I am not an archer, but a rifleman. I think this is the same thing for archery, pistols and rifles: modern equipment does not make anything "selfshooting". But it makes it possible to be concistent to a degree that is impossible with "old time" equipment. It still takes enormous amount of skill and training to be on the top of the game.
Yes, it´s quite obvious really. Shooting 5 hits out of five bullets at 600 meters with an modern rifle is not that hard, but try doing it with a musket or an early winchester and it becomes quite hard.
The problem is that people confuse consistency through quality equipment with skill. The ultimate aim of all good advances in sporting technology should be removing barriers that get in the way of judging skill. It's not that new technology necessarily means you need less skill but that it is possible for skill to no longer be hampered by uncontrolled variables or, vice versa, for a lack of skill to be covered for by those same variables. Take a rifle, and assume that at 500m it has a very high spread, and that you are firing in very windy conditions. If you take a skilled shooter and an unskilled shooter, you would expect a skilled shooter to be able to shoot closer to on target than the unskilled shooter, but because of all the uncontrollable variable involved, it might still come out with the two shooters looking remarkably similar in comparison in terms of score, simply because all the inconsistencies mean that they miss pretty much every shot and the few hits that occur end up being pretty close to random chance. Replace this with shooting a highly accurate rifle, with a magnified scope, indoors, in favourable conditions or otherwise controlled environment, and the skill will out. No longer is the skilled shooter frustrated by things he cannot control. and no longer can the unskilled shooter hide behind natural variance. Yes, technically it's "easier" for the skilled shooter to make the shot, but it's more down to removing luck (both good and bad) from the equation.
I am a traditional archer and I don't consider modern archery to be "less" skilled. I'd say the skills are different. I need a different skillset than a modern archer. There are things I need to consider while shooting that a modern archer does not, and vice versa! Is one of them superior to the other? I don't think so. It's just different. As of my experience modern olympic archers seem to be highly specialized in what they do, and within that field they are far superior! My skillset is broader, but I am far less skilled in any of them. None of that is "better" than the other. It would be like comparing a racecar to a truck. Which one is better? Well, depends of what you want to use it for... Driving fast or carrying goods? So I can only dream of the accuracy modern olympic archers achieve, but I can hold myself quite well when shooting at targets at an unknown distance in an unknown terrain, or at moving targets, or with snapshots at sudden targets from an unknown direction, or while aiming ballistically at a target flat on the ground, or coming closest to a placed flag somewhere on a field. But the only reason why is because I have trained to do that, and most olympic archers have not. And I am sure that if they would, they would easily be at the same level or even better. And all that equipment sure does makes some things easier, but at the same time the difficulty is upped! It's similar to shooting rifles with and without a scope. It's easier to hit targets at the same distance, but now you can place the targets farther away or make them smaller, to increase the challenge. And that means you have to get even more accurate and precise! I for myself am always awed by the skill modern olympic archers can achieve. And I have seen many archers trying to "switch places" and both sides struggled when trying to "play the others game". I hope I have not offended anyone, if so I am sorry!
first time i touched a real bow (not a makeshift bamboo stick toy) it had sights on. i couldnt aim with that cus i had been shooting sticks from a flimsy bamboo with cotton strung tight between the ends. when i used a real bow for the first time it was a club takedown bow with a sight on. i couldnt figure out the sight and it annoyed me so i had it taken off. then i started actually hitting the target. several years later i started doing reenactment archery with a mollegabet bow and traditnal-ish arrows (they got some kinda field points) the bow is around 30 pounds made of maple with a modern string. since thn i havent bothered trying a full modern bow. maybe cus ive only been serious about it for a few months... modern equipment is a mysterious dwarven magic to me!
Your exactly right, I had gotten to shoot archery a few times when I was in scouts, always enjoyed it but never clued into how difficult it actually was to put an arrow on target. We used the cheap fiberglass bows or club recurve. That was 18 years ago. Now I am 13 days away from shooting for a month with a compound bow. It's just as fun as I remember archery being, and I think skills from any kind of archery are interchangeable. The biggest issue isn't whether it's easy or fun, it's about coming in with the right mindset. I am not your typical compound bow shooter. I love the precision of them but I honestly don't care where I score right now or in the future it's far more fun to just put arrows on target than worry about hitting a certain score.
I've switched from barebow to olympic recurve yesterday. I expected it would be easier to hit target every single time. But it's fucking hard. I shoot better without all the additional stuff. It requires much more precision and consistency in shot proces.
Today I've shot first competetion with freestyle recurve. And it was hell. I got only 317/600. After qualification my coach gave me some tips for my anchor and follow trough. Then I shot the best elimination round I have ever (6 months of shooting) experienced. It's just more about the best consistency you could get, but it'd possible to learn it.
Excellent point. The only reason I chose barebow was because I became quickly frustrated with equipment management, definitely not because olympic is easier. Only a fool would believe it's easier skill-wise.
It´s not easier to hit the target, it´s just easier to spot the mistakes. For example if you dont hit the target without a sight there is a bunch of possibilities why. No consistend draw lenght, no consistend loose, sloppy stance, wrong setup of the bow, the arrows, and wrong estimated distance. With a sight you got the same bunch except the estimated point of impact. You have a sight and you know it should hit exactly where you aim it (or at least there should be a group somwhere if all else fits) It´s much easier, at least for me, to find the errors in my technique if i have a steady point to aim at and a sight to go with it. It really helps me to just screw on a sight now and then to correct myself. If you never shot a bow with a sight it really takes a lot of patience and experience to spot the flaws in your setup and a faulty setup makes it so much harder to get a feel for tradtional shooting.
Most who say things are easier clearly haven't preformed said task in the exact setting. Also they say things like this to raise themselves up due to poor outlook about themselves personally. Slamming on others make them feel better, more so since they can hide behind a computer while making such a statement. Rarely will a person say this to a person face in real life. Anyways, love the video's and keep up the good work. You've helped me and my son on many things concerning Archery.
When technology becomes better, standards also rise. When training techniques increase, or more athletes become professionals, standards rise. It's easier to hit the targetb with a better bow, but it's also easier for your opponent, the best athlete in his or her sport, according to the rules will win. I am not an expert in archery, I just like this channel, but I also had a discussion with my father about football. One strong team lost and I said it was not a very big surprise, because the players additionally to the national league had to play in the European Champions league a few days before and some even had to play in the national squad not a long time before, they were just exhausted. My father said that they should be able to handle it, afterall they are pros. But guess what, the opponents are also pros. Every small aspect can matter. It's a level paying field, so no matter the rules, defeating your opponent will be very hard. No matter what new rule or technology is introduced, your opponent can use the same things, the difficulty never really changes.
MsJavaWolf as someone who has gotten into archery in the past 2 months I can add something to this. I started with a regular takedown recurve and slowly begun adding components to the bow to aid my skill development and to achieve better groupings. I would shoot daily to improve. But at any time throughout my daily sessions I decided to add a new component - my progression was set back 10 steps. Just when I got used to the bow and aiming method, adding a sight, clicker or even my stabilizers made me start from the beginning again because the bows dynamic was changed and now my shots would land differently. Even my drawing technique and anchoring had to change when I added parts which were literally making me re learn how to shoot. This does mean that if you were to purchase a top end bow with accessories, if you tried to shoot with it right away with no familiarity - your shots would likely land all over the place and itll take hours if not days until you learn the particular nuisances of that bow and setup. Adding accessories makes it harder... And easier.
Could not agree more.. was a compound bow hunter for 8 years... fell out of archery when I was 34... picked up recurve target shooting at 57 and just love it! I can shoot every day in my 9 meter basement... and shoot at the club on weekends... I enjoy every minute of it! Also, I have meet a lot of new friends along the way... another bonus!
Additionally, many commenters don't realise that barebow shooters use "sights". If sights were removed from competition, then shooters will use barebow aiming methods (stringwalking, facewalking, etc.). The World Archery channel has footage of the 1957 World Championships with the world's best using stringwalking and dropping their wooden barebows. If traditionalists and purists have their way, then the only way to shoot is instinctive. However, people actually want to reliably hit the target, and making things unnecessarily harder is not a test of skill.
Nothing is more funny to watch than see olympic archers in traditional competitions in the woods. Those mofos and their large fancy bows gets stuck in branches and shit, they swear left and right. Pure bliss to watch.
@@NUSensei OMG you actually read my comment on a four year old video, that is what I call dedication, much respect. And thanks for all the good tips how to improve my skills. I'm started out with a big longbow, but changed it to a smaller bow because it also got stuck in the bushes. Now I have a Samick SHT 60" 45#, (bare) and I like it very much :)
Never fired and arrow nor looked at a bow. I never really have been interested in archery and really, as an activity, I still dont. You however earned a new sub because your videos are so clear and straight forward, with a wealth of good information and argumentation. You have made a topic for which I have no interest.... interesting =) well done, sir. You don't happen to be a teacher do you?
At 70 meters I'm just really happy If I score. It's easy to get cocky at 20,25,30 Better equipment allows an athlete to be compared to another athlete instead of comparing their equipment. Saying the equipment wins the sport or makes it easy would be like grabbing your average driver (even an aggressive one) throwing him in a supercar and see how well he can go around a road track. He's going to be so sluggish compared to a pro driver in the same car you'd think his car is detuned
I am a bare bow recurve shooter, and I will say modern equipment makes you more consistent but only if you are consistent . It's not easy no matter how much stuff you stick on your bow .
After scrolling through all these comments, there is one think that i think is pretty funny. Most people that think bare bow is harder or olympic recurve is easier or asking why scopes and stabilizers are olympic, totally miss one thing - the less you've to worry about your equipment - the more important your skill level gets. And i think it is olympic to reduce all unessential variables to be able to compare to athlets.
Yes it is true that the equipment like stabilisers, sights... make you shoot a better score if you put the same time in it than using a bare bow. that does not mean that it is too easy
Yes, it makes it easier. And that's persicely why person with some skill (novice, average, super Olympic pro - doesn't matters) accuracy will be like this: *compound > recurve > traditional* The skill level still matters and decides most of results, yes, but you can't object that compound bow, that holds drawn string for you and has release akin to crossbow, is "as hard to shoot as traditional wooden bow". Modern bows are easier to shoot and this lets professionals make better results. This logic is dead simple. I don't know how you people don't get this. Same thing with mattresses, running boots and racing tracks/bicycles/guns. I understand why you can't see this logic, though. Its hitting your self-esteem. But I understand that it's as hard to master traditional bow as its hard to master recurve/compound (or even gun). Just please, try to look over your bloated self esteem and accept that modern tools are much easier to use.
ScienceDiscoverer Okay first off, my "self esteem" has nothing to do with anything. Second, I stated in my first comment, very plainly, that compound bows along with modern equipment, do make a bow easier to shoot. That being said, it still takes lots of practice to become a skilled archer. Don't try and discount the hours of practice that goes into modern archery just because the equipment has evolved.
Comments are easy. Commenting without looking like an obvious noob or traditionalist is harder. Trouble is, it only takes one idiot to comment to give these "know nothing couch philosophers" the courage to follow suit. Keep up the great advise and teaching NuSensei.
Eddy Merckx one hour record (49.431km - 1972) for biking was broken quite a few times. Then in 1997 the cycling body divided the records into two. UCI hour record held by Merckx until year 2000 beaten by 10 meters. Current record is 49.700 set in 2005
As with many things, my opinion is somewhere in the middle. The sights and stabilisers take a lot of the variables of the picture leaving behind sheer human exceptionalism - which is what the Olympics is about in its core ideals.
I agree that Olympic achery is not easier or that modern bows somehow do the work for. However as a traditional Archer I did find that when I picked up compound bow after only a few weeks and some instruction on how to properly set the sights I found it kind of autonomous. With the sights the left off of the cam and the trigger release. The ease at witch I was able to achieve high accuracy seemed to be just set up the bow get a half way decent form and the bow does the rest.
Traditional recurve - Lower scores to achieve awards, less precision, more relaxed, less equipment. Olympic recurve - higher scores required for same awards, more precision, more concentration, more equipment.
to me I find archery to be very skill orientaded it takes practice months days years to be good at any style of archery I shoot compound recurve and long bow and self bows I still haven't tried Olympic style archery love to try it so NuSensei you said it right if any one that has not shot bow before try it your self and then talk your smack about it.
Agree 100%, a small minority of archers do of course criticize disciplines that they don't participate in but as far as comments on youtube etc are concerned the most vocal are the virtual archers and followers of TV shows like the Hunger Games etc and you can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who has no experience of the subject and no desire to learn.
In sport, difficulty is based on the level of competition. In my local area, shooting primitive longbows could be considered easy because the pool of competitors is non-existant compared to the hundreds of competitive compound archers. So in effect, competing with the very latest and greatest of modern technology would be harder even though the simple act of hitting a target with such equipment is significantly easier. I think that is where the context is lost, standing solo on a range i can shoot nice consistent groups with my hunting compound bow, hand me a Mongolian bow while on horseback and i would likely be spending the better part of the evening trying to find my arrows in the woods. So in that context, clearly the latter is harder...
My view. I’ve started archery (been using Olympic recurves primarily) about 2-3 weeks ago. About five sessions about four hours long each. To me it seems easy to learn the basics but hard to master. I’m putting shots mostly at the red/yellow (8-10 points) consistently at 20m. This seems easy. Putting shots at the same point 90m (?100 yards) away even with all the modern “cheats” (it’s not a cheat but some might think it is), that’s super hard. Those who can do this have trained for a long time. If they claim it’s east then they’ve forgotten their learning journey to get to that accuracy. I know enough to know I know next to nothing about the art. But one thing I’ve learnt is archery is easy to learn, hard to master.
Very nice. I would LOVE to be able to shoot all kinds of bows, and techniques as to be able to have hands on experience. Anyone who has te opportunity to shoot barebow, traditional, compound and olympic is a lucky person in my opinion.
In response to your argument about high jump and track, the answer is Yes. it does make it easier. yes it does take less ability. If we can both use the Fosbury Flop to jump 2.0m but can only use a traditional scissors to make it 1.5m, how much skill does it take to use the flop to clear 1.5m? You're moving the goal posts by comparing a 2.0m flop jump to a 1.5m scissors jump. The argument basically comes down to, if you have two people of equal archery skill, and one has an olympic recurve with stabilizers and everything, and the other has a bare bow without, who will be more accurate at range. If they switch bows will they switch positions? There are certain things that take more skill to use but yield better results. For example, a manual transmission in racing. It takes more skill to use it, but allows you to accelerate faster. There are also things that improve performance but don't effect skill at all, such as scopes on rifle shooting. They allow you to see farther but the actual process of lining up the shot, holding steady, accounting for wind breathing ect, is unaffected. Then you have things that just make things easier by eliminating or reducing certain skill based aspects. An example of this is using a straight edge while drawing a line on paper or cutting a board. You get a razor straight line every time. You're still drawing the line with the pencil, but you don't need to worry about left right wiggle. I imagine most people view stabilizers on a bow in the latter category. You're still aiming and shooting, but you've eliminated an entire aspect of controlling the bow or reduced it to the minimum possible levels. This allows for better performance at a lower skill level. While i'm sure there's some aspect of getting used to and skill in using a bow with stabilizers, their prevelance would indicate that it's significantly lower than using a bow without them, and if you asked people the question in reverse; to use a bow without stabilizers to take the same shots they would with they're olympic recuves, they would claim it would be harder to do.
As a compound shooter, I can attest that mostly all archers get along. Of course with some friendly cross chatter an outsider may think we don't get along. But it dosen't matter if it's a "stick and a string" or if it has "training wheels" we have no issues other than finding more "string time".
Yepp...when I let someone who shoots compounds/Olympic recurves shoot my hand made bows @ 20yrds (i shoot pinch grip like the native Americans 45#@24" short draw style on purpose) they have a very hard time even hitting paper.. but I can and have picked up either and shot reasonably tight groups @ 20yrds..... I think that's were the misconception is derived from a lot of the time. What most people don't think about though is that 20-30yrds is about the max for my bows and 20-30yrds is almost "point-blank"😉 for compound/Olympic recurves. But if I try and shoot a compound/Olympic recurve @ 50yrds plus it gets tough for me to hit the paper lol and yet the more experienced compound/Olympic recurve shooter are loosing groups tighter then my groups that I shoot with my handmade bows @ 20yrds.
I dont necessarily have anything against modern archery, I just dont think all of the gadgets are necessary which is why I chose traditional recurve. I can develop aiming skills just as good with out sights and what not. But I will say it definitely does require being athletic as it takes strength to even draw a bow
Archery, easy to learn, a lifetime to master...ignorance is bliss, and there are a lot of blissful people out there. I prefer barebow archery, but I sure won't try to put down the preferences of others. Haters gonna hate.
John 3:16 King James Version 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you will be saved. John 3:16 (share the good news of the gospel around the world!) Have a wonderful day/night, may the LORD bless you all, and farewell!,.,,,,,, Galatians 3:26 King James Version 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Titus 3:5-7 King James Version 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. ............
An automatically firing bow, aka a gun. I tell you what though, 95% of people can't shoot a gun worth a damn. The argument that one is easier than the other is inherently flawed because how "easy" it is, is a subjective feeling. I would argue that they are different, but how easy it is, is hard to quantify.
Sensei i need guidance, i got a bow (30lbs) with a brush rest but i got arrows that i thought would be strong cause i break everything and the fletching doesn't travel smooth through the rest(it's on a funny angle) and hits the brushes like directly and the nock won't move. Have i done wrong sensei?
I have a perspective that sort of empathizes with the outsiders' aversion to Olympic style recurve. And I'm saying this as a recurve archer who doesn't really do traditional style archery. Imagine if the Olympic Games introduces a new style of running, which allows running blades under the shoes. For the sake of argument, let's assume they do offer an advantage in speed. NUSensei's argument for Olympic recurve applies to this "running". It's scientific progress that allows higher speeds; it's still a test of the runners' skill and strength; it's still the runner who runs, as the blades don't provide extra energy. And yet I think if this became the only style of running competition, it would make a lot of people uncomfortable.
"Easy" is a relative term. I was at the range last night, and I kept making the same mistake! it was easy to keep repeating the same thing (which was clearly wrong and not the desired result), but it was very difficult to adjust and work myself out of that mistake. Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect.
Hey NUSensei i have a question. Do i need to work out the Shoulder where i hold the bow seperatly/more then the other to balance them out from a muscular and form standpoint ?
Hey Nu. Thanks for the helpful videos. I am sympathetic to your viewpoints regarding technology and progress but it makes me wonder: why don't you shoot compound bows?
Mostly because I don't find compound bows fascinating. I'm more of the traditional stick and string, and I find modern recurve to be the right balance between enjoyment and competitiveness. Compound archery is too target-focused for my liking, where precision is expected and not earned.
I'm not a competitive archer fact is I'm so new to it I'm a baby. I only took it up cause it may be the best servivile tool in the world. Theirs places the governments of the world want to force us to go I'm not willing to go. Recurve and long bows are simple tools. Compounds may be faster but not easy to fix. Olimpic bow is great if you're in a competitive sport. I can hunt with a gun but if you're out of ammo what do you do. If I use a stick and string I can make my own out of the world around me.
Funny, cause i was thinking about your video about compound archery, and in the end your argument stood right. I've tried many kinds of archery and had more pleasure mongolian ways. Compounds "indoors" are hard for me to watch, i find this to repetitive. Others are fine, even if i prefer shooting traditionnal bows
The way I see it is that a bow is a tool and i shoot just a bare bone 50 lb long bow it's what I have always used so a professional bow is going to be harder for me to get used to but tools need upgrades to preform in different manners
Sights, balances... eventually Olympic archers are going to have arm bracers, and then full body exoskeletons to prevent unwanted arm movements. The archer will still be technically making the shot.
Arm bracers are specifically disallowed in the rules, and you said it yourself about exoskeletons: they do the work. Archery won't progress down this route, and there's no incentive to.
Modern gear doesn't make the shot process easier (unless you use a release aid, or a compound) but it does make it easier to get consistent performance on the target. My issue is, if it's an athletic competition, why use so much technology taking the athlete out of the process? Everything is designed to remove natural variation from the human form. Barebow is a much purer competition.
The other perspective is that it keeps the athlete in the process, but it extends what is possible performance-wise. The sights and stabilisers don't remove natural variation - it's still there, but it has been mitigated. But now you're expected to hit a target that is smaller and further away. A novice or unskilled shooter will still miss the target with the additional tools and will not achieve tight groupings without exceptional training - as with any performance-based activity.
Thanks for the reply! It doesn't sound like we're truly in disagreement about what the gear does but I still don't understand the point of using the olympic style gear. The on-target performance is improved, but the level of competition hasn't changed. The extra gear is essentially improving the baseline, but all archers in the competition are still using the same baseline, so the competition is still valid. What's the point in the extra gear for competition, when a barebow baseline is just as valid? Is it that important to have shots which are judged by millimeters instead of centimeters? Was it some quirk of history that led to it becoming the Olympic standard? Maybe it's the desire to break records - aka an objective based competition instead of one relative to your fellow archers? I guess what I actually don't get is why advanced gear is the sporting standard. I have shot multiple types of bow and been trained in both Olympic and Instinctive shooting styles, and I found the barebow equipment far more challenging. I would think that athletes want the biggest challenge possible to compete over. PS thank you for the channel, you've codified a lot of information that I've spent years piecing together from disagreeing coaches and hearsay.
@@sbvera13I think your question is, why use gear to compete against gear, than barebow against barebow. The answer is highly complex but it sounds like you really want to know and I had the same question myself. 1. In any performance type of discipline, you always develop specialized methods and equipment to your specific goal. For accuracy, you will look for things to improve accuracy, such as sights or marking the riser (illegal). Bicycles for pure speed don't look like bicycles, they look like giant books, with that weird aerodynamic shield over the bike. Race cars don't look like normal cars. Decathletes aren't natural athletes doing 10 random events, they specifically practice each event (though are still excellent athletes overall). To prevent this you have to put many weird limitations, and people will always be trying to find new equipment/techniques within the rules. So you might as well just let it develop freestyle in pursuit of performance, and accept that it loses some connection to the original discipline. It became Olympic standard because it was the best available at the time (1972 when archery was re-instated). 2. Technology is actually the opposite of what you say- it makes the athlete MORE in the process than taking them out. In barebow you can hit or miss due to technique, stringwalking, draw length, or sheer dumb luck. Freestyle takes out the aim and draw length issues and makes it that mistakes are 100% technique and body control. I think it makes better Olympic competition to rely on muscular control, at 70m, than barebow that is muscular control and also aiming and luck, at 50m. Not only that, at 70m you need more draw weight, increasing the athleticism needed. Barebow is a bigger challenge to do successfully, but freestyle recurve makes the most technically sound athletic competition. 3. Luck- barebow has issues that magnify *exponentially* with distance. Tiny variations in draw length have huge effect at long distance. If your arrow is a bit slow and goes 1cm low at 10m, gravity makes it into 4cm low at 20m, and 49+cm at 70m. It goes up exponentially, not proportionally, and when you take out the clicker it opens up this can of worms. You could perform a great shot and be a tiny bit off on the draw length and miss the target low, and lose to someone who performs a poor shot and hits the 2-ring to the right but had draw length spot on. You also have to aim way above the target at 60-70m, high enough that it is basically lucky guesses. You can get better with practice but you'll never get good. Even then you aim with this big fat blurry arrow rather than a small sight pin so there is still some guesswork. That is pretty gimmicky, it is better to just use the sight and clicker and increase the distance. 4. As much as I enjoy the experience of shooting barebow and how it feels more like archery, barebow is kind of a walking contradiction simply because the goal of target archery is to maximize accuracy while in barebow you are at the same time maximally reducing ways to improve your accuracy. You will always want to find ways to get better but have to limit them. What next, let's ban stringwalking, arrows must be certain length so you have to shoot intuitive, cannot use plunger, bow must be below certain mass, anchor must be at least 8cm away from eye level. That would be asinine. If barebow were the standard/norm, it would be called "bow". We don't call track races "non-backwards running", it's just "running". You could do barebow at shorter distances but many people would quit watching because they are thinking, why are these fools in the Olympics shooting only 30m when I can go home and shoot just as accurate at double the distance. In sport you pursue performance, so we should just let it be. 5. Wood/traditional is too temperamental, you are limited by your equipment. You could have a good shooter, a great shooter, and a robot all shoot at 30m or so with wood stuff and you wouldn't be able to tell who wins, the arrows and bow are too random. If you make the stuff high tech, then the equipment becomes so consistent that all errors are from the ARCHER instead of the equipment, and at long distance the little mistakes get much bigger. It is more fundamentally sound to use high tech equipment at long distance, than low tech equipment at short distance because it best shows who performs the process best, rewarding good performance and punishing bad performance equally. So all in all I think freestyle recurve is the purest form of archery competition _for the Olympic setting_ as it forces the performance need upon the athlete. Not saying it is objectively best overall, but for Olympics I think it is. One last note, I do NOT think compound would make good Olympic competition.
Hm, well it takes just as much skill to be "good" in freestyle archery as it does to be "good" in trad archery, but the definition of "good" changes (you're expected to score higher in a freestyle division). NUSensei even has a video showing common 1st place tournament scores for freestyle vs. trad divisions -- surprise surprise, trad archers are usually a hundred or more points lower. It follows that a freestyle archer with slightly less skill could score as well as a better-skilled trad archer at equivalent ranges. That's probably where the "it's too easy/it takes no skill" perception comes from. With better equipment and more technology, it takes less skill to get a given score at a given range.
In my opinion, to get arrows to the nearest point(bulls eye) or on point requires "skill" regardless of bow types, techniques, natural strength, and/or etc. Maybe the only thing about archery that requires no skill at all is being the manservant of a particular archer.
Um...Olympic shooters shoot at about 70m standard, traditional barebow at about 50. Compound shooters also shoot at 70 m but their bows are faster and stronger than an olympic recurve, the catch is that a compound bow needs a LOT of tuning and a way better stance and it is not as forgiving as the other styles. In most competitions there are handicaps for the style of shooting, age, bow used and accesories. My point is that you can't compare these styles and say that one is better than the other, it's all about prefference or more precisely what style do you prefer, each comes with it's pros and cons.
The thing in Olympic Archery is that it's hard to master. And it's almost impossible to get reasonably good even without having some kind of mentoring.
As a bow hunter, who uses sights stabilizers, it's not easy. People who say that don't do it. I know mine is "easier" than other forms. It's all relative give me a trad i would have trouble hitting the ground for a while.
Give armchairs archer a 20 Ibs beginner wooden bow with sight and do 30 meter with 80cm target, lets see how many yellow these kind of archer can hit for 12 ends.
Is modern sport fencing easier than older styles of fencing with a rapier f.ex? No, but it has taken all the realism and fun out it. (Just my taste) Also, some events are removed from the olympics over time too; like target javelin/spear throw. I don’t know why that is, as it used to be both range and target in the 1800s. So there’s a trend for all previous martial related stuff to get less martial related, which may be logical in a way I guess, but I think that makes it more boring an uninteresting for more people than it attracts really. Idk. But doesn’t one often start with javelin throw or fencing because one has a certain image of what that entails, from books and movies, and then one finds that these art forms have changed very much into a sport, so much so that the roots aren’t really that present anymore? I understand why these developments happen, but do think this might in some cases make the sport less interesting to many people, but I might be totally wrong because of my own bias. Don’t think this would apply to archery the same way though. (But im not an archer)
I don't understand one thing. Compounds are about ( in my opinion) 20% more accurate and generally come in 60-70# range. Soooo why do they shoot at only 50 meters and recurves shoot at 70 meters in world archery?
I don't get it, no one complains about modern fencing because the three musketeers didn't use a foil, and no one complains about modern sailing because Blackbeard didn't use a racing sloop. It's all the same skill, the only thing that changes is the level of the score.
the only thing I envy Compound shooter for is that they can take their bow out of its case and it is ready to go. None of this spending 10 minutes putting the darn thing together and hoping all the settings are on.
Really? there no way my compound bow would fit in the case without removing the sight, scope and front and rear stabilisers, as for the sight, well I have to remove the actual scope to fit the sight and scope into it's case.
R Mac I've got a "softshell case". I can leave the scope mounted on and my stabilizers have quick disconnects. I need 30 seconds to put them on. Don't need to attach the limbs. Don't need to check the brace height.
The Tour de France should require the use of a Draisine. All technological advances in cycling since then make bicycling easier and take away the need for skill and fitness. A REAL cyclist should be able to win the event on a Draisine.
being an adult is too easy. I can consistently beat my 6 year old son both with barebow recurves. we thought is might be the bow but we swapped, my riser was above his head while the limb was still on the ground and he couldn't draw it at all so I won again! In summary being an adult is way too easy, that's why kids want to do it. don't let on about all the grownup crap we have to do like making sure they are fed and clothed.
The biggest skill easers compared to traditional (as I see traditional are) - Shelves, and cutout sights, then it's followed by the other items on modern Olympic recurve. So I have more of a bone to pick when it comes to trad comps them selves. I mean whatever, modern recurve only compete with modern recurve.. who really cares about the joke that is the Olympics anyhow? Everyone knows the Olympics are completely unfair when it comes to equal opportunity in gear with tech. Allot of the Olympics takes more money in coaches and equipment, and club costs than most people want to gamble spending on their future. "the best, of the best, really means, those that could somehow get access. pfft whatever, I don't watch it. Back to enjoying my shots and feeling badass with amazingly cool looking trad bows :)
of course modern equipment makes the shot easier - thats the reason why they use it. i guess they wouldnt put on all that equipment just for decoration. without a doubt, if a guy with one of these plain wood bows would try to compete in modern olympic archery, he would not stand a snowballs chance in hell.
The problem with this mindset it assumes perfection: that an archer would automatically gain improved accuracy because they put on the sight. Objectively speaking, the purpose of using accessories is to improve potential performance. However, a tool that is more precise isn't necessarily easier to use. Additional steps are required in learning and training in order to actually outshoot a traditional archer. The definition of "easy" depends on the context. It is "easier" to achieve a higher score, but at the same time, a modern bow should be "easier" in that someone can pick one up and shoot well with less effort, or have a lower learning curve, and that is not the case.
Olympic shooting is "easer" because the equipment is so much better.... ok... now try that mentality concerning long distance shooting with a rifle. I just don't seem to see it there. We know that you can't just hand a high quality rifle with the best scope on it to anyone and expect then to be a skilled "sniper". Those who are skilled MAKE it look "easy". But by all means, those who think it IS easy, go ahead and have at it..... show me. ;)
Easy to use, and easy to score with are two different things. If using stabilizers and sights wasn't easier to score with, Olympic archers wouldn't use it. It's simple logic. It's not easy to use, but it definitely makes it easier to be accurate with. Going beyond that, a center cut bow is much easier to score with than a regular traditional bow. Give me a horsebow and I'll hit a target at 30m. Give me a center cut bow with all the bells and whistles and I'll hit the target at 50m easy. Of course Olympic archery isn't easy. But it cannot be denied that you are more likely to be accurate with stabilizers, clickers and sights on a center cut bow, as opposed to a barebow without a shelf. Thumb release is much harder to master, which is why I enjoy it more. It's more intriging.
It is friggin' easier! No question about it! I'm not saying it's easy. It's easier because of bow extensions. I'm not saying it requires less skill or practice- when you take the same archer and give him a traditional bow to shoot, and then an olimpic "christmass tree", same distance (can be 10m, 30, 50m- no differance) it will be easier, more consistant to shoot olimpic bow. Beside that- you're giving examples of different sports- then and now. Very wrong examples. When you compare for ex high jump nothing changed in the jump (just a landing material was added). Giving jumpers a leg prostethics would be a good example of advancement. Like adding stuff to bows. And again- I'm not saying it's easy (that prosthetics jumper would also train hars and had a lot of skill). Wrestlers- adding exoskeletons and so on.This would compare to advancement of bow shooting. It's nothing wrong in my opinion. I'm no profesional archer, I've shoot a bow, yes, and a traditional and olimpic witch attatchments- and the latter is ffar easier to shoot to be consistant and so on. Peace!
I used to think Olympic archery looked easy. Then after watching your videos I looked up some Olympic matches (which were actually more interesting than I thought they would be) and I realized how difficult it can be even with all the extra stuff like stabilizers and sights. Especially at 70 meters and considering all the high skilled competitors.
What you're saying is mostly true. But the way I look at these comments is not that the bow shoots itself. The fact is, it's easier to go from barebow to olympic, than olympic to barebow. And you yourself said that compound shooters have it easier. It's like running with weights on your ankles. Once you take them off you run much easier. I'm not belittling olympic archery, don't get me wrong. But it's an easier step to take coming from barebow to olympic, or compound, than it is the other way around. Your analogy about high jump is good. But it's not about amateurs jumping on a mat. Someone who jumped without the mat would find it much easier to jump with the mat.
I think the barebow > Olympic transition is far from being a "fact". From my experience in working with archers, I find more people have a harder time going to Olympic from barebow, specifically because of the clicker, and many tend to shoot worse, or at least have more trouble with technique even though their score is higher (mostly due to sights). My angle in this is that being forced to use correct form with freestyle equipment builds in the good habits that are needed for other styles of shooting. Mileage will vary in the end as each person will learn and adapt differently.
@@NUSensei Very good answer. But this clicker thing reminds me of when I practice thumb release. Pushing with the root of the thumb, and pulling with my pinky. Also, the anchor point when the arrow touches your finger. It's something you adapt to easily when you give it a few tries. Getting the feel for the bow is so important. Not so much the technique, but the feel. Feeling your body and focusing on the target is so important, in my opinion. Now, I'm a beginner in archery, but I'm not new to some other forms of... Awareness. And this reminds me of your video on the average person. I love archery. I research it on a daily basis. I started with a shitty Dechatlon Intech 2 recurve bow. Which broke on me after only 3 months of shooting, unfortunately. Now I'm waiting for my Grozer fiberglass bow to arrive so I can start shooting again. I took up archery because I've always wanted to try it. But I did so because the love of my life, of 7 years left me 8 months ago. Which reminded me of your "origin" story. Now it's the only thing keeping from going insane to be honest. I have a deep passion for it and I like all forms of it. So please don't take my comments about it the wrong way. I don't have an archery club in my vercinity, so I can't practice all forms of it. Personally I'm not really into competition or sports. I do this for myself and my peace of mind. I learned a lot from you. So much love and respect to you, friend. Keep up the good work.
The thing that annoys me about archery most is how easy it is to troll archers..Seems like half the videos make are you defending yourself from trolls and all that does is gives them more incentive to keep on trollin
![ค้าง (STILL) - GEMINI [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ftxx3hk5vkU/mqdefault.jpg)
I am not an archer, but a rifleman. I think this is the same thing for archery, pistols and rifles: modern equipment does not make anything "selfshooting". But it makes it possible to be concistent to a degree that is impossible with "old time" equipment. It still takes enormous amount of skill and training to be on the top of the game.
Yes, it´s quite obvious really. Shooting 5 hits out of five bullets at 600 meters with an modern rifle is not that hard, but try doing it with a musket or an early winchester and it becomes quite hard.
th-cam.com/video/YBC8IFWC1P0/w-d-xo.html old news buddy
The problem is that people confuse consistency through quality equipment with skill. The ultimate aim of all good advances in sporting technology should be removing barriers that get in the way of judging skill. It's not that new technology necessarily means you need less skill but that it is possible for skill to no longer be hampered by uncontrolled variables or, vice versa, for a lack of skill to be covered for by those same variables.
Take a rifle, and assume that at 500m it has a very high spread, and that you are firing in very windy conditions. If you take a skilled shooter and an unskilled shooter, you would expect a skilled shooter to be able to shoot closer to on target than the unskilled shooter, but because of all the uncontrollable variable involved, it might still come out with the two shooters looking remarkably similar in comparison in terms of score, simply because all the inconsistencies mean that they miss pretty much every shot and the few hits that occur end up being pretty close to random chance.
Replace this with shooting a highly accurate rifle, with a magnified scope, indoors, in favourable conditions or otherwise controlled environment, and the skill will out. No longer is the skilled shooter frustrated by things he cannot control. and no longer can the unskilled shooter hide behind natural variance. Yes, technically it's "easier" for the skilled shooter to make the shot, but it's more down to removing luck (both good and bad) from the equation.
I am a traditional archer and I don't consider modern archery to be "less" skilled. I'd say the skills are different. I need a different skillset than a modern archer. There are things I need to consider while shooting that a modern archer does not, and vice versa! Is one of them superior to the other? I don't think so. It's just different.
As of my experience modern olympic archers seem to be highly specialized in what they do, and within that field they are far superior! My skillset is broader, but I am far less skilled in any of them. None of that is "better" than the other. It would be like comparing a racecar to a truck. Which one is better? Well, depends of what you want to use it for... Driving fast or carrying goods?
So I can only dream of the accuracy modern olympic archers achieve, but I can hold myself quite well when shooting at targets at an unknown distance in an unknown terrain, or at moving targets, or with snapshots at sudden targets from an unknown direction, or while aiming ballistically at a target flat on the ground, or coming closest to a placed flag somewhere on a field. But the only reason why is because I have trained to do that, and most olympic archers have not. And I am sure that if they would, they would easily be at the same level or even better.
And all that equipment sure does makes some things easier, but at the same time the difficulty is upped! It's similar to shooting rifles with and without a scope. It's easier to hit targets at the same distance, but now you can place the targets farther away or make them smaller, to increase the challenge. And that means you have to get even more accurate and precise! I for myself am always awed by the skill modern olympic archers can achieve. And I have seen many archers trying to "switch places" and both sides struggled when trying to "play the others game".
I hope I have not offended anyone, if so I am sorry!
first time i touched a real bow (not a makeshift bamboo stick toy) it had sights on. i couldnt aim with that cus i had been shooting sticks from a flimsy bamboo with cotton strung tight between the ends. when i used a real bow for the first time it was a club takedown bow with a sight on. i couldnt figure out the sight and it annoyed me so i had it taken off. then i started actually hitting the target. several years later i started doing reenactment archery with a mollegabet bow and traditnal-ish arrows (they got some kinda field points) the bow is around 30 pounds made of maple with a modern string. since thn i havent bothered trying a full modern bow. maybe cus ive only been serious about it for a few months... modern equipment is a mysterious dwarven magic to me!
Your exactly right, I had gotten to shoot archery a few times when I was in scouts, always enjoyed it but never clued into how difficult it actually was to put an arrow on target. We used the cheap fiberglass bows or club recurve.
That was 18 years ago. Now I am 13 days away from shooting for a month with a compound bow. It's just as fun as I remember archery being, and I think skills from any kind of archery are interchangeable. The biggest issue isn't whether it's easy or fun, it's about coming in with the right mindset. I am not your typical compound bow shooter. I love the precision of them but I honestly don't care where I score right now or in the future it's far more fun to just put arrows on target than worry about hitting a certain score.
I just chain watched your whole "archery annoyance" serie, and that was awesome!
Thank you for educating me and making me laugh so much !
I've switched from barebow to olympic recurve yesterday. I expected it would be easier to hit target every single time. But it's fucking hard. I shoot better without all the additional stuff. It requires much more precision and consistency in shot proces.
Today I've shot first competetion with freestyle recurve. And it was hell. I got only 317/600. After qualification my coach gave me some tips for my anchor and follow trough. Then I shot the best elimination round I have ever (6 months of shooting) experienced.
It's just more about the best consistency you could get, but it'd possible to learn it.
Excellent point. The only reason I chose barebow was because I became quickly frustrated with equipment management, definitely not because olympic is easier. Only a fool would believe it's easier skill-wise.
It´s not easier to hit the target, it´s just easier to spot the mistakes. For example if you dont hit the target without a sight there is a bunch of possibilities why. No consistend draw lenght, no consistend loose, sloppy stance, wrong setup of the bow, the arrows, and wrong estimated distance. With a sight you got the same bunch except the estimated point of impact. You have a sight and you know it should hit exactly where you aim it (or at least there should be a group somwhere if all else fits)
It´s much easier, at least for me, to find the errors in my technique if i have a steady point to aim at and a sight to go with it. It really helps me to just screw on a sight now and then to correct myself.
If you never shot a bow with a sight it really takes a lot of patience and experience to spot the flaws in your setup and a faulty setup makes it so much harder to get a feel for tradtional shooting.
being an armchair expert isn't that easy, you'll see hundreds of upvotes between the best armchair experts and an average armchair journeyman .
😂
Most who say things are easier clearly haven't preformed said task in the exact setting. Also they say things like this to raise themselves up due to poor outlook about themselves personally. Slamming on others make them feel better, more so since they can hide behind a computer while making such a statement. Rarely will a person say this to a person face in real life.
Anyways, love the video's and keep up the good work. You've helped me and my son on many things concerning Archery.
When technology becomes better, standards also rise. When training techniques increase, or more athletes become professionals, standards rise. It's easier to hit the targetb with a better bow, but it's also easier for your opponent, the best athlete in his or her sport, according to the rules will win.
I am not an expert in archery, I just like this channel, but I also had a discussion with my father about football. One strong team lost and I said it was not a very big surprise, because the players additionally to the national league had to play in the European Champions league a few days before and some even had to play in the national squad not a long time before, they were just exhausted. My father said that they should be able to handle it, afterall they are pros. But guess what, the opponents are also pros. Every small aspect can matter.
It's a level paying field, so no matter the rules, defeating your opponent will be very hard. No matter what new rule or technology is introduced, your opponent can use the same things, the difficulty never really changes.
MsJavaWolf as someone who has gotten into archery in the past 2 months I can add something to this.
I started with a regular takedown recurve and slowly begun adding components to the bow to aid my skill development and to achieve better groupings. I would shoot daily to improve. But at any time throughout my daily sessions I decided to add a new component - my progression was set back 10 steps.
Just when I got used to the bow and aiming method, adding a sight, clicker or even my stabilizers made me start from the beginning again because the bows dynamic was changed and now my shots would land differently.
Even my drawing technique and anchoring had to change when I added parts which were literally making me re learn how to shoot.
This does mean that if you were to purchase a top end bow with accessories, if you tried to shoot with it right away with no familiarity - your shots would likely land all over the place and itll take hours if not days until you learn the particular nuisances of that bow and setup.
Adding accessories makes it harder... And easier.
Could not agree more.. was a compound bow hunter for 8 years... fell out of archery when I was 34... picked up recurve target shooting at 57 and just love it! I can shoot every day in my 9 meter basement... and shoot at the club on weekends... I enjoy every minute of it! Also, I have meet a lot of new friends along the way... another bonus!
Great commentary on how people are always innovating and having a resistance to those innovations.
Additionally, many commenters don't realise that barebow shooters use "sights". If sights were removed from competition, then shooters will use barebow aiming methods (stringwalking, facewalking, etc.). The World Archery channel has footage of the 1957 World Championships with the world's best using stringwalking and dropping their wooden barebows. If traditionalists and purists have their way, then the only way to shoot is instinctive. However, people actually want to reliably hit the target, and making things unnecessarily harder is not a test of skill.
I think the armchair archers' problem is that they're viewing it as bare bow vs modern, rather than modern vs modern or bare bow vs bare bow.
It's too easy. It take no skill...to watch your videos. Always learn a lot about archers and archery.
NUSensei, your doing a great job keep it up. I like your honesty and reviews. Thank you. Alan
Nothing is more funny to watch than see olympic archers in traditional competitions in the woods. Those mofos and their large fancy bows gets stuck in branches and shit, they swear left and right. Pure bliss to watch.
I struggle to get my bow through the door sometimes.
@@NUSensei OMG you actually read my comment on a four year old video, that is what I call dedication, much respect. And thanks for all the good tips how to improve my skills. I'm started out with a big longbow, but changed it to a smaller bow because it also got stuck in the bushes. Now I have a Samick SHT 60" 45#, (bare) and I like it very much :)
Never fired and arrow nor looked at a bow. I never really have been interested in archery and really, as an activity, I still dont.
You however earned a new sub because your videos are so clear and straight forward, with a wealth of good information and argumentation.
You have made a topic for which I have no interest.... interesting =) well done, sir. You don't happen to be a teacher do you?
Love your videos especially since I get to learn more about archery in general from you.
At 70 meters I'm just really happy If I score. It's easy to get cocky at 20,25,30
Better equipment allows an athlete to be compared to another athlete instead of comparing their equipment.
Saying the equipment wins the sport or makes it easy would be like grabbing your average driver (even an aggressive one) throwing him in a supercar and see how well he can go around a road track. He's going to be so sluggish compared to a pro driver in the same car you'd think his car is detuned
I am a bare bow recurve shooter, and I will say modern equipment makes you more consistent but only if you are consistent . It's not easy no matter how much stuff you stick on your bow .
skitzo jones absolutely correct
Very well said
After scrolling through all these comments, there is one think that i think is pretty funny. Most people that think bare bow is harder or olympic recurve is easier or asking why scopes and stabilizers are olympic, totally miss one thing - the less you've to worry about your equipment - the more important your skill level gets.
And i think it is olympic to reduce all unessential variables to be able to compare to athlets.
Yes it is true that the equipment like stabilisers, sights... make you shoot a better score if you put the same time in it than using a bare bow. that does not mean that it is too easy
"There is almost no sport that is untouched by time." Ooh-ooh!! Shot put!
One thing about archery I love is the shear number of different options you can choose from.
I have shot both recurve and compound. Are things like sights and stabilizers helpful? Yes. Do they make shooting "too easy"? Uh heck no.
Jake Games Are compounds easier than recurve?
Yes, it makes it easier. And that's persicely why person with some skill (novice, average, super Olympic pro - doesn't matters) accuracy will be like this: *compound > recurve > traditional*
The skill level still matters and decides most of results, yes, but you can't object that compound bow, that holds drawn string for you and has release akin to crossbow, is "as hard to shoot as traditional wooden bow".
Modern bows are easier to shoot and this lets professionals make better results. This logic is dead simple. I don't know how you people don't get this.
Same thing with mattresses, running boots and racing tracks/bicycles/guns.
I understand why you can't see this logic, though. Its hitting your self-esteem. But I understand that it's as hard to master traditional bow as its hard to master recurve/compound (or even gun). Just please, try to look over your bloated self esteem and accept that modern tools are much easier to use.
AnUtter Mesh Yes, they are far easier to shoot, but it still takes a lot of practice to become a good.
ScienceDiscoverer Okay first off, my "self esteem" has nothing to do with anything. Second, I stated in my first comment, very plainly, that compound bows along with modern equipment, do make a bow easier to shoot. That being said, it still takes lots of practice to become a skilled archer. Don't try and discount the hours of practice that goes into modern archery just because the equipment has evolved.
when you see a top athlete perform it looks easy , the real deal is it is extreme hard to make itlook "easy", this is true for all sports !
Comments are easy. Commenting without looking like an obvious noob or traditionalist is harder. Trouble is, it only takes one idiot to comment to give these "know nothing couch philosophers" the courage to follow suit. Keep up the great advise and teaching NuSensei.
Eddy Merckx one hour record (49.431km - 1972) for biking was broken quite a few times. Then in 1997 the cycling body divided the records into two. UCI hour record held by Merckx until year 2000 beaten by 10 meters. Current record is 49.700 set in 2005
As with many things, my opinion is somewhere in the middle. The sights and stabilisers take a lot of the variables of the picture leaving behind sheer human exceptionalism - which is what the Olympics is about in its core ideals.
Another very educational video. Well done!
I agree that Olympic achery is not easier or that modern bows somehow do the work for. However as a traditional Archer I did find that when I picked up compound bow after only a few weeks and some instruction on how to properly set the sights I found it kind of autonomous. With the sights the left off of the cam and the trigger release. The ease at witch I was able to achieve high accuracy seemed to be just set up the bow get a half way decent form and the bow does the rest.
Traditional recurve - Lower scores to achieve awards, less precision, more relaxed, less equipment.
Olympic recurve - higher scores required for same awards, more precision, more concentration, more equipment.
to me I find archery to be very skill orientaded it takes practice months days years to be good at any style of archery I shoot compound recurve and long bow and self bows I still haven't tried Olympic style archery love to try it so NuSensei you said it right if any one that has not shot bow before try it your self and then talk your smack about it.
Agree 100%, a small minority of archers do of course criticize disciplines that they don't participate in but as far as comments on youtube etc are concerned the most vocal are the virtual archers and followers of TV shows like the Hunger Games etc and you can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who has no experience of the subject and no desire to learn.
In sport, difficulty is based on the level of competition. In my local area, shooting primitive longbows could be considered easy because the pool of competitors is non-existant compared to the hundreds of competitive compound archers. So in effect, competing with the very latest and greatest of modern technology would be harder even though the simple act of hitting a target with such equipment is significantly easier.
I think that is where the context is lost, standing solo on a range i can shoot nice consistent groups with my hunting compound bow, hand me a Mongolian bow while on horseback and i would likely be spending the better part of the evening trying to find my arrows in the woods. So in that context, clearly the latter is harder...
Compound is so easy, it's gained all archery an 'easy' tag.
My view. I’ve started archery (been using Olympic recurves primarily) about 2-3 weeks ago. About five sessions about four hours long each. To me it seems easy to learn the basics but hard to master.
I’m putting shots mostly at the red/yellow (8-10 points) consistently at 20m. This seems easy.
Putting shots at the same point 90m (?100 yards) away even with all the modern “cheats” (it’s not a cheat but some might think it is), that’s super hard. Those who can do this have trained for a long time. If they claim it’s east then they’ve forgotten their learning journey to get to that accuracy.
I know enough to know I know next to nothing about the art. But one thing I’ve learnt is archery is easy to learn, hard to master.
Very nice. I would LOVE to be able to shoot all kinds of bows, and techniques as to be able to have hands on experience. Anyone who has te opportunity to shoot barebow, traditional, compound and olympic is a lucky person in my opinion.
Don't see many model T drivers around. I guess scientific improvements are really quite popular.
In response to your argument about high jump and track, the answer is Yes. it does make it easier. yes it does take less ability. If we can both use the Fosbury Flop to jump 2.0m but can only use a traditional scissors to make it 1.5m, how much skill does it take to use the flop to clear 1.5m? You're moving the goal posts by comparing a 2.0m flop jump to a 1.5m scissors jump.
The argument basically comes down to, if you have two people of equal archery skill, and one has an olympic recurve with stabilizers and everything, and the other has a bare bow without, who will be more accurate at range. If they switch bows will they switch positions?
There are certain things that take more skill to use but yield better results. For example, a manual transmission in racing. It takes more skill to use it, but allows you to accelerate faster. There are also things that improve performance but don't effect skill at all, such as scopes on rifle shooting. They allow you to see farther but the actual process of lining up the shot, holding steady, accounting for wind breathing ect, is unaffected. Then you have things that just make things easier by eliminating or reducing certain skill based aspects. An example of this is using a straight edge while drawing a line on paper or cutting a board. You get a razor straight line every time. You're still drawing the line with the pencil, but you don't need to worry about left right wiggle.
I imagine most people view stabilizers on a bow in the latter category. You're still aiming and shooting, but you've eliminated an entire aspect of controlling the bow or reduced it to the minimum possible levels. This allows for better performance at a lower skill level. While i'm sure there's some aspect of getting used to and skill in using a bow with stabilizers, their prevelance would indicate that it's significantly lower than using a bow without them, and if you asked people the question in reverse; to use a bow without stabilizers to take the same shots they would with they're olympic recuves, they would claim it would be harder to do.
As a compound shooter, I can attest that mostly all archers get along. Of course with some friendly cross chatter an outsider may think we don't get along. But it dosen't matter if it's a "stick and a string" or if it has "training wheels" we have no issues other than finding more "string time".
Archery is easy to learn - but hard to excel ;) FITA for men used to be 90 meters / 70/ 50 / 30 and 144 arrows per day and 6 arrows for each turn up.
Yepp...when I let someone who shoots compounds/Olympic recurves shoot my hand made bows @ 20yrds (i shoot pinch grip like the native Americans 45#@24" short draw style on purpose) they have a very hard time even hitting paper.. but I can and have picked up either and shot reasonably tight groups @ 20yrds..... I think that's were the misconception is derived from a lot of the time. What most people don't think about though is that 20-30yrds is about the max for my bows and 20-30yrds is almost "point-blank"😉 for compound/Olympic recurves. But if I try and shoot a compound/Olympic recurve @ 50yrds plus it gets tough for me to hit the paper lol and yet the more experienced compound/Olympic recurve shooter are loosing groups tighter then my groups that I shoot with my handmade bows @ 20yrds.
I dont necessarily have anything against modern archery, I just dont think all of the gadgets are necessary which is why I chose traditional recurve. I can develop aiming skills just as good with out sights and what not. But I will say it definitely does require being athletic as it takes strength to even draw a bow
Archery, easy to learn, a lifetime to master...ignorance is bliss, and there are a lot of blissful people out there. I prefer barebow archery, but I sure won't try to put down the preferences of others. Haters gonna hate.
John 3:16 King James Version 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you will be saved. John 3:16 (share the good news of the gospel around the world!) Have a wonderful day/night, may the LORD bless you all, and farewell!,.,,,,,,
Galatians 3:26 King James Version 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Titus 3:5-7 King James Version
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
............
An automatically firing bow, aka a gun. I tell you what though, 95% of people can't shoot a gun worth a damn.
The argument that one is easier than the other is inherently flawed because how "easy" it is, is a subjective feeling. I would argue that they are different, but how easy it is, is hard to quantify.
11:50 I see what you did there, Rogues dont use bows... so no experience! Hahaha, good one :D
Sensei i need guidance, i got a bow (30lbs) with a brush rest but i got arrows that i thought would be strong cause i break everything and the fletching doesn't travel smooth through the rest(it's on a funny angle) and hits the brushes like directly and the nock won't move. Have i done wrong sensei?
I have a perspective that sort of empathizes with the outsiders' aversion to Olympic style recurve. And I'm saying this as a recurve archer who doesn't really do traditional style archery.
Imagine if the Olympic Games introduces a new style of running, which allows running blades under the shoes. For the sake of argument, let's assume they do offer an advantage in speed.
NUSensei's argument for Olympic recurve applies to this "running". It's scientific progress that allows higher speeds; it's still a test of the runners' skill and strength; it's still the runner who runs, as the blades don't provide extra energy.
And yet I think if this became the only style of running competition, it would make a lot of people uncomfortable.
"Easy" is a relative term. I was at the range last night, and I kept making the same mistake! it was easy to keep repeating the same thing (which was clearly wrong and not the desired result), but it was very difficult to adjust and work myself out of that mistake. Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect.
Nicely said!
Simply put any reference point makes it easier for a calculation to be made but it still just one part of an equation.
Hey NUSensei i have a question. Do i need to work out the Shoulder where i hold the bow seperatly/more then the other to balance them out from a muscular and form standpoint ?
Hey Nu. Thanks for the helpful videos. I am sympathetic to your viewpoints regarding technology and progress but it makes me wonder: why don't you shoot compound bows?
Mostly because I don't find compound bows fascinating. I'm more of the traditional stick and string, and I find modern recurve to be the right balance between enjoyment and competitiveness. Compound archery is too target-focused for my liking, where precision is expected and not earned.
I'm not a competitive archer fact is I'm so new to it I'm a baby. I only took it up cause it may be the best servivile tool in the world. Theirs places the governments of the world want to force us to go I'm not willing to go.
Recurve and long bows are simple tools. Compounds may be faster but not easy to fix. Olimpic bow is great if you're in a competitive sport.
I can hunt with a gun but if you're out of ammo what do you do. If I use a stick and string I can make my own out of the world around me.
Funny, cause i was thinking about your video about compound archery, and in the end your argument stood right.
I've tried many kinds of archery and had more pleasure mongolian ways.
Compounds "indoors" are hard for me to watch, i find this to repetitive. Others are fine, even if i prefer shooting traditionnal bows
how many ft lbs of force does your modern bow hit with at 70 yds?
The way I see it is that a bow is a tool and i shoot just a bare bone 50 lb long bow it's what I have always used so a professional bow is going to be harder for me to get used to but tools need upgrades to preform in different manners
Sights, balances... eventually Olympic archers are going to have arm bracers, and then full body exoskeletons to prevent unwanted arm movements. The archer will still be technically making the shot.
Arm bracers are specifically disallowed in the rules, and you said it yourself about exoskeletons: they do the work. Archery won't progress down this route, and there's no incentive to.
Please make a video about Hoyt Epik ! :)
Keep up the good work!
Modern gear doesn't make the shot process easier (unless you use a release aid, or a compound) but it does make it easier to get consistent performance on the target.
My issue is, if it's an athletic competition, why use so much technology taking the athlete out of the process? Everything is designed to remove natural variation from the human form. Barebow is a much purer competition.
The other perspective is that it keeps the athlete in the process, but it extends what is possible performance-wise. The sights and stabilisers don't remove natural variation - it's still there, but it has been mitigated. But now you're expected to hit a target that is smaller and further away. A novice or unskilled shooter will still miss the target with the additional tools and will not achieve tight groupings without exceptional training - as with any performance-based activity.
Thanks for the reply!
It doesn't sound like we're truly in disagreement about what the gear does but I still don't understand the point of using the olympic style gear. The on-target performance is improved, but the level of competition hasn't changed. The extra gear is essentially improving the baseline, but all archers in the competition are still using the same baseline, so the competition is still valid. What's the point in the extra gear for competition, when a barebow baseline is just as valid? Is it that important to have shots which are judged by millimeters instead of centimeters? Was it some quirk of history that led to it becoming the Olympic standard? Maybe it's the desire to break records - aka an objective based competition instead of one relative to your fellow archers?
I guess what I actually don't get is why advanced gear is the sporting standard. I have shot multiple types of bow and been trained in both Olympic and Instinctive shooting styles, and I found the barebow equipment far more challenging. I would think that athletes want the biggest challenge possible to compete over.
PS thank you for the channel, you've codified a lot of information that I've spent years piecing together from disagreeing coaches and hearsay.
@@sbvera13I think your question is, why use gear to compete against gear, than barebow against barebow. The answer is highly complex but it sounds like you really want to know and I had the same question myself.
1. In any performance type of discipline, you always develop specialized methods and equipment to your specific goal. For accuracy, you will look for things to improve accuracy, such as sights or marking the riser (illegal). Bicycles for pure speed don't look like bicycles, they look like giant books, with that weird aerodynamic shield over the bike. Race cars don't look like normal cars. Decathletes aren't natural athletes doing 10 random events, they specifically practice each event (though are still excellent athletes overall). To prevent this you have to put many weird limitations, and people will always be trying to find new equipment/techniques within the rules. So you might as well just let it develop freestyle in pursuit of performance, and accept that it loses some connection to the original discipline. It became Olympic standard because it was the best available at the time (1972 when archery was re-instated).
2. Technology is actually the opposite of what you say- it makes the athlete MORE in the process than taking them out. In barebow you can hit or miss due to technique, stringwalking, draw length, or sheer dumb luck. Freestyle takes out the aim and draw length issues and makes it that mistakes are 100% technique and body control. I think it makes better Olympic competition to rely on muscular control, at 70m, than barebow that is muscular control and also aiming and luck, at 50m. Not only that, at 70m you need more draw weight, increasing the athleticism needed. Barebow is a bigger challenge to do successfully, but freestyle recurve makes the most technically sound athletic competition.
3. Luck- barebow has issues that magnify *exponentially* with distance. Tiny variations in draw length have huge effect at long distance. If your arrow is a bit slow and goes 1cm low at 10m, gravity makes it into 4cm low at 20m, and 49+cm at 70m. It goes up exponentially, not proportionally, and when you take out the clicker it opens up this can of worms. You could perform a great shot and be a tiny bit off on the draw length and miss the target low, and lose to someone who performs a poor shot and hits the 2-ring to the right but had draw length spot on. You also have to aim way above the target at 60-70m, high enough that it is basically lucky guesses. You can get better with practice but you'll never get good. Even then you aim with this big fat blurry arrow rather than a small sight pin so there is still some guesswork. That is pretty gimmicky, it is better to just use the sight and clicker and increase the distance.
4. As much as I enjoy the experience of shooting barebow and how it feels more like archery, barebow is kind of a walking contradiction simply because the goal of target archery is to maximize accuracy while in barebow you are at the same time maximally reducing ways to improve your accuracy. You will always want to find ways to get better but have to limit them. What next, let's ban stringwalking, arrows must be certain length so you have to shoot intuitive, cannot use plunger, bow must be below certain mass, anchor must be at least 8cm away from eye level. That would be asinine. If barebow were the standard/norm, it would be called "bow". We don't call track races "non-backwards running", it's just "running". You could do barebow at shorter distances but many people would quit watching because they are thinking, why are these fools in the Olympics shooting only 30m when I can go home and shoot just as accurate at double the distance. In sport you pursue performance, so we should just let it be.
5. Wood/traditional is too temperamental, you are limited by your equipment. You could have a good shooter, a great shooter, and a robot all shoot at 30m or so with wood stuff and you wouldn't be able to tell who wins, the arrows and bow are too random. If you make the stuff high tech, then the equipment becomes so consistent that all errors are from the ARCHER instead of the equipment, and at long distance the little mistakes get much bigger. It is more fundamentally sound to use high tech equipment at long distance, than low tech equipment at short distance because it best shows who performs the process best, rewarding good performance and punishing bad performance equally.
So all in all I think freestyle recurve is the purest form of archery competition _for the Olympic setting_ as it forces the performance need upon the athlete. Not saying it is objectively best overall, but for Olympics I think it is. One last note, I do NOT think compound would make good Olympic competition.
Hm, well it takes just as much skill to be "good" in freestyle archery as it does to be "good" in trad archery, but the definition of "good" changes (you're expected to score higher in a freestyle division). NUSensei even has a video showing common 1st place tournament scores for freestyle vs. trad divisions -- surprise surprise, trad archers are usually a hundred or more points lower.
It follows that a freestyle archer with slightly less skill could score as well as a better-skilled trad archer at equivalent ranges. That's probably where the "it's too easy/it takes no skill" perception comes from. With better equipment and more technology, it takes less skill to get a given score at a given range.
In my opinion, to get arrows to the nearest point(bulls eye) or on point requires "skill" regardless of bow types, techniques, natural strength, and/or etc. Maybe the only thing about archery that requires no skill at all is being the manservant of a particular archer.
As a "casual", CB archer, this particular topic interests me, but I would say regarding the comments, pull the pin, . . . n walk away! lol xD
to each it's own.
What if I use heavy recurve bow it make any difference
Um...Olympic shooters shoot at about 70m standard, traditional barebow at about 50. Compound shooters also shoot at 70 m but their bows are faster and stronger than an olympic recurve, the catch is that a compound bow needs a LOT of tuning and a way better stance and it is not as forgiving as the other styles.
In most competitions there are handicaps for the style of shooting, age, bow used and accesories. My point is that you can't compare these styles and say that one is better than the other, it's all about prefference or more precisely what style do you prefer, each comes with it's pros and cons.
Compound shooters compete at 50m on a 80cm target centre.
@@NUSensei is this what we call an armchair expert?
The thing in Olympic Archery is that it's hard to master. And it's almost impossible to get reasonably good even without having some kind of mentoring.
anybody who spends time at a range knows the difference between and target compound score vs. an olympic recurve score vs a bare bow score.
As a bow hunter, who uses sights stabilizers, it's not easy. People who say that don't do it. I know mine is "easier" than other forms. It's all relative give me a trad i would have trouble hitting the ground for a while.
Give armchairs archer a 20 Ibs beginner wooden bow with sight and do 30 meter with 80cm target, lets see how many yellow these kind of archer can hit for 12 ends.
Is modern sport fencing easier than older styles of fencing with a rapier f.ex? No, but it has taken all the realism and fun out it. (Just my taste)
Also, some events are removed from the olympics over time too; like target javelin/spear throw. I don’t know why that is, as it used to be both range and target in the 1800s. So there’s a trend for all previous martial related stuff to get less martial related, which may be logical in a way I guess, but I think that makes it more boring an uninteresting for more people than it attracts really. Idk.
But doesn’t one often start with javelin throw or fencing because one has a certain image of what that entails, from books and movies, and then one finds that these art forms have changed very much into a sport, so much so that the roots aren’t really that present anymore?
I understand why these developments happen, but do think this might in some cases make the sport less interesting to many people, but I might be totally wrong because of my own bias.
Don’t think this would apply to archery the same way though. (But im not an archer)
6:46 - This isn´t NU? What the hell am I watching then??
But Rouges use daggers in WoW, hunters use bows, cmon man :P
Way back when, rogues could use bows too, so technically not wrong~
Fair enough
Way back in Vanilla when they had Ammo and Quivers too. ;D Warriors had them too, ahhh those were the days. :D
Apparently, a rogue with enough Agility, could outdps a hunter prior to the ranged weapon skill nerf.
Also, don't forget. The more you pay for your gear the higher your score will be.
I don't understand one thing. Compounds are about ( in my opinion) 20% more accurate and generally come in 60-70# range. Soooo why do they shoot at only 50 meters and recurves shoot at 70 meters in world archery?
They shoot at a smaller target size. The degree of difficulty in target size is about the same.
Not a single sport/ competition can be easy. There is the only one who is the best, there are only 3 medals. Nothing is easy
I don't get it, no one complains about modern fencing because the three musketeers didn't use a foil, and no one complains about modern sailing because Blackbeard didn't use a racing sloop. It's all the same skill, the only thing that changes is the level of the score.
If there was no skill involved, an Olympic archer would be no more accurate than I am with the same gear. They are a lot more accurate. Case closed.
It is so annoying how people think that archery is easy and then I see them shooting at 9 meters
the only thing I envy Compound shooter for is that they can take their bow out of its case and it is ready to go. None of this spending 10 minutes putting the darn thing together and hoping all the settings are on.
that really is one of the best things
Really? there no way my compound bow would fit in the case without removing the sight, scope and front and rear stabilisers, as for the sight, well I have to remove the actual scope to fit the sight and scope into it's case.
R Mac I've got a "softshell case". I can leave the scope mounted on and my stabilizers have quick disconnects. I need 30 seconds to put them on. Don't need to attach the limbs. Don't need to check the brace height.
The Tour de France should require the use of a Draisine. All technological advances in cycling since then make bicycling easier and take away the need for skill and fitness. A REAL cyclist should be able to win the event on a Draisine.
The thing that annoys me the most about archery is that it takes no skill
being an adult is too easy.
I can consistently beat my 6 year old son both with barebow recurves. we thought is might be the bow but we swapped, my riser was above his head while the limb was still on the ground and he couldn't draw it at all so I won again!
In summary being an adult is way too easy, that's why kids want to do it.
don't let on about all the grownup crap we have to do like making sure they are fed and clothed.
The biggest skill easers compared to traditional (as I see traditional are) - Shelves, and cutout sights, then it's followed by the other items on modern Olympic recurve. So I have more of a bone to pick when it comes to trad comps them selves. I mean whatever, modern recurve only compete with modern recurve.. who really cares about the joke that is the Olympics anyhow? Everyone knows the Olympics are completely unfair when it comes to equal opportunity in gear with tech. Allot of the Olympics takes more money in coaches and equipment, and club costs than most people want to gamble spending on their future. "the best, of the best, really means, those that could somehow get access. pfft whatever, I don't watch it. Back to enjoying my shots and feeling badass with amazingly cool looking trad bows :)
its so easy, you just pull back a string and let go... (sarcasm btw)
Do you rogue in WoW?
of course modern equipment makes the shot easier - thats the reason why they use it.
i guess they wouldnt put on all that equipment just for decoration.
without a doubt, if a guy with one of these plain wood bows would try to compete in modern olympic archery, he would not stand a snowballs chance in hell.
The problem with this mindset it assumes perfection: that an archer would automatically gain improved accuracy because they put on the sight. Objectively speaking, the purpose of using accessories is to improve potential performance. However, a tool that is more precise isn't necessarily easier to use. Additional steps are required in learning and training in order to actually outshoot a traditional archer.
The definition of "easy" depends on the context. It is "easier" to achieve a higher score, but at the same time, a modern bow should be "easier" in that someone can pick one up and shoot well with less effort, or have a lower learning curve, and that is not the case.
Same bow, arrows and equipment for 10 different players: 10 different (consistent) results.
End of discussion.
Lars Anderson is a real archer. (How many of you did I trigger? Come on it's a joke)
Olympic shooting is "easer" because the equipment is so much better.... ok... now try that mentality concerning long distance shooting with a rifle. I just don't seem to see it there. We know that you can't just hand a high quality rifle with the best scope on it to anyone and expect then to be a skilled "sniper". Those who are skilled MAKE it look "easy". But by all means, those who think it IS easy, go ahead and have at it..... show me. ;)
Yes it's so very easy.
Easy to use, and easy to score with are two different things. If using stabilizers and sights wasn't easier to score with, Olympic archers wouldn't use it. It's simple logic. It's not easy to use, but it definitely makes it easier to be accurate with. Going beyond that, a center cut bow is much easier to score with than a regular traditional bow.
Give me a horsebow and I'll hit a target at 30m. Give me a center cut bow with all the bells and whistles and I'll hit the target at 50m easy. Of course Olympic archery isn't easy. But it cannot be denied that you are more likely to be accurate with stabilizers, clickers and sights on a center cut bow, as opposed to a barebow without a shelf.
Thumb release is much harder to master, which is why I enjoy it more. It's more intriging.
Its easy?
Proof 😄
It is friggin' easier! No question about it! I'm not saying it's easy. It's easier because of bow extensions. I'm not saying it requires less skill or practice- when you take the same archer and give him a traditional bow to shoot, and then an olimpic "christmass tree", same distance (can be 10m, 30, 50m- no differance) it will be easier, more consistant to shoot olimpic bow. Beside that- you're giving examples of different sports- then and now. Very wrong examples. When you compare for ex high jump nothing changed in the jump (just a landing material was added). Giving jumpers a leg prostethics would be a good example of advancement. Like adding stuff to bows. And again- I'm not saying it's easy (that prosthetics jumper would also train hars and had a lot of skill). Wrestlers- adding exoskeletons and so on.This would compare to advancement of bow shooting. It's nothing wrong in my opinion. I'm no profesional archer, I've shoot a bow, yes, and a traditional and olimpic witch attatchments- and the latter is ffar easier to shoot to be consistant and so on. Peace!
Im 12 shoot 25 lb at 20 yards
but.. but... making YT videos is easy! :3
Man, I hate calculators. They make math too easy.
I used to think Olympic archery looked easy. Then after watching your videos I looked up some Olympic matches (which were actually more interesting than I thought they would be) and I realized how difficult it can be even with all the extra stuff like stabilizers and sights. Especially at 70 meters and considering all the high skilled competitors.
For men it used to be 90 meters / 70 / 50 / 30 and 144 arrows per match 6 arrows at each turn
What you're saying is mostly true. But the way I look at these comments is not that the bow shoots itself. The fact is, it's easier to go from barebow to olympic, than olympic to barebow. And you yourself said that compound shooters have it easier. It's like running with weights on your ankles. Once you take them off you run much easier. I'm not belittling olympic archery, don't get me wrong. But it's an easier step to take coming from barebow to olympic, or compound, than it is the other way around.
Your analogy about high jump is good. But it's not about amateurs jumping on a mat. Someone who jumped without the mat would find it much easier to jump with the mat.
I think the barebow > Olympic transition is far from being a "fact". From my experience in working with archers, I find more people have a harder time going to Olympic from barebow, specifically because of the clicker, and many tend to shoot worse, or at least have more trouble with technique even though their score is higher (mostly due to sights). My angle in this is that being forced to use correct form with freestyle equipment builds in the good habits that are needed for other styles of shooting. Mileage will vary in the end as each person will learn and adapt differently.
@@NUSensei Very good answer. But this clicker thing reminds me of when I practice thumb release. Pushing with the root of the thumb, and pulling with my pinky. Also, the anchor point when the arrow touches your finger. It's something you adapt to easily when you give it a few tries. Getting the feel for the bow is so important. Not so much the technique, but the feel. Feeling your body and focusing on the target is so important, in my opinion. Now, I'm a beginner in archery, but I'm not new to some other forms of... Awareness. And this reminds me of your video on the average person. I love archery. I research it on a daily basis. I started with a shitty Dechatlon Intech 2 recurve bow. Which broke on me after only 3 months of shooting, unfortunately. Now I'm waiting for my Grozer fiberglass bow to arrive so I can start shooting again. I took up archery because I've always wanted to try it. But I did so because the love of my life, of 7 years left me 8 months ago. Which reminded me of your "origin" story. Now it's the only thing keeping from going insane to be honest. I have a deep passion for it and I like all forms of it. So please don't take my comments about it the wrong way. I don't have an archery club in my vercinity, so I can't practice all forms of it. Personally I'm not really into competition or sports. I do this for myself and my peace of mind. I learned a lot from you. So much love and respect to you, friend. Keep up the good work.
The thing that annoys me about archery most is how easy it is to troll archers..Seems like half the videos make are you defending yourself from trolls and all that does is gives them more incentive to keep on trollin
I play monster Hunter lol