# Howard Hill Hype



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Steve - 

I couldn't find them either when I looked a few years ago. I think the number is factual, but I'd be more interested in what his scores were to see how they compare with what's being shot today. Field rounds, unlike 3D, have a pretty consistently defined course of fire, so the comparison is more 1:1.

If anybody has a link, or the info, it would be interesting.

Viper1 out.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I know the scoring faces have changed since those days, I assume the distances are the same?

I would be interested to know how those scores compared to todays rounds.


No disrespect meant to Howard, he inspired me to take up Archery after I reading his biography and he is still one of the greatest but as the years pass fact and fiction seem to blend and I'm really interested in the facts.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> It's been claimed Howard won 196 Field tourneys in a Row.


If in fact it is fact...which I personally prefer to believe until proven otherwise....my guess...is that they are local tournaments and not large sanctioned tournaments...especially if you can't find any or very many records.

I know I've won many local 3D tournaments and you would probably have a hard time finding documentation proving it...especially if you were to research it some 30yrs. later.

I also would love to find out what his average scores were. I think it's fun to compare scores with some of archery greats like yourself.

Ray :wink:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I think it's fun to compare scores with some of archery greats like yourself.
> 
> Ray :wink:


They're great shooters like Howard Hill and people who shot great scores, I've shot some great scores but to become a great shooter like Howard I think you need something more than just shooting skill.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> They're great shooters like Howard Hill and people who shot great scores, I've shot some great scores but to become a great shooter like Howard I think you need something more than just shooting skill.


Yep...when you combine a great shooter with a big personality/charisma...you're gonna have an archer not too many people will soon forget.

Ray :wink:


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

I'd be more than inclined to believe it.

During Hill's years there was no such thing as organized archery as we know it -- organized to a degree yes, but not the record keeping and numbers of archers now.


----------



## AKRuss (Jan 10, 2003)

A lot of Hill's accomplishments seem nearly humanly impossible, however, I'm inclined to not question them as so many were observed and recorded by others. You may be reading into things a bit. I think the wins were when he shot, not consecutive sanctioned events, and likely occurred over a fairly long period of time. If I wanted to investigate the claim, I'd start with his home Alabama Field Archery Association.


----------



## Bubba Dean (Jun 2, 2005)

Ok(let the flaming start now) Howard Hill wins 196 consecutive archery tournaments. Let analyze this. As Steve stated there is no record of Howard Hill winning a single national title. So we are to assume that those tournament were of the more local or state variety. During the time period that he would have done this...possibly 1920's through the 1940's, America was not the mechanized society it is today. That is to say that nearly no one got in the car and drove 300 miles to shoot an archery tournament. Heck alot of people in American didn't even have a car. Airline travel was out because only the "rich" could fly in those days. So where does that leave Howard????? Most likely the shoots that he won were shoots that were very close to where he lived, probably at the same 2 or 3 clubs. Now think of yourself today.....if you were a pretty good archer(especially shooting trad with the low turnouts of today) how long would it take you to win a bunch of shoots when you shoot at the same places where you are the best???? I mean no disrespect to Howard Hill I am just trying to look at this with logic instead of some type of fantasy hero worship.


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

To me, the proof is in the pudding. It's not like we don't have video evidence of his prowess.

Anyone read his bio? Was there anything included (listing his titles)?

I've found that "usually"....when we hear of someone of his stature's skills......there's typically a LOT of truth to it.

I'll give him (his legacy) the benefit of the doubt (until proven, otherwise).


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

He lists nothing in his bio

I'd be inclined to think they would have been between 1910-1930s? That would put him between 19-39 years old.

I could have sworn they were over 7 years time period. He also did a TON of hunting, and again if memory serves has killed more game than any other bowhunter in recorded history.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I can't remember where, but I recall reading a long explanation of Hill's tournament forays. What it amounted to was that Hill was shooting mostly small-scale tournaments, nothing on a seriously national level. He then used a few quotes from Hill's writing on how he prefered target shooting to "keep his eye sharp for hunting" and then a few where Hill actually extolled the use of light weight recurves and Point of Aim shooting as superior to his hunting methods on targets and how they were for much more "serious target work".

All in all it seemed just like Ray said- he was a good shot, but nothing that would have gotten him any actual tournament titles. Personally I thought it made alot of sense, but certainly didn't tarnish his reputation in my opinion. He was a hunter and showman foremost, and made a point to make that clear.


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

From the Alabama sports hall of fame

"He won 196 consecutive field archery tournaments between 1926 and 1942"


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Bubba Dean said:


> Ok(let the flaming start now) Howard Hill wins 196 consecutive archery tournaments. Let analyze this. As Steve stated there is no record of Howard Hill winning a single national title. So we are to assume that those tournament were of the more local or state variety. During the time period that he would have done this...possibly 1920's through the 1940's, America was not the mechanized society it is today. That is to say that nearly no one got in the car and drove 300 miles to shoot an archery tournament. Heck alot of people in American didn't even have a car. Airline travel was out because only the "rich" could fly in those days. So where does that leave Howard????? Most likely the shoots that he won were shoots that were very close to where he lived, probably at the same 2 or 3 clubs. Now think of yourself today.....if you were a pretty good archer(especially shooting trad with the low turnouts of today) how long would it take you to win a bunch of shoots when you shoot at the same places where you are the best???? I mean no disrespect to Howard Hill I am just trying to look at this with logic instead of some type of fantasy hero worship.


No flaming going to come from me....because...that's pretty much how I see it and I still have as much respect for his abilities and accomplishments as I did before.

IMO, it's still quite an achievement.

Ray :wink:


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

For me his legend is enough, He has accomplished enough for traditional archery. Reading about his exploits as a kid motivated me to pursue shooting a longbow. His bow design still appeals to me, have one being delivered in two weeks.

The videos available make enough of a statement of his abilities. Is it his fault that he probably shot in more local shoots vs national contests. I have also shot in numerous shoots, some even including olympic hopefuls. I doubt very much if you can find any documentation.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

steve morley said:


> I know the scoring faces have changed since those days, I assume the distances are the same?
> 
> I would be interested to know how those scores compared to todays rounds.


With respect to NFAA; not only have the target faces changed, but the scoring as well. In addition, the original NFAA field rounds (1930's) were at unmarked yardage even though the rounds were standardized. For those reasons, NFAA field rounds from Howard's day and today are far from a 1-1 comparison. The American Round would be a better gauge to comapre historical scroes to those of today.


----------



## JWT (Jan 3, 2006)

Howard hill did that in the early 30's so I guess it depends how far past wwII the records go... Robin Hood was filmed in 34.


----------



## BowmanJay (Jan 1, 2007)

yeah the thing that many forget is that he was using much less in the way of technology that we all shoot in our bows today. I dont really care what the numbers turn out to be I dont know any other archers that equal his prowess.....


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

LongStick64 said:


> For me his legend is enough, He has accomplished enough for traditional archery. Reading about his exploits as a kid motivated me to pursue shooting a longbow. His bow design still appeals to me, have one being delivered in two weeks.
> 
> The videos available make enough of a statement of his abilities. Is it his fault that he probably shot in more local shoots vs national contests. I have also shot in numerous shoots, some even including olympic hopefuls. I doubt very much if you can find any documentation.


Longstick64 it was the same for me, after reading about Howard it inspired me to take up Archery, nobody is questioning his ability, and just trying to find what is fiction and fact. When a story is passed on and retold, each time it's exaggerated a little.

I think if you take the whole package Bowhunting, Trick and Tourney shooting I doubt their will ever be another Howard Hill but on the tourney side I think today it wouldn't be quite so easy to win against some of the top Tourney Field shooters in the world.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Steve,
I think the advantage of technology puts us way ahead of most archers of the past. The utilization of dvd's, boards such as this, video replay of our own form and the overall mass of communication of the subject allow us to develop and adopt skills in a shorter duration. That being said, there is nothing to compare to God given natural skill, which I think is what seperates most of us from Howard Hill. 
The part of tournament shooting which you above most of us can attest to is the mental side of the game. Howard Hill took 3 African Elephants with a bow, I doubt severly if he suffered an ill's shooting paper. He was blessed with god given talent and one tough hombre.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I shoot various tourney rounds (IFAA Field, 3D, Indoor 300 and Fita 3D) and I come across Archers that focus on just one type of round, Larry Yien being a good example of just shooting Field rounds or some of the IBO greats dont shoot Field rounds, these guys stick to just one discipline I find they're quite hard to outshoot and think Howard would also. 

If I stuck to one shooting discipline like Field rounds maybe I would do better but I enjoy the challenge of taking on these guys and it's kinda fun mixing it up.

I was talking with Frank Addington, Jr on another Forum, said to him that I doubt that I would ever get to shoot his skill level on trick shots, I asked how he would fair at tourney shooting and he said he does ok but nothing special.

This is what I think makes Howard so great as he was such a good all rounder with his Bowhunting, Trick shooting and Tourney Field shooting, I dont think anybody has or will achieve his skill level on 3 very different types of shooting, without a doubt he was the greatest Bowhunter and trick shooter of his time but his Field shooting might have been a closer run against the best in the USA, just speculation but maybe this why he never shot National tourneys, when you tour the country doing shows as the best Archer in the world, a small but remote possablity of losing a National Field tourney may have not been worth the risk for him.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Longstick and Steve,

Couldn't agree more with both of your last posts! :thumbs_up

Ray :wink:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Long, et al - 

One other point about Mr Hill that's often forgotten. For most of his active career he was under contract to Warner Bros. That means a couple of things. First, if he wanted high speed videos for his technique (high speed for the time anyway) he could have gotten it in a heartbeat. 

Regarding the "one tough hombre", I'm sure he was, but WB wasn't about to put a piece of their property in danger without enough safeguards. So a lot of those "movies" were just that - movies and I don't think they let Howie out without sufficient backup. Ditto for the publicity that WB gave him, it promoted both HIM and ARCHERY. A win/win situation.

Regarding the 196 wins, again, I think that's an accurate number - but then there's the question why did he stop competing? The press release was that he was more interested in hunting than target shooting. THAT doesn't ring true, there's no reason for not doing both. How about this for a reason: as time went by and archery became more popular and organized, the competition got better. Neither Hill nor WB wanted there to be someone, ANYONE, who could have claimed to be the man who beat Hill. In effect, Hill saw that coming and got out.

Regarding the excuses that Hill used inferior equipment (by today's standards) or the matches weren't scored the same, that really doesn't require a reply. Think a lot of us have an idea about the "changes" over the years and conclusions can still be drawn. 

Steve - you may be right, there we won't see another "Howard Hill" anytime soon, but it's not because of a lack of talent. The time and the media draws just ain't right. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> Regarding the 196 wins, again, I think that's an accurate number - but then there's the question why did he stop competing? The press release was that he was more interested in hunting than target shooting. THAT doesn't ring true, there's no reason for not doing both.
> Viper1 out.


Time out.

If I recall correctly, you haven't bowhunted in over 30 years. You did it for a few seasons back in the 70s, never killed anything, lost interest, and walked away from it. 

So even in your case, there's a reason for not doing both: lack of interest. It's the same reason that I haven't carried an NFAA handicap card in nearly 15 years.


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

Wasn't Hill a long-haul driver at some point? I think I remember hearing this. If it's true it would certainly be plausible that Howard shot in any number of local tournaments around the country during his travels. 

I shot indoor 2D leagues 7-8 years ago at Whiffen archery in Milwaukee. I know Grant Whiffen, whose father is in the archery hall of fame, talked about Howard, Bear, Pearson and other greats coming into the shop and shooting. I'll have to ask him next time I see him if he knows about Howards field shooting exploits.

Also, I think Jason is probably right about the lack of interest. I would think that after shooting in hundreds of shoots with the same format it would get old after a while... especially if you never lose.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Viper
As far as backup on a dangerous hunt, find me someone today who goes for Grizzly, Lion, Buffalo, etc without a guide with a rifle. No doubt Howard had backup, I would consider him an idiot if he didn't. That in no way takes away from the challenge involved in that style hunt. Give they guy some credit for going out there. There are plenty of chances for things to go terribly wrong, we don't control Mother Nature. I'm pretty sure Howard had a world of respect for the environment he hunted in.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Long -

Of course things can go wrong, and neither Hill nor the WB staff were idiots. Still there's still a world of difference between hunting dangerous game with an armed guide or two and having a full camera crew standing around. Not detracting from what he was doing, but those pictures didn't take themselves and lot of the footage was staged. That makes about as much sense as Hill "losing interest" in target shooting, especially since it was evolving at the time he bowed out. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical, but just doesn't fly that he would drop out completely, as in the old saying - quit while you're on top is pretty good for PR, he would have been an "idiot" not to. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

So let's not just label Howard as a hollywood star, we have entire channels dedicated to putting on "staged" hunts. I just don't see how we can critisize the guy because he filmed his hunts. It's all part of getting the message out. Without Football on TV, would you have been interested in playing. Much of what we do for recreation is based on what we watch. Is that a bad thing. 

Who's next. Let's start with Fred Bear, hmm he filmed his hunts, were they staged ? Did Mr. Bear do anything for traditional archery, safe to say he sold enough bows to make a living. And as far as Howard Hill Longbows, they have been in business of over 40 years. So someone still appreciates his vision.


----------



## Bubba Dean (Jun 2, 2005)

One of the things about Hill that always made me wonder is the number of "animals" he shot. If you do a search you will find a listing of everything he shot from reptiles to elephants. I am amazed that someone would remember how many of anything they shot. Myself I have been deer hunting for nearly 40 years and could not tell you how many deer I have killed. I suppose many of you are the same yet Hill has the number of snakes and lizards he has killed. It would be easy to remember the number of say elephants you kill in your life but not birds,snakes, lizards, fish etc. Seems to me this is just another example of the promotion of Howard Hill by WB or by himself. None of us here are "famous" enough to have a publicist and don't know what kind of control one would have over them. So maybe Howard just got caught up in the machine that was WB.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

LongStick64,

I agree. To try to label Howard (not "Howie") Hill as anything short of an exceptionally accomplished bowhunter is bit disingenuous, if not outright ludicrous. 

http://www.howardhillarchery.com/the-legends-story-2.html



> The following is a partial list compiled from Howard's field notes showing his BOW & ARROW KILLS:
> 
> GAME KILLED IN AFRICA
> 
> ...


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Bubba Dean,

I understand what you're saying, but Hill kept very detailed field notes. I know a lot of hunters who do the same, myself included. I can go through my notes and tell you exactly how many animals I killed any given year, from big game all the way down to carp. For most of those animals (carp excluded), I could also tell you the exact time of day I shot them and the weather conditions on those dates.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Bubba, Steve -

What it comes down to is that some people need hero worship or need to exploit it to justify their choices and some can actually see things for what they are. I've never said anything against Hill, Bear or anyone who actually helped promote archery, past or present. The difference is that some of us aren't blinded by the press releases.

Viper1 out.


----------



## alanraw (Feb 18, 2005)

LongStick64 said:


> So let's not just label Howard as a hollywood star, we have entire channels dedicated to putting on "staged" hunts. I just don't see how we can critisize the guy because he filmed his hunts. It's all part of getting the message out. Without Football on TV, would you have been interested in playing. Much of what we do for recreation is based on what we watch. Is that a bad thing.
> 
> Who's next. Let's start with Fred Bear, hmm he filmed his hunts, were they staged ? Did Mr. Bear do anything for traditional archery, safe to say he sold enough bows to make a living. *And as far as Howard Hill Longbows, they have been in business of over 40 years. So someone still appreciates his vision.*


Is that _truly_ "appreciating someone's vision"...or simply pimping their name?


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

No that's called making a living and as far as I know that's quite alright in the USA.

Sorry Viper, big mistake of yours to call it Hero Worship, it's called respect of the past, nothing wrong with that in my book.

Personally my choice in equipment might of been in direct disagreement with Mr. Howard Hill. So that's is clearly not the reason for my choice.


----------



## Bubba Dean (Jun 2, 2005)

Let me repeat........I mean no disrespect to Howard Hill. I believe he was an exceptional archer, a wonderful showman and a great promoter of the sport of archery. However, he was not perfect nor was he a "god" like some folks make him out to be. It is interesting when looking at the list of his kills(I know game laws have changed over the years) but look at how many critters on his list would get you jail time today.

What Viper said about him quitting while he was on top is true. No matter who you are or what you do there will always be someone who comes along and is better. Look at athletes today. How many have made "comebacks" only to soil their reputation. Just look at boxing......Rocky Marciano retired undefeated. Muhammad Ali (arguably one of greats of all time) how much bigger would his legacy be if he retired before the first Ken Norton fight? You see it all the time a guy comes back for one more year and is just a shadow of his former self(exception is Brett Favre).

It is kinda sad for me to see some of the folks in "traditional" archery so caught up with the past they do not see the present. They are so busy praising the "Legends" of the past that they never see the "Legends" of the present. While Hill and others made their reputation in field archery today's archer has more arenas to show their talent. Few of us had the pleasure to see Hill, Bear, Pearson etc shoot in person but we do have the opportunity to see the new "Legends" shoot. Go out to one of the tournaments around the country and see what this generation of shooters can do. I think you will be surprised.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> I've never said anything against Hill, Bear or anyone who actually helped promote archery, past or present.
> Viper1 out.


“TWEET!” Flag on the play.

In post #23 of this thread you danced on the edge of calling Hill a liar for saying that he stopped shooting competitively because he lost interest in it in favor of bowhunting. You then rejected his stated reasons for you own, unfounded and contradictory theory.

You’ve repeatedly referred to Fred Bear as being a lousy archer, even though he won three state archery championships. As I recall, the reason you gave for his titles was something about a lack of competition. Of course, a few weeks ago you commended him on his target shooting abilities when you were trying to make some kind of a point about today’s traditional bowhunters.

You’ve also been very less than flattering when it came to Byron Ferguson’s shooting abilities—his shots are staged, set up, nothing special about them.


----------



## longbow billy (May 19, 2008)

Ah, it never fails every so often, someone has to get on the Internet and throw a veiled challenge at Howard Hill record. Most times citing their own performance and the implied I have done that well or I could do that well...all the while jumping up and down yelling LOOK AT ME!!!!!

I love the consistency:thumbs_up


----------



## lazy ike (Oct 19, 2009)

I don't know all the facts about Howards 196 tournaments.,but who do any of us know that have won 196 local 3D shoots over a 14 year period. Even if your only shooting against the same 10 or 15 people , odds are you're going to have an off day!! I'll bet none of us know anyone that has won 50 local archery tourney's in a row.
Also , from things I have read and old footage I've watched I think there was a LOT of participation in archery shoots in the 30's and 40's. So I would guess that there were at least a few shoots that had a lot of competitors.
Oh yeah, one more thing , he did his shooting with 80 to 90 lb bows.
If he Really did win 196, with no losses, it's nothing short of astounding!!!


Ike


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

If the Howard Hill legacy is merely legend, I would of thought by now that there would of been at least one mention of contrary opinion from someone, anyone who saw Howard Hill shoot in person or in tournament. The fact remains of many who either hunted or shot with Howard Hill, speak glowingly of his ability.

I'm not about to say that everything written about him is 100% true to fact, I just don't see any information to the contrary. So i'm willing to accept the possibility.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Bubba

How is it that you infer that if someone respects a past legend they are not aware of current shooters. Doesn't make much sense to me. If you are involved and have a passion for traditional archery you can't help but know it's history and of course participate in local/national shoots or bowhunting.


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

Having played D1 college baseball......I always love hearing all the guys say "I could have played in college if..........................".

I may be seeing this all wrong, but I think we all need to give the man his due respect. And, he's due it (for many reasons).


----------



## Bubba Dean (Jun 2, 2005)

Longstick

I say that because when this subject has come up on other forums I have been told that "the greats are all gone". As I said few of us actually got to see Hill, Bear or Pearson shoot in person most of us have only seen the films(thank God that someone took them so we can actually see these great men). Today we have the opportunity to see the Hills, Bears & Pearsons of our time. Yet not that many folks give the shooters of today much credit. It is as if the only reason someone achieves what they do today is because of the quality of the equipment not the quality of the shooter. Take Steve Morley for example, he is one of the top longbow field shooters in the world today. Yet few would give him the credit he deserves because he is not Howard Hill and "there will only be one Howard Hill". Like I said in an earlier response you have Rocky Marciano who retired undefeated and you have Muhammad Ali who lost a couple of fights. Who was better???? By record it would have been Marciano but IF the two actual could have fought who knows??? Same with archery you have the records and achievements of the Legends and you have the records and achievements of the guys of today, who is better??? There is no way to truthfully tell because of the differences in the eras that they shot in.


----------



## Aspirin Buster (Mar 25, 2004)

*My two cents on this subject..*

Howdy gang....

I am regretful that I never got to meet or see Howard Hill shoot. I did however know Fred Bear well and have photos of him doing an exhibition but I never saw him perform. He once told me the story of how he got started doing exhibitions which was an amazing story.I will write about that another time.

However, I have seen Ann Clark, Rev. Stacy Groscup, Byron Ferguson perform and shoot. I have met Byron Tabor, Randy Oitker, and Bob Markworth but have not seen their shows. 
All of these are or were great people with talent. Each has their own "signature shot".

I think that you have to cut some slack to anyone who stands on stage for others to watch (judge) their shooting. Think about this... you know how some days in your backyard when you are shooting and can't miss? That would be awesome to shoot like that in front of crowds. However, you know those days when you just are in a slump? Maybe your bow is out of tune, maybe you just can't concentrate, or maybe you just have a bad day. Now picture yourself on stage in front of people on one of these days. We all have them. How would that feel?

I have been on stage for 25 years this year. I have done some amazing feats in front of crowds. A few years ago at the National Pope & Young national convention I had a pretty good day. But I have also had some shows where I couldn't hit a 55 galloon drum in mid air and yet I went on stage and performed. When you are under contract there are no excuses, you perform.

Remember that Theodore Roosevelt said it isn't the critic that counts but the man (or woman in some cases) in the arena. Cut these performers a little slack. It is a great way to make a living but it also has it's challenges. 

Whether it's Fred Bear, Rev. Stacy Groscup, or Howard Hill, all of these heroes have had a positive impact on our sport. There are heroes still around. I am sure there are kids out there that look up to Randy Oitker, and those that think Byron Ferguson is the greatest. I think that's cool.

My hero shooting wise was Stacy Groscup. That man was amazing. So we all have heroes and role models.

That is my two cents worth. I will be on stage this weekend performing. Let's hope it's a good day... haha.

Shoot Straight,
Frank


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

WHy do we need to compare archers from different eras? Honest question.

Bobby Jones was an absolute incredible golfer. Would Tiger have done as much with hickory shafts and putting on sand/bermuda greens? Who knows? Would Bobby have excelled with steel/graphite shafts and today's technological advancements in heads? 

ALL I need to know is.....they were the best in their era. That's enough!


----------



## mt-dew07 (Jan 10, 2007)

*Great Post*

Mr. Addington,

Thank you for the very informative post. I agree, it is so easy to render judgment on great shooters w/out actually looking in ones 'own back yard'. As far as I'm concerned, people shouldn't bash those that are dead and gone. Who knows maybe they were good as others say they were, or maybe even better?

To that regard, I hope someday to see either you or Mr. Ferguson perform.


----------



## aggiegoddess (Aug 12, 2009)

*A tourney is a tournement*

A club tournement ie a club Shoot would qualify Howard


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Aspirin Buster said:


> I think that you have to cut some slack to anyone who stands on stage for others to watch (judge) their shooting. Think about this... you know how some days in your backyard when you are shooting and can't miss? That would be awesome to shoot like that in front of crowds. However, you know those days when you just are in a slump? Maybe your bow is out of tune, maybe you just can't concentrate, or maybe you just have a bad day. Now picture yourself on stage in front of people on one of these days. We all have them. How would that feel?
> 
> Shoot Straight,
> Frank


I did a Trick shoot demo in the middle of Estonia's Capital, leading up to the day I was on fire, just couldn't miss, on the day it was very poor, the crowds didn't notice but I did, afterwards I was interviewed by Tv crew and they asked several questions one of them being why do I do Archery, I gave the standard answers but because of my performance I was so tempted to say "Because I like to torture myself" but I knew that only another Archer would truly uderstand what I was feeling.

It's a shame the topic drifted off the subject of his Field wins and degraded slightly, I have nothing but respect for Howard, it's an amazing winning streak even if no National\State champs were included, even if I dropped National and International tourneys I doubt that I would be able to get close to that number of wins.

I think todays tourneys are tougher, more archers attend from greater distances making it very difficult to rise to the status of our past hero's. With IBO\ASA in America and IFAA\Fita mostly in the rest of the world we still have this devide of great shooters on both sides of the pond that will likely never get to compete against each other on the international tourney circuit.

Howard is my hero not because he killed a load of animals or won a lots of tourneys, it's because like so many others he inspired me to pick up the Bow.


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

> I think todays tourneys are tougher, more archers attend from greater distances making it very difficult to rise to the status of our past hero's. With IBO\ASA in America and IFAA\Fita mostly in the rest of the world we still have this devide of great shooters on both sides of the pond that will likely never get to compete against each other on the international tourney circuit.


Again....we could compare this to golf. Does Tom Watson's record of British Open championships mean he was better at the tournament than Byron Nelson? When Byron was in his hay-day, the tournament prize (1st place) wouldn't cover the expenses incurred to just GET THERE (from the US). 

The contestants of any era are exposed to the same technology. ALL of them. If a competitor rises to the top in his given era, it's pretty safe to say he would have done so in ANY era.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JV NC said:


> The contestants of any era are exposed to the same technology. ALL of them. If a competitor rises to the top in his given era, it's pretty safe to say he would have done so in ANY era.


The contestants may be exposed to the same technology, but they need to compete in venues with each other. The best Oly rig might help me win all my local shoots, and make me the A#1 shooter for my area, but the "top" shooter still remains ill-defined.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I think there's a point of middle ground we all need to reach. Looking upon archers who've excelled in the sport, it's very easy to pick at their flaws. Well of course, they're only human. One should give them their due respect, as archery is much more a matter of *personal *choices and satisfaction than fitting the mold. Come now, there are easily thousands of molds, and many of which have been broken!

At the same time, however, it's very easy to get swept up in believing that they were infallible or almost god-like in some instances. I've met several people who've talked of nothing but the past, trying to imitate others to a "T" in the hopes it will make _them_ a better shot. I know because I'm just as guilty!

I originally tried to improve my shooting by imitating Hill. Well, I'm not Mr. Hill. I've terrible vision, a very bad concentration issues, and I am NOT a natural athlete! In trying to be a better shot on wing targets I tried to imitate Hill and Ferguson's tecniques. Didn't work. I finally started improving my static success by using proper form... the style of shooting that takes advantage of bassic human geometry. Well, I had that! The final shift in my mentallity away from trying to emulate the greats actually came from signing up to do a trick show for my school's talent show (ironic, huh?) I needed to practice my routine and that's what I did. When I finally got a video of myself shooting (to time the 'show') I realized that I wasn't shooting like any of the wing shooting trick-archers I had watched- but that was the only way I could do it! When it finally came time for the show, my target fell apart right before the curtain openned up by fellow students and a roll of duct tape to the rescue. I was shaking like a leaf thanks to that. The show went on however, and for the finally I was able to shoot a ping pong ball out of the air with an arrow... on the third try, but still:lol:. At that point I realized two things: 1. that emulating other's style wasn't going to get my shooting anywhere and 2. that it doesn't matter if they are perfect or not, anyone who's involved like that, or hunting, or targets, is worthy of respect because they're doing something quite difficult- and something they love to boot.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Kegan 

I agree with you that many have copied their "heroes" form in an attempt to duplicate their success. I don't have all of the statistics if it worked but it is safe to say that there is someone out there that shoots better than you and if that form works for you, so much the better. Like you I tried the Hill method of shooting, the Asbell swing draw, Freb Bear snap etc, none of them felt right. I finally watched Rod Jenkins shoot and found that it worked real well for me.

So I don't think it is such a bad idea of Hero Worship as long as you can quantify it by your success. I would imagine there are many who have read Vipers book and would love to imitate his style based on the implied success he has had and the pedigree asociated with his publication. Nothing wrong with that. If it works well for you, adopt it.

I really appreciated the coments made by the Wensel brothers in the Masters of the Barebw DVD, where they acknowledge the variety of methods used and the benefit of exploring each with an open mind.


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

> The contestants may be exposed to the same technology, but they need to compete in venues with each other.


Isn't (I have no idea....having never shot these) that what NFAA scoring is supposed to eliminate?


----------



## longbowguy (Nov 14, 2004)

Working from memory here, from his own books and a couple written about him by close associates. But I could look it up if need be. Hill is credited with setting up the first 'field archery' course, in El Segundo, California, in 1934,on the coast just south of the Los Angeles airport. He also figured in setting up the Pasadena Roving Archers field course in Pasadena, near the Rose Bowl in 1935. In 1942 the standard two 14 target field course distances and protocols, with walk ups, fans, etc were set up. Those courses still exist. Howard Hills string of victories would likely have started around then. 
The field archery sport spread throughout California and the western states, where most archery clubs maintain two to four 14 target field ranges to this day. So plenty of top competition would have been available in the west in those days and it was the center of the sport until it became popular in the eastern states, mainly in the 1950s and 60s. 

Hill's success evidently became something of a problem to the extent that some competitors would decline to compete if he was entered. I have read of this in the writing of Hill himself and a couple of other sources, as I recall. And Hill indicated that he quit competing in part because he thought this situation was harming the sport he largely developed and which he loved. 

He recorded some of his top scores but they cannot be directly compared with modern ones because the targets were changed in 1976. This was partly to accomodate the greater accuracy of the bowsighted compounds that were becoming popular and partly in response the abortive move toward metric measurement that was going on then, at the time of our nation's bicentennial. 

Up until then what is now the four ring scored five points, and the center point was just an aiming reference and scored no more. You were not actually expected to hit it regularly with a stickbow, though it was found that the pulley-pullers, with their bowsights and mechanical releases often could. 

I reckon that the target change was worth about 40 points. So a 250 score on the old target would be about 210 today, give or take. Some top hands with target recurves and aluminum arrows could score that barebow. I have done that well, and better,recently, with my target recurves, on good days. 

To my knowledge only one man has scored over 200 in major competition, an Australian in the world championships a few years ago, with a longbow and wooden arrows. Interestingly, I believe he used a Howard Hill style longbow of hunting weight. Larry Yien set a world longbow record with a more modern longbow with an average of around 184 as I recall on the field and hunter courses, a few years ago. Double those scores to get an approximation of the 28 target equivalent and you have around 400 for the Aussie archer and 368 for Larry's record. 

In his biography of Mr. Hill, Craig Ekin of Howard Hill Archery, authorized manufacturer of Hill bows, reports Hill's best 28 target field scores as 409, 427 and 434. Subtract 80 points from those for my estimate of the difference in scores from the old and the new targets and you have 329, 347 and 354. Some of us hereabouts have done better in practice if my adjustment to the scores is fair. Those figures came from a letter written by Mr. Hill in 1960, where he also reported American Rounds of 672, 681 and 684. I have not approached those scores with a longbow and wooden arrows, though I have tried. I think my best may have been in the 640s. 

It always dismays me to see how willing lesser and ignorant men are to disparage the accomplishments of great men of another time. I will add in the text of a post I placed on the leatherwall sight that I believe to be accurate. 

Regarding Howard Hills record: His 196 field wins without a loss were in field archery. I have heard reports that he was defeated in similar events with broadheads. And he seems not to have competed much in formal target archery, in part I am sure because the winning method at the time involved the under the chin target anchor and the 'point of aim' method of aiming. He advocated against both throughout his career for hunting, general sport, exhibition and field archery. He did explain and demonstrate the target method in one of his books and one of his short films. 

His best skill seems clearly to have been in the most dynamic sorts of archery, exhibition shooting on movers and fliers, and many years of stunt shooting for motion pictures, including shooting padded stunt men at the gallop. And certainly no man has or likely ever will approach his record of around 3000 head of game taken with the bow. He probably took a couple of more thousands of head of vermin and fish that he did not record in his hunting journal. - lbg


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JV NC said:


> Isn't (I have no idea....having never shot these) that what NFAA scoring is supposed to eliminate?


The Hill conundrum is the number of "tourneys" won. There is no score comparison.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

longbowguy,

Thank you for sharing that with us! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

> The contestants may be exposed to the same technology, but they need to compete in venues with each other.


IMO.....You can't fault a guy for who DIDN'T show up.

Hell I'm just a lowly local/regional 3D shooter. But, I'd be proud as hell if I could string together 19 wins in a row (much less 196).

Anybody here got a string of 19? 59? 99? 129? Better?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JV NC said:


> IMO.....You can't fault a guy for who DIDN'T show up.
> 
> Hell I'm just a lowly local/regional 3D shooter. But, I'd be proud as hell if I could string together 19 wins in a row (much less 196).
> 
> Anybody here got a string of 19? 59? 99? 129? Better?


I can't even get a string of wins competing against myself. Yes, 196 is an impressive record, comparable on a point basis or not.


----------



## rpdjr45 (Jul 28, 2007)

"In 1945, Howard gave up shooting in archery competitions after having won a phenomenal 196 consecutive field archery tournaments. ..." Page 92, Howard Hill, The Man and the Legend, by Craig Ekin, 1982)

"Howard's reasons for "retiring" from competitive shooting were numerous, but the clincher was that some didn't believe he could win so many tournaments in a row without cheating." (page 93)

He decided to shoot and just gather his arrows and let someone else keep score. "They still accused him. Next he tired just shooting and letting someone else pull his arrows as well as keep his score. They still accused him. In a final effort to appease his accusers, Howard shot but didn't even go up to the target. He made himself go directly on to the next target and just wait while those in his group pulled the arrows and recorded the scores. They still accused him of cheating, so he really had no choice left but to quit. Shooting was fun for Howard but this took the fun out of it. His only recourse was to refrain from competitive archery althogether." (Page 93, Howard Hill, The Man and the Legend, by Craig Ekin, 1982.)


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

Not for "cheating".....but he's still catching hell, today!.....lol


----------



## lazy ike (Oct 19, 2009)

Thanks LB guy thats a lot more info than I had before.

I had also read that Howard wrote the rules for archery golf and established a record of 47 shots for 18 "holes" and I'm not sure if it was equaled. Also I read that he entered the national flight shooting championship seven times and won it all seven times.

Looking at Mr. Hill's feats individually, they are amazing !! If you look at them all combined, They are truely astounding !!!!!


Ike

P.S. 31 Ruffed grouse with a bow........by itself , amazing !!


----------



## Aspirin Buster (Mar 25, 2004)

I think it's safe to say that Howard Hill exposed thousands to archery with his demonstrations, flim work, and short mini films. He was one of the first "high profile" archers.

Fred Bear took the reigns and was one of the first to get on ABC's Wide World of Sports bowhunting with celebrities. He also made sure to get high profile personalities into the sport and promoted archery via books, film, and articles, and radio. Fred was a born promoter.

I think when you measure their success with a bow, you have to give them bonus points for their work in promoting the sport. I have known a few champion archers who did very little to promote or grow the sport. They simply shot well and won awards. I think when a person takes the time to actually help a new shooter, give advice and promote the sport that those actions elevate them beyond a champion. Many have been champs, very few have had the impact that men like Fred Bear & Howard Hill had on the sport. Shooting well is only part of the puzzle.

My two cents.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

LB - 

Thanks for that as well. What amazes me is that some folks think that trying to get accurate information is in some way disrespectful. I don't recall anyone here showing any disrespect for Hill, Bear or any others. Facts aren't respectful or disrespectful - just facts. For example, the only account of Bear's "winning score" in the 1930's was a 460 over 56 targets, or about a 230 over the std 28. And that was most likely using a sight. Well it was good enough to win a state championship in the 1930's, but by today's standards - not so much. What does that mean? Whatever you want it to. 

Add to that the fact that most of us were positively influenced by Hill and Bear directly or indirectly. That really can't be argued, but knowing the details of what actually transpired, for some of us, makes the scenarios more real, without detracting from it or making it disrespectful. 

Look, I really like vintage cars, but I don't for a second believe they are superior (in most respects) to what we typically drive today. Just reality. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

> What amazes me is that some folks think that trying to get accurate information is in some way disrespectful.





> What it comes down to is that some people need hero worship or need to exploit it to justify their choices and some can actually see things for what they are. I've never said anything against Hill, Bear or anyone who actually helped promote archery, past or present. The difference is that some of us aren't blinded by the press releases.
> 
> Viper1 out.


Dang. I'm entitled to my opinion, also. And if that isn't taking a shot at his legend....I'd hate to see what qualifies. If you see things (better) for "what they are".....would you go into further details?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Viper1 said:


> Add to that the fact that most of us were positively influenced by Hill and Bear directly or indirectly. That really can't be argued, but knowing the details of what actually transpired, for some of us, makes the scenarios more real, without detracting from it or making it disrespectful.
> Viper1 out.


It's called operating off the "narrative". The narrative does not have to promote or discount the underlying story, it just has to describe it in a way our minds can formulate into a quick synopsis of events, events which might ordinarily be quite complicated or long in happening. Our simple minds get lost in the details, so whether its the economy, global warming, whatever, we reduce it to a narrative that fits and we can easily repeat. Again, these guys were great in the "real" and the "narrative", even though both are merged for clarity sake. Hey, if we can't look and hope for reality in the story, it's just a story.


----------



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

*Mr. Hill*

How do you like that Howard? They're still talking about you...still shaking their heads. 

Hope you don't mind my friends calling me Howard when we took up our bows...wasn't my idea. Just about outlived all the *******s down here...and already have a couple of bows and lots of arrows ready for the trip, so be seein' ya before too long. 

Until then, thanks for the memories...you did a world of good. Rest in Peace, Rick.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

It's kind of funny when you sit back and look at this.

Each and everyone one of us are unique yet we also share many simialrities.

How each of us digest the past and choose to believe it...is often based on our personalitiy. Some of us are analytical, some are thought provokers, some are dreamers, some are doubters, some believe with their heart and emotions, some are followers, while others are leaders, etc. etc.

It's very similar to how we each choose to pursue our personal archery goals.

There really is no right or wrong way if it ultimately leads you to the truth :shade:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Aspirin Buster (Mar 25, 2004)

Great posts.

There are a variety of opinions, and really no right or wrongs.

Sometimes it is easy to sit at a keyboard and post on these threads without realizing that some of the things these heroes accomplished in front of crowds is amazing. Winning a tournament, hunting or shooting in the backyard is one thing, on stage---that is a different beast. There's a pressure there that isn't found in the other arenas. 

Thanks to all who have posted... enjoy the sport and the legends in your own way. Let's not forget to give these heroes and legends the respect they deserve. There was a reason for the press releases... they earned them.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Aspirin Buster said:


> Great posts.
> 
> There are a variety of opinions, and really no right or wrongs.
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

Ray


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> LB -
> 
> Thanks for that as well. What amazes me is that some folks think that trying to get accurate information is in some way disrespectful. I don't recall anyone here showing any disrespect for Hill, Bear or any others. Facts aren't respectful or disrespectful - just facts. For example, the only account of Bear's "winning score" in the 1930's was a 460 over 56 targets, or about a 230 over the std 28. And that was most likely using a sight. _Well it was good enough to win a state championship in the 1930's, but by today's standards - not so much._ What does that mean? Whatever you want it to.
> 
> Viper1 out.


What amazes me is the lengths to which some people will go to take the accomplishments of people from 80 years ago out of historical context in an attempt to demean their achievements. :nono:

In the 30’s, hi-tech equipment was solid wood bows with simple backings, with no arrow shelves or elevated rests. Archers used wood arrows. Their bows were slow and would often lose poundage during extended shooting due to wood fatigue. Today, their equipment would fall under the category of primitive archery.

These days, excluding compounds, we have machined aluminum risers, carbon/foam limbs that are impervious to weather and fatigue, carbon arrows, precision sights and arrow rests, and a host of other things to help us shoot better. You don’t think that makes a difference?


----------



## Aspirin Buster (Mar 25, 2004)

*Fred Bear*

I had missed the post about Fred Bear's scores on the field ranges. Fred would probably agree his field scores were just so-so. But I will bet you that history will long remember Fred and his contributions than those that beat him on the archery course. 


I always enjoyed Fred's jokes, his wit and the way his big broad shoulders rocked when he laughed. He was one of a kind. I met him when I was about 11 or so and we became friends as I grew older. Sadly he died in May 1988 and the world lost a great, great man and a hero. 

Remember the Roosevelt quote, the credit belongs to the man in the arena. History will remember that man, not the critics, the nay sayers, or in this case the ones that may have won on the archery range. It was Fred's actions off the range that made history.

(I have a photo in my office of the first NFAA Field Nationals in Michigan from around 1942. In the photo you can find Ann Hoyt, Fred, and a few other archery greats. It's old and battered but many of the greats are there. I have a bow that a friend shot on that day and he is also in the photo with that bow. It's neat to look back at history... but keep things in perspective.)

We must all do all we can do to promote, protect and grow this great sport. I also think we owe the legends our respect and thanks. We are all following their tracks.


----------



## lazy ike (Oct 19, 2009)

To me , the info that Longbow guy provided along with the records and film that exist, says that Mr. Hill was THE BEST all around archer of his era , period. With the scoring and rule changes in field archery , it is difficult to compare the scores from his wins to present day. How many of todays field champions could post the same phenomenal scores that they routinely shoot at unmarked yardages ?

IMHO Howard Hill was a one of a kind....... like Willie Mossconi (thats a whole new argument).


Ike


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Frank -

It seems pretty clear that some people are trying to turn this in to something other than it is. My comments were only on Fred's shooting ability, which IIRC, I termed mediocre in a post some years ago (ok, maybe I said lousy, in jest). That's a fact. His contributions to this sport or rather, for most people this hobby, were never in dispute. But they have to kept in perspective, Fred Bear was to archery what Lee Iococca was to the automotive industry, not AJ Foyt or Mario Andretti.

Hill was a great shot and a great ambassador for archery in the early days, no doubt about that, but without Warner Bros behind him, his exposure would be far less than it was. He was the AJ Foyt or Mario Andretti of archery. That's also a fact. 

If this is that important to some folks, that's cool, I'm just trying to keep it real, and sorry, I'm not into the hero thing. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> Frank -
> 
> My comments were only on Fred's shooting ability, which IIRC, I termed mediocre in a post some years ago (ok, maybe I said lousy, in jest). That's a fact.
> 
> Viper1 out.


I would think that before a fellow archer claimed that a three-time state champion was a "mediocre" or "lousy" shooter, he would have at least won _one_ state championship himself. :noidea:


----------



## Aspirin Buster (Mar 25, 2004)

Thanks Viper.

You are a solid archer with a knowledge and opinion I often respect. I understand some may not feel about Fred the way I did. I don't know if worship is the right word but I sure liked him. A great, funny man.

Thanks for never being affraid to speak your mind and contribute. We have a great sport with great folks. There's room for us all.

I do however think perhaps Fred would win my vote for who has done the most for archery in the last 100 years. Almost everything I have done (giving people like country singer George Strait a bow, a private archery show for Toby Keith, and my father and I getting then Governor Bob Wise (WV) into archery---all of this was lessons I had learned from Fred. To get high profile people involved. )

The highlight of my career (besides getting my toddler Gus shooting a bow at age 18 months) was doing a show on behalf of President George W. Bush. Here again, I was on the path Rev. Stacy Groscup, Fred and even Howard cut many years ago.

Thanks again Viper for always contributing.

Frank


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Frank - 



Aspirin Buster said:


> Thanks Viper.
> 
> You are a solid archer with a knowledge and opinion I often respect. I understand some may not feel about Fred the way I did. I don't know if worship is the right word but I sure liked him. A great, funny man.
> 
> ...


Not a lot to argue with there. You were lucky enough to know the man and we can all appreciate that. That's not hero worship, that's being a friend and willing to learn from someone who obviously new the ropes. That alone deserves respect.

Viper1 out.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

longbowguy said:


> To my knowledge only one man has scored over 200 in major competition, an Australian in the world championships a few years ago, with a longbow and wooden arrows. Interestingly, I believe he used a Howard Hill style longbow of hunting weight. Larry Yien set a world longbow record with a more modern longbow with an average of around 184 as I recall on the field and hunter courses, a few years ago. Double those scores to get an approximation of the 28 target equivalent and you have around 400 for the Aussie archer and 368 for Larry's record.
> 
> - lbg


Longbowguy thanks for the info on Howard.

http://www.ifaa-archery.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=83

On IFAA rounds the Aussie Archer shot 383 which is current record, I understand it was shot on his home range which was dead flat, still a GREAT score and well deserved record.

Myself and Andy Soars both shot over 200 on on half round last year at the European Field champs. in European Field they tend to build new courses for these tourneys and theyre normally set on very tough terrian, last year it was in the Welsh mountains, plus some pretty horrible weather. This year the world field champs will be in Dahn in Germany, again very tough terrain.

Thanks again for the info.:thumbs_up


----------



## Aspirin Buster (Mar 25, 2004)

Howdy--- here's a snapshot from a trade show from the 1980's. I was maybe 16. Papa Bear was probably 86 or so.

He was the man..... a hero and friend.

Frank


----------



## longbow billy (May 19, 2008)

Anyone else wanna wave you hand and yell look at me ? This seems quite the tread for it!:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Cool pic, Frank!

Ray :wink:


----------



## Aspirin Buster (Mar 25, 2004)

Thanks Ray... I might have weighed 115 pounds... maybe. At 6'2" I was too skinny. "Aint had that problem since.." HAHA


The website has a few vintage Fred/Earl Hoyt/ Etc photos.

www.frankaddingtonjr.com


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

longbow billy said:


> Ah, it never fails every so often, someone has to get on the Internet and throw a veiled challenge at Howard Hill record. Most times citing their own performance and the implied I have done that well or I could do that well...all the while jumping up and down yelling LOOK AT ME!!!!!
> 
> I love the consistency:thumbs_up


This post wasnt a challenge, it was to find some facts behind Howards Field records as no information was available as to how or when he got those wins. To suggest that if Howard was to have shot National tourneys he likely would not have reached such a huge number of wins is not having a dig at the man or his record, just an observation and any example cited was to show just how difficult it is to pull 196 straight wins and time scales involved to shoot that many tourneys. 

When writing about past and current records I dont see any problem giving facts and examples to back up my reasoning for asking the question in the first place and if my examples gave you the impression I was saying look at me I suggest you check the numbers again 36 v 196 is NOTHING to brag about compared to Howards record.

This is your second sarcastic post and you added nothing constructive to the topic, so If you dont like whats being posted I suggest you find a thread thats more to your taste.

shoot well


----------



## longbow billy (May 19, 2008)

Again, thanks for using up bandwith, thumping your chest.


----------



## lazy ike (Oct 19, 2009)

31 Ruffed Grouse...... anybody...............????


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

steve morley said:


> This post wasnt a challenge, it was to find some facts behind Howards Field records as no information was available as to how or when he got those wins. To suggest that if Howard was to have shot National tourneys he likely would not have reached such a huge number of wins is not having a dig at the man or his record, just an observation and any example cited was to show just how difficult it is to pull 196 straight wins and time scales involved to shoot that many tourneys.
> 
> When writing about past and current records I dont see any problem giving facts and examples to back up my reasoning for asking the question in the first place and if my examples gave you the impression I was saying look at me I suggest you check the numbers again 36 v 196 is NOTHING to brag about compared to Howards record.
> 
> ...


Mr. Morely, I doubt anyone else on the board read your post as anything other than as you describe. If someone interpreted your intent as self-promoting, they could only be coming to such conclusion through personal feelings of inadequacy. Thanks to Mr. Hill's influence, your accomplishments were made all the more difficult to achieve - I'm sure you compete against many wold class archers.


----------



## longbow billy (May 19, 2008)

Sanford, with the PM's I've recieved saying thanks for speaking up, I'd say your mistaken.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

lazy ike said:


> 31 Ruffed Grouse...... anybody...............????


I wish. :thumbs_up

The only time I bowhunted for grouse was during a moose hunt in Ontario a few years ago. Off the top of my head, without checking my notes, I think I killed a half-dozen ruffed grouse and over a dozen spruce grouse.

Thirty-one ruffed grouse? I'm hungry just thinking about it. :hungry:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I will take more than a couple of sarcastic and childish comments to make me throw my rattle out of my Pram. 


Shoot straight


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> This post wasnt a challenge, it was to find some facts behind Howards Field records as no information was available as to how or when he got those wins. To suggest that if Howard was to have shot National tourneys he likely would not have reached such a huge number of wins is not having a dig at the man or his record, just an observation and any example cited was to show just how difficult it is to pull 196 straight wins and time scales involved to shoot that many tourneys.
> 
> When writing about past and current records I dont see any problem giving facts and examples to back up my reasoning for asking the question in the first place and if my examples gave you the impression I was saying look at me I suggest you check the numbers again 36 v 196 is NOTHING to brag about compared to Howards record.
> 
> ...


I sure didn't take it that you were trying to draw attention to yourself.

I don't see how anyone can say that without truly knowing you.

I always find it disappointing how some people are so quick to make assumptions and judge others they don't even know because they choose to read into things that are based on their own insecurities.

You've always been quick to share your knowledge and help others! :thumbs_up

Ray :wink:


----------



## longbow billy (May 19, 2008)

Ahh another guilty dog barks:wink:


Please carry on:thumbs_up


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

longbow billy said:


> Ahh another guilty dog barks:wink:
> 
> 
> Please carry on:thumbs_up


Wow, you're so obsessed with the past that you can't respect the TOP-NOTCH archers right in front of you. I guess ignorance is bliss.


----------



## elk country rp (Sep 5, 2005)

lazy ike said:


> 31 Ruffed Grouse...... anybody...............????


i'm up to 17, but they cost me dearly in broken/lost arrows!


Howard's a hero to me (so is Fred). i suspect we have a few members here who COULD outshoot Howard Hill, and i'm sure that most of us would try. i would- just be able to shoot _with_ him (no chance of me beating him, though). 
i've always figured that it's alot harder to be a pioneer than it is to improve on what pioneers did.

some of is thread reminds me why i don't hang out in the general forum anymore.....
Rob


----------



## lazy ike (Oct 19, 2009)

Elk Country....you're more than halfway there on Grouse.
How about the 7 crows ? I got my first 2 crows with a stickbow this year !! Man those things are tough !!


Ike


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

lazy ike said:


> Elk Country....you're more than halfway there on Grouse.
> How about the 7 crows ? I got my first 2 crows with a stickbow this year !! Man those things are tough !!
> 
> 
> Ike


No doubt! Very smart bird!

Ray :wink:


----------



## shamus005 (Jan 24, 2009)

No hero worship here, but the Hill's accomplishments are indisputable. 

I have respect for what Hill did for archery and his own accomplishments with the bow.

You also have to see it in the historical context (It's my academic training, I see historical topics rather clinically). I'm not one for making anachronistic comparisons of Hill (or Young, Pope, Bear, etc) with modern archery or hunting. 


..and yes he was a promoter and many of the films were staged. They had to be, given the technology of the time and safety considerations. 

Despite that, Howard Hill did do what they said he did. Yes, he was that good. Resurrect Hill in his prime and put a modern longbow in his hands and carbon arrows, and he could spank the lot of us, I would imagine.


----------



## Kenny G (May 18, 2004)

The only fair comparison to Howards score would be to shoot the same equipment that Howard shot, ie. wood arrows, wood bows, same string materials...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Kenny G said:


> The only fair comparison to Howards score would be to shoot the same equipment that Howard shot, ie. wood arrows, wood bows, same string materials...


Totally agree!

Ray :wink:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Kenny G said:


> The only fair comparison to Howards score would be to shoot the same equipment that Howard shot, ie. wood arrows, wood bows, same string materials...


More than that, you or your friends would have to make it. I'm not sure there's a bit of equipement he shot (in his early years) that he didn't make himself or was made by friends in his shop!


----------



## Aspirin Buster (Mar 25, 2004)

I think Howard Hill will remain one of the top archers of all time.... besides his shooting ability it's what he did to promote archery. Fred Bear is in the same boat.

There may be better shooters on ranges and in their backyards, but that doesn't advance archery and promote it. These guys did. That alone will set them at the top of the heap in my opinion.

I think that there is a difference in hero worship and respect. They may not be everyone's hero, but you have to respect their contributions.


----------

