Stickbow Target Archery Forums

DWS,n
The IFAA has stated it wants to keep the longbow rules "classic", as they define that word. To them, that essentially means a "D" braced longbow, splitfinger, no aiming devices or aids, wooden arrows with feather guidance. IMO, if they had a way to restrict GAP aiming, they'd do that, too. Get the IFAA picture?
The three fingers under the shaft strig grip has been around for over 2 millenniums, but is not considered "classic longbow" and is excluded by the IFAA. Hey, it's their event and their rules ... you wanna change'em, I suggest you try talking to an IFAA official - I did, twice - good luck, you'll need it. :help:

Rob,n
I understand the rules, their intent, and their reasoning. Personally it does not matter to me because nothing I do when shooting violates any of these little definitions. As has been pointed out here most of these additions are coming about because people are complaining about unfair advantages of this or that. I am simply commenting that I don't agree with the myth that a technique constitutes an unfair advantage for one shooter over another. All of that notion of "classic" longbow just evolved as a result of competition anyway. I wouldn't expect to see the IFAA change anything based upon my input. I am nobody to them, not even a good shooter or a regular competitor.

DWS

Guys -n
Don't think this will be resolved here. Personally, I think the very idea of leading risers and sighting aids is against the very spirit of the true classic longbow. Just because armguard weighs 6 pounds and my glasses have etches in them, doesn't mean I'm not traditional ...
:thumbsup:
Viper out.

It has been very interesting to read all of the various points of view on IFAA Longbow rules. Anyone who shoots in longbow class, by default, agrees there should be equipment rules, otherwise they would be happy to shoot their longbow in freestyle tournaments. The only real difference is where people want to draw the line. Wherever that line is drawn, it should be drawn clearly and unambiguously. No good can come from having poorly written, self contradictory rules. As much as people may argue about what the rules should be, whatever they are should be as clear as possible. Then everyone can be on the same page and know for certain what is and isn’t allowed and people can argue where the line should be moved to in the future.

All sports have rules. That is what makes them sports as opposed to pastimes. The way those rules are set up determines how much of the competition is about the skill of the person versus the advantage given by the equipment. Some sports are strictly about the person and their skills, eg. running, diving, gymnastics. Some are more about the equipment, eg. monster truck car crushing, Robot Wars (yes, it’s a real competition, though perhaps not a sport), “pumpkin chucking” (yes, also real). Many sports are in-between, where equipment could give the edge to one of two otherwise equal competitors. So, if you want Longbow to be about the skill of the archers you need to have rules that level the advantage that can be given by equipment.

In many ways, the IFAA longbow rules are rather liberal compared to other types of sports. You get to bring a custom bow built, within limits, to your specifications and arrows you have matched to suit your draw length. Other sports require you to used pre-approved standardized equipment (baseball, for one). You might think that bowling equipment rules would have the easiest time since all they need to define are the specs for a round ball with finger holes, yet the ABC/WIBC rules just for the ball are over 1,800 words long! (And that doesn’t even include the approval and testing instructions like “Method of test for moment of inertia and radius of gyration of bowling balls.”) Even with all that, you can’t just bring in the ball of your choice, you have to use a pre-approved ball.

In some ways longbow rules need to be the most restrictive because there are already other classes where you can use other equipment and techniques. The intent of the rules is to prohibit gimmicks and keep archery basic and simple
--Should they allow R/D bows? Well, I’m not a competitor in IFAA so I won’t weigh in on that but I will say that it is amusing to see all of the argument about R/D bows yet none over carbon and glass. So, there does seem to be an agreement that some modern elements should be standard in longbow but, perhaps, not others
--As for weights, I’m surprised that any metal would be allowed in a longbow. Weights are designed to increase the inertia of a bow, especially the rotational inertia, which requires mass and distance from the riser. Prohibiting metal of any kind is the 1st step in stopping this
--Tennis wrapped handles? Can anyone figure a way this would give anyone an advantage unless they are shooting off their hand? Rules that have no valid purpose should be removed
--Rings on the tip end of arrows? This is just an attempt to add a calibrated sighting aid and is outside the spirit of longbow. But you can’t expect highly competitive people to agree on spirit, so you need rules like “no rings or usable sighting marks on the forward half of your arrows.”n
Now, as for technique: Should that be regulated? Well, this is not a new sort of argument. Back in the Victorian era, the popularization of aiming off the point radically changed archery scores. There was much argument about whether aiming was “pure archery” or not but, as DWS points out, there is no way to eliminate the point and thus no way to stop point offset aiming. However, we can stop string walking and multiple anchors because those are in effect mechanical measuring techniques and they are ones we can observe being used. Arguably, they are not in the spirit of the simplicity of the longbow class. But is if fair to regulate a method of holding the string? I’d have to say yes. The shooting method affects the character of the competition. There are other classes that allow string walking. It is consistent to keep longbow as simple as possible by requiring a standard release. Those who are in favor of string walking are probably good string walkers. Everyone wants to compete in sport that plays to their strengths, but it is fair to require everyone to use the same release as it puts everyone on the same level. You could argue that as long as equipment is the same, any technique should be ok. However, in a number of sports, archery included, the limitation of the technique is part of the competition. Offhanded (one handed) pistol is one example. If you used two hands, you could have a distinct advantage even though the equipment is exactly the same.

So, I hope the IFAA rules continue to support a fundamentally simple and pure form of archery, debateable as that is. Rules for a simple sport may have to be complex because competitive people want at least an even chance if not an edge from their equipment and techniques. Rules should also be clear, unambiguous and have a well-expressed intent. It seems the IFAA rules have a way to go.