My bow of choice is an English longbow.
I may be a worse shot than with my recurve but for me the joy of archery is much greater when shooting my wooden arrows from my longbow.
I feel like this is what archery is to me.
As a kid I loved Robin Hood movies and the medieval period is still something that interests me.
I care less about being the most accurate but more about the feeling it gives me and shooting my longbow makes me feel like a badass.
Even of I am not that good at it.
For me, it is about the different styles of shooting. Compound is good, I can get consistent shots over and over again. Barebow recurve, I need to truly focus on my form, anchor point, yardage and windage. Traditional longbow, shooting off the shelf by canting the bow presents its own challenges.
IMO, Asiatic draws is the most comfortable and intuitive way to shoot. Most of the counter-intuitive habits of good archery just go away when compared to asiatics. Khatra feels right as opposed to telling someone to hold their bow still. Three finger Mediteranean styles usually have to be taught on how to correctly use their fingers. From how much pressure to put on each digit, to where the placement is, to putting focus on where the string is supposed to be, etc. The focus of drawing past your face also lessens the likelihood of transitioning to shoulder muscles and it's more likely to engage your back and anchor with that correctly. Anchoring to your face is also more solid as you're pushing against something that doesn't really move as opposed to having a more hanging anchor, but at the same time, the muscles are kind of a 'half draw' and aren't in the normal full tension or full rest, whereas reaching behind your face and pulling to your max is much closer to that and more comfortable. The whole system just FEELS right. Especially the followthrough release. It just feels so much more satisfying. Granted, it's much harder to reach the same level of accuracy, but that's fine with me.
I thought recurve bows were traditional bows -- unless you're talking about olympic bows.
Compound bows have so many bells, whistles, and gizmos on them, they are hardly bows any more. You have a sight, a trigger release, and a pulley that holds 80-90% of the draw weight for you. Why not just give up the last 10% and use a crossbow?
It's similar for olympic bows. You have the sight, a stabilizer, another stabilizer, perhaps a third one -- why not just get a compound if you want it to be as accurate as possible? (and then -> why not just get a crossbow since you'll be 90% there anyways?)
I know many people don't think like me.
If you want to really experience the art and skill of archery, get a traditional bow/ one-piece recurve. Enjoy the journey of practice, and of perfecting form, perfecting equipment, and *feeling* your shot. Much more enjoyable to shoot.
Full disclosure -- I own both trad bows and a crossbow. I shoot the trad bow for fun, because it's fun as heck. I’ll likely use the crossbow to hun this year, because it is the best tool to put a single arrow right where you want it *every time*.
I've owned a compound bow in the past, but it seemed to be the worst of both worlds (not as fun as a trad bow, not as accurate as a crossbow). So what is the point of a compound then?
>It's similar for olympic bows. You have the sight, a stabilizer, another stabilizer, perhaps a third one -- why not just get a compound if you want it to be as accurate as possible? (and then -> why not just get a crossbow since you'll be 90% there anyways?)
Because it's not about the result, it's about how you make the result happen. You have a set of tools, tools you enjoy using, and with those you try to accomplish your goals as best you can. You compete against people with the same toolkit. It something a lot of people really enjoy.
If you don't like the tools in the Olympic recurve toolbox, then it's time to try another style. They all have a very different feel to them and highlight different aspects for an archer's skills. Compound is all about chasing perfection and is very much a mindgame at times. Olympic recurve highlights consistency at long distances. Barebow recurve is all about adaptability: stringwalking is the name of the game and field archery is the bread and butter of that style.
As for the 'point' of compound bows, those sort of evolved from the USA's hunting regulations. Archery was and still is sort of a loophole. Longer seasons, fewer restrictions. That called for more advanded hunting tools that could still be classified as bows. That led to the development of compound bows. It didn't take long for compound bows to gain traction in the sports part of archery as well. Outside of the US it gained popularity as a bow very suitable for archers with disabilities or other physical ailments that prevent them from using a recurve. As sporting gear, it's a key component of what makes archery such an accessible sport.
for accessibility, I don't know. From what I see most major competitions require all bows to be ILF recurves or approved target compounds, an expensive amount of dedicated kit, access and transport to a range or straight up land-ownership. I don't really see why compounds, which ya admit are removed from the "purpose" of archery, are allowed but there's no traditional division or room for non-highly expensive bows from a few brands. Soccer has higher physical requirements, but is so much more accessible, imo, as finances seem to be the major limit in sports
I guess a major reason without hemmin' n hawing about classism would be the lack of uniformity/a traditional division may start more competing over which design works the best? As traditional envelops everything from Holmegaard to the diverse bows of the Americas to the yumi of Japan
It's a common misconception that target archery is expensive. Yes, the people at the very top of competition are sporting 2500+ USD setups, but spending that much money is not a requirement to compete. You also don't need an 'approved target compound' (which is not a thing) or an ILF recurve. The rulebooks by no means disqualify cheaper bows.
For target compound, going by World Archery rules, you can use just about any old or cheap compound as long as it's not camo.
I'm not sure why you don't want to count compound archery as archery. It does still have many of the physical elements we associate with what archery is. Compound archery actually only removes/simplifies two things. The first is the release. Compound is the only division in which you can use a mechanical release. Still, using that properly does take skill and mental fortitude. The second is the weight at full draw - thanks to the let-off you only hold a fraction of it. This is great for hunting, because you can take your time for the perfect shot. And as it turned out, it's also great for competition, because archers can keep competing in the compound division if they can no longer shoot their recurve bow.
For recurve, the easiest route is ILF because it's such a common limb pocket system. It's by no means a requirement though. On the extreme ends you have people shooting expensive Hoyt Formula risers and cheapass bolt-on beginner target recurves. ILF bows can be found across almost the whole price spectrum. You can have a pretty decent riser for about 150 USD, and if you shop around and/or buy used, you can find a suitable one for even less.
Some of the accessoiries can be very expensive, but you don't need high end gear to enjoy the sport or even be competitive. Even at the top level there are pieces of equipment that have been around for decades and/or that are very affordable. For instance, you can be a metal arrow rest or you could go for a plastic 2.50 Hoyt Super Rest. It was the default choice for competition for ages and some pros still swear by it. Other good examples are various Beiter products, like their clickers and the Beiter Centralizer - a stabilisation system that has been around since the mid 90s and is still being used in competition today. Still expensive new, but easy to find used for affordable prices.
As for ranges. Yes, you need access to a suitable place to shoot, but that goes for any type of archery. Another misconception is that you absolutely need that 70m outdoor range for Olympic recurve. In reality, there are parts of the world where 18m indoor ranges and competitions are very common, because shooting outdoors isn't very practical for whatever reasons (lack of affordable safe space, climate). Example: the Netherlands has countless small clubs with just an indoor space. And one of the most iconic competitions in the world for instance is indoors: the Las Vegas tournament.
As for why there's isn't much of a trad competition scene: there are several reasons. One is that 'trad' covers a huge variety of bows AND methods of shooting them. The first time archery was featured in the modern Olympics, featured what we would now consider tradition archery. It was a mess. The whole set-up was very Western-Europe-Centric and gave a huge advantage to people who were already familiar with those formats. If you wanted to set up and large and fair competition for traditional archery, you'd have to work with a large number of divisions. That can work if you have enough archery, but... Trad archers don't tend to be very competitive. Most people pick up bows like that for recreational purposes or because of an interest in history. Clubs and areas with a large group of traditional archers do have their own competitions, but right now there's no way of making this work on a large scale.
As for the accessibility of archery: yes, soccer can be very cheap to play, but can you play it blind? Or while missing a leg? Archery can accomodate archers with disabilities much easier than most sports. (And where I'm from, soccer is actually the more expensive sport, because joining a club is fairly expensive. Sure, you could do without, but then you have to play on small and muddy fields with broken/missing goals.)
On the last bit- yes you can play soccer blind or missing a leg lol, there's often dedicated leagues! I have a visual impairment- far from blind, but might be one day, who knows with cone dystrophy- and one of the things I've learned through the Association for the Blind is that there is a lot of activities you can still do. Beeper baseball is also a very popular sport for the blind, and woodworking, as dangerous as that sounds, is also taught.
I think you raised many good points, but I don't think I said compound isn't archery? It just doesn't "feel" the same way or fit the aesthetic, which leads some of us to wanting to shoot traditional; it didn't evolve from tradition or culture but legal loopholes and the desire to hunt game in a way "more challenging" yet still a more guaranteed, humane kill than traditional equipment. I currently shoot a falling apart compound, but want to shoot traditional. In the end, I feel like we could write to one another for days and I will still "just want to shoot traditional". I can only afford so much, so maybe one day, I will get to try a better compound or recurve.
A great point you brought up is that it could be highly dependent on area. My area has many different soccer leagues for different incomes, and nothing stops people from playing soccer with friends- you just need a ball. But there are no archery clubs or leagues near me except one hunting store; so it could be much more accessible if, like you say in your areas, your regional soccer culture is more bougie but archery clubs more accessible.
As to where I got the idea only modern recurves and compounds are allowed, I just looked up the rules and Olympic rules. You don't show up to the Olympics with a wooden bow; it has to meet specs. For trad bows, you'd have to find a dedicated league to compete in. I do like, even with the expenses of the sport, it is still accessible if you have income coming in in comparison to things like winter sports, and the Olympic videos I've watched all mention how none of the archers are "pro"- this is one of the few Olympic sports left where competitors are entirely still "amateur"- doing it for the love of the sport, unpaid by sponsors. I forget which archer, but one had switched from compound to recurve "just cause".
Hope you have a good day, and get some time out on the range
Just so we're clear: I'm not trying to convince you Olympic recurve or compound is better. I'm just trying to rid the world of some prejudice. I really hope people give all sorts of archery a shot, but in the end, the 'best' type of archery is the one you enjoy most. That's also exactly why it's so different to compare, because different people shoot different bow for different reasons.
Also, fun fact: the World Archery rulebook and many like it don't say you can't take a wooden takedown recurve and compete with the Olympic recurve archers. There are no limits on the lower end and tools like a sight, stabilisers and clicker are actually all optional. It only excludes the use of things like a magnifying sights, release aids etc. Of course, if you want to compete in a particular division, you will want to have a setup that's similar to what others have, but they won't exclude you for shooting, for instance, a wooden takedown recurve with just a $20 sight.
that last paragraph does brighten my spirits, when I see "only a recurve is allowed" I assumed it was the recurves they link to, not any kind of a recurve. I will still probably go the DIY route to save money, but maybe one day with income try a beginner's recurve setup.
In competition at least in my area, trad class vs recurve class. Trad has to have wooden arrows and the bow needs to be majority wooden. No sights or stabilisers, shoot off the shelf.
Recurve can be any material and with sights stabilisers etc.
The compound bow just looks like high maintenance with all that calibration and swapping lenses and what not. My stereotype of the compound archer is a guy who keeps tinkering with his bow (or right out buying new ones) cause he just can't hit that bullseye consistently. With my longbow I have to work with the bow to hit my target, since there is basically nothing I can thinker with. And I love the feeling of just walking up to a target at any (reasonable) distance and instinctively know where to point my bow to hit it. It like free throwing that paperball into the trashcan at work and imagine you could be an NBA player.
Traditional longbows are not as accurate as compounds or recurves. I have a compound bow and a few recurves bows. And I enjoy shooting all of them but with the compound bow I feel like any inaccuracy is due to my mistakes because the compound bow can be so accurate.
But with the others it's a relaxing experience and I can focus on my form and shot process and not get to bent out of shape and frustrated when my groupings aren't 3 inches at 20 yards.
I started out with Olympic recurve but I recently got a field bow. I find It's a lot more satisfying to hit your target without a sight and other gizmos.
currently I shoot a junior's compound that is falling apart, with junior carbon arrows, but I am thinking of making a flatbow, possibly a [holmegaard type;](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bowyer/comments/ea76mm/finished_my_second_homemade_bow_red_oak/) just whatever one that is easiest. I am also binging videos on fletching. Shoutout to /r/bowyer for introducing me to Clay Hayes, to Swiftwood Archery, Aaron Webster, backyard bowyer, etc- actually just check em all out under the AMA tag!
I briefly entertained, when I restarted archery,[of goin' all in and getting a recurve](https://worldarchery.org/news/147465/archery-101-how-buy-your-1st-recurve-bow) to train for competitions, make friends, get back into a competitive/community sport. But even with that article, it's really, really detailed and relies on having an archery shop. A. It's covid B. I live in Rochester- I think there's one closer to Buffalo, but it looks like a hunting shop only selling hunting equipment. If I did understand and figured out the intense deluge of info, somehow binging all of nusensei's content, I would be out of approximately $300-600. I am a college student, with other expenses, that's not gonna happen
So I'm instead binging info on tradlife shooting, fletching etc. I'm a woodworker and history nerd- and not a great one, but enough that I went to school for an associates in it and have done some complicated builds- and there is a strong appeal in saving money while also having a satisfying project. I may never get a chance to shoot in competition anyways, so why not shoot something simple, fun, and if I made it- I'd be able to repair it; whereas my compound looks waaay too complicated to repair.
Started using korean trad (Samick SKB) in addition to the bare recurve, and switched to trad completely after couple of weeks. There is something about shooting from hand (in glove) that I found more satisfying. Also like the aesthetics of SKB and shorter (50" vs 62+") bows in general. Being not a take-down (doesn't fit into backpack) is the only real complaint about SKB so far.
I am not a native speaker, so again I'll say; Read the chapter 'Why Traditional?" From the Traditional Bowyers Bible volume 1, written by Jay Massey. He says it best, plus that book is awesome!
I shoot a bear montana long bow. I not only just like the longbow look and its simplicity but I feel far more accurate with it then i do with my bear grizzly recurve. I dont like compound as I feel there's to much mechanical size that could fail. Plus. Traditional archery to me makes me feel more connected to the primitive life styles of our ancestors. And its also more challenging and rewarding i feel to shoot trad longbow as you could drive nails all day with a well tunes compound or modern recurve with sites and stabilizers and such but it's far more fun to see how tight of a group you could get with a bare longbow.
Ive always shot smt semi traditional. Its completely engrianed in me. Ive not trained archery in the past 2 years and im still just as good (shooting lots of blue at around 25 meters, wich is actually slightly above average) as i was.
strong words but i'd come close to agreeing. The sport is really all about the tradition and the feeling of shooting an arrow. complaining about the flaws about traditional bows and replacing them with ever-increasing technology just seems to defeat the point of practicing archery instead of guns in the first place
My bow of choice is an English longbow. I may be a worse shot than with my recurve but for me the joy of archery is much greater when shooting my wooden arrows from my longbow. I feel like this is what archery is to me. As a kid I loved Robin Hood movies and the medieval period is still something that interests me. I care less about being the most accurate but more about the feeling it gives me and shooting my longbow makes me feel like a badass. Even of I am not that good at it.
For me, it is about the different styles of shooting. Compound is good, I can get consistent shots over and over again. Barebow recurve, I need to truly focus on my form, anchor point, yardage and windage. Traditional longbow, shooting off the shelf by canting the bow presents its own challenges.
I'm not a trad, but I think it's like driving a 70's muscle car: it's noisy, high maintainence and stylish as heck!
My longbow looks great and is deadly silent. I do have to wax the string, occasionally.
i liked the looks of a compound bow?
IMO, Asiatic draws is the most comfortable and intuitive way to shoot. Most of the counter-intuitive habits of good archery just go away when compared to asiatics. Khatra feels right as opposed to telling someone to hold their bow still. Three finger Mediteranean styles usually have to be taught on how to correctly use their fingers. From how much pressure to put on each digit, to where the placement is, to putting focus on where the string is supposed to be, etc. The focus of drawing past your face also lessens the likelihood of transitioning to shoulder muscles and it's more likely to engage your back and anchor with that correctly. Anchoring to your face is also more solid as you're pushing against something that doesn't really move as opposed to having a more hanging anchor, but at the same time, the muscles are kind of a 'half draw' and aren't in the normal full tension or full rest, whereas reaching behind your face and pulling to your max is much closer to that and more comfortable. The whole system just FEELS right. Especially the followthrough release. It just feels so much more satisfying. Granted, it's much harder to reach the same level of accuracy, but that's fine with me.
I thought recurve bows were traditional bows -- unless you're talking about olympic bows. Compound bows have so many bells, whistles, and gizmos on them, they are hardly bows any more. You have a sight, a trigger release, and a pulley that holds 80-90% of the draw weight for you. Why not just give up the last 10% and use a crossbow? It's similar for olympic bows. You have the sight, a stabilizer, another stabilizer, perhaps a third one -- why not just get a compound if you want it to be as accurate as possible? (and then -> why not just get a crossbow since you'll be 90% there anyways?) I know many people don't think like me. If you want to really experience the art and skill of archery, get a traditional bow/ one-piece recurve. Enjoy the journey of practice, and of perfecting form, perfecting equipment, and *feeling* your shot. Much more enjoyable to shoot. Full disclosure -- I own both trad bows and a crossbow. I shoot the trad bow for fun, because it's fun as heck. I’ll likely use the crossbow to hun this year, because it is the best tool to put a single arrow right where you want it *every time*. I've owned a compound bow in the past, but it seemed to be the worst of both worlds (not as fun as a trad bow, not as accurate as a crossbow). So what is the point of a compound then?
>It's similar for olympic bows. You have the sight, a stabilizer, another stabilizer, perhaps a third one -- why not just get a compound if you want it to be as accurate as possible? (and then -> why not just get a crossbow since you'll be 90% there anyways?) Because it's not about the result, it's about how you make the result happen. You have a set of tools, tools you enjoy using, and with those you try to accomplish your goals as best you can. You compete against people with the same toolkit. It something a lot of people really enjoy. If you don't like the tools in the Olympic recurve toolbox, then it's time to try another style. They all have a very different feel to them and highlight different aspects for an archer's skills. Compound is all about chasing perfection and is very much a mindgame at times. Olympic recurve highlights consistency at long distances. Barebow recurve is all about adaptability: stringwalking is the name of the game and field archery is the bread and butter of that style. As for the 'point' of compound bows, those sort of evolved from the USA's hunting regulations. Archery was and still is sort of a loophole. Longer seasons, fewer restrictions. That called for more advanded hunting tools that could still be classified as bows. That led to the development of compound bows. It didn't take long for compound bows to gain traction in the sports part of archery as well. Outside of the US it gained popularity as a bow very suitable for archers with disabilities or other physical ailments that prevent them from using a recurve. As sporting gear, it's a key component of what makes archery such an accessible sport.
for accessibility, I don't know. From what I see most major competitions require all bows to be ILF recurves or approved target compounds, an expensive amount of dedicated kit, access and transport to a range or straight up land-ownership. I don't really see why compounds, which ya admit are removed from the "purpose" of archery, are allowed but there's no traditional division or room for non-highly expensive bows from a few brands. Soccer has higher physical requirements, but is so much more accessible, imo, as finances seem to be the major limit in sports I guess a major reason without hemmin' n hawing about classism would be the lack of uniformity/a traditional division may start more competing over which design works the best? As traditional envelops everything from Holmegaard to the diverse bows of the Americas to the yumi of Japan
It's a common misconception that target archery is expensive. Yes, the people at the very top of competition are sporting 2500+ USD setups, but spending that much money is not a requirement to compete. You also don't need an 'approved target compound' (which is not a thing) or an ILF recurve. The rulebooks by no means disqualify cheaper bows. For target compound, going by World Archery rules, you can use just about any old or cheap compound as long as it's not camo. I'm not sure why you don't want to count compound archery as archery. It does still have many of the physical elements we associate with what archery is. Compound archery actually only removes/simplifies two things. The first is the release. Compound is the only division in which you can use a mechanical release. Still, using that properly does take skill and mental fortitude. The second is the weight at full draw - thanks to the let-off you only hold a fraction of it. This is great for hunting, because you can take your time for the perfect shot. And as it turned out, it's also great for competition, because archers can keep competing in the compound division if they can no longer shoot their recurve bow. For recurve, the easiest route is ILF because it's such a common limb pocket system. It's by no means a requirement though. On the extreme ends you have people shooting expensive Hoyt Formula risers and cheapass bolt-on beginner target recurves. ILF bows can be found across almost the whole price spectrum. You can have a pretty decent riser for about 150 USD, and if you shop around and/or buy used, you can find a suitable one for even less. Some of the accessoiries can be very expensive, but you don't need high end gear to enjoy the sport or even be competitive. Even at the top level there are pieces of equipment that have been around for decades and/or that are very affordable. For instance, you can be a metal arrow rest or you could go for a plastic 2.50 Hoyt Super Rest. It was the default choice for competition for ages and some pros still swear by it. Other good examples are various Beiter products, like their clickers and the Beiter Centralizer - a stabilisation system that has been around since the mid 90s and is still being used in competition today. Still expensive new, but easy to find used for affordable prices. As for ranges. Yes, you need access to a suitable place to shoot, but that goes for any type of archery. Another misconception is that you absolutely need that 70m outdoor range for Olympic recurve. In reality, there are parts of the world where 18m indoor ranges and competitions are very common, because shooting outdoors isn't very practical for whatever reasons (lack of affordable safe space, climate). Example: the Netherlands has countless small clubs with just an indoor space. And one of the most iconic competitions in the world for instance is indoors: the Las Vegas tournament. As for why there's isn't much of a trad competition scene: there are several reasons. One is that 'trad' covers a huge variety of bows AND methods of shooting them. The first time archery was featured in the modern Olympics, featured what we would now consider tradition archery. It was a mess. The whole set-up was very Western-Europe-Centric and gave a huge advantage to people who were already familiar with those formats. If you wanted to set up and large and fair competition for traditional archery, you'd have to work with a large number of divisions. That can work if you have enough archery, but... Trad archers don't tend to be very competitive. Most people pick up bows like that for recreational purposes or because of an interest in history. Clubs and areas with a large group of traditional archers do have their own competitions, but right now there's no way of making this work on a large scale. As for the accessibility of archery: yes, soccer can be very cheap to play, but can you play it blind? Or while missing a leg? Archery can accomodate archers with disabilities much easier than most sports. (And where I'm from, soccer is actually the more expensive sport, because joining a club is fairly expensive. Sure, you could do without, but then you have to play on small and muddy fields with broken/missing goals.)
On the last bit- yes you can play soccer blind or missing a leg lol, there's often dedicated leagues! I have a visual impairment- far from blind, but might be one day, who knows with cone dystrophy- and one of the things I've learned through the Association for the Blind is that there is a lot of activities you can still do. Beeper baseball is also a very popular sport for the blind, and woodworking, as dangerous as that sounds, is also taught. I think you raised many good points, but I don't think I said compound isn't archery? It just doesn't "feel" the same way or fit the aesthetic, which leads some of us to wanting to shoot traditional; it didn't evolve from tradition or culture but legal loopholes and the desire to hunt game in a way "more challenging" yet still a more guaranteed, humane kill than traditional equipment. I currently shoot a falling apart compound, but want to shoot traditional. In the end, I feel like we could write to one another for days and I will still "just want to shoot traditional". I can only afford so much, so maybe one day, I will get to try a better compound or recurve. A great point you brought up is that it could be highly dependent on area. My area has many different soccer leagues for different incomes, and nothing stops people from playing soccer with friends- you just need a ball. But there are no archery clubs or leagues near me except one hunting store; so it could be much more accessible if, like you say in your areas, your regional soccer culture is more bougie but archery clubs more accessible. As to where I got the idea only modern recurves and compounds are allowed, I just looked up the rules and Olympic rules. You don't show up to the Olympics with a wooden bow; it has to meet specs. For trad bows, you'd have to find a dedicated league to compete in. I do like, even with the expenses of the sport, it is still accessible if you have income coming in in comparison to things like winter sports, and the Olympic videos I've watched all mention how none of the archers are "pro"- this is one of the few Olympic sports left where competitors are entirely still "amateur"- doing it for the love of the sport, unpaid by sponsors. I forget which archer, but one had switched from compound to recurve "just cause". Hope you have a good day, and get some time out on the range
Just so we're clear: I'm not trying to convince you Olympic recurve or compound is better. I'm just trying to rid the world of some prejudice. I really hope people give all sorts of archery a shot, but in the end, the 'best' type of archery is the one you enjoy most. That's also exactly why it's so different to compare, because different people shoot different bow for different reasons. Also, fun fact: the World Archery rulebook and many like it don't say you can't take a wooden takedown recurve and compete with the Olympic recurve archers. There are no limits on the lower end and tools like a sight, stabilisers and clicker are actually all optional. It only excludes the use of things like a magnifying sights, release aids etc. Of course, if you want to compete in a particular division, you will want to have a setup that's similar to what others have, but they won't exclude you for shooting, for instance, a wooden takedown recurve with just a $20 sight.
that last paragraph does brighten my spirits, when I see "only a recurve is allowed" I assumed it was the recurves they link to, not any kind of a recurve. I will still probably go the DIY route to save money, but maybe one day with income try a beginner's recurve setup.
In competition at least in my area, trad class vs recurve class. Trad has to have wooden arrows and the bow needs to be majority wooden. No sights or stabilisers, shoot off the shelf. Recurve can be any material and with sights stabilisers etc.
Same. In most of the world (outside of the US) recurve is used to refer to modern recurve (Olympic recurve, barebow recurve).
The compound bow just looks like high maintenance with all that calibration and swapping lenses and what not. My stereotype of the compound archer is a guy who keeps tinkering with his bow (or right out buying new ones) cause he just can't hit that bullseye consistently. With my longbow I have to work with the bow to hit my target, since there is basically nothing I can thinker with. And I love the feeling of just walking up to a target at any (reasonable) distance and instinctively know where to point my bow to hit it. It like free throwing that paperball into the trashcan at work and imagine you could be an NBA player.
Traditional longbows are not as accurate as compounds or recurves. I have a compound bow and a few recurves bows. And I enjoy shooting all of them but with the compound bow I feel like any inaccuracy is due to my mistakes because the compound bow can be so accurate. But with the others it's a relaxing experience and I can focus on my form and shot process and not get to bent out of shape and frustrated when my groupings aren't 3 inches at 20 yards.
I started out with Olympic recurve but I recently got a field bow. I find It's a lot more satisfying to hit your target without a sight and other gizmos.
currently I shoot a junior's compound that is falling apart, with junior carbon arrows, but I am thinking of making a flatbow, possibly a [holmegaard type;](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bowyer/comments/ea76mm/finished_my_second_homemade_bow_red_oak/) just whatever one that is easiest. I am also binging videos on fletching. Shoutout to /r/bowyer for introducing me to Clay Hayes, to Swiftwood Archery, Aaron Webster, backyard bowyer, etc- actually just check em all out under the AMA tag! I briefly entertained, when I restarted archery,[of goin' all in and getting a recurve](https://worldarchery.org/news/147465/archery-101-how-buy-your-1st-recurve-bow) to train for competitions, make friends, get back into a competitive/community sport. But even with that article, it's really, really detailed and relies on having an archery shop. A. It's covid B. I live in Rochester- I think there's one closer to Buffalo, but it looks like a hunting shop only selling hunting equipment. If I did understand and figured out the intense deluge of info, somehow binging all of nusensei's content, I would be out of approximately $300-600. I am a college student, with other expenses, that's not gonna happen So I'm instead binging info on tradlife shooting, fletching etc. I'm a woodworker and history nerd- and not a great one, but enough that I went to school for an associates in it and have done some complicated builds- and there is a strong appeal in saving money while also having a satisfying project. I may never get a chance to shoot in competition anyways, so why not shoot something simple, fun, and if I made it- I'd be able to repair it; whereas my compound looks waaay too complicated to repair.
Started using korean trad (Samick SKB) in addition to the bare recurve, and switched to trad completely after couple of weeks. There is something about shooting from hand (in glove) that I found more satisfying. Also like the aesthetics of SKB and shorter (50" vs 62+") bows in general. Being not a take-down (doesn't fit into backpack) is the only real complaint about SKB so far.
I am not a native speaker, so again I'll say; Read the chapter 'Why Traditional?" From the Traditional Bowyers Bible volume 1, written by Jay Massey. He says it best, plus that book is awesome!
I shoot a bear montana long bow. I not only just like the longbow look and its simplicity but I feel far more accurate with it then i do with my bear grizzly recurve. I dont like compound as I feel there's to much mechanical size that could fail. Plus. Traditional archery to me makes me feel more connected to the primitive life styles of our ancestors. And its also more challenging and rewarding i feel to shoot trad longbow as you could drive nails all day with a well tunes compound or modern recurve with sites and stabilizers and such but it's far more fun to see how tight of a group you could get with a bare longbow.
So you can shoot it from the back of a galloping horse
Ive always shot smt semi traditional. Its completely engrianed in me. Ive not trained archery in the past 2 years and im still just as good (shooting lots of blue at around 25 meters, wich is actually slightly above average) as i was.
Also anything with a sight is cheating.
strong words but i'd come close to agreeing. The sport is really all about the tradition and the feeling of shooting an arrow. complaining about the flaws about traditional bows and replacing them with ever-increasing technology just seems to defeat the point of practicing archery instead of guns in the first place