Stickbow Target Archery Forums

Sorry, folks, I forgot the reference I got the text from:
n Thats the official web-side of IFAA.

Hi There Everybodyn
I am from Durban, South Africa and an avid IFAA longbow shooter. I have been to two IFAA World Champs and have thoroughly enjoyed it. I also met great guys like Larry, Steve Morley and many others. I did not get to meet Martin Koini in Scotland but had the opportunity of seeing him and Larry battle things out on the last day of the tournament – great stuff!n
I am also the culprit who used rings around my arrows to aim in Scotland – did not help me much for I only came 11th. However, it drew enough attention for the authorities to ban my method. If anything, it motivated them to apply their minds to the current rules but unfortunately the result was disastrous.
The IFAA longbow rules have been bad for a long time and the amendments will do the IFAA’s already battered image no good
The problem is that the longbow rules as they stand now have no basic rule or grundnorm - i.e. that rule that defines the spirit of what we are trying to achieve with the longbow style. There must be a ground rule or foundation that declares what we are aiming to achieve. An example of such a ground rule would be that "THE RULES OF THE LONGBOW STYLE SHALL SEEK TO CREATE A STYLE OF SHOOTING THE BOW AND ARROW THAT RESEMBLES AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE EQUIPMENT AND TEQNINQUES USED BY THE ENGLISH ARCHERS OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY". Such a ground rule will then guide as to what rules should be implemented to ensure that the shooting style remains what it set out to be. (I am not suggesting that the above ground rule is necessarily applicable to the IFAA longbow style – on the contrary, it clearly is not, for the reasons stated hereunder)n
In the case of the IFAA there is no such a ground rule. In fact, to call the style the Longbow Style is a misnomer to begin with, as we do not actually shoot longbows. We shoot American flat bows made of ultra modern materials (such as carbon!) that do not resemble the longbow that has become so well known. To require that our "longbow" must be shot with wooden arrows and feathered fletches is pretentious in the extreme - for it suggests a degree of purity to the shooting style, that for the reasons stated above, does not exist.
So, if we are shooting American flatbows and not longbows, is there any basis really on which it can be argued that, for instance, the arrows must be of wood and with feathered fletches like the fourteenth century archers did? This is open for debate. My view is that the answer is clearly no. The wooden arrow-rule is therefore clearly arbitrary and without foundation.

On the aforesaid premise it follows that there is no basis on which it can be argued that the American flatbow should not have added weight in the riser, modern wrapping around the handle or rings around the arrow that can be used for aiming. Why are these things so irreconcilable with shooting the flatbow? After all, the flatbow is in almost every respect an ultra modern tool and is not a historically pure one at all.
In the final analysis there is no justification based on principle for the amendments other than that it is designed to exclude a particular style of shooting the flatbow. In this case, those on one continent of the world managed to change the rules as to outlaw the interpretations of those on two other continents of the world without being able to justify their initiative on principle. It is therefore arbitrary. (It was done by means of a postal vote by representatives of the member countries with no debate whatsoever and the majority of the representatives were probably clueless when it comes to anything to do with traditional archery. Only one longbow archer’s views appear to have been considered)n
Over and above what I have said above there are a multiplicity of reasons why the amendments will create further uncertainty and unhappiness. The rules are badly drafted and do not nearly manage to achieve what the rule makers intended to do. Take for instance the rule that no aiming device may be used. The words “aiming” and “device” are not defined in the rules so the meanings of these words given in the Oxford Dictionary should be decisive. Depending on how these words are interpreted, it might very well be possible to make out a case that using the point of the arrow to aim constitutes the use of an aiming device. Imagine, any form of gap shooting will be outlawed! The problem is clearly that those tasked with making the rules do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject
There is only one way to go – and that is to take the issue up with the IFAA in an aggressive and firm way. We have to start from scratch and this time do a better job. There appears to be broad consensus in this regard amongst most longbow shooters. I am certainly going to make work of it through my country’s representative and if everybody pulls together we can do it. Should there not be two traditional styles? A longbow style where the bow must resemble the English longbow, as well as the Flat bow style (what is currently called the Longbow style)

In the mean time I shall continue to shoot my longbow (that is really a flatbow) according to the IFAA rules and hope to have as much fun as possible. Hopefully I shall keep on stimulating the legislative fingers of the IFAA authorities and have a good time in the process.

Welcome to STAF, Piet - and thank you for your very interesting and well spoken post.
I find it refreshing to read your comments about the IFAA Longow Division Rules - clearly, you and I are on the same page in this matter.

Abiguous. I've used this word quite a bit when addrssing issues with the IFAA, and IMO it ceratinly fits correctly.

It will take a huge effort to effect IFAA changes - and it will occur if it's the will of the membership.

As a side information:
The discussion about purismn has led the German Association to introduce the so-called "primitive bow division". There, no technical material such as glasfibre or carbon fibre is allowed. Meanwhile (this happend approx. 6 years ago) a scene of skilled archers has established itself. They are proud to shoot their selfmade bows crafted from simple pieces of wood and sometimes scoring remarkable results
I am normally not so much into variation of classes as this makes the turnaments more complex - espacially for the host clubs - but if other associations would also make a "trial" with this seperation we might get a better picture of the whole issue ... and also welcome more traditionalists in our circle - the family of archers

Ah, the "simple" longbow - a stick, a string, a wooden arrow with feather guidance - what could be simpler?
:confused: :help: :scared:

Welcome Piet. You are right on in my book. Thanks for your concerned reply.

I have a question.....Who is the archer you mention that the IFAA staff seems to pay attention to about the rules. You said, "Only one longbow archer's views appears to have been considered." I'd like to know. Thanks.

I personally think the wood arrow is the common demnominator when it comes to shooting. And, the IFAA is right to keep it as the longbow missile.

It takes craftsmanship and much work to get a truely matched set of woodies. I think the arguement is "the order of importance is the shooter, the arrow, then the bow." A good archery can shoot a good arrow accurately off any bow, but he can't shoot bad arrows off a good bow.

Dances....sorry my friend but a 3 under shooter will win the day against a split fingered shooter more days than not. The shooters being equal in skill of course. It is just to accurate a way to shoot at all but the longest yardage.

Piet, you are correct it seems it will take a mass movement to push the IFAA governing body into some ammendments or clarifications. Unless the shooter who had the ear of the management wants to effect the changes.

The other thing is to boycot the shoot...just stay away. Let the few that show up have a small event and let the IFAA revenue drop and changes will come. Heck, I might go and protest the arrows having points for aiming....if the rules say clearly any sighting devise..points should be excluded. AS well as carbon in the limbs, r/d limbs....It's the spirit of the event, Right??n
Piet, tell your representative to jump in this forum. He'll get an earful without saying a word.

Art

I find the whole concept of the IFAA interesting. You can't join or become a "member" directly, yet you can pay a fee to shoot at an IFAA sanctioned tourney. You can't effect changes to the IFAA unless you are a member of an "IFAA affiliated" organization - in the USA that's the NFAA. When you look at the IFAA officers and officials roster, most of those folks are Americans. Then, a comparison of IFAA and NFAA longbow rules shows startling differences in gear legalities.
My personal opinion is that there's an extraterrestrial alien conspiracy that's doing its level best to completely undermine Earth-based archery, particularly archery of the "traditional" persuasion.
Those little green men are surely doing a wonderful job.

I've been following this thread pretty closely. There are obviously some problems with the longbow rules depending on your personal view point.
What I don't like is the fact that we are attacking the IFAA rules staff. I'm positive that the compensation that these folks get is next to nothing. Its for the love of archery (I'm sure) that they put themselves in these thankless positions and jobs. Yes, there are going to be mistakes, but we as participating members have to help and work with the management to correct the problems.
I can tell you from personal experience being president and an officer of several organizations that the norm is that there are just a handful of workers in any endeavor. Compared to the general membership who normally just complain, there are few people willing to offer constructive advice and muchless their time.
Bottomline if you want things to change, take a pro active stance and participate. Boycotting seldom solves anything. Work within the system and communicate your thoughts and ideas to your representatives. Just complaining is just that, complaining nothing else.