Gray-Philosophy said:
And while it may be inefficient to run around and shoot targets that are within melee range, there is no question that he's able to shoot the bow really bloody fast. And he does seem to be able to hit his target at quite the distance as well (03:20)
I eyeball that distance as approx. 50m which in the grand scheme of things isn't that long a range (for reference, Gent's Clout is at approx. 160yds IIRC). Accuracy, though, along with fast draw & release, can't fault the guy...
Ragsnstitches said:
At the 3 minute marker, where he's catching the arrow, something didn't look right. I played the video at .25 normal speed and there is some pretty obvious video artifacts at the exact moment the arrow is loosed (look at the right edge of the video). Now I could be wrong, the footage is too grainy to be sure, but that is usually a sign of a sloppy edit, possibly even some added CG effect (the arrow in flight). It could be just some issues with the video upload or the capture device (camera), but the timing seems too coincidental.
Hmmm... didn't really notice anything amiss, but might be worth a gander... -_-
Anyway... had an afternoon to ponder a proper response, so here goes, even if my knowledge is about 8 years out of date (hell, my Hoyt Vortec - yeah, hi gramps! - is collecting dust and the cable is shredded):
I admire and respect what the guy's done in terms of bringing to light the historicity and historiography of toxotic techniques of antiquity, but that is merely an illustration of how the martial intent has changed. As I mentioned earlier, modern archery is more about accuracy and elegance. To put it in a slightly more hammy way, whether or not modern archers realise it, archery has been imbued with a great deal of spirituality. I didn't quite grasp it until my back got messed over, but the two things archers respect most while on the line are silence and stillness (whether of themselves or their surroundings). Yeah, cheering at the Olympics by folks who just happened to draw the archery ticket... for every one of them, there's an archer wanting to slap them over the head with a board with the letters STFU on it. Still, that's just me and I haven't shot in years, so I'm guessing Olympic archers are way way way beyond such distractions. Thus, kudos to those who can shoot a 1000+ FITA when it's pissing it down with rain accompanied by a healthy breeze (which reminds me... why did ANYONE bother competing at the Southend Outdoors, it was such a lottery). Beyond all this is that most archers these days are always in search of the perfect shot, inclusive of state of mind, draw, load onto the back/driving through the wall, subtle rolling of the shoulder and the ideal back-tension release that results in a gold (hey, s'why back-tension release aids are a thing). The 'form' of modern archery is somewhat exemplified (perhaps ironically) in kyudo which is very ritualised even if some of the techniques this guy discusses are involved. Perfecting the motions until it basically becomes ingrained in one's muscle memory.
However, all of this is the logical extreme of luxury. By and large, modern archers are wimps compared to medieval/ancient archers, because, physiologically, of the way they load the bow's energy goes onto the back and shoulders. You never see an archer drawing to 30" in less than about a quarter of a second, and that's the full draw, not the initial, which a lot of people hold for several seconds. It varies from person to person, but full draw is held for a few seconds as well. Some compound archers are worse and stand at full draw for what feels like an absolute age. This time allows the weight to be transferred from the arms and is, bizarrely, both a consequence and a cause of said time taken.
Comparing against ancient forms, they were used pretty much exclusively for battle wherein accuracy and form are secondary to what can only be considered combat pragmatism. Shooting around the bow (i/o through the bow as now), holding arrows in hand and being able to do so on the move is all fair, though one thing he missed out was the ability to do it at range (the step back triple shot notwithstanding), though unfair on my part, given that there'd be a whole company of archers spewing arrows rather than just the one guy. That said, Cretan archers were expected to hit their mark from 200+ yds (albeit a rather large mark) (gotta reread Xenophon) and had to fight at every range, giving them, rightly, a feared reputation (I'm guessing they shot both through and around the bow, depending on context). Sort of on that count, the arrows themselves are worth consideration, as archery those days was pretty much exclusively fire and forget so shot consistency was difficult (cf. nowadays, a set of 12 ACE's costs a small fortune and should be expected to last several years with the occasional replacement of pile/nock/fletchings... as I say, a luxury). Even the bow itself, I guess... I got my compound second hand for about USD400 (albeit with a dozen ACC's chucked in), I doubt an ancient bowyer's work was worth that much (except by commission, presumably). Ambidextrous archery is a curious one, though, as I suspect that horse archers were, out of tactical necessity, ambidextrous otherwise, presumably, they'd only be effective going on one direction. Still, must've been rather hard going for Anatolian Sipahis and Sagittarii Clibanarii given the barding, but eh... -_- I wonder if he contemplated shooting in armour...
So I guess, it's good because he's shown how much it's evolved. *shrug*
