Archery Rankings in Kingdoms?
LOU STEWART
Gwydion ap Myrddin expressed his distaste for the stereotypical 5-color
bull's-eye target for archery. The archers of the Shire of Calanais Nuadh
in Calontir also prefer other types of targets. At our upcoming event,
Autumn Arrows III, Lord Siegfreid, our Group Archer Marshal, will be
having the following shoots:
Celtic Cross overlaid on a target-hit the target but not the cross.
Dancety Wand - a variation of the traditional willow wand shoot
Moving Target - archers shoot at a monster moving across the range.
3-D Target - A 9 ft tall monster is trying to eat the moon- hit the
monster but be penalized if you hit the moon.
Shoot The Moon - Punish some rude people without killing them.
Defend Calanais - Monsters are hiding behind the monoliths. Move
From lane to lane to kill the monsters.
(Based on a 3D model of Callanish)
These shoots are designed to test archers' skills and also be a lot
more interesting than the standard bull's-eye.
Luigsech ni Ifearnain, Calanais Nuadh, Calontir
Douglas Zimmerman
on shooting nothing more than Royal Rounds. In the mundane British GNAS
(Grand National Archery Society). they have the same title, which they say
is *extremely* difficult to gain. If nothing else, gaining ranks using just
royal rounds or IKACs discourages archers from trying harder shoots.
However, I also dislike the idea of using 'realistic' shoots as a way
of ranking. Most medieval archers never shot a bow in wartime
(at least in England, where most of the archery tradition comes from).
For centuries, the kings required the peasants to practice archery,
yet battles were relative uncommon, and had relatively few archers in them
(compared to everyone who shot a bow). This was especially true by the
Renaissance, when archery become almost purely a sport.
Any sort of ranking system requires that people be able to shoot the *same*
competition at widely different times and places. Colored bullseye targets
are the simplest way to do this, being standardized. Clout and wand rounds
are also standardized, and period, but are more difficult to set up.
One-of-a-kind targets, or roving shoots, or the like, are great fun for
one-time tournaments, but I see no way of comparing scores from
different competitions.
The 5-color circular face (or something close to it) is indeed period.
The Luttrel Psalter (~ 1300) clearly shows target archers shooting at a
circular face about 4' diameter, with concentric rings and a clear bullseye.
But shooting at targets like this was only one of many ways medieval
archers competed. And when they did compete, you can believe they
shot at ranges at lot greater than 40 yards, most of the time.
The whole reason I am asking about this, is that Atlantia has no form of
ranking system at present, and we archers are looking to start one.
I want as much input as possible from other kingdoms that have archery ranks.
Personally, I think that while it should be possible to gain lower ranks
from just IKAC's or Royal Rounds, the higher ranks should require more
difficult shoots in addition. I would think that a Master Bowman should
have a good score at 60 yards, and a Grandmaster should be able to hit
reliably at 100 yards. I also think that few, if any, SCA archers should
currently be ranked as Grandmasters - it should be something to strive for.
______________________________________________________________________
Douglas Zimmerman k...@template.com uunet!template!kdz 703-318-1218
Template Software 13100 Worldgate Dr, Ste 340 Herndon, VA 22070-4382
John Hoffman
> Personally, I think that while it should be possible to gain lower ranks
> from just IKAC's or Royal Rounds, the higher ranks should require more
> difficult shoots in addition. I would think that a Master Bowman should
> have a good score at 60 yards, and a Grandmaster should be able to hit
> reliably at 100 yards. I also think that few, if any, SCA archers should
> currently be ranked as Grandmasters - it should be something to strive for.
This sounds like an excellent proposal. One of the more obvious reasons
for using Royal Rounds limited to 40 yards is that all but the best
archers tend frequently to miss the target and its supports even at
40 yards. Thus, much of the time in competition or practice goes to
finding the errant arrows. A long hot afternoon gets more so...
For competitions limited to superior archers, the longer shoots are
quite sensible.
In my experience in the Kingdom of the East, Grandmasters exhibited
both significant skill and devotion to the art, with much of their
time dedicated to instructing and encouraging novices.
John
Matthew J. Stum
> Any sort of ranking system requires that people be able to shoot the *same*
> competition at widely different times and places. Colored bullseye targets
> are the simplest way to do this, being standardized. Clout and wand rounds
> are also standardized, and period, but are more difficult to set up.
Huh? Maybe I'm missing something... how is it hard to set up a wand shoot?
Or a spot?
> One-of-a-kind targets, or roving shoots, or the like, are great fun for
> one-time tournaments, but I see no way of comparing scores from
> different competitions.
I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of using an agreed-upon size
of spot or wand target, either of which are _very_ easy to make.
> The 5-color circular face (or something close to it) is indeed period.
> The Luttrel Psalter (~ 1300) clearly shows target archers shooting at a
> circular face about 4' diameter, with concentric rings and a clear bullseye.
Hmm... I've seen this picture, but unless there's more than one drawing, the
target has only one ring (reddish) and a large bull's-eye (white/light)...
(I'll have to go back and take a good look though to be sure I didn't miss any
fine detail in the reddish area)
I believe late-period crossbow targets were square variations of the 5-ring
bull's-eye target... not sure since I tend to keep my research to earlier
periods.
> But shooting at targets like this was only one of many ways medieval
> archers competed. And when they did compete, you can believe they
> shot at ranges at lot greater than 40 yards, most of the time.
Yup... which is what I try to do at my events. I keep a 20 yd target for
those that want to plink all day, but most of the serious shooting is at
further ranges.
> Personally, I think that while it should be possible to gain lower ranks
> from just IKAC's or Royal Rounds, the higher ranks should require more
> difficult shoots in addition. I would think that a Master Bowman should
> have a good score at 60 yards, and a Grandmaster should be able to hit
> reliably at 100 yards. I also think that few, if any, SCA archers should
> currently be ranked as Grandmasters - it should be something to strive for.
Shooting at different ranges is slightly analagous to my idea of shooting at
different sized spots to gain a certain ranking. This would allow indoor
winter shoots at 20 yds. Although, personally I'd prefer the changes in
distance since there are more factors that get involved (arc, wind, etc.).
I'm also sensitive to the fact that changing the types of targets is usually
easier for a group than trying to find a site with 100+ yds of shooting room.
--
Matt Stum Gwydion ap Myrddin Ball State University
00mj...@bsuvc.bsu.edu Shire of Afonlyn, MK Muncie, IN USA
Michael Chance
All of the discussions about archery rankings so far have been focused
around using some form of pure score (with or without using some
medieval form of competition) without regard to the equipment used.
In my limited experience, the use of pure scores encourages the use of
more modern equipment, as it is easier to get consistent scores with
modern techno-gear than from more authentic bows. (It's not
impossible to be consistent with authentic equipment, just more
difficult).
Personally, I'd prefer to see any type of ranking system have
"ceilings" based on the equipment used. That is if "Master Bowman" is
the highest level, it can't be reached using a bow with modern
technological advantages like fibreglass laminates or cutouts. This
would encourage the movement of the serious archers to more authentic
equipment.
Mikjal Annarbjorn
--
Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields
Work: mc3...@sw1sta.sbc.com of St. Vidicon"
Play: ab...@freenet.hsc.colorado.edu
mch...@nyx.cs.du.edu
Douglas Zimmerman
|> Huh? Maybe I'm missing something... how is it hard to set up a wand shoot?
|> Or a spot?
Proper clout shoots require at least 120 yards, preferably 180 or more.
Very few people or archery ranges have this kind of space (at least in the
urbanized east). Wands should be about 6' tall from the ground; this is
an uncommon size for archery targets. A great many archers do not have the
luxury of permanent ranges, and carting around a 6' target is difficult.
And in both cases, there is significantly more variation in home-made targets
that there is in standardized faces.
As for concentric circles, I agree the target is the Lutrell Psalter has fewer
rings, but that is a minor quibble. I'm sure they also shot at targets with
more rings at other times and places. The 5-color face scored 9/7/5/3/1 was
standardized in the 18th century, but it was certainly based on older
traditions. I see no reason to discard it, but changing the scoring is fine.
There is a vast difference between shooting a small target at a short distance
vs a large target at a longer distance, even if the apparent size of both
to the archer is identical. At 20 yards or less, arrow flight is basically
straight, with little 'arch'. I know a number or archers that do reasonably
well at 20 yards, but totally lose it at 40. The other day, I shot at 30 yards
and didn't miss the red on a 24" target; at 60 yards, I totally missed a 48"
target on two arrows in an end (it was a new bow, at the end of a long day).
In my opinion, accuracy at a distance is what makes a top archer.
In article <1993Sep27.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mch...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Chance) writes:
|>
|> Personally, I'd prefer to see any type of ranking system have
|> "ceilings" based on the equipment used. That is if "Master Bowman" is
|> the highest level, it can't be reached using a bow with modern
|> technological advantages like fibreglass laminates or cutouts. This
|> would encourage the movement of the serious archers to more authentic
|> equipment.
I think there is a merit to this, but it is very hard. I recall an article
several years ago advocating a real 'Traditional' division, requiring totally
period materials - including limbs, strings, nocks, etc. The main problem
I see is that such equipment is not readily available, and I fear for the
safety of home-made equipment (especially strings).
Even finding good non-takedown bows, with fiberglass, is hard. Very few stores
carry them any more, and most manufacturers make only a few models.
I know I got some complaints from my archers when I told them that takedowns
were not allowed in the IKACl.
While there has been a resurgence in bowyers making wood self bows, they
are still rare, and the bows are expensive. Furthermore, few of these bows
are proper English longbows, with a deep 'D' shape; most are flatbows, due
to the unavailability of suitable wood (yew) for medieval designs.
Even wooden arrows are becoming hard to obtain. The major supplier of
arrow shafts (Acme) is no longer making cedar shafts (due to the logging
problems in the Pacific northwest), and the remaining supplier (Rose City)
has a huge backlog of orders. Most of the fletchers that I used to buy from
are no longer able to make arrows, because the shafts are unavailable.
(And of making your own shafts is so much work that the few people I've known
to do it have refused to shoot the arrows).
I would be very concerned if a 'Traditional' requirement couldn't use dacron
strings. Virtually nobody has any experience any more with linen or hemp
strings. I suspect there would be more broken strings that I, for one, am
willing to accept.
Until such time as wooden self bows are readily available, I think that the
current IKAC standards are acceptable. They are on a par with fencers using
modern fencing gear instead of heavy rapiers, or fighters using rattan.
The key thing about SCA archery is how we shoot (no sights) and the
lack of 'accessories' (stabilizers, clickers, etc). The materials of the
equipment are relatively insignificant.
T. Archer
>Personally, I'd prefer to see any type of ranking system have
>"ceilings" based on the equipment used. That is if "Master Bowman" is
>the highest level, it can't be reached using a bow with modern
>technological advantages like fibreglass laminates or cutouts. This
>would encourage the movement of the serious archers to more authentic
>equipment.
No m'lord, it would FORCE it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mail to PA14...@UTKVM1.UTK.EDU. Mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.
"Don't blame me, I voted libertarian!"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jim Caldwell
In article <1993Sep28.1...@template.com>, k...@sae.com (Douglas
Zimmerman) wrote:
> I think there is a merit to this, but it is very hard. I recall an article
> several years ago advocating a real 'Traditional' division, requiring totally
> period materials - including limbs, strings, nocks, etc. The main problem
> I see is that such equipment is not readily available, and I fear for the
> safety of home-made equipment (especially strings).
>
Remember though that home-made strings are not inherently inferior to store
bought when constructed properly (admittedly sometimes a big if). The best
suggestion is to learn from someone who already makes them well. This is
one of those areas where book-learning won't give you all the needed
techiques (unless you're great at reading between the lines).
> While there has been a resurgence in bowyers making wood self bows, they
> are still rare, and the bows are expensive. Furthermore, few of these bows
> are proper English longbows, with a deep 'D' shape; most are flatbows, due
> to the unavailability of suitable wood (yew) for medieval designs.
Hm, if I remember correctly, the half-stacked ('D' shape) is not the only
period form of the stick bow. Both the full-stacked ('O' shape) and flat
bows were known during those eras, and flat bows were common as hunting
bows. Any of these in a wood available in the given time frame (there are
several) would have to considered fully period. "Proper" English longbows
are great (have some myself), but far from the only kind that should be
allowed in traditional shoots; ie. the Saxon short bow (a flat bow) is a
good weapon and somewhat less tempermental to make and use.
> I would be very concerned if a 'Traditional' requirement couldn't use dacron
> strings. Virtually nobody has any experience any more with linen or hemp
> strings. I suspect there would be more broken strings that I, for one, am
> willing to accept.
Definitely agreed; NOT all period equipment can be considered safe and
usable. Making strings is enough of a problem for beginners without adding
a difficult materials requirement. Leave it to those who want to take the
time, care and research required.
> lack of 'accessories' (stabilizers, clickers, etc). The materials of the
> equipment are relatively insignificant.
Relatively.
I do tend to believe that archers should be steered towards traditional
equipment when possible, but I can't see forcing someone to get
period-style gear. Much of the archer's array of goodies is easily made,
and even makes good starter projects for new-comers. Target bows shouldn't
be thought of in the same vein (vane?) as live steel, after all we
(hopefully) don't use them on each other.
I have made all my own equipment (except nocks & points - anyone out there
make period target piles?) and doing so was a blast. But I also had help
from those who had been there before, and it was certainly needed. So a
good suggestion for increasing the amount of traditional equipment in your
area is to catch a bowyer and try to arrange a workshop. If there are no
SCA bowyers in your area, ask the bowshops about any traditional archery
groups near you. Here in So. An Tir, there's the Traditional Archers of
Oregon (TAO). While most of these groups are more hunting oriented, they
are always willing to talk archery, and their meets tend to be full of
bowyers. I caught one that even had a bow-making workshop for about $60
incl. materials (didn't attend though, so I don't know how good the guy
was).
Another good source for traditional bows is the Goodwill et al route. Take
a friend and brouse; I've discovered some good wood bows this way. A few
tips: 1) BE PICKY! If the bow is good, it almost always still looks good.
No twists, cracks, rough spots, broken nocks; 2) When in doubt, if it's
cheap and cash is a ready commodity, buy it anyway, it'll probably still
look good on the wall even if it ends up being unusable; 3) Once you've
chosen a bow, go home and look at it carefully with a friend. _Gently_ test
the bend on the limbs (_never_ bend it backwards). If it still looks like a
go then 4) Remove the handle leather (salvage if possible) and sand all of
the old varnish off (gasp!). Until the varnish is off, you cannot tell how
brittle the wood is; 5) Inspect again. If _any_ rough spots develop, it's a
wall hanging; 6) Rub oil over the entire bow (repeat ad nauseum). Artist
quality linseed oil has worked well for me; if you know something better
use it and tell me how it works. 7) Let the oil soak in, sand, re-oil, sand
again (over a period of days). 8) After checking to make sure the string is
not too short, frayed, over-worn, etc., CAREFULLY re-string the bow and let
it set an hour or two. 9) Only now should you attempt to draw the bow: Use
a short arrow to start with, let the wood get used to bending again, no
telling when it was last shot. Don't use a full draw. 10) Un-string and
inspect again for cracks, splinters or rough spots, paying special
attention to the nocks. If it's OK, let it set then the next day try again.
Good Luck!
Jim (SCA Jehan Bretel)
Douglas Zimmerman
|>
|> Hm, if I remember correctly, the half-stacked ('D' shape) is not the only
You are indeed correct; I was being overly chauvanistic about the English
longbow, forgetting about all the other bows in period. But then, its not like
we have many samples around. Most of the 'medieval' bows in the hands of
archaeologists are from the Mary Rose, so thats what we have detailed
documentation on.
In any case, *where* did you get your longbows? I know of only a few bowyers
who make them. I have had one on order with Don Adams for years. I would
*love* to get my hands on one.
|> I do tend to believe that archers should be steered towards traditional
|> equipment when possible, but I can't see forcing someone to get
|> period-style gear. [More deleted]
Here in Atlantia, archery is very weak. I'm just trying to get people to
do archery at all, and the issue of traditional equipment will be deferred
for years. Once some of the better archers *have* traditional equipment
(and we want it), I think there will be a natural pressure for others
to get it also.
The issue is, should this pressure to get traditional equipment be made part
of an archery ranking or awards system? I think not. We do not disallow
fighters from winning Crown just because they don't have period armor.
I feel there is way too much to debate about what constitutes 'period'
tackle in the SCA to legislate it, at least for now.
|> So a
|> good suggestion for increasing the amount of traditional equipment in your
|> area is to catch a bowyer and try to arrange a workshop.
Bowyers are very rare out here in the East; I am unaware of any.
I know a few archers who've made bows, but there is also a lack of
usable wood. Yew is, of course, unavailable. Osage orange is around,
but uncommon, especially where one can legally fell it. Combining this
with lack of real experience, bowmaking is only fow a few diehards out here.
Fortunately, the 'Traditional Bowyer's Bible' was recently published,
so we're not totally in the dark anymore.
-Galen Woodwalker, of Atlantia
]ke Eldberg
Here are a few bowyers who make traditional English longbows:
Don Adams, 17 Granta Tce., Gt Shelford, Cambridge CB2 5DJ
Rex Baddeley, Bow Cottage, 19 Cefn Rd., Cefn Cribwr, Mid Glam CF32 0AR
John Bennett, 5 Denis Road, Burbage, Hinckley, Leics.
Chris Boyton, 32 Frays Close, Money Lane, W.Drayton, Middx. UB7 7PF
John Cave, 15+17 Broad Street Ludlow, Shropshire SY8 1NG
Hector Cole (arrowsmith), The Mead, Gt Somerford, Chippenham SN15 5JB
David Edwards, 9 Hanover Terrace, Whitby, N Yorks. UO21 1QQ
Lou Friend, Slindon Post Office, Slindon, Arundel, W Sussex BN18 0RR
Dudley Garrett, The Oast, Bellwood Farm, Hurst Green, Etchingham, Sussex
Hilary Greenland, 14 Upton Road, Southville, Bristol BS3 1LP
Richard Head, 9 Kingsfield Grange Road, Bradford on Avon, Wilts BA15 1BE
Stuart Homer, 131 Tennyson Drive, Great Malvern, Worcs WR14 2 UL
Roy King, St Nicholas Road, Blackpool, Lancs
Edward McEwen, 10 Richmond Way, Wanstead, London E11 3QT
Rick O'Ruark, O'Ruark Clan Trust, Main St. Dromahair, Co.Leitrim, Eire
(I have more...)
William
Gregory Stapleton
> so we're not totally in the dark anymore.
>
> -Galen Woodwalker, of Atlantia
Galen,
could you tell where I might obtain this volume?
Thank,you.
In Service to the Dream,
Gawaine Kilgore,
Guardians of the Sacred Stone, Atlantia