps mentioning European and Latin sources which may be useful , especially if there were written down at the time of the Crusades and also the Moorish period in Spain . But why not look for written sources and imagery from where the technique seems to have originated... the various Iranian peoples throughout history , not forgetting the very long formal military archery from China , India , Korea and Japan.

I'm sure some of you have seen the various horse archery videos on the internet especially of Lajos Kassai who has done a lot to widen the knowledge and practice of horse archery . He uses the mediterranean style from what i can see he is fast and accurate at close range with a light weight bow . The author of "Arab Archery " thought the mediterranean style quite inferior. 

It will be interesting if any youngster starts practicing the old Persian / Turkish techniques and finally over years , works up to a full military strength bow from horseback at a gallop , that will be something to see .


----------



## cubefx (May 8, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> You split it down a blade that is stationary.


You can not split the arrow. You can break it, you can nick it, you can not split it like the video shows. 

BTW I think we are feeding the troll and I just did it too. :/


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> Shooting an animal that can be allowed to run a distance before dropping is different than shooting a person who you want to die as quickly as possible. There is a reason why war bows had a high amount of draw resistance.


You do not seem to understand how arrows kill things 

Heavy bows of old needed to be of heavy weight to throw heavy arrows long distances thru armor 

A moderen laminated bow does not have to pull as heavy to accomplish what the bows of old were doing 

Enjoy your journey in archery and even if it is fiction based as long as you are having fun it is a good thing


----------



## jhipple86 (Feb 11, 2015)

Pentlatch said:


> Charon - remain calm , breathe deep ... and exhale slowly ... it's only a youtube video . The earth is still spinning .
> 
> Lars is having fun and showing how there is more than one way to shoot a bow .
> 
> It is truly funny how people get worked up over this . Pass the popcorn.:wink:


SERIOUSLY If anyone believes the " if its on the internet it must be true" stuff, then they have some problems anyway. It IS just a youtube video. There are more important things to get upset over in this world.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

Vince McMahon is trying to hire him to do an archery video.


----------



## jhipple86 (Feb 11, 2015)

SteveB said:


> Vince McMahon is trying to hire him to do an archery video.


i read it on the internet.. so it must be true!!!


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

> Lars video has over 26.7 million hits on youtube


Yeah, now he's right up there with laughing baby, honey badger, and god knows what else. 

Lars distorts archery and history about as much as Hollywood ever did - the difference is most people understand that movies are generally fiction.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

erotomaniac1928 said:


> K3N5,
> 
> Are you affiliated with Lars in any way? Apologies if you've answered that, but I can't see any other reason to continue to argue in circles with some of the more experienced archers here.


Not in the slightest. I don't see as arguing anything in circles though.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

EthanJM said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Anyway, regarding his modified nocks, here is a still taken from this video. http://uthube.com/uthube/YtVideo/Index?videoId=ns7j9FKb_Y4
> 
> ...


His nocks aren't wide at all. People need to watch his video in more detail. The Asian guy got it wrong and is mistaken. Look at his video at 1:52 when you can see the nock he uses and also at 4:35 (as the arrows are hitting the chain maille). There are no wide duct-taped nocks or anything.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

BarneySlayer said:


> Are you under the impression that an animal or person hit with an arrow launched by a bow with heavier draw weight dies any faster? A hole all the way through is exactly the same size as another.
> 
> war bows had a high amount of draw weight for two reasons. First, they weren't particularly efficient. Second, they were trying to send bodkins through plate mail armor. BTW, Lars' arrows aren't going through plate mail.


Getting hit with a higher velocity will shock the body more, that is why a bullet can be so effective at stopping people. However, your criticism here tells me that another one of the criticisms of Lars's using a weaker bow doesn't hold water, which is that if you shoot someone with a weaker bow, it will penetrate but not really stop them, and thus still likely get you attacked. That you instead need to hit them with a bow with more force. What the real criticisms would be are that you need a more powerful bow for shooting people from a distance or for shooting through armor, but shooting unarmored people up-close, a weak bow should be fine.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

cubefx said:


> You can not split the arrow. You can break it, you can nick it, you can not split it like the video shows.
> 
> BTW I think we are feeding the troll and I just did it too. :/


You need a special arrow to split it (special arrow head). The point of splitting is for demonstrating skill. It also cannot be a mass-produced wood arrow, as those are made from lumber, but rather a traditional wood arrow, as those are made from branches where the wood's grain aligns with the length of the arrow. And no, not trolling.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

JParanee said:


> You do not seem to understand how arrows kill things
> 
> Heavy bows of old needed to be of heavy weight to throw heavy arrows long distances thru armor
> 
> ...


Thanks


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

K3N5, Lars Andersen posted a link to that video on his own facebook page, and had this to say about it:



> This kid has learned the basic concepts of my Technique,
> And, well, I do use duct taped nocks


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> Getting hit with a higher velocity will shock the body more, that is why a bullet can be so effective at stopping people. However, your criticism here tells me that another one of the criticisms of Lars's using a weaker bow doesn't hold water, which is that if you shoot someone with a weaker bow, it will penetrate but not really stop them, and thus still likely get you attacked. That you instead need to hit them with a bow with more force. What the real criticisms would be are that you need a more powerful bow for shooting people from a distance or for shooting through armor, but shooting unarmored people up-close, a weak bow should be fine.


A bullet can be of high enough velocity to result in something called hydrostatic shock. No arrow is fast enough to cause any hydrostatic shock to peak of. That's why we use very sharp broadheads (instead of a hollow point or other expanding design) when we're serious about killing a critter of any size with a bow.

With the exception of small game and blunt tipped arrows, an arrow kills by cutting. The arrow tip used is pretty much the opposite of what you would use to cause "shock".

I guess Lars might be able to take out a chipmunk if it's close enough and hangs around long enough for him to hit it.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Arrowwood said:


> K3N5, Lars Andersen posted a link to that video on his own facebook page, and had this to say about it:


The ancients must have used duct tape to?


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> His nocks aren't wide at all. People need to watch his video in more detail. The Asian guy got it wrong and is mistaken. Look at his video at 1:52 when you can see the nock he uses and also at 4:35 (as the arrows are hitting the chain maille). There are no wide duct-taped nocks or anything.


I guarantee he sets his "speed records" and uses these modified nocks most of the time. He is using regular nocks for when he knows they will be in the camera shot. Look at the still, those are modified nocks nearly an inch wide, it is funny how he never discloses this. Looking at the rest of his dishonesty, I think what I am saying is a safe bet. EDIT- As others are saying, it appears he admitted it now that he was caught out. What a piece of work this guy is.



K3N5 said:


> Getting hit with a higher velocity will shock the body more, that is why a bullet can be so effective at stopping people. However, your criticism here tells me that another one of the criticisms of Lars's using a weaker bow doesn't hold water, which is that if you shoot someone with a weaker bow, it will penetrate but not really stop them, and thus still likely get you attacked. That you instead need to hit them with a bow with more force. What the real criticisms would be are that you need a more powerful bow for shooting people from a distance or for shooting through armor, but shooting unarmored people up-close, a weak bow should be fine.


Arrows never deliver enough energy to really matter, especially when they are shot from a traditional bow. A modern crossbow or really fast compound bow is considered quite powerful if it can hit 100 fpe point blank (foot pounds of energy), and these things are way more powerful than any warbow of old. A .22 lr hits with an average of about 120 fpe. For comparison a 12 gauge is hitting around 2,500 fpe. I just used an fpe calculator, I'm not sure of my exact arrow speed, but I am probably getting about 29 fpe out of my 50# recurve. Maybe if I put a blunt tip on an arrow and hit someone square in the head, then maybe it will crack the skull a little. But with a broadhead or bodkin the goal is not to dump all the arrows energy on impact like a bullet, but to spread it out over the course of time the arrow is penetrating the target, there will not be enough knock down power to matter. The real damage comes from cutting a wound channel causing massive bleeding with a bladed tip, whether it be a stone, bronze, iron, or modern steel broadhead. An armor piercing tip like a bodkin has the intention of just getting through some sort of armor and penetrating the flesh underneath (sometimes not very deeply) doing damage of varying degrees of severity, if you can even put the enemy out of the fight it was a successful shot. The damage it will do is much less and akin to something like being stabbed with a screwdriver or ice pick. 
That all said, Lars is shooting with so little arrow speed that even with a sharp broadhead at close range it is going to struggle going through a t-shirt, through the skin and fat, and into the target deep enough to do significant damage. It is not impossible if he hit you perfectly though (like the carotid artery). However, even a cloth gambeson would stop his arrows dead in their tracks, and I imagine a deer hide would fair okay.


----------



## Charon (Apr 17, 2011)

Pentlatch said:


> Lars video has over 26.7 million hits on youtube ... each hit is pissing off Charon more and more .....


There are more important things in this world. However Archery happens to be kind of important to me as well. I was unaware that this is somehow immoral.

I just don't appreciate the clownish ignorant who are full of bovine excrement coming along and urinating in my cornflakes while attempting to pass off their blatant stupidity as some sort of truth. 

But I guess that as long as the perpetrator is having fun with it, its perfectly fine with many here to be defecated upon and not only will they eat it up, they'll even be so kind and flattering as to go on and ask for more.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

K3N5 said:


> You need a special arrow to split it (special arrow head). The point of splitting is for demonstrating skill. It also cannot be a mass-produced wood arrow, as those are made from lumber, but rather a traditional wood arrow, as those are made from branches where the wood's grain aligns with the length of the arrow. And no, not trolling.


If you aren't trolling then you REALLY need to check your facts because you are looking silly


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

*How Lars Got PPTSD*







PPTSD Pretend Play Traumatic Stress Disorder


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Arrowwood said:


> K3N5, Lars Andersen posted a link to that video on his own facebook page, and had this to say about it:


Really? Well now that changes everything. That said, where on his Facebook page does it say this? I notice it says it if I Google about it on the Google link, but I can't find it on the Facebook page itself. He is a real let-down if he has been using such large nocks the whole time.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

MGF said:


> A bullet can be of high enough velocity to result in something called hydrostatic shock. No arrow is fast enough to cause any hydrostatic shock to peak of. That's why we use very sharp broadheads (instead of a hollow point or other expanding design) when we're serious about killing a critter of any size with a bow.
> 
> With the exception of small game and blunt tipped arrows, an arrow kills by cutting. The arrow tip used is pretty much the opposite of what you would use to cause "shock".
> 
> I guess Lars might be able to take out a chipmunk if it's close enough and hangs around long enough for him to hit it.


My understanding is hydrostatic shock itself is a controversial concept. But if an arrow kills by cutting and force behind it isn't a big deal, then thus getting shot by a 30 lb bow versus a 100 lb bow should kill about the same? Wouldn't that mean that Lars's archery could work for killing people are closer range?


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Yes, really. 

maybe this link will work:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=396183853892022&story_fbid=400010290176045


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Matt_Potter said:


> If you aren't trolling then you REALLY need to check your facts because you are looking silly


That is what I had read about wood arrows.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Arrowwood said:


> Yes, really.
> 
> maybe this link will work:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=396183853892022&story_fbid=400010290176045


Yes, it does thanks. Now I feel really let down


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

K3N5 said:


> That is what I had read about wood arrows.


The grain for all wood arrows run parallel with the shaft. How durable do you think an arrow would be if the grain ran perpendicular to the the shaft??

Do you really thing this guy split an metal tipped arrow on a knife blade?? Or better yet split a metal tipped arrow with another metal tipped arrow as they were both going though paradox?? This video is nothing but editing - yes the speed shooting is cool and grovy but, anyone who knows anything about archery will call BS on the knife splitting and the splitting and arrow in mid-flight is laughable.

The emperor has no cloths.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Arrowwood said:


> Yes, really.
> 
> maybe this link will work:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=396183853892022&story_fbid=400010290176045


I left a nice little comment that will probably be removed.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Matt_Potter said:


> The grain for all wood arrows run parallel with the shaft. How durable do you think an arrow would be if the grain ran perpendicular to the the shaft??
> 
> Do you really thing this guy split an metal tipped arrow on a knife blade?? Or better yet split a metal tipped arrow with another metal tipped arrow as they were both going though paradox?? This video is nothing but editing - yes the speed shooting is cool and grovy but, anyone who knows anything about archery will call BS on the knife splitting and the splitting and arrow in mid-flight is laughable.
> 
> The emperor has no cloths.


I think it was from this guy where I had read about the wood: http://robertcourtland.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-taste-of-real-archery-debate-of-sorts.html


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Is it possible this Youtube account is phony? I ask because it only goes back to some time in 2015, which just started, yet Lars has a previous video on Youtube from I think 2012 or so, yet didn't form a Youtube account until 2015?


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

K3N5 said:


> Is it possible this Youtube account is phony? I ask because it only goes back to some time in 2015, which just started, yet Lars has a previous video on Youtube from I think 2012 or so, yet didn't form a Youtube account until 2015?


I remember his last video two years ago, same guy, same channel. Probably just a glitch on the part of youtube.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

K3N5, read as much as you can, shoot as much as you can in as many venues as you can, and then formulate your own opinions based on that experience.

I'm not trying to be harsh but you're making a lot of assumptions that would be cleared up for you if spend a little more time behind the bow.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

kegan said:


> K3N5, read as much as you can, shoot as much as you can in as many venues as you can, and then formulate your own opinions based on that experience.
> 
> I'm not trying to be harsh but you're making a lot of assumptions that would be cleared up for you if spend a little more time behind the bow.


Coolbeans


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Average day on AT. Instinctive, gap, compound, crossbow, trad, all the camps are represented.


----------



## Charon (Apr 17, 2011)

It just never stops does it?

Courtland is as full of crap as Lars himself. Only more pathetic in that he is merely a follower and supporter with neither accurate information nor original thought of his own.

I just hope that everybody is enjoying their daily serving of excrement.


----------



## Pentlatch (Jan 18, 2005)

EthanJM said:


> Maybe if I put a blunt tip on an arrow and hit someone square in the head, then maybe it will crack the skull a little.
> 
> That all said, Lars is shooting with so little arrow speed that even with a sharp broadhead at close range it is going to struggle going through a t-shirt, through the skin and fat, and into the target deep enough to do significant damage. It is not impossible if he hit you perfectly though (like the carotid artery). However, even a cloth gambeson would stop his arrows dead in their tracks, and I imagine a deer hide would fair okay.


Be very careful about making guesses regarding arrow penetration . A steel blunt 11/32" diam shot from a 50 # bow will penetrate a skull no problem . A 25# recurve shooting a sharp broad head will kill you at 20 yards


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

*Lars Reinvents the Compound Bow*







Lars Andersen's indoor shooting range as our hero prepares to surprise the Orcs and Goblins who have invaded Denmark while everybody in the real world is worried about ISIS.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Pentlatch said:


> Be very careful about making guesses regarding arrow penetration . A steel blunt 11/32" diam shot from a 50 # bow will penetrate a skull no problem . A 25# recurve shooting a sharp broad head will kill you at 20 yards


I was talking about the larger blunts. As for a 25# recurve killing a person at 20 yards? Hell yes that could happen. But a 35# recurve being pulled to 18"? Yea it could, but it is going to be a lot less lethal than the 25# at full draw by far. It is not ideal, definitely not a way to hunt, or especially go to battle.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)




----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

j. Wesbrock said:


>


lmao


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

11 pages my god! let it go folks let it go...


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

jakeemt said:


> 11 pages my god! let it go folks let it go...


I think this thread has evolved and made some good progress, a lot of good points have been said, for me personally it has not grown stale.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Almost 7000 views and going on 300 replies. This is why he gets so much attention. Even we can't stop talking about him.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I think it's partly the time of year. There's not much of interest going on in the woods or on the forum. For many or us, it's too cold and nasty outside to do much of anything and that leaves plenty of time to read dumb stuff on the net. LOL

It's cold with temps falling through the floor and gale force winds. Here I sit waiting for august. LOL


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

MGF said:


> I think it's partly the time of year. There's not much of interest going on in the woods or on the forum. For many or us, it's too cold and nasty outside to do much of anything and that leaves plenty of time to read dumb stuff on the net. LOL
> 
> It's cold with temps falling through the floor and gale force winds. Here I sit waiting for august. LOL


I feel for you (I used to live in Fort Wayne). Around here (coastal NC) it's the time of the year to be in the woods (which means I have no excuse for being on the forum).


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

MGF said:


> I think it's partly the time of year. There's not much of interest going on in the woods or on the forum. For many or us, it's too cold and nasty outside to do much of anything and that leaves plenty of time to read dumb stuff on the net. LOL
> 
> It's cold with temps falling through the floor and gale force winds. Here I sit waiting for august. LOL


Going to be -30F including wind chill in central Ohio tonight. At least there was a slight warm front last week where there were two days to go out and shoot, but it left me itching for more.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Edit


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

K3N5 said:


> My understanding is hydrostatic shock itself is a controversial concept.


Poorly edited, but hydrostatic shock is not so controversial...

70# recurve
46# recurve
Shotgun (mix of slugs and bird shot)


----------



## Knygathin (Feb 10, 2015)

Valachi said:


> Lars Andersen's ... prepares to surprise the Orcs and Goblins who have invaded Denmark while everybody in the real world is worried about ISIS.


The "real world"? You have obviously not been to Denmark or Sweden to see the invasion.


----------



## PyrateLV (Jul 16, 2014)

Im still trying to figure out what his gear is. There doesnt seem to be any info about what he's using. You have to kind of guess by the videos.
I take it is some type of Recurve Horse Bow and a Selfbow at that, but what style? Mongolian, Hungarian, Hunnish, Korean or some other Asian bow. Bow length, Draw weight? Any special modifications?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

W


PyrateLV said:


> Im still trying to figure out what his gear is. There doesnt seem to be any info about what he's using. You have to kind of guess by the videos.
> I take it is some type of Recurve Horse Bow and a Selfbow at that, but what style? Mongolian, Hungarian, Hunnish, Korean or some other Asian bow. Bow length, Draw weight? Any special modifications?


Children's/Youth PVC Elvin Orc Slayer


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

His shooting is impressive for sure. He uses simple archery gear and technique, gets remarkable results and seems to have alot of fun doing it. Guess I don't see what's to criticize.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

webster2 said:


> His shooting is impressive for sure. He uses simple archery gear and technique, gets remarkable results and seems to have alot of fun doing it. Guess I don't see what's to criticize.


Only his presentation of facts, and misinformation.

I think the trick shooting clips are great.. I bet he's a monster in LARP games. I bet he'd be fun to play with.

I have to believe that this is a big joke for him. I don't believe he could be that ignorant, or for that matter so uncoordinated in things that don't involve his trick shots.

Good joke. too bad that many people are going to take what he's saying seriously.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

From his interview with the Australian morning show I get this impression that he doesn't think anyone actually takes archery "seriously", at least no more so than himself.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

Charon said:


> It just never stops does it?
> 
> Courtland is as full of crap as Lars himself. Only more pathetic in that he is merely a follower and supporter with neither accurate information nor original thought of his own.
> 
> I just hope that everybody is enjoying their daily serving of excrement.


Everything I said on my blog comes from years of study and practice and observation. I am not merely a follower. Let's get one thing straight, I have zero interest in modern archery or modern archery equipment. If it has pullies or sights it is far too modern for me. Those things require a different set of skills. The accuracy I achieved came through knowing my weapon and how it functioned and by learning how to trust my instincts to shoot 8 arrows out of a quiver in 30 seconds at 20 yards and hit the target in a tight pattern. I strove to match others who could outshoot me in both number an accuracy. One person I shot with occasionally could get off 12 arrows that all landed in the center circle at that distance and time. At that speed there is no time to aim and no room for poor shooting style. Speed plus accuracy was always my goal though I never got as good as I wanted to be and now am very out of practice. But those techniques I strove for are exactly how Lars is so fast. Well, that and some tricks like partial draw. Nothing he did cannot be independently reproduced.

Many, including Mythbusters, have started with incorrect materials when trying to split an arrow. The first requirement is a piece of wood that can split. So, how do you do this. Well, you can use bamboo or you can actually investigate and discover how arrows used to be made. Today we use lumber. In fact, we probably have been doing that for quite a few hundred years. I wouldn't be surprised to find that is how the arrows of Angincourt were made. However, that actually takes more effort for an individual archer, which is where most warrior archers started out. I can't really say how people in most of the world did it, but the Native Americans would seek out the varieties of plants that naturally grew straight branches that they would use to make arrow shafts. Stripped, straightened, and smoothed, these make excellent arrows (I would provide documentation for this, but the book I studied, by an gentleman in Wyoming who has spent years learnimg how to make and shoot Native American archery, is boxed up in storage). They also could be split if hit just right. The particular group I used to shoot with ended up with a lot of partially split modern shafts when an arrow would, by chance, hit the nock just right. They always split with the grain. When the grain runs end to end and you have an archer that can hit the nock it is not going to be that hard to split an arrow from end to end, especially with a self nocked arrow. The skill of hitting one arrow with another really isn't in doubt. It happens by accident all the time. If you are good enough to hit the exact target you are aiming at, then this isn't really part of the question. It is not the skill of the archer that is really in question, but the ability of the arrow to split from end to end. It is actually more likely to happen with aluminum arrows than wood. However, if you start with wooden arrows that, because of their grain, will split end to end, then you cant actually test this and see if any given archer can actually do it. I have never seen it done, but I am 100% confident that if you use the right materials in the test, this can be achieved.

As for what is the correct way to shoot, as someone said, it is what works. Just since Lars video came out, I have found at least 3 other ways to shoot besides what he suggests. Which side of the bow does not seem to matter. For Lars' speed shooting style, it does matter. What he has specialized in uses three arrows in the draw hand so the arrow must be on that side of the bow. And for shooting 3 arrows fast, there really isn't going to be any faster way. And other archers have reproduced his methods, so it isn't a trick of the camera or editing. Everything in Lars' video matches the things I have studied for years. I could even explain the physics behind why it works. But if you aren't after that free-form, rapid shooting, style of archery, then his methods aren't for you. We can debate what it was like to be an archer in battle, but anyone who thinks the situation the English archers experienced at Agincourt was normal is sadly deluded. It is known as one of the most one sided battles in history. We have to look to other battles and in other cultures to see just what might be the most effective strategy for combat archery. When does an archer put down their bow and draw a sword? The best answer to that that I've see is when they run out of arrows to shoot.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

PyrateLV said:


> Im still trying to figure out what his gear is. There doesnt seem to be any info about what he's using. You have to kind of guess by the videos.
> I take it is some type of Recurve Horse Bow and a Selfbow at that, but what style? Mongolian, Hungarian, Hunnish, Korean or some other Asian bow. Bow length, Draw weight? Any special modifications?


The video isn't high enough quality to make it out. He does mention that it is something like 35 pound draw weight, but really the type of bow does not matter, only the type of grip. All traditional bows, no matter what the culture don't use any arrow rest or have any cutout. The arrow rests on the hand. My guess is that his bow is fiberglass, but I could be wrong.

Draw weight really doesn't matter for the close range shooting he does. In fact a higher draw weight makes things more difficult (your targets have to be more robust). When you translate his skills to history, draw weight is not an issue. It is all about arm strength vs. bow strength. If your arm is strong enough to draw the bow comfortably you could be using a 30 lb, 60 lb, or 120 lb bow and you can do these shots at these speeds. My natural draw strength is around 45-50 lb, but I worked up to 60 lb and at 20 yards I often drilled my arrows all the way through the target. Lars using a lower weight bow means both that he does not have to build the physical stamina of historical archers and that if you are in the room with him doing some of these stunts, that it is much safer. Howard Hill could do most of these stunts with his 100 lb longbow.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> When does an archer put down their bow and draw a sword? The best answer to that that I've see is when they run out of arrows to shoot.


Yes, and 3 dozen in the quiver is worth more than 6 in the hand  If one goes to an arrow fight with only half-dozen arrows or so, he better take a sword.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> Everything I said on my blog comes from years of study and practice and observation.


Nice write-up, but one important point of information is in need of correction. Archer's Paradox is as important to modern bows as it is to primitive. It's a synergistic byproduct of any fingershot bow - converting string deflection from the fingers into correct flight path of the arrow based on matched/tested arrow spine to string deflection.

The bow's shelf wall, modern centershot bow or not, is the initial fulcrum to the initial bending of the arrow - that's what the modern pressure buttons work from. The reason you see "horse bow" archers shooting from the other side is because the thumb ring used in that style reverses the string deflection, so the arrow is shot from the RH side for a bow held in the LH. If it aids in shooting faster, the archer is giving up archer's paradox consideration in exchange. Now, the case can be made that a pinch grip or thumbring was part of the plan to get on the other side of the bow, but all in all, what determines side of bow is style of string release and not speed of release.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert, thanks for posting.

It'd be nice if you became a regular 

:wink:

Welcome regardless.

I can vouch for the side of the bow relating to the release. After trying the 'Avatar' release, I can vouch that it matters a lot


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

Sanford said:


> Yes, and 3 dozen in the quiver is worth more than 6 in the hand  If one goes to an arrow fight with only half-dozen arrows or so, he better take a sword.


From what I've seen, a belt quiver was more the norm. You draw out a few arrows at a time, hold them in your hand and shoot them fast then grab a few more from your quiver and repeat. I've also noticed that for those of us who pull directly from the quiver, the back quiver seems to be faster, but I've also seen quite a few other ways, like sticking them in the ground or some other holder on the ground. That isn't very mobile, but at a stationary target it can be faster for some. It's all about what works. It is obvious that many would not be comfortable with Lars' methods, but others find them inspiring.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

Sanford said:


> Nice write-up, but one important point of information is in need of correction. Archer's Paradox is as important to modern bows as it is to primitive. It's a synergistic byproduct of any fingershot bow - converting string deflection from the fingers into correct flight path of the arrow based on matched/tested arrow spine to string deflection.
> 
> The bow's shelf wall, modern centershot bow or not, is the initial fulcrum to the initial bending of the arrow - that's what the modern pressure buttons work from. The reason you see "horse bow" archers shooting from the other side is because the thumb ring used in that style reverses the string deflection, so the arrow is shot from the RH side for a bow held in the LH. If it aids in shooting faster, the archer is giving up archer's paradox consideration in exchange. Now, the case can be made that a pinch grip or thumbring was part of the plan to get on the other side of the bow, but all in all, what determines side of bow is style of string release and not speed of release.


The side of the bow does not matter unless that is what a person is used to. I've watched high speed footage of an arrow's release and the string travels straight. It does not move side to side. The paradox is entirely the arrow curving around the bow. The side you release on does not make any difference. I've found videos of archers who have a variety of different hand positions on different sides of the bow and they all seem to be able to hit the target. It is all about being familiar with your weapon and being able to aim it at the target. It is like a good marksman only needs to fire a weapon once to see if the sights are off in any way and then can hit anything after that. Japanese Archery uses the same release western archery does, but the arrow is on the other side of the bow. The way I was taught to aim was to point my arm at the target and then loose the arrow.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert, two things would suit your study a little more. The dynamics of archer's paradox and different string grips. One "can" see somewhat Mediterranean style grips on "some" Kyudo archers, but the end result is more a pinch grip, thumb grip, or complete reversal of Mediterranean in actual practice. Even before high speed camera, man knew that one side shot better than the other depending on how he shot the bow. Simple arrow flight observation was in play before we even knew of Archer's Paradox. I'll leave you at that.


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

I do believe yumi's use a thumb release as a norm....


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

patrick2cents said:


> I do believe yumi's use a thumb release as a norm....


Thumb and two forefingers. It's a slight cross between thumb and pinch. They don't use a thumb ring that is associated with others, though. There's a lot of other dynamics in it as well with the overextended draw, bow grip, and asymmetrical bow.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> I've also noticed that for those of us who pull directly from the quiver, the back quiver seems to be faster, but I've also seen quite a few other ways, like sticking them in the ground or some other holder on the ground. That isn't very mobile, but at a stationary target it can be faster for some. It's all about what works. It is obvious that many would not be comfortable with Lars' methods, but others find them inspiring.


I'm much better off with a back quiver, though not nearly as fast as real speed shooters. I tried a speed round with arrows in the ground. Problem was, I couldn't find them without looking down to grab one. Slowed me down, a LOT 



> The side of the bow does not matter unless that is what a person is used to. I've watched high speed footage of an arrow's release and the string travels straight. It does not move side to side. The paradox is entirely the arrow curving around the bow.


Do you have a link to such videos? Every one I've seen, including one I made at 1000 fps with my now inoperable Casio POS, has shown _anything but_ a straight line. Good thing, too, because a straight line would result in a massive deflection off the riser, which is what happens if I shoot 'Avatar Style' without the arrow on the other side.

Best video I've seen...


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Sanford said:


> Thumb and two forefingers. It's a slight cross between thumb and pinch. They don't use a thumb ring that is associated with others, though.  There's a lot of other dynamics in it as well with the overextended draw, bow grip, and asymmetrical bow.


Ok, I have only ever seen pictures, but I had thought it was a thumb with two fingers wrapped around the thumb knuckle (I may be misunderstanding it).


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Robert Courtlan said:


> The side of the bow does not matter unless that is what a person is used to. I've watched high speed footage of an arrow's release and the string travels straight. It does not move side to side. The paradox is entirely the arrow curving around the bow. The side you release on does not make any difference. I've found videos of archers who have a variety of different hand positions on different sides of the bow and they all seem to be able to hit the target. It is all about being familiar with your weapon and being able to aim it at the target. It is like a good marksman only needs to fire a weapon once to see if the sights are off in any way and then can hit anything after that. Japanese Archery uses the same release western archery does, but the arrow is on the other side of the bow. The way I was taught to aim was to point my arm at the target and then loose the arrow.


I don't need s video. I have a bow that can be shot off either side. After this video came up, I went out and tried it.

Using my normal 3-under hook and shooting off the right side of the bow (right handed shooter), the arrows took an abrupt and very ugly right turn mid air.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

patrick2cents said:


> Ok, I have only ever seen pictures, but I had thought it was a thumb with two fingers wrapped around the thumb knuckle (I may be misunderstanding it).


I think you are correct. The actual pressure points I couldn't say. Maybe someone who has studied and practiced it can elaborate more. It's definitely opposite side deflection from our more Western holding, though.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BarneySlayer said:


> I'm much better off with a back quiver, though not nearly as fast as real speed shooters. I tried a speed round with arrows in the ground. Problem was, I couldn't find them without looking down to grab one. Slowed me down, a LOT
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't see anything "travel straight".


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Robert Courtlan said:


> Many, including Mythbusters, have started with incorrect materials when trying to split an arrow. The first requirement is a piece of wood that can split. So, how do you do this. Well, you can use bamboo or you can actually investigate and discover how arrows used to be made. Today we use lumber. In fact, we probably have been doing that for quite a few hundred years. I wouldn't be surprised to find that is how the arrows of Angincourt were made. However, that actually takes more effort for an individual archer, which is where most warrior archers started out. I can't really say how people in most of the world did it, but the Native Americans would seek out the varieties of plants that naturally grew straight branches that they would use to make arrow shafts. Stripped, straightened, and smoothed, these make excellent arrows (I would provide documentation for this, but the book I studied, by an gentleman in Wyoming who has spent years learnimg how to make and shoot Native American archery, is boxed up in storage). They also could be split if hit just right. The particular group I used to shoot with ended up with a lot of partially split modern shafts when an arrow would, by chance, hit the nock just right. They always split with the grain. When the grain runs end to end and you have an archer that can hit the nock it is not going to be that hard to split an arrow from end to end, especially with a self nocked arrow. The skill of hitting one arrow with another really isn't in doubt. It happens by accident all the time. If you are good enough to hit the exact target you are aiming at, then this isn't really part of the question. It is not the skill of the archer that is really in question, but the ability of the arrow to split from end to end. It is actually more likely to happen with aluminum arrows than wood. However, if you start with wooden arrows that, because of their grain, will split end to end, then you cant actually test this and see if any given archer can actually do it. I have never seen it done, but I am 100% confident that if you use the right materials in the test, this can be achieved.


Did you watch the video?? If so please peddle this to a less knowledgeable audience - Lars with his magical editing software shot a metal tipped arrow head on at a knife blade and "split" it and then shot a metal tipped arrow head on towards another metal tipped arrow and split it. It doesn't mater what the shaft is made out of he was shooting tip to tip metal on metal - you could set up a hooter shooter and shoot 10,000 shots and not accomplish this. Personally I think Lars was making a spoof video and ignorant folks like yourself got caught up in it. Nobody with any knowledge of archery historical or modern can view it as anything other than a spoof.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Okay, so I have read Robert Courlan's rebuttal on his blog, I have watched the debunk video by Anna Maltese, and speaking completely objectively, I have no idea what is right and what is wrong. There are misses and miss understandings on both sides. Frankly, this boils down to the realm of historians of which we are not (though some folks may think they are). History is a scholarly pursuit and changes with time as historians interpret artifacts that can give us a window into the past. I spent years as a research chemist and even in an area where we can see and measure, we could not agree on how things work. How are we to possibly agree on things that happened in the past, that can no longer be measured. The upshot is that many of us "read a book", but that book only presents the theory of the author. So it is not surprising that there are many views of historical periods and events. So Lars has a view of history, so does Anna, and Robert Courtlan has his view as well. They are all theories. 

As far as the shooting is concerned, I have no problem with light bows or wide nocks. In fact, using wide nocks seems an appropriate and intelligent solution to the problem of being able to quickly nock an arrow. Who says that nocks for shooting quickly should be the same as we use for static shooting styles like target and hunting. My one concern is the issue around archers paradox. I have tried shooting bows on the other side and the arrows have flowed very weak, as we would expect with no support from the bow. I am not sure how he makes it work but am interesting in hearing his explanation. 

A few weeks ago I was watching a speed shooter at our local range. He was shooting outdoors, maybe 40 yards. It was interesting to watch. He was very fluid in his motions. While it is not a discipline that I am interested in focusing on, it is a legitimate form of archery that requires a lot of skill.

So, the historical interpretation is just that, an interpretation. There may be parts that are right and parts that are wrong. Sorry, Robert, I buy that you have a book but that is just one source of many and who knows how scholarly it is. The shooting is what we see. I can accept the explanations that are provided with a couple of caveats that I would like to see addressed (paradox, head on arrow split). Otherwise, unless faked, we have to accept it for what it is, and nothing more. He is clearly talented and entertaining, and from an audience perspective, that is what it is about. We shoot for either food or personal enjoyment. We don't shoot to entertain others. Lars has crossed into the realm of celebrity and entertainment and his views do not match how many on this forum would like archery to be portrayed. Howard Hill was into archery as entertainment also and we continue to hold him in high regard. So let's give this some time and see where it goes. We may be surprised how this flushes out in time.'

In an academic world his interpretation of history would undergo challenge and he would have to defend his views. That is how the process works. I have had to go through it many times. The validation of the relevance of his historical interpretation needs to come from historians and not folks on an archery forum. He has clearly pushed outside his area of scholarly expertise with some of the bold statements that are made, but hey, that is what entertainment is all about.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

Sanford said:


> Robert, two things would suit your study a little more. The dynamics of archer's paradox and different string grips. One "can" see somewhat Mediterranean style grips on "some" Kyudo archers, but the end result is more a pinch grip, thumb grip, or complete reversal of Mediterranean in actual practice. Even before high speed camera, man knew that one side shot better than the other depending on how he shot the bow. Simple arrow flight observation was in play before we even knew of Archer's Paradox. I'll leave you at that.


What the high speed (1000-2000 fps) reveals are two things. First, if the archery has a poor release the string does move slightly to one side before moving in a straight line and two, that once released the string always moves straight. Physics predicts this and I could bore you with the math if I was in the mood to bore myself with it. Basically your fingers do not have enough force to affect the string's trajectory once the string is free. The string moves in a straight line from the moment of release until it reaches the point where the bow resumes tension on the string. The arrow bends, how much depending on how well it is matched to the bow, first one way and then the other. Again, this is all physics dealing with compression. Provided your bow is not lopsided in any way, a traditional bow will shoot the same from either side and the success of the shot depends on how you were aiming. If you normally shoot on one side of the bow and switch to the other, you probably need to recalibrate your shooting or the arrow may not go where you expect. But there is nothing in the high speed footage that shows the string traveling in anything but a straight line. This is especially apparent with center cut compound bows shooting aluminum arrows. Neither the string nor arrow move from the center line even though the archer's release should, by traditional observation, move and make the string wobble. It doesn't and it doesn't with traditional equipment either.


----------



## Matt H (Aug 23, 2014)

wouldn't shooting right handed with a left handed bow be similar to Lars style?

interesting discussions going on over here, focused more on military/martial application
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248579


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> What the high speed (1000-2000 fps) reveals are two things. First, if the archery has a poor release the string does move slightly to one side before moving in a straight line and two, that once released the string always moves straight. Physics predicts this and I could bore you with the math if I was in the mood to bore myself with it. Basically your fingers do not have enough force to affect the string's trajectory once the string is free. The string moves in a straight line from the moment of release until it reaches the point where the bow resumes tension on the string. The arrow bends, how much depending on how well it is matched to the bow, first one way and then the other. Again, this is all physics dealing with compression. Provided your bow is not lopsided in any way, a traditional bow will shoot the same from either side and the success of the shot depends on how you were aiming. If you normally shoot on one side of the bow and switch to the other, you probably need to recalibrate your shooting or the arrow may not go where you expect. But there is nothing in the high speed footage that shows the string traveling in anything but a straight line. This is especially apparent with center cut compound bows shooting aluminum arrows. Neither the string nor arrow move from the center line even though the archer's release should, by traditional observation, move and make the string wobble. It doesn't and it doesn't with traditional equipment either.


Okay Robert.

You just successfully convinced me, without any question, that you know very little about either the mechanisms of archery or physics, and are also selectively blind.

BTW, we weren't talking about center shot compound bows with releases, were we, ever?

Thanks for being so clear 




You just convinced me that you kn


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Robert Courtlan said:


> What the high speed (1000-2000 fps) reveals are two things. First, if the archery has a poor release the string does move slightly to one side before moving in a straight line and two, that once released the string always moves straight. Physics predicts this and I could bore you with the math if I was in the mood to bore myself with it. Basically your fingers do not have enough force to affect the string's trajectory once the string is free. The string moves in a straight line from the moment of release until it reaches the point where the bow resumes tension on the string. The arrow bends, how much depending on how well it is matched to the bow, first one way and then the other. Again, this is all physics dealing with compression. Provided your bow is not lopsided in any way, a traditional bow will shoot the same from either side and the success of the shot depends on how you were aiming. If you normally shoot on one side of the bow and switch to the other, you probably need to recalibrate your shooting or the arrow may not go where you expect. But there is nothing in the high speed footage that shows the string traveling in anything but a straight line. This is especially apparent with center cut compound bows shooting aluminum arrows. Neither the string nor arrow move from the center line even though the archer's release should, by traditional observation, move and make the string wobble. It doesn't and it doesn't with traditional equipment either.


Please go back to writing bodice rippers you know zero about archery


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Robert, watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MugebeCK20g Watch the string just above the hat line. You can see it kick left on release before moving forward. That's because fingers can't move out of the way fast enough. While it's moving forward it's not doing so in a straight line either. BTW, the shooter has won gold in the olympics and held or still holds various world records. Lar's style of shooting is fun to watch and might be good for larping but in a real tournament he'd get smoked. If not, he would have posted his list of victories against the styles of shooting he said were either wrong or inaccurate. Those comments is where he lost credibility with anyone who knows anything about archery.


----------



## Charon (Apr 17, 2011)

Mr. Courtlan,

How is it possible for a person to study a subject so intensely and for so long as you claim, and still manage to know so little? An absolutely outstanding achievement.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Matt H said:


> wouldn't shooting right handed with a left handed bow be similar to Lars style?
> 
> interesting discussions going on over here, focused more on military/martial application
> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248579


As he's releasing by thumb, he's shooting the correct side of the bow. I know it doesn't fit the LARP narrative, but it's what he's seen archers of past using as the opposite side. The fact that such use is still a widely recognized fact of shooting styles isn't as interesting a narrative for some folks.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Why do you guys even entertain this nonsense 

Release means nothing ? 

This is just silly


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> What the high speed (1000-2000 fps) reveals are two things. First, if the archery has a poor release the string does move slightly to one side before moving in a straight line and two, that once released the string always moves straight. Physics predicts this and I could bore you with the math if I was in the mood to bore myself with it. Basically your fingers do not have enough force to affect the string's trajectory once the string is free. The string moves in a straight line from the moment of release until it reaches the point where the bow resumes tension on the string. The arrow bends, how much depending on how well it is matched to the bow, first one way and then the other. Again, this is all physics dealing with compression. Provided your bow is not lopsided in any way, a traditional bow will shoot the same from either side and the success of the shot depends on how you were aiming. If you normally shoot on one side of the bow and switch to the other, you probably need to recalibrate your shooting or the arrow may not go where you expect. But there is nothing in the high speed footage that shows the string traveling in anything but a straight line. This is especially apparent with center cut compound bows shooting aluminum arrows. Neither the string nor arrow move from the center line even though the archer's release should, by traditional observation, move and make the string wobble. It doesn't and it doesn't with traditional equipment either.


Speaking of boring math: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004262424363

The abstract requires none, but if needed, the pdf is free.


----------



## Matt H (Aug 23, 2014)

Sanford said:


> As he's releasing by thumb, he's shooting the correct side of the bow. I know it doesn't fit the LARP narrative, but it's what he's seen archers of past using as the opposite side. The fact that such use is still a widely recognized fact of shooting styles isn't as interesting a narrative for some folks.


but would a standard release still work (split/3 under)? or does the string torque from a finger release in such a way that arrow flight is diminished if using the wrong release? can you overcome that somehow, pinching the arrow shaft maybe? i've seen some people get away with it with compounds but the string doesn't change it's path of travel because of cams and mech releases. i'm just wondering, if i had a left handed bow i'd try it out myself...

lars narrative is confusing in any fashion but add in his demonstrations of shooting 'enemies' from 10 feet away, running and jumping and spinning, it makes me wonder how fast he would have had his bow taken away by the ancient archers whose techniques he "rediscovered". i mean, a bow is more effective at a distance, that's the whole point of a bow and arrow


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

ranchoarcher said:


> Robert, watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MugebeCK20g Watch the string just above the hat line. You can see it kick left on release before moving forward. That's because fingers can't move out of the way fast enough. While it's moving forward it's not doing so in a straight line either. BTW, the shooter has won gold in the olympics and held or still holds various world records. Lar's style of shooting is fun to watch and might be good for larping but in a real tournament he'd get smoked. If not, he would have posted his list of victories against the styles of shooting he said were either wrong or inaccurate. Those comments is where he lost credibility with anyone who knows anything about archery.


I believe I mentioned that in what I said. I must have reviewed at least 20 different archers yesterday before I posted about that and this agrees which what I saw. This is not a clean release of the string. If they are absolutely consistent about this, they will be able to shoot consistently. But also notice this is a center cut bow and the archer should not be using wooden arrows, though with that release it might be necessary. Of the 20 I watched yesterday (and that is an approximate number), only one other had such a sloppy release. And really, unless you can see the string the entire time, it really isn't a good shot of the release. All the ones I watched showed things much clearer. I found this video to show a much more accurate picture of the string travel. He switches to a traditional bow just before the 1 min mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfyzL9C-8WY


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Robert Courtlan said:


> I believe I mentioned that in what I said. I must have reviewed at least 20 different archers yesterday before I posted about that and this agrees which what I saw. This is not a clean release of the string. If they are absolutely consistent about this, they will be able to shoot consistently. But also notice this is a center cut bow and the archer should not be using wooden arrows, though with that release it might be necessary. Of the 20 I watched yesterday (and that is an approximate number), only one other had such a sloppy release. And really, unless you can see the string the entire time, it really isn't a good shot of the release. All the ones I watched showed things much clearer. I found this video to show a much more accurate picture of the string travel. He switches to a traditional bow just before the 1 min mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfyzL9C-8WY


Friend, you probably need to shoot a little more and post a little less....

That video that you post shows the string moving left quite clearly... a 'clean' release doesn't allow the string to move in a straight line, the fact that your fingers have mass won't allow it.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> I believe I mentioned that in what I said. I must have reviewed at least 20 different archers yesterday before I posted about that and this agrees which what I saw. This is not a clean release of the string. If they are absolutely consistent about this, they will be able to shoot consistently. But also notice this is a center cut bow and the archer should not be using wooden arrows, though with that release it might be necessary. Of the 20 I watched yesterday (and that is an approximate number), only one other had such a sloppy release. And really, unless you can see the string the entire time, it really isn't a good shot of the release. All the ones I watched showed things much clearer. I found this video to show a much more accurate picture of the string travel. He switches to a traditional bow just before the 1 min mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfyzL9C-8WY


Robert, I'll explain why you are getting a little bit of pushback here. This is an archery forum. Folks here know their onion on archery.

Now, there are terminal level academics from anthropology to engineering that have been interested in the craft. It's that complex, historically, and in mechanics, that it presents itself as an interesting study. When someone comes along with at best a "video game narrative" of this complexity and tries to pass it off as "academic research", when such doesn't even pass muster for a grade-school level of understanding, it's going to get some critique.

Folks here are not anti-entertainment. And, for every lie, there has to be a "little" truth. For every illusion or trick, there has to be some talent. We are not dead. We can be entertained and entertain thoughts outside of the box. But, we can't be stupid about it either when the fantasy is presented as the facts.

It's not that anyone needs to convince you. You will go about with your narrative and build into it as you go. Misinformation is rampant enough in this sport, though. So, we challenge your academic approach, as it doesn't pass muster for even a beginning archer in the understanding of bow-physics.

You could learn some of the real science, how early man figured it out by trial and error, and how we in study are backing into their findings with science. I gave you one of many white-papers that have been written, one of many written over the many decades. Or, you can watch YouTube. Different approaches with different outcomes, though.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

BarneySlayer said:


> Okay Robert.
> 
> You just successfully convinced me, without any question, that you know very little about either the mechanisms of archery or physics, and are also selectively blind.
> 
> ...


What happens with a compound bow is very relevant in the discussion of what happens to the string upon release. If the type of release produces any side to side motion in the string it should show up no matter what type of bow and arrow is used. If the side of the bow matters in relation to the grip, then we have 3 scenarios. You can fire off the right or left of a traditional bow, or a center cut bow. If the grip mattered, it would only work on one of those and not the others. Yet most people who use a center cut bow still seem to use the traditional 3 finger release with no problems. If the theory put forward that the release is crucial to the trajectory of the arrow, the three finger right hand release would only work with the arrow to the left of the bow. With a center cut bow it would produce the wrong oscillation in the arrow and your aim would be off. That does not appear to be the case. Similarly, putting the arrow on the right of the bow should not affect the oscillation or trajectory. What I have observed is also that the archer's paradox is a myth. The arrow flies in the direction that it is pointed. The oscillation helps keep the shaft away from the bow and the hand, but it does not change the trajectory. This is what physics says should happen. The acceleration from the string is imparted to the arrowhead and the arrow (depending on lots of factors) will oscillate behind it, but the arrowhead flies on a straight path to the target. The archer's paradox and arrow oscillation only aid to reduce friction.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Robert Courtlan said:


> What happens with a compound bow is very relevant in the discussion of what happens to the string upon release. If the type of release produces any side to side motion in the string it should show up no matter what type of bow and arrow is used. If the side of the bow matters in relation to the grip, then we have 3 scenarios. You can fire off the right or left of a traditional bow, or a center cut bow. If the grip mattered, it would only work on one of those and not the others. Yet most people who use a center cut bow still seem to use the traditional 3 finger release with no problems. If the theory put forward that the release is crucial to the trajectory of the arrow, the three finger right hand release would only work with the arrow to the left of the bow. With a center cut bow it would produce the wrong oscillation in the arrow and your aim would be off. That does not appear to be the case. Similarly, putting the arrow on the right of the bow should not affect the oscillation or trajectory. *What I have observed is also that the archer's paradox is a myth. *The arrow flies in the direction that it is pointed. The oscillation helps keep the shaft away from the bow and the hand, but it does not change the trajectory. This is what physics says should happen. The acceleration from the string is imparted to the arrowhead and the arrow (depending on lots of factors) will oscillate behind it, but the arrowhead flies on a straight path to the target. The archer's paradox and arrow oscillation only aid to reduce friction.


Dang guys I guess we can quit tuning those arrows - paradox is a myth LMAO


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Roberts going to put on a clinic here teaching us all what we have been falsely believing for thousands of years. He learned it all with the extensive research he conducts - or maybe Jack just whispered it in his ear.


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

how far to or past center really isn't what you think it is here (and btw, just because it has a shelf on it doesn't mean it is cut past center). The release starts the arrow oscillation in plane with the strike plate in the correct direction to drive the arrow into the strike plate and then around it (the center of the arrow bows out towards the riser initially and then bends back the other way to allow fletching clearance). If your strike plate is on the other side, you will start off 180 degrees out of phase (since your initial perturbation is going the wrong way) and you will bow towards the riser when the fletching passes, causing your arrow to act "stiff".

It isn't about what your centershot is (except in tuning the oscillation amplitude and timing); it is about which side of the arrow the strike plate is on and what direction your oscillation starts on.


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Side note... it appears you believed the one thing in Lar's video that we all took issue with-that somehow archery isn't already clearly understood and we are all in the dark about how it works and why.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

I thought that would make your heads spin, I found it quite shocking myself. What I meant by the archery paradox being a myth is that the arrow does not curve around the bow to travel in a different direction. It does curve around the bow, but the only benefit from that is that instead of an entire arrow-length of friction, you get just a tiny bit. That arrowhead travels in a straight path from release to target and the arrow wobbles behind it. So a properly tuned arrow will greatly improve your shot, but the magic is in friction and keeping the shaft from causing the arrowhead to veer off target. A property tuned arrow should slide past the bow, just missing it. A badly tuned arrow might slap against the bow and alter the course of the arrow. Of course this is just the preliminary observations. I would love to see some more high speed photography where we are looking down the arrow and can watch it leave the bow and hit the target.

Quite kind of you to post the cover of my last book, but it really has nothing to do with archery. Nor does it have anything to do with my blog post about Lars' video or why I am posting here. I was an archer long before I was a writer and I felt compelled to refute the allegations against Lars, particularly the nature of his historical research. One of your forum members was kind enough to post a link to my blog post which showed up when I check my blog stats, so I wandered in to see what was going on. It is an interesting conversation that I thought would be interesting to take part in. No one has to agree with me, but with the way I look at things, through my experiences, history holds a lot of secrets that can be unlocked through trying to recreate historical practices. The records are far from complete, even going back 400 years. There are a lot of holes, particularly in what was then common knowledge. New discoveries are constantly calling into question what we think we know of history. Lars is just doing that with archery and he found far more than I did when I looked into historical archery. And I don't get from him that archers who do things the traditional way are wrong, but that he feels to be the best at speed and dexterity requires something more. I think he is onto something. I don't think I would change anything about the way I shoot because of him, but anyone who wants to shoot super fast or in a melee style could pick up a lot from him. Some have already. But so far I've found all the arguments against his style to be baseless. Nothing in his video cannot be reproduced by someone willing to learn how to do it. Like splitting an arrow, some tricks require special materials or they just are impossible, but they still require skill to pull of. I think Lars' worst problem is the tone of his video and how some have taken it.

But back to the archer's paradox, I first heard that it was a myth in a video. I didn't believe it. I was convinced that I used to hold the bow in a way that meant the arrow had to curve around the bow to hit where I was aiming. But when you look at videos that show the path of the arrow, you can line it up on your screen with a straight edge and watch it travel exactly along that path. The simplicity of the physics is amazing. Watching the arrow is pretty amazing too, as it bends and curves and manages to miss the bow once the arrow is away. The process is so totally not what I thought it was, but also makes so much sense.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Dang guys I guess we can quit tuning those arrows - paradox is a myth LMAO


That's comforting. If you can reason your way out of actually seeing it, your logic is invulnerable. If you can invoke physics without understanding it, you can refute science itself.

I can't argue with a guy who's speaking another language. Kind of brilliant, really. Should run for office, get a job with a Tobacco company, or whatever.

He went to some renaissance fairs and read a book, why even bother with what has been learned with science, engineering, and experience.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> I thought that would make your heads spin, I found it quite shocking myself. What I meant by the archery paradox being a myth is that the arrow does not curve around the bow to travel in a different direction. It does curve around the bow, but the only benefit from that is that instead of an entire arrow-length of friction, you get just a tiny bit. That arrowhead travels in a straight path from release to target and the arrow wobbles behind it. So a properly tuned arrow will greatly improve your shot, but the magic is in friction and keeping the shaft from causing the arrowhead to veer off target. A property tuned arrow should slide past the bow, just missing it. A badly tuned arrow might slap against the bow and alter the course of the arrow. Of course this is just the preliminary observations. I would love to see some more high speed photography where we are looking down the arrow and can watch it leave the bow and hit the target.


Okay, you're reaching and back peddling a bit to defend your position, but you're coming closer to a bit of sense. Super. I'm good with that.

A well tuned arrow will not go around the riser in the sense that many explain paradox as doing. You're correct about this. However, that has more to do with many people misunderstanding the process of how the arrow and bow work through what we call the paradox. That doesn't mean that a process other than a straight line doesn't happen. Initially, movement on the arrow starts on the back. As the arrow oscillates, both the front and the back move.

It will have an initial deflection off of the riser shortly following release, and then through the oscillation, while the string goes back and forth, following the oscillation of the back of the arrow, (which means the string is not moving in a straight path), 'float' without further contact with the side of the bow, and the whole sum of this mess, if the arrow is properly tuned, is that the arrow goes where it was pointed. The paradox, which is very much not a myth, is that it works at all. If you consider the timing involved, the fact that a bow can, in fact, shoot as accurately as it does, by balancing all of these variables, is astounding.

Avoiding contact with the riser, and the tune of how the arrow reacts, though, is _critical_ to getting good arrow flight. This is not just a matter of minimizing friction, it is a matter of the shaft going in the right direction, and also impacting straight, so as to maximize penetration.


A poorly tuned weak arrow may, however, actually bend around the bow to the extent that travels in the direction that the bow was pointed, as opposed to where the arrow was pointed. We don't want this, because doing so means that the arrow does not leave the bow oriented relatively straight. It's also easier to simply aim the bow by pointing the arrow, explicitly, or subconsciously.

google archers paradox videos and I'm sure you can find some more.

BTW, congratulations on your writing success. Not an easy business. As somebody who reads fantasy and scifi, and finds many, many erroneous assumptions about the mechanisms of archery, I think it's highly relevant, and if you'd like to actually learn something instead of parading around with an expert hat, I think it safe to say that most of us would be happy to facilitate that.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

One of the things I have seen in almost every area of study I have dabbled in is that the "experts" are often convinced they are doing it right and are not willing to hear anything to the contrary. In science and history what sometimes starts out as a lone voice of decent can grown into the new normal a generation later. Why? Not just because it is the new idea, but because they find a way to prove it. People thought Einstein was nuts. I did until I found that single key to understanding his theories. I see this video by Lars as a similar challenge to the archery establishment. Those secure in their skills do not want to be questioned. Because what he does is new and different, it gets derided as fake and mere tricks. Lars video really doesn't change a thing about archery for the existing establishment, but what it does do is question modern archery methods as applied to other cultures and other times. Native American archery is a good example. The "experts" at museums consistently underrate the power and efficiency of the Native American equipment. Often displaying bows strung backwards. The reality is that when reproduced faithfully, that same Native American archery equipment is as deadly as the Mongol's. The design is different, but the function is the same. It is case after case like that, that makes me support Lars. As an archer, I can see what he is talking about. As a historian, I can see the truth of his research (historians frequently make use of period images to further their understanding of history - few dismiss them out of hand) and have found similar things using he same types of sources. But in this case, I think the proof is in the skill he shows in that video. He admits he had to perform some of those multiple times to achieve the shot, but he still achieved it. Any idiot can see that he takes some shortcuts, but at the same time, he shows that these things can be done if you work at it. His is not a style of archery to take over the world, but it is another style of archery to consider. There is room for many types of archery. We already have compund and traditional and recurve and Mongolian. What does another type hurt?


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

*No Archer's Paradox With LARP Archer Spell Orbs*








Big Debate In Middle Earth/LARP World : Nerf arrows Vs Spell Packet Arrows


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> I thought that would make your heads spin, I found it quite shocking myself. What I meant by the archery paradox being a myth is that the arrow does not curve around the bow to travel in a different direction. It does curve around the bow, but the only benefit from that is that instead of an entire arrow-length of friction, you get just a tiny bit. That arrowhead travels in a straight path from release to target and the arrow wobbles behind it. So a properly tuned arrow will greatly improve your shot, but the magic is in friction and keeping the shaft from causing the arrowhead to veer off target. A property tuned arrow should slide past the bow, just missing it. A badly tuned arrow might slap against the bow and alter the course of the arrow. Of course this is just the preliminary observations. I would love to see some more high speed photography where we are looking down the arrow and can watch it leave the bow and hit the target.


We do it all the time. It's called tuning. A poorly tuned arrow shaft will travel about 15 yards and then suddenly veer over into the next bale. A finely tuned arrow will stay with the pack of fletched. 

I think your real problem is that you are projecting "your" initial misunderstanding as also being one for other folks. How you rationalize the fix for your initial misunderstanding is just plain made up facts to fit you an answer. Really, you ought to hang around and read more. You will find that through tuning arrows, what you propose is preposterous, but, we don't hold it against anyone who is learning this stuff. It's very confusing when you first start to try to rationalize it out. In practice, you understand the pieces of the puzzle. Arguing from a position of total ignorance on the subject doesn't do your reputation, nor the blood pressure of some folks here, much good. We really are a helpful bunch of folks.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BTW, center cut does not mean center shot.

Most bows cut even past center cannot accomplish a center shot arrow position.

Because of the process we call the Archer's Paradox, most of us don't even _want_ center shot, though even center shot, because of the finger release, and the subsequent wave travelling down the arrow, the arrow still deflects off of the riser, and then goes into the same dance as any other arrow...

It is a truly beautiful mess


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Robert Courtlan said:


> But back to the archer's paradox, I first heard that it was a myth in a video. I didn't believe it. I was convinced that I used to hold the bow in a way that meant the arrow had to curve around the bow to hit where I was aiming. But when you look at videos that show the path of the arrow, you can line it up on your screen with a straight edge and watch it travel exactly along that path. The simplicity of the physics is amazing. Watching the arrow is pretty amazing too, as it bends and curves and manages to miss the bow once the arrow is away. The process is so totally not what I thought it was, but also makes so much sense.


yep, that's why most of us aim straight down the arrow as our sight picture and use the distance above the point to compensate for drop. That is actually the paradox; the arrow travels straight along the direction it was pointed when the string follows a slightly different path (than the straight line from brace to anchor that the string is drawn).


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

BarneySlayer said:


> BTW, congratulations on your writing success. Not an easy business. As somebody who reads fantasy and scifi, and finds many, many erroneous assumptions about the mechanisms of archery, I think it's highly relevant, and if you'd like to actually learn something instead of parading around with an expert hat, I think it safe to say that most of us would be happy to facilitate that.


I am always trying to learn and I think Lars gives us a lot to think about. I do not believe everyone needs to immediately switch to his methods. They work for him for what he wants to do with archery. I won't be adopting any of them other than to see how they work. But I do think that instead of being closed to the idea that he might be onto something, everyone should be interested in what he has done. He isn't an Olympic archer any more than I am. With the low weight bow he uses, I'm not sure he is more than a trick shooter, but when you take the style he has developed, coupled with what we know from other ancient sources and artifacts, you get a style of archery that would be truly deadly in the right situation. Definitely from horseback and also in melee skirmishes. I don't think he is as impressive as the style itself. But when the archery community starts out by deriding rather than exploring his style and his sources, it means they aren't willing to learn. I believe that no matter how skilled or how educated, there is always room for improvement so I get rather miffed when people act like there is nothing left for them to learn. I try to be open to it myself and admit it can be a challenge.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

BarneySlayer said:


> BTW, center cut does not mean center shot.
> 
> Most bows cut even past center cannot accomplish a center shot arrow position.
> 
> ...


Except that all the videos of compound bows (which I admittedly am not familiar with) show center line arrow rest, perfectly clean release (using some tool I am not familiar with), and an arrow that never shows any sign of oscillation. The shots look perfect. So it seems that for one group, archer's paradox doesn't even exist and isn't wanted.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> Except that all the videos of compound bows (which I admittedly am not familiar with) show center line arrow rest, perfectly clean release (using some tool I am not familiar with), and an arrow that never shows any sign of oscillation. The shots look perfect. So it seems that for one group, archer's paradox doesn't even exist and isn't wanted.


They use a caliper release. There's -0- to none string deflection because the caliper releases from both sides and in direct line of string force. It's what makes them so consistent in the release department. There's a small amount of vertical paradox they deal with and tune for a small amount of lateral. Compound with caliper release is set with arrow directly on centershot. Nowadays, it's almost set and forget to tune one.

Fingershot bows are much different.

Edit to add: You just answered to your own theory when you noticed that compound calipers don't show any sign of oscillation (they do, it just starts from a much smaller wave). That shows you that the moment of inertia bending, linear, is tiny compared to lateral string deflection bending, which you see in fingershot bows - like that Olympic shooter example previously posted - she is as close to center as a fingershot bow can go.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

From my friend Daniel


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

*Lars Andersen - Flight of the Arrow*


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

JParanee said:


> From my friend Daniel


Awesome.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Robert Courtlan said:


> I believe I mentioned that in what I said. I must have reviewed at least 20 different archers yesterday before I posted about that and this agrees which what I saw. This is not a clean release of the string. If they are absolutely consistent about this, they will be able to shoot consistently. But also notice this is a center cut bow and the archer should not be using wooden arrows, though with that release it might be necessary. Of the 20 I watched yesterday (and that is an approximate number), only one other had such a sloppy release. And really, unless you can see the string the entire time, it really isn't a good shot of the release. All the ones I watched showed things much clearer. I found this video to show a much more accurate picture of the string travel. He switches to a traditional bow just before the 1 min mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfyzL9C-8WY


 If I understand you right. You're saying the gold medal winner of the 2004 & 2008 Olympics plus at least 10 other gold medals has a sloppy release? Her bow is not set up to shoot center and the arrows are not wood. The riser cut on her bow allows for a wide range of setting and the reason it's cut past center to the right is to facilitate the fletching being able to get around the riser without hitting anything. The plunger and rest keep it past center to the left for paradox. The arrow material used doesn't have as much to do with it as you might think. The video you posted is a guy shooting a long bow. A slightly different style of shooting and bow with its own set of requirements. In most sanctioned events wood arrows are required if a person is shooting a long bow. It's in its own class. Any trad bow shot using fingers is going to have the kick shown in the video I posted. It's part of what sets up the paradox to begin with. It's what anyone uses to help tune their arrows to the bow once they have a consistent release. Even a compound bow is going to have some arrow flex due to the sudden acceleration on a column. 

Here is something to try. Get a trad bow and shoot it using a compound mechanical release. Watch how long your feathers/fletching last before they're stripped off and make note of the less than accurate arrow flight. Come back and tell us about it.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> Except that all the videos of compound bows (which I admittedly am not familiar with) show center line arrow rest, perfectly clean release (using some tool I am not familiar with), and an arrow that never shows any sign of oscillation. The shots look perfect. So it seems that for one group, archer's paradox doesn't even exist and isn't wanted.


Don't think anybody agued otherwise... 

But even compound bows need tuning. Hand pressure on the bow handle will vary, mass of the bow, etc. It is easier to get a setup to shooting a straight arrow, but nothing us automatic. 

It isn't like simply setting the bow to hold the arrow center shot and square to the string at rest means you're done.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

robert, you do get ahold of some funny information 

I hope we can get you straightened out before your first movie deal!

is this stuff commonly believed at the renaisance faire, or reenactments, or wherever it comes from? do you know many people who can shoot well, other than quickly?

seriously, you should come out and shoot with those of us who might be nearby. anybody in colorado want to give robert a tour?

if you want to travel to CA, I'd be happy to talk hobby, introduce you to others, yada yada. you can write off the trip as research. if you drop by some of the larger events, here or elsewhere, you can tug on the ears of some downright experts, all of whom have a wide range of approaches to the craft.

Most of their releases, though, are pretty similar, more so than different, and they all deflect the string.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Wow, was gone for just two days and this thread grew a couple more pages. I have read everything leading up to this, and I don't recall anyone asking this yet. 

Robert, you mentioned you once did archery, can you explain how much experience you have, what you did, how you shot, and how you performed? Have you ever successfully tuned arrows to your bow so they are capable of flying true with a bare shaft? I apologize if you have, but I get the idea you have not. I did archery for years before finally learning to build and tune my own arrows properly, and ever since then I feel my understanding of the fundamentals of archery has grown tenfold. I think you could address a lot of your own questions if you do this.
For years I thought I had a decent grasp on archery, I had no idea how complex it was, how many steps were involved in consistent arrow flight. Everything from a perfectly consistent release, arrow spine, shaft length, balance, nock size, nock point, brace height, etc. I knew of these things, but I never appreciated the delicate balance between all these things involved in achieving a perfectly tuned arrow, one of these variables changes just a little and the difference is night and day. It goes without saying my groupings have shrunken considerably, and I still have much more to learn. My suggestion to you is to actually learn these things first hand.


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

Robert-

well I think I got caught up in the conversation and forgot to say welcome to the forum. I hope you stick around and talk with everyone here a bit. I've learned a ton and find the folks here to be quite knowledgeable and friendly.


----------



## Knygathin (Feb 10, 2015)

I find this Lajos Kassai incredibly impressive in his speed and flow of shooting. He is likely pulling more weight than Lars, and somehow feels more convincing for a real war situation. If Lars had trained from younger years, he would also have had another added element to his skills, that of psychological integrity and stamina for war. Lars is an incredible talent and a door-opener and inspirer. I hope he may be a Sign, that the original soul of the Nordic peoples is about to awaken and arise from the 1000 year old sleep of semitic Christian deceit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yorHswhzrU
1:40 into the clip.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

EthanJM said:


> Wow, was gone for just two days and this thread grew a couple more pages. I have read everything leading up to this, and I don't recall anyone asking this yet.
> 
> Robert, you mentioned you once did archery, can you explain how much experience you have, what you did, how you shot, and how you performed? Have you ever successfully tuned arrows to your bow so they are capable of flying true with a bare shaft? I apologize if you have, but I get the idea you have not. I did archery for years before finally learning to build and tune my own arrows properly, and ever since then I feel my understanding of the fundamentals of archery has grown tenfold. I think you could address a lot of your own questions if you do this.
> For years I thought I had a decent grasp on archery, I had no idea how complex it was, how many steps were involved in consistent arrow flight. Everything from a perfectly consistent release, arrow spine, shaft length, balance, nock size, nock point, brace height, etc. I knew of these things, but I never appreciated the delicate balance between all these things involved in achieving a perfectly tuned arrow, one of these variables changes just a little and the difference is night and day. It goes without saying my groupings have shrunken considerably, and I still have much more to learn. My suggestion to you is to actually learn these things first hand.


Well, I'll start by what is leading me astray. The high speed photography seems to show different things depending on the angle and the edits. Few show the release properly as well as the string and the arrow. Few of them are even really high speed, some are just slowed down video so I think I misunderstood some of what I was seeing with the release and the string. Looking at the arrow itself is more informative. The tip does not waiver and begins its trip to the target the moment the string is released. We'd need to setup an experiment with a high speed camera to really tell if what side of the bow and the method of release make a difference. From what is out there I don't think it will, but I don't have the equipment to test it.

As for my archery experience... I spent most of the 90's shooting. A couple of the key members I used to shoot with moved out of the area, including the one who had the archery range on their farm, so I stopped. Then I got busy with other things. But while I was shooting on a regular basis, I made my own bow (fiberglass and maple laminate 6' longbow based off of an older 5' longbow that shoot really well). It had 60 lb draw weight at 30" and I made my own arrows, tuned to the bow. I had nice tight groupings at 20 and 30 yards and relatively tight compared to my shooting companions at 40 yards. I used a pretty traditional draw (bow in left hand because I am right eye dominant and a 3 finger draw with a finger guard) and was able to get off 8 arrows in a nice grouping in 30 seconds at 20 yards. But knowing how to do all that and putting it together with the physics I studied did not occur to me. And without high speed cameras, it is impossible to see all the details of what an arrow is doing. I went by how well I could aim it at the various distances. Several of the people I shot with liked to hunt with bow and arrow rather than guns and they were very good at it. We had some occasional guests soot with us who were better, especially at the 30 second timed and one person I clearly remember got a very tight grouping of 12 arrows in 30 seconds. The couple who ran things in our archery group were always buying books about archery and I devoured their collection and bought a couple of my own, on one Native American archery and one on Kyudo.

So I have done what you suggested already, but I am 15 years away from it and new to seeing what high speed photography reveals about the science behind it. But I am quite certain from the styles of release I have seen and the apparent success of those styles, that release does not impact the course of the arrow. It may be related to eye dominance or how the arrows are tuned, but there are people who release both ways on both sides of the bow who appear to be able to hit their targets on a consistent basis so there is something to what I am seeing and saying, though I may not always nail the specifics perfectly.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> From what is out there I don't think it will, but I don't have the equipment to test it.


I can spare you the time and say, millions of dollars in R&D has already been spent doing just that in the design bows and rests. The web is full of still shots of high speed video and high speed video from all kinds of sources. I gave you a white-paper, a seminal paper from the _Journal of Engineering Mathematics_ (did you read it?) Historically, it's called the "strike" of the bow. Today, we call it the "strike plate". Finding and capturing its significance is what makes precision archery what it is today. Proving it insignificant would be like proving the Earth is flat, but, there are those that will.

All that aside, that's not what's at play. What folks "can" do has never been a real issue with folks who know the sport. Look, we have a member here who is sponsored by the largest archery manufacturer, Hoyt/Easton, and who travels the country doing demonstration shows. He shoots baby aspirin, out of the air, from behind his back, and with a bow that has a modified piece of leather for a rest and arrows not even close to tuned for anything - he just gets them flying straight. But, even he doesn't claim other archers, hunters, hobbyists, Hollywood, or pro-target shooters are doing things wrong or that they don't understand their archery physics or history.

In this regard, the juvenile explanations of the Lars video remain what they are, backed-in story lines to fit "his" history lesson. Is there some validity that shooting on the RH side of the bow makes his nocking and release faster? Sure! Is there also some history and science that string deflection and arrow deflection from the bow's strike are highly integral and important? Yes. Historically and in modern times, man figured that out as well, and I'm sure too that through science we will learn to capture even more from it. 

So, historically speaking, it's not a fluke that the practice of switching sides based on string grip protocols is more ancient than the Lars video. So, the fast-nocking aspect might be an observed benefit, but it can't negate what other have done in the past or why they are doing them now.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Robert Courtlan said:


> Well, I'll start by what is leading me astray. The high speed photography seems to show different things depending on the angle and the edits. Few show the release properly as well as the string and the arrow. Few of them are even really high speed, some are just slowed down video so I think I misunderstood some of what I was seeing with the release and the string. Looking at the arrow itself is more informative. The tip does not waiver and begins its trip to the target the moment the string is released. We'd need to setup an experiment with a high speed camera to really tell if what side of the bow and the method of release make a difference. From what is out there I don't think it will, but I don't have the equipment to test it.
> 
> As for my archery experience... I spent most of the 90's shooting. A couple of the key members I used to shoot with moved out of the area, including the one who had the archery range on their farm, so I stopped. Then I got busy with other things. But while I was shooting on a regular basis, I made my own bow (fiberglass and maple laminate 6' longbow based off of an older 5' longbow that shoot really well). It had 60 lb draw weight at 30" and I made my own arrows, tuned to the bow. I had nice tight groupings at 20 and 30 yards and relatively tight compared to my shooting companions at 40 yards. I used a pretty traditional draw (bow in left hand because I am right eye dominant and a 3 finger draw with a finger guard) and was able to get off 8 arrows in a nice grouping in 30 seconds at 20 yards. But knowing how to do all that and putting it together with the physics I studied did not occur to me. And without high speed cameras, it is impossible to see all the details of what an arrow is doing. I went by how well I could aim it at the various distances. Several of the people I shot with liked to hunt with bow and arrow rather than guns and they were very good at it. We had some occasional guests soot with us who were better, especially at the 30 second timed and one person I clearly remember got a very tight grouping of 12 arrows in 30 seconds. The couple who ran things in our archery group were always buying books about archery and I devoured their collection and bought a couple of my own, on one Native American archery and one on Kyudo.
> 
> So I have done what you suggested already, but I am 15 years away from it and new to seeing what high speed photography reveals about the science behind it. But I am quite certain from the styles of release I have seen and the apparent success of those styles, that release does not impact the course of the arrow. It may be related to eye dominance or how the arrows are tuned, but there are people who release both ways on both sides of the bow who appear to be able to hit their targets on a consistent basis so there is something to what I am seeing and saying, though I may not always nail the specifics perfectly.



I use to think I was grouping okay because I knew no better, I use to think I had well tuned arrows as well. What was your average 20 yard group? 30 yard group? I am asking because everyone has different standards, some peoples standards are quite low because they are either just having fun or know no better (like me a couple years ago). When I am out shooting with my friends I look like a pro, if I were to shoot with a lot of people on this forum I would probably look like a novice. Right now I am under the assumption you got some pretty decent experience in the 90s shooting mostly with friends, you probably got fairly accurate and you had a large focus on speed. I am not sure if you have ever been scrutinized by those out of your league though, you appear to have an interest in learning though so I am sure if you were you would try to learn what they were teaching you. You could be leagues ahead of me in knowledge and experience in archery, but I am not sure yet, and I am far less knowledgeable than a lot of the people here. But again, did you *bare shaft* tune your arrows? I ask because I think having this experience is crucial to this discussion because it has everything to with it. Many of us have tuned our arrows using our understanding of the archers paradox, and it worked. We are able to predict what will happen to the arrow flight if you change one part of the equation and how it will effect it.

You mentioned you were watching videos with compound bow users using calipers, but at the time you did not know what the device was. You said you watched 20 something archers correct? How many of them were compound shooters using a caliper? How many were traditional shooters using a natural release? Can you source us these videos? You are not going to see much if any string deflection with a user using a caliper, this was already cleared up. But we have seen a couple videos now with traditional shooters and we can clearly see string deflection, especially the video from the olympic gold medalist. You can test this yourself as others have, you can use a mediterranean draw and nock on the right side of the bow to see for yourself. When you think about a natural release, say with the mediterranean draw and release, how exactly do you think it is possible for the fingers to move out of the way in time that they do not torque on the string? I cannot even put together how it would even be physically possible first of all, our fingers have mass. Second, we have seen video evidence of the archers paradox in action, what caught my eye the most was the string being torqued and deflected just as we all suspected would happen. Third, my understanding of the archers paradox is how I picked up so quickly on how to tune my arrows well enough to shoot a bare shaft over 20 yards. 
As for you seeing other archers using a mediterranean draw on the right side (or perhaps a thumb draw on the left, but I have no experience with thumb draws), and shooting successfully, I would like to see these videos, I would like to see if they can stand the scrutiny of this forum. If you have read the previous pages to this thread, you will find most of us are not exactly impressed by Lars in the accuracy department, so we need a better example. Until I see someone using a mediterranean draw on the right side of the bow and getting good groupings at a minimal of 20 yards I won't have a reason to be convinced, and if you really want to convince me you can delve further into this and find someone who can use a mediterranan draw on the right side of the bow and can successfully shoot a bare shaft and group it with their fletched arrows to eliminate some strange possibility they have consistently bad tuned arrows that group together somehow. It also helps if I know this will be applicable with a wide range of different draw weights.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

EthanJM, you make a very good point about our own interpretations of our shooting prowess. It's one of the reasons that shooting at paper for score, even in the comfort of your own backyard, can help shed light on the genuine level of "accuracy". 

That's not to say, of course, that if you can't shoot over, say, 270/300 on a blue face that you have no business call yourself accurate, but if you're shooting a recurve and your "good groups" yield only, say 180/300, then it's not quite accurate by anyone's standard. There are always understood allowances for different equipment and even technique to an extent, but the paper doesn't lie and it gives something that can not only be compared to other shooters, but your own different techniques. 

Lars should shoot a paper face at 20 yards on video- without editing. It wouldn't take him long... maybe three minutes? :lol:


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Even less on roller skates!


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Arrowwood said:


> Even less on roller skates!


Good point, to make sure he actually stays at 20 yards and doesn't run up on the target and try to do some flips at it we'll need to tie his feet down to some cinder blocks or what have you. He seems to suffer from ADHD.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

kegan said:


> EthanJM, you make a very good point about our own interpretations of our shooting prowess. It's one of the reasons that shooting at paper for score, even in the comfort of your own backyard, can help shed light on the genuine level of "accuracy".
> 
> That's not to say, of course, that if you can't shoot over, say, 270/300 on a blue face that you have no business call yourself accurate, but if you're shooting a recurve and your "good groups" yield only, say 180/300, then it's not quite accurate by anyone's standard. There are always understood allowances for different equipment and even technique to an extent, but the paper doesn't lie and it gives something that can not only be compared to other shooters, but your own different techniques.
> 
> Lars should shoot a paper face at 20 yards on video- without editing. It wouldn't take him long... maybe three minutes? :lol:


I guess it is about time I try scoring myself then, never done it yet.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

I do not claim to be an excellent archer. I had decent groupings, but nothing spectacular. I don't think I have the consistency to be that good. What I am good at is historical research, genealogy, physics (as I can relate it to historical problems, including ballistics), languages, and putting historical methods to the test. I'm not content to just study, I want to talk to people who have done these things. Often they are people who are trying to recreate a lost art. My grandmother was a journalist turned historian and museum creator and she instilled in me a desire to get it right even if it disagrees with what is accepted. History can be full of surprises, especially when you pull in modern experts on historical methods. Our ancestors were not always concerned about writing things down in great detail so you have to fill in the gaps. The best way is to find someone who has done it and can show you how it was done. Tempering steel swords is a prefect example. Hollywood would have you believe they did it in water, but it was more likely oil. Often history dates things to the earliest know occurrence and frequently archaeology brings to light new things. One of the latest is the origin of Native Americans. The prevailing thinking has been that they only came from Asia, either over the Bering Sea land bridge or across the ocean. But new evidence shows that another wave came from Europe following the edge of the ice sheet. We used to think that all the Mamoth and other large mammals went extinct due to hunting, but evidence shows a second mini-ice age at the end of the big one and that could have had serious impact.

So what does that have to do with archery? Well, Lars has found something in the historical records he has searched. He has put that find into practice and has found that it greatly improved the archery skills he was seeking. I understand he is a LARPer so that makes complete sense. That also explains his lower power bow and his entire shooting style. It does not give leave to dismiss his entire theory. It needs to be tested. His find needs to be researched and verified. If it can be reproduced, and so far all those who have given serious effort to doing that have been successful (as opposed to those only interested in debunking his video), then we need to take it seriously. From the way I have approached studying history and researching ancient arts, I don't need much more proof than that video. I can see why it has not convinced everyone, and frankly I think it was intended for an audience of those who are interested in imitating the same type of archery that he is interested in. It is good for LARPers, trick shooters, and Hollywood stunts. But if you take his find seriously and really consider how it might have been used historically and how likely it might have been for archers to use this style of shooting (with equipment more suited to combat) you get and eye opening picture of a lost school of archery. Archery has gotten very stylized in some corners of the world. Kyudo is the perfect example. Such exacting technique and so little accuracy. It is quite different from how the Samurai shot in combat, even though their technique is preserved. The same way that Kendo preserves much of Japanese swordsmanship while reading Musashi gives a much different perspective.

Lars video is a guide, a starting point, for those interested in speed shooting, melee shooting, and historical variations in the art. It might be a peek at what the lost masters did and how Robin Hood (or whatever archer the legend was based on) shoot. It really isn't intended for those who like traditional archery and have no interest in doing anything different. I am most certainly in his intended audience, but I suspect that most on this site are not. I'm not interested in perfecting my consistency to get a bullseye every time. I'm interested in knowing how it may have been done 1000 years ago by a master archer. If I want to know how a modern master archer does things, all I have to do is ask, but to go back even 500 years ago to the Mary Rose or 200 years ago to the Sioux, requires finding people who have researched it and have striven to recreate that particular style. I won't find the answers historical records because the skilled masters did not often write things down, others did and their accounts are incomplete. And even such a skilled swordsman as Musashi did not write everything down. You have to put Kendo together with his writing to attempt to recreate his style. But he is a rare case for actually writing it down.

I hope that helps explain why I so vocally support Lars' findings and that my support is anything but blind. After this discussion I fully intend to pull out one of my light fiberglass bows, get some arrows, and see what I can make of the various draw positions and sides of the bow. But that will have to wait until spring. Until then I'll have to be content with discussing things and referencing YouTube videos.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert, not to be even more snippy, but in your study of the exacting techniques of Kyudo, you couldn't even properly describe the string grip. The rest of things fell right behind that. Sorry, the self-proclaimed academic knowledge on this is rather boring and silly at this point. Again, if you want to know archery, hang around the archers.

BTW, many of us enjoyed the Lars video. What he does has been done, will be done, and is nothing new to us. The "debunking" of archery part, though, is a total farce. Sorry, but that's just what it is.

As I said to someone else previously, none of this is at the level of "saving the whales", but, I find that many new archers are coming to the sport through the internet, internet blogs, and internet videos. As such, what is out there as crap is what they will start with on first impression. That's about all this conversation is worth, helping show the fakes and phonies.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

patrick2cents said:


> Robert-
> 
> well I think I got caught up in the conversation and forgot to say welcome to the forum. I hope you stick around and talk with everyone here a bit. I've learned a ton and find the folks here to be quite knowledgeable and friendly.


Ditto that. Welcome


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Knygathin said:


> I find this Lajos Kassai incredibly impressive in his speed and flow of shooting. He is likely pulling more weight than Lars, and somehow feels more convincing for a real war situation. If Lars had trained from younger years, he would also have had another added element to his skills, that of psychological integrity and stamina for war...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yorHswhzrU
> 1:40 into the clip.


Great clip. I think that it is important to note that if you really want to put rapid fire archery into a battle scenario, mounted archery is the way to go. If they can't catch you, they can't lop off your head


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Sanford said:


> That's about all this conversation is worth, helping show the fakes and phonies.


Like Bruce Willis in the Sixth Sense, though don't even realize it, though.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Robert Courtlan said:


> I do not claim to be an excellent archer. I had decent groupings, but nothing spectacular. I don't think I have the consistency to be that good. What I am good at is historical research, genealogy, physics (as I can relate it to historical problems, including ballistics), languages, and putting historical methods to the test. I'm not content to just study, I want to talk to people who have done these things. Often they are people who are trying to recreate a lost art. My grandmother was a journalist turned historian and museum creator and she instilled in me a desire to get it right even if it disagrees with what is accepted. History can be full of surprises, especially when you pull in modern experts on historical methods. Our ancestors were not always concerned about writing things down in great detail so you have to fill in the gaps. The best way is to find someone who has done it and can show you how it was done. Tempering steel swords is a prefect example. Hollywood would have you believe they did it in water, but it was more likely oil. Often history dates things to the earliest know occurrence and frequently archaeology brings to light new things. One of the latest is the origin of Native Americans. The prevailing thinking has been that they only came from Asia, either over the Bering Sea land bridge or across the ocean. But new evidence shows that another wave came from Europe following the edge of the ice sheet. We used to think that all the Mamoth and other large mammals went extinct due to hunting, but evidence shows a second mini-ice age at the end of the big one and that could have had serious impact.
> 
> So what does that have to do with archery? Well, Lars has found something in the historical records he has searched. He has put that find into practice and has found that it greatly improved the archery skills he was seeking. I understand he is a LARPer so that makes complete sense. That also explains his lower power bow and his entire shooting style. It does not give leave to dismiss his entire theory. It needs to be tested. His find needs to be researched and verified. If it can be reproduced, and so far all those who have given serious effort to doing that have been successful (as opposed to those only interested in debunking his video), then we need to take it seriously. From the way I have approached studying history and researching ancient arts, I don't need much more proof than that video. I can see why it has not convinced everyone, and frankly I think it was intended for an audience of those who are interested in imitating the same type of archery that he is interested in. It is good for LARPers, trick shooters, and Hollywood stunts. But if you take his find seriously and really consider how it might have been used historically and how likely it might have been for archers to use this style of shooting (with equipment more suited to combat) you get and eye opening picture of a lost school of archery. Archery has gotten very stylized in some corners of the world. Kyudo is the perfect example. Such exacting technique and so little accuracy. It is quite different from how the Samurai shot in combat, even though their technique is preserved. The same way that Kendo preserves much of Japanese swordsmanship while reading Musashi gives a much different perspective.
> 
> ...


I love history, I am always up for learning new things, always have an open mind. But there are too many BS alarms going off regarding Lars. I understand the need and application for speed archery in history completely. But there are fundamental flaws in the way Lars is shooting that I cannot ignore. Mechanical flaws as well as anatomical ones. These flaws make his way of shooting best suited to very close range trick shooting against soft styrofoam or LARP. I don't even think it would be great for horse archery. A good example is Lajos Kassai. He seems to have learned a very well balanced form of speed shooting, it is a mix of close to medium range accuracy, speed, and power. He is not the fastest archer, not the most accurate, and not the most powerful. He is not striving to be the best in any of these particular departments, but striving to find the correct balance best suited to horse archery. Lars took a different approach, and I think he is very lopsided. He is very fast, probably not that accurate, and definitely not that powerful. To top it off, I think it even has severe limitations. In my opinion his lack in the power department is not curable with his form, there will always be an advantage to taking a little extra time to make a full power stroke, he is at an anatomical disadvantage to making a full draw, especially when you increase draw weight. His accuracy is not curable with his gear which is going to lead to sever mechanical error, his wide nocks are only going to be good for point blank ranges, and I'd wager more arrow speed with such wide nocks will amplify the negative side effects caused by the wide nocks. So there is a lack of versatility here, his form and gear forces you to shoot with a short power stroke, a light bow, and use wide nocks that ruin arrow stability. His craft is simply trick shooting at point blank ranges, and this is a viable form of archery. But we don't even have proof yet he can do these things consistently, he almost certainly can not. But the real criticism he garnered was through the narrations in his video full of false claims, misrepresentations, dishonesty, and incorrect assertions.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Well, this thread got interesting. I kind of wish I'd been paying attention...:wink:

On the original video and Lars, what can you say but he seems to be having fun. I don't buy a lot of his historical reasoning, but history is often an exercise in interpretation. One thing I wouldn't do is put too much stock in illustrations or paintings from the ancient past. You can probably assume whoever executed the piece was not an archer; it is also well known that things like perspective and accurate anatomical rendering in two dimensions is a rather recent development.

On the arrow flight issue and what happens on release, _all_ arrows bend. It doesn't matter how they are shot or from what kind of bow, there are very few release mechanisms that don't impart a lateral movement of some degree to the back of the arrow. This includes compounds, most of the popular releases still result in some displacements of the string. What is the determining factor in where arrows go is how the directional vectors of each node on the shaft align relative to the other. 

The mechanics of arrow flight is well understood. The previously posted paper is a good one, this is another good one and maybe a little easier to understand:

http://archery.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/KNSU-paper-by-Lieu-version4.pdf


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Courtlan said:


> What I am good at is historical research, genealogy, physics (as I can relate it to historical problems, including ballistics), languages, and putting historical methods to the test. I'm not content to just study, I want to talk to people who have done these things..


Separating the skill from the context, as far as history, Lars (or his narrator at least) got many things wrong, particularly making comments about the more recent history of modern archery. If he was joking, fine. If he's not joking, he has no credibility.

As far as physics, physics as applied to the real world often has subtleties. In this case, the bow is not just a spring and a projectile operating in two dimensions. Both the projectiles and the spring are also resonant systems, in the case of the bow, multiple resonant systems, and move in every dimension, in a complex relationship. If you simplify the physics, the physics will mislead you, because you've omitted parameters.





> So what does that have to do with archery? Well, Lars has found something in the historical records he has searched.


From observing other forms of 'traditional' archery (it's all traditional, in a sense, but should we say, various styles carried down through history), it doesn't seem that he's done more than pick up ideas to use as he sees fit for his purpose, which is fine, but to try to put it forth as more legitimate, is dishonest.




> He has put that find into practice and has found that it greatly improved the archery skills he was seeking. I understand he is a LARPer so that makes complete sense. That also explains his lower power bow and his entire shooting style. It does not give leave to dismiss his entire theory.


I don't think anybody contested its viability in LARP. LARP mandates very low power bows, specifically NOT to injure people.

If you pulled the blunts off and replaced them with broadheads, you could still hurt people. Might not penetrate deeply, but it would certainly cause injury. You can hurt people pretty badly with a sling shot too. Doesn't mean you're going to into a real battle with them, though a crack shot with a slingshot might have a better chance than the untrained person wielding a handgun.



> It needs to be tested. His find needs to be researched and verified.


Why? He hasn't shown any credible evidence that anything previously considered well-understood needs to be re-evaluated, or that his methods are anything more than some really cool trick shooting with goofy explanations.




> It is good for LARPers, trick shooters, and Hollywood stunts.


Exactly.



> But if you take his find seriously and really consider how it might have been used historically and how likely it might have been for archers to use this style of shooting (with equipment more suited to combat) you get and eye opening picture of a lost school of archery.




If you seriously want to know how it might have been used historically, you'd want to see him cite his historical reference material for every claim made in the video.



> I'm not interested in perfecting my consistency to get a bullseye every time. I'm interested in knowing how it may have been done 1000 years ago by a master archer. If I want to know how a modern master archer does things, all I have to do is ask, but to go back even 500 years ago to the Mary Rose or 200 years ago to the Sioux, requires finding people who have researched it and have striven to recreate that particular style.


If you really want to know how people did it 1000 years ago, you want to start with finding somebody who has done credible research. citing sources is more than claiming something on YouTube or doing a Google Search. I assume you're familiar with serious academic standards. Well, that 



> I won't find the answers historical records because the skilled masters did not often write things down, others did and their accounts are incomplete. And even such a skilled swordsman as Musashi did not write everything down. You have to put Kendo together with his writing to attempt to recreate his style. But he is a rare case for actually writing it down.


I found the 5 rings to be very abstract. Useful from a philosophical standpoint, but pretty useless if you wanted to actually duplicate anything. It's interesting, but if you really wanted to duplicate his style, even a solid background in Kendo would be insufficient, as much of what he says contradicts the approach that Kendo teaches.





> I hope that helps explain why I so vocally support Lars' findings and that my support is anything but blind. After this discussion I fully intend to pull out one of my light fiberglass bows, get some arrows, and see what I can make of the various draw positions and sides of the bow. But that will have to wait until spring. Until then I'll have to be content with discussing things and referencing YouTube videos.


I'm glad for it. Thanks for the participation and topic


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Easykeeper said:


> ..............this is another good one and maybe a little easier to understand:
> 
> http://archery.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/KNSU-paper-by-Lieu-version4.pdf


Yep, engineering doctorate, University of California, Berkeley - Professor of Engineering, AND long-time archer and contributor here.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

BarneySlayer said:


> If you seriously want to know how it might have been used historically, you'd want to see him cite his historical reference material for every claim made in the video.


 Or do your own research to see if you can confirm any of it.



> If you really want to know how people did it 1000 years ago, you want to start with finding somebody who has done credible research. citing sources is more than claiming something on YouTube or doing a Google Search. I assume you're familiar with serious academic standards. Well, that


 In my experience, the hard academic standards don't allow for theorizing and experimentation. If you can't find a firm historical source, it didn't happen. I cannot take such a narrow view. I know that what I have described will yield a picture that is as close as we can get and far closer than serious academic standards allow. I'm more interesting in what the facts tell of of what they could do and then seeing if we can replicate how to do it. That is how the other sciences do it.



> I found the 5 rings to be very abstract. Useful from a philosophical standpoint, but pretty useless if you wanted to actually duplicate anything. It's interesting, but if you really wanted to duplicate his style, even a solid background in Kendo would be insufficient, as much of what he says contradicts the approach that Kendo teaches.


 In Kendo you will learn the style of fighting that Musashi first learned. Then you follow his example and abandon the formal teachings an concentrate on using the sword as he says to use the sword. It isn't enough to replicate his style completely, but it would be a close approximation.



> I'm glad for it. Thanks for the participation and topic


 I enjoy a good discussion and occasionally enjoy being proved wrong. It can be educational.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Robert Courtlan said:


> I do not claim to be an excellent archer. I had decent groupings, but nothing spectacular. I don't think I have the consistency to be that good. What I am good at is historical research, genealogy, physics (as I can relate it to historical problems, including ballistics), languages, and putting historical methods to the test. I'm not content to just study, I want to talk to people who have done these things. Often they are people who are trying to recreate a lost art. My grandmother was a journalist turned historian and museum creator and she instilled in me a desire to get it right even if it disagrees with what is accepted. History can be full of surprises, especially when you pull in modern experts on historical methods. Our ancestors were not always concerned about writing things down in great detail so you have to fill in the gaps. The best way is to find someone who has done it and can show you how it was done. Tempering steel swords is a prefect example. Hollywood would have you believe they did it in water, but it was more likely oil. Often history dates things to the earliest know occurrence and frequently archaeology brings to light new things. One of the latest is the origin of Native Americans. The prevailing thinking has been that they only came from Asia, either over the Bering Sea land bridge or across the ocean. But new evidence shows that another wave came from Europe following the edge of the ice sheet. We used to think that all the Mamoth and other large mammals went extinct due to hunting, but evidence shows a second mini-ice age at the end of the big one and that could have had serious impact.
> 
> So what does that have to do with archery? Well, Lars has found something in the historical records he has searched. He has put that find into practice and has found that it greatly improved the archery skills he was seeking. I understand he is a LARPer so that makes complete sense. That also explains his lower power bow and his entire shooting style. It does not give leave to dismiss his entire theory. It needs to be tested. His find needs to be researched and verified. If it can be reproduced, and so far all those who have given serious effort to doing that have been successful (as opposed to those only interested in debunking his video), then we need to take it seriously. From the way I have approached studying history and researching ancient arts, I don't need much more proof than that video. I can see why it has not convinced everyone, and frankly I think it was intended for an audience of those who are interested in imitating the same type of archery that he is interested in. It is good for LARPers, trick shooters, and Hollywood stunts. But if you take his find seriously and really consider how it might have been used historically and how likely it might have been for archers to use this style of shooting (with equipment more suited to combat) you get and eye opening picture of a lost school of archery. Archery has gotten very stylized in some corners of the world. Kyudo is the perfect example. Such exacting technique and so little accuracy. It is quite different from how the Samurai shot in combat, even though their technique is preserved. The same way that Kendo preserves much of Japanese swordsmanship while reading Musashi gives a much different perspective.
> 
> ...


Just curious -
*What Historical research are you good at ? Which stream of academia do you pursue ?
* re Hollywood and tempering steel swords - it's Hollywood - they also made films called Star Wars - that doesn't mean that historians, scientists and anyone with an iota of critical thinking believed Darth Vader was a real person
*what has Lars found in historical records ? - which historical records?
* what archery equipment is 'suited to combat' ?

John Schulz shot pretty quick , he did it in front of crowds , and with a 65# longbow ... Byron Ferguson shoots in front of crowds all the time . I don't have to apply mysterious academic techniques to understand their secrets to see if it real ... I can watch live , no edits.

Lars ludicrous claims are nothing but bull**** . I am not suggesting that he isn't good at what he does , but the rest of the historical mystery etc is nought but self serving silliness. And does little but bring in the gullible and Hunger Games fans ...


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Easykeeper said:


> Well, this thread got interesting. I kind of wish I'd been paying attention...:wink:
> 
> On the original video and Lars, what can you say but he seems to be having fun. I don't buy a lot of his historical reasoning, but history is often an exercise in interpretation. One thing I wouldn't do is put too much stock in illustrations or paintings from the ancient past. You can probably assume whoever executed the piece was not an archer; it is also well known that things like perspective and accurate anatomical rendering in two dimensions is a rather recent development.
> 
> ...


So what happened to the physics that says the string and arrow should go in a straight line? LOL


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

benofthehood said:


> Just curious -
> *What Historical research are you good at ? Which stream of academia do you pursue ?


Well, I do tend to do a lot of things with visual records, such as paintings. It requires a lot of filtering and reference to written text and physical artifacts (often only available to the casual researcher in photos). I have researched several archery topics, but usually artifacts are the most informative for what I was looking at. Particularly the Mary Rose.


> * re Hollywood and tempering steel swords - it's Hollywood - they also made films called Star Wars - that doesn't mean that historians, scientists and anyone with an iota of critical thinking believed Darth Vader was a real person


 Funny how you took that. Hollywood doesn't tend to do a lot of research. They often go with perceived common knowledge and that is not always correct.


> *what has Lars found in historical records ? - which historical records?


 Well, if you don't acknowledge that historical images have value and often contain crucial details that other sources omit then you are ignoring data that even serious academics make use of. If you want to pretend that even legends can reveal things about the practices of that culture then you might as well tell about half the historians of ancient history to give up their research. All the images in his video are historical records of value and I believe he references at least one book. So if you know better than serious historians, please, go and tell them.


> * what archery equipment is 'suited to combat' ?


Lars uses light weight equipment suited to tricks and LARP scenarios. I think it about 35 lb. For real combat, it would be a bow somewhere around 100 lb and appropriate arrowheads for the intended target and probably a lot of them. Also, since many of his techniques are, by his own admission, for horse archery, a horse trained in that type of combat.



> John Schulz shot pretty quick , he did it in front of crowds , and with a 65# longbow ... Byron Ferguson shoots in front of crowds all the time . I don't have to apply mysterious academic techniques to understand their secrets to see if it real ... I can watch live , no edits.


 If you think Lars uses mysterious techniques then you really missed it. He uses some tricks and special equipment, but all of his techniques can be reproduced from that video. And all the other trick archers I've seen videos of either edit their videos or they are really slow and boring. His video is like a syllabus for a class on his style of archery. 



> Lars ludicrous claims are nothing but bull**** . I am not suggesting that he isn't good at what he does , but the rest of the historical mystery etc is nought but self serving silliness. And does little but bring in the gullible and Hunger Games fans ...


Well, it is your right to feel that way and my right to disagree. I think his historical research has merit and his bibliography would be interesting to see, but if he is like me, researching for personal education, he may not have kept good records. I know I don't keep good records. I'm not planning on publishing anything that isn't fiction so documenting my research has never been important. I've done it on a few things, but generally what I am looking into is for personal enjoyment - the satisfaction of learning how to do something in an outdated manner. I also find it fun to pick apart historical movies. But deliberately not keeping track of sources is a far cry from not having any or not knowing how to record sources. If I had the time, I'd would offer to independently verify his findings, but since I don't have that kind of time I'll just leave it. We will just have to disagree.


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

*Wow!!!*


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

Valachi said:


>


I think those are his LARP arrows. They have all sorts of safety regulations and require specially designed arrows. Also, I think that is from a different video as those oversized nocks aren't visible in any of the shots (they are big and would be impossible to miss) and all the nocks appear to be normal.


----------



## Valachi (Jul 17, 2014)

Photoshop hides all sins.

Lars is a 51 year old photorealist artist by profession, his videos are low resolution and easy to edit.


----------



## EthanJM (Jun 11, 2012)

Robert Courtland said:


> I think those are his LARP arrows. They have all sorts of safety regulations and require specially designed arrows. Also, I think that is from a different video as those oversized nocks aren't visible in any of the shots (they are big and would be impossible to miss) and all the nocks appear to be normal.


He admitted to using wide nocks on facebook after he was called out on it by the maker of the video above. Funny how in his video he used regular nocks when he knew they would be in camera shot. I think it is one example that shows just how dishonest he really is.

Now, you're telling me you have no problem with his history lesson, and you're an academic historian? Hmm... I don't know how to respond to this.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

EthanJM said:


> He admitted to using wide nocks on facebook after he was called out on it by the maker of the video above. Funny how in his video he used regular nocks when he knew they would be in camera shot. I think it is one example that shows just how dishonest he really is.
> 
> Now, you're telling me you have no problem with his history lesson, and you're an academic historian? Hmm... I don't know how to respond to this.


He is a LARPer so I don't see why using those arrows is a problem. He also uses arrows with tennis balls on the tips. That is what they use to simulate combat. The arrows have to be safe to shoot at another person. If you cared to learn about LARP and similar types of combat simulation you'd know how normal that is and how necessary. You should look it up.

However, in this latest 5 minute video, there is no trace of him using anything but standard nocks. Every shot that has been analyzed here was made with standard archery equipment. He showed that he can shoot across a table, across a room, and across a field with equal accuracy and speed. He listed and showed sources that backed up his theory that I find acceptable and legitimate. The arguments against them show a lack of understanding about what constitutes a valid historical source. The artwork of our ancestors is filled with things that can shed light on history, even if they were not as exacting in their depiction as we are today. Historians have used such art to help unlock the secrets of battles. The Bayeux Tapestry is filled with images that help reveal lots of information about the Norman conquest. So saying his sources are not valid simply because they don't meet modern accuracy standards is ridiculous. Saying that they are not valid because he used images found on the internet is equally ridiculous. So there is nothing in that video that leads me to doubt his ability or his sources. There are things to pick apart about about his videos, just not what a lot of people are focusing on. The rebuttal I picked apart on my blog acknowledged his ability to shot and only questioned how he came to his conclusions. The guy can shoot. He is far better and more accurate than I ever was. And he is fast. I find his short draw shooting to achieve his 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds to be a cheat, but he proves elsewhere that even when he does a full draw to shoot, he is fast. The biggest problem with his video is that it seems insulting, unless you realize that he isn't talking about rewriting every existing archery manual, he is talking about writing a new one specifically for his technique. The video is called "A New Level of Archery" after all. I find the video to be very valuable. Like I called it earlier, it is a syllabus for his archery course. And when you further consider the LARPers and other reenacters out there who are his primary target audience, there is no reason for experts in traditional and Olympic archery to be offended. I don't think he expected you to be discussing it when he made the video. Maybe he'll do another one to answer the complaints.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

benofthehood said:


> * re Hollywood and tempering steel swords - it's Hollywood - they also made films called Star Wars - that doesn't mean that historians, scientists and anyone with an iota of critical thinking believed Darth Vader was a real person


NOOOOOO!

But my light saber is battle ready. It says so right on the website!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Courtland said:


> All the images in his video are historical records of value and I believe he references at least one book. So if you know better than serious historians, please, go and tell them.


Do you know any serious historians that will vouch for the information he presented? Sorry, I don't count looking at pictures exclusively  

Have you noticed that a lot of modern artwork has inaccurate technique applied by the models? What makes the past any different?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

EthanJM said:


> Now, you're telling me you have no problem with his history lesson, and you're an academic historian? Hmm... I don't know how to respond to this.


I think Robert has admitted that he's not an academic historian. He reads things he finds interesting, applies them as he imagines it best applied, and since he only publishes fiction, it doesn't really matter if they're true or not. That's fine. So long as we understand the basis of his perspective. At least he's honest about it. Cool with me.

Robert, what kind of books do you write?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Tempering steel swords...knives...or any other tool. Tempering is a "softening step". to accomplish it, more heat is applied. However, regarding hardening, which is what I think you were referring to a quench is used...we still use water...or oil...or air. It depends on the type of steel and the desired effect.

I'm not a historian but I make knives and other steel tools in a blacksmith shop. Most of the methods I use go WAY BACK, although, the formulations of steel have definitely changed.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BarneySlayer said:


> I think Robert has admitted that he's not an academic historian. He reads things he finds interesting, applies them as he imagines it best applied, and since he only publishes fiction, it doesn't really matter if they're true or not. That's fine. So long as we understand the basis of his perspective. At least he's honest about it. Cool with me.
> 
> Robert, what kind of books do you write?


If he did any reading, he would know the difference between tempering and hardening.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Robert Courtland said:


> Well, I do tend to do a lot of things with visual records, such as paintings. It requires a lot of filtering and reference to written text and physical artifacts (often only available to the casual researcher in photos). I have researched several archery topics, but usually artifacts are the most informative for what I was looking at. Particularly the Mary Rose.
> Funny how you took that. Hollywood doesn't tend to do a lot of research. They often go with perceived common knowledge and that is not always correct.
> Well, if you don't acknowledge that historical images have value and often contain crucial details that other sources omit then you are ignoring data that even serious academics make use of. If you want to pretend that even legends can reveal things about the practices of that culture then you might as well tell about half the historians of ancient history to give up their research. All the images in his video are historical records of value and I believe he references at least one book. So if you know better than serious historians, please, go and tell them.
> *With respect, I would suggest having that Lars "having studied at least one book" doesn't actually hold much weight. I would also suggest that not Only having spent a life time studying archery , competing , hunting , coaching and also running an archery business that there isn't that much new under the sun . I also spent considerable time studying History at university so am versed in historical research albeit at an undergraduate level.*
> ...


*Again with respect , his dismissal of other archery techniques , based on undocumented "research" makes him either self serving or totally incompetent in any tertiary sense. And instead of you kindly offering to verify his findings, perhaps he could just document such? If doesn't take much
Or
He could simply provide some great footage of groovy archery techniques and stop implying, inferring and suggesting all that other crap.
*


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

BarneySlayer said:


> I think Robert has admitted that he's not an academic historian. He reads things he finds interesting, applies them as he imagines it best applied, and since he only publishes fiction, it doesn't really matter if they're true or not. That's fine. So long as we understand the basis of his perspective. At least he's honest about it. Cool with me.


 I think you slightly misunderstood me. I know the proper way to research history, to find sources, compare them, arrive at a conclusion of what they say, etc. I am not employed at that and what I do is for my own education so I usually don't keep track of my sources. I like to go a step further and try to understand how things were done and, when doing so interests me, try to duplicate how things were likely done. If I don't want to do it myself, I used to try and find someone who has done it. I have gotten lazy lately and turned to YouTube and the occasional television documentary. My primary interests are pre-civil war/industrialization. That ranges from 18th century warships to the migration of humans out of Africa. I'm interested in what our species has accomplished and how. The what is easy to find in history and archaeology, the how rarely is. There are a lot of crackpot theories out there and unless they are tested it is hard to know which one might be right. How they built the pyramids and Stonehenge draw a high number of theories, but few bother to test them. The ones that do tests have some interesting ideas. One of my favorite areas is ancient Egypt. Anyone who studies ancient Egypt will know just how valuable images are. We know so much more about Egypt than other ancient cultures because their art has survived.



> Robert, what kind of books do you write?


Epic fantasy with minimal magic. My interest in history tends to keep my stories more grounded in reality. I love creating other worlds and developing cultures and languages using what I have learned from our own history. It is a fun way to tell a story.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

MGF said:


> Tempering steel swords...knives...or any other tool. Tempering is a "softening step". to accomplish it, more heat is applied. However, regarding hardening, which is what I think you were referring to a quench is used...we still use water...or oil...or air. It depends on the type of steel and the desired effect.
> 
> I'm not a historian but I make knives and other steel tools in a blacksmith shop. Most of the methods I use go WAY BACK, although, the formulations of steel have definitely changed.


That isn't a topic I've read much on. What I know comes from friends who are very into metalworking. I've always heard the entire process called tempering, not just the heating phase. But you make my point. You use different things to quench based on the desired effect. Hollywood always uses water. Several friends of mine had studied sword making and found several sources that specified a trough of oil for quenching a sword because from the size of the blade water would be too abrupt and it needed to be slower and more even so they recommended oil. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but that is what I recall.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert, we are all armchair historians and scientists. That's called life more than it's called a discipline, though it really is one.

In this thread of conversation alone, you have learned a lot about arrow dynamics, Kyudo archery, and blacksmith work.

What I have always found is that when you walk into a room of smart people from all walks of life and disciplines, you stand to gain even far more knowledge if you don't come as the professor but more as the student. IOW, listen more and speak less.

Though, this thread started from a more defensive angle, with you being drawn into it by a challenge to your blog, the invite is still open for you to stay on as a member and discuss some archery. You might even find a few informative things. Like, some experts of the Mary Rose bows, folks who have studied them by actually being the same room with them, can frequent place like these. IOW, this place is more where hands on is the norm. For example, I started a study in learning to flintknapp. I quickly found that one of the worlds leading experts on early stone tools was a good member here and made contact with him. Actually, he messaged me as first contact to offer some information.


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

benofthehood said:


> *Again with respect , his dismissal of other archery techniques , based on undocumented "research" makes him either self serving or totally incompetent in any tertiary sense. And instead of you kindly offering to verify his findings, perhaps he could just document such? If doesn't take much
> Or
> He could simply provide some great footage of groovy archery techniques and stop implying, inferring and suggesting all that other crap.
> *


Yeah, he does come across as dismissive, but he really isn't. It results from a poor choice of words. He is trying to say that if you want to achieve what his sources (that Arab book of archery and who knows what else) say was possible by ancient archers, that you have to forget modern techniques and seek a different technique. He thinks he found it. His style isn't really appropriate for modern target archery. It is melee combat techniques that only a few groups today would find useful. It would have been very useful in the ancient world, but today it is only that one niche that would find this useful other than as a curiosity. And that really is his target audience.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Lots of images of Egyptian archery show the bow drawn over the archers head. Back quivers, side quivers, no quiver - take your pick, post it on youtube and call it "research".
Seems legit..

Here's Tut, "hunting the hard way"

View attachment 2165318


----------



## Robert Courtland (Feb 17, 2015)

Sanford said:


> Robert, we are all armchair historians and scientists. That's called life more than it's called a discipline, though it really is one.
> 
> In this thread of conversation alone, you have learned a lot about arrow dynamics, Kyudo archery, and blacksmith work.
> 
> ...


Very good points. I'm afraid I approach every conversation like this as my family has always tackled conversations at family gatherings. We throw things out, discuss them, expound on them, and end up agreeing or agreeing to disagree. They can often get quite heated but rarely result in hard feelings. Age has tempered me a bit. I feel that when you stop learning you might as well stop talking. Even an expert professor can learn from their students and I would consider myself more a student than a professor. There are new discoveries every year that challenge old beliefs and I try not to dismiss them without giving them a fair hearing. I think that is my perception of how Lars' video has been taken so I'm not posting from the position that he is right, only that he should get heard fairly.

And when it comes to the archery finds on the Mary Rose, I am an eager student. I know very little, just enough to know the finds were incredible.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Courtland said:


> Very good points. I'm afraid I approach every conversation like this as my family has always tackled conversations at family gatherings. We throw things out, discuss them, expound on them, and end up agreeing or agreeing to disagree. They can often get quite heated but rarely result in hard feelings. Age has tempered me a bit. I feel that when you stop learning you might as well stop talking. Even an expert professor can learn from their students and I would consider myself more a student than a professor. There are new discoveries every year that challenge old beliefs and I try not to dismiss them without giving them a fair hearing. I think that is my perception of how Lars' video has been taken so I'm not posting from the position that he is right, only that he should get heard fairly.
> 
> And when it comes to the archery finds on the Mary Rose, I am an eager student. I know very little, just enough to know the finds were incredible.


We sound a lot alike in that regards. Have you ever heard of that show, "S*** My Dad Says" ? Well, that's the family joke on me during family time 

You have a thick enough skin, hang around. I know I quickly found that seriously starting archery at my later age, there are folks here that have decades of study that I have not time left to ever explore. Doesn't mean I can't throw my hat in, just that my skin better be tough and tight if I'm wrong.

Hang around and enjoy the ride. BTW, we have some members here that are serious SCA practitioners, and they seem to meld real well with what is talked about here as topics. This Lars thing is just an anomalously new ride around here.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Robert Courtland said:


> That isn't a topic I've read much on. What I know comes from friends who are very into metalworking. I've always heard the entire process called tempering, not just the heating phase. But you make my point. You use different things to quench based on the desired effect. Hollywood always uses water. Several friends of mine had studied sword making and found several sources that specified a trough of oil for quenching a sword because from the size of the blade water would be too abrupt and it needed to be slower and more even so they recommended oil. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but that is what I recall.


The entire process is called "heat treating". Tempering is a specific step in heat treating.

Hollywood is just entertainment.


----------



## K3N5 (Feb 3, 2015)

Good informative reading thus far. Another very ancient but yet very complicated craft is sailing. You might think that with all our modern technology we would by now have figured it out fully how a sailboat or sailing ship works, but as it is, the physics of sails is very complicated with a lot of debate still going on. I find it interesting how two such ancient human crafts, archery and sailing, are on the one hand so simple yet on the other hand, so complex.


----------

