Stickbow Target Archery Forums

Dana, what exactly do you find wrong with the "string loops touching the limb nocks" way of defining an IFAA longbow?
Thanx for the Florida invite, but for the last 5 months I've been in rehab for a "frozen" right shoulder and I won't be able to pull string until next year ... if at all. Yeah, maybe that's another reason why I've been so damn crotchity lately ... first time I've ever hadda stop shooting for so damn long ...
Todd, I'm with you - I vastly prefer very mild r/d (D-braced) and Hill-style longbows. And thanx for the head's up on my posting boo-boo - amended!n
MacBow, I agree with you for the most part, except for two basic concepts -
1. if the IFAA longbow LIMBS definition rule is left as is, there is still no viable way of inspecting, defining and enforcing just what is an IFAA longbow - this is the heart of the matter, this is why there's been all the confusion and frustration at IFAA World Tournaments, let alone local IFAA tourneys ... this why the IFAA double standard of longbow definition exists today.

2. yes, IF required, have two IFAA classes - Modern and Classic - where "Classic" longbows are studied and measured UNBRACED and must have limbs that are dead STRAIGHT; slight forward set is allowed - any other longbow type will be deemed "Modern". Having a "one design" class is too limiting, IMO, and forces a person who already has an ELB to spend money on the one-design ... and to which bow manufacturer does the one-design award go to, and why will they make all the money from sales thereof?

Rob I think the limiting factor of a one design bow is valid in the face of what appears to be an almost "unlimited" longbow class. If everyone was using exactly the same bow surely it removes the definition argument that seems to be causing so much unrest in the ranks.
I totally agree with your first point regarding limb definition but the fact that some very good minds can't/won't agree on such a basic concept makes me pessimistic that the current longbow class can ever be defined to the satisfaction of the majority.
If it existed I'd prefer a classic longbow class - the simpler and more limiting the better. I have neither the mind nor the time for complicated arguments & politics. I'd approach a couple of manufacturers and if someone wanted to sponsor a classic event then use their bows and let them make the money at least for the first few events depending on how successful it was. At a later date a classic bow definition could be agreed on by the IFAA for an approved design that any bowyer could build. My fear then is the same old performance arguments would make that impossible and we're back to square one. I would allow any ELB shooter to enter whatever bow weight category they fell into if they did not want to use a "Hill-style" bow with a shelf. Archery in general seems to be full of people happy to spend money on the latest equipment and travelling the world to compete so I'd be surprised if another $300 would be a real hardship. Yes I am naive but I honestly believe a simple, totally limited classic longbow event with the emphasis firmly on sportsmanship & fun would attract more folk like me who enjoy competition but prefer something that even hints of the spirit of traditional archery. If anyone suggests new rules to squeeze more performance out of a "classic" bow they could be politely pointed to the other longbow class.

One last thing in favour of a one design classic longbow class before I shut up. It's already been stated that in order to play with the big boys in the IFAA longbow you need to spend serious cash. Perhaps there's a few ELB shooters who buck the trend but realistically to be competitive you need the same kind of bow that the top five are using. Compare the IFAA longbow to Formula One Grand Prix where Formula One is the apex of a pyramid of motor sport enthusiasm from grass roots upwards. Less performance in the production car racing circuit but no less competitive and much easier for the working man to take part
One design/make bow - Martin Mountaineer/Bear Montana/AIM Viper/etc - accessible to the ordinary archer who can pit his skills against another guy without the size of his wallet being a factor. The equipment used doesn't become an issue. Lots of the same bows being made should equate to more competitive prices and more used bows on the market to attract new/young people into the sport.

A while back I talked to the IFAA V.P Steve Kendrick about The Longbow class, although he welcomed the new Primitive class he did have concerns that it would open the flood gates and the Longbow might then become too fragmented.
Splitting Longbow so you can have Hill style Bows then R/D Bows isn't the way forward. If you allow the Longbow to become like this then before you know it somebody would then want a seperate class for wood only arrows and some for Carbons, some would then want add facewalking and some wouldn't where would you draw the line.

I just want ONE Longbow class that is flexable enough to allow a good choice of Longbows that allows the ELB to the stealth R/D Bows to compete together, to some archers winning isn't their No1 priority, to them it's as much about meeting new and different people.Todd if you want to shoot you Hill Longbow, go for it, win or lose you will still have my admiration respect for trying.

Redbow knows this story
Someone I once knew broke his bow with a 100 point lead at a European champs, as he didn't bring a spare his fellow competitors all offered him their spare bows and for some reason he refused, when I asked him why he told me his chances of winning where almost impossible. I tried to tell him that by taking up their offer and continuing he would gain greater respect than if he had actually won, he was so wrapped up in winning he just couldn't see it.

On this thread we seem to be missing the point, our goal is for a simple to understand yet enforceable set of Longbow rules that encourages rather than discourages archers to participate. It's the people that win not the Bows, so lets not get too hung up on technicalities.

O.K. Guys, you seem to all be argueing for r/d longbows, cut to/past center, and any type of arrow. How is this different from the Bowhunter Recurve Class? Maybe this is why wood arrows ought to be retained?

Some genuine questions asked with due respect to the Formula 1 archers previously mentioned:n
1. Not everyone plays to win but for those who prefer the look, feel of a Hill-style bow is winning a world championship a realistic goal?

Rob very lucidly (IMO) makes the point that as R/D limbs are already the winning norm why hide the fact under the veneer of a D-shape. If you take the quasi-trad element out of the equation then it does become very simple to define a longbow and I think more archers would be encouraged because they could use relatively cheap bows that weren't crafted to disguise their performance.
2. Would you be bothered one way or the other if bows like the Martin Vision were allowed?n
STEVE - People win not bows. Absolutely true. I recently entered my first comp and on both days shot well each morning then went on to blow the second half because I could not hold my mental focus after the break. I'm new to this game and that mental strength will come but if possible I would still choose the simplest class to enter, where my achievements could not be spoiled by someone saying "Yes that was a great score BUT he's using one of those dodgy bows with an iffy riser... etc".

Regrettably we are hung up on technicalties but until a definitive set of rules can be agreed upon I see no downside to adding a classic/trad longbow class based on an absolute set of rules with no room for interpretation. I honestly think more archers would compete if they knew EXACTLY where they stood rather than waiting in limbo for something that may or may not happen.

Rob,
Have a look at the Oryx "flat" bown at n
<img>
As I have said before, the string touching only the knock is not a yard stick to describe a longbow.

However I have no problem with bows showing a heavy deflex been used in the longbow class!