[Horsebow] GNAS (GB) proposed horse bow class

greygoose

New member
I like your thinking but I'd suggest "may be used to support the arrow or keep it in position".

This allows things like an arrow pass or the very silght lip on the kaya handle, which could be used to help you put the arrow in the right place but not keep it there. Depends on your definition of 'position the arrow'...
Hi,
Perhaps using the word "locate" somewhere would be better than "position".
gg
 

greygoose

New member
Greygoose - string walking and face walking are not allowed in other NFAS classes so I think it would be most unwise to try and get it accepted for asiatics! You say it can't be enforced without someone watching every archer, but in fact when you are shooting in a group this is self policing.





Also I think there is a distinct difference between something that can be used to keep the arrow in position, and something which could be used to line the arrow up so there is consistent hand position. Longbows have leather handles which can be used as a reference point for hand position so I think it is reasonable to allow the same for asiatics.

ChakaZulu - I do not have ambitions to use a sash myself, I think I will stick to a quiver!
Hi DL, My comment re watchers was refering to whether a finger should or should not touch the arrow and the tiny margins by which the two instances may occur.
Using rules from other formats may be useful as a guide line but should not be followed simply as a matter of course. Everything should be up for consideration and discussion on it's own merits.
(no one has yet explained what is wrong with string walking, NB I am not proposing this, I simply want clarification).
gg
 

payneib

Supporter
Supporter
(no one has yet explained what is wrong with string walking, NB I am not proposing this, I simply want clarification).
gg

Well so far the only argument has been that it's not historic, as in Mr Mongol (or other non-specific mounted archer of near/middle/far eastern decent) would have been too busy controlling his horse with his knees, knocking his arrow, trying to keep said arrow on his hand, charging down the enemy and genrally looking mean, to bother with string/face walking. Which i totally agree with.

But what about when Mr Mongol (or other non-specific mounted archer of near/middle/far eastern decent) was just out trying to catch his lunch? If he was on foot and trying to hit a lizard/small bird out of a tree, or a ferral goat at 200yrds, why wouldnt he? Or what about when he was just in some kind of ye olde target tournement against his mates, to see who wins a night with the lovely, long legged Ms Lolita Mongol (or other non-specific mounted archer of near/middle/far eastern decent). Is my argument.

I also think that "because NFAS doesn't allow it" isnt much of an argument either, this is for GNAS aint it?

I still think it's worth putting it in.
 

Si2

New member
It really comes down to what we are trying to achieve here - do we want to create a wide open spec or do we want to create a very narrow and 'authentic' historic class??

My views (not to say they are correct) are that, in the first instance. we should allow as many archers as possible to join in. Try not to exclude anyone, but tie down the spec enough so that we get what we expect on the shooting line.

If a solid core of Asiatic archers develops, then maybe they will want to push for future specialisations that limit the bow to all natural materials and specific loose and draw methodology. Can you stringwalk with a thumb release?

The only drawback to this approach, that I see, is that someone could exploit a loophole, use a non-generic bow and create a national record that will never be broken when that loophole is closed.
I don't really see that type of person shooting these bows in the first place, but it is a possibility if the boundaries are left wide in an effort to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

It's possible that someone will create a carbon fibre mega bow that allows them to win without effort. But I think the reality is that shooting off the hand with wooden arrows and no sights is heavily weighted in favour of the skill of the archer rather than the spec of their equipment.


What is the percieved value of strongwalking?
Why is it considered an unfair advantage that needs to be outlawed?
If it's just because it is not 'traditional' then I think it should not be excluded. For most of these bows a thumb release will be historic, but I doubt if most archers will be using it.

I thought a lot about this class over the weekend, weering from an all natural material spec bow that you must shoot off the thumb, so an all inclusive formula where anything goes. I'm still no sure.

I think there has been some great work here to arrive at the formula we have above and I am heartened to see good debate on the points raised.

With regards to cut-outs in the handle, can we state that the bow should be symetrical about it's vertical axis?
I know some bows are not on a horizontal format, I'd be interested to hear of any on the vertical. Most do slim for the handle, but equally both sides.

I also agree on the word 'support' rather than 'position' in the arrow rest paragraph.

Si
 

Dorset Lass

New member
Ironman
I too have thought a lot about this over the WE. I was thinking maybe we should go 'natural'. Having had another look at the prices for asiatics made of entirely natural materials and the instructions for maintaining them, the warnings about how the draw weight will vary according to the weather, how the limbs need to be checked regularly for alignment etc, and a price tag of at least ?1500 I have veered away from it. We would be creating a class that only those with deep pockets would be able to participate in. Also we don't have the body of knowledge in this country about how to make and maintain these horn bows.

I agree with Si that we want to guard against some super mega synthetic bow that would far outclass the other bows but I do think that shooting off the hand is going to mean that it will be more weighted to the archer's skill than the specification of their bow.

I realise I have mentioned the NFAS a couple of times and I apologise because this thread is of course about GNAS. I suppose if I am honest I was hoping that if this got introduced to GNAS we might be able to get the NFAS to consider it, without too many changes. I shoot NFAS field and would love a class for asiatics in that. If I want to shoot an asiatic against 'comparable bow styles' I would need to go 'primitive' and invest in a natural materials bow. I am not going to do that for the reasons given above so am left competing against modern recurves with arrow rests and buttons.

I don't know why string and facewalking are frowned upon and I have no idea whether they are historically appropriate so can't comment. I was just being sucked into the existing rules and thinking that there must have been a reason for it. It is a fair point to not just accept things and to debate every point!
 

ChakaZulu

New member
1. We seem to be agreed about not requiring natural bows, albeit nobody wants to see super high tech bows sweeping through. One possibility is to require some wood or a proportion of wood. The latter is hard to police and "some wood" is easy to circumvent. Any thoughts?

2. I don't think we gain by requiring symmetry. Those flatbows that don't have shelves are symmetrical - they taper in sharply on both sides to the handle. They would be excluded by the recurve definition and the banning of cutouts.

3. I remain convinced that Huns, Mongols et al would not have changed their whole style of shooting when they dismounted, if indeed they hunted and/or held contests on foot. However the Turks undoubtedly did hold foot archery contests, including target archery.

A friend of mine from horseback archery studies and recreates several forms of Turkish culture from those times, so I shall see what he thinks of the proposition that string or facewalking
may have been used...
 

Si2

New member
1. We seem to be agreed about not requiring natural bows, albeit nobody wants to see super high tech bows sweeping through. One possibility is to require some wood or a proportion of wood. The latter is hard to police and "some wood" is easy to circumvent. Any thoughts?
Totally agree - although my post was a bit rambling, in essence, I think it would be a good idea to start off on an inclusive spec, rather than an exclusive one.

It would be contentious to say something like, must have a wooden core. How would you measure it, or even check it's there is the bow is painted etc?
Most modern recurve limbs have wooden cores anyhow...

I'd say leave materials open, if the class gets so huge that a noticeable gap between the carbons and the naturals, then deal with that then.

Si
 

Si2

New member
One thing that seems to be missing from the bow definition - the single piece ruling.

Is this deemed unnecessary?

For me it's quite fundamental.

Si
 

English Bowman

Well-known member
My views (not to say they are correct) are that, in the first instance. we should allow as many archers as possible to join in. Try not to exclude anyone, but tie down the spec enough so that we get what we expect on the shooting line.
I agree with this, and I'd go further and allow flat bows and longbows, providing that there is no arrow shelf or rest. I know that they are not recurves or asiatic, but let's include as many archers as possible without giving them an unfair advantage.

After all it might be fun to enter into that style with my ELB from time to time to see how the two bows compare.
 

ChakaZulu

New member
One thing that seems to be missing from the bow definition - the single piece ruling.

Is this deemed unnecessary?

For me it's quite fundamental.

Si
What about hinged bows? The Chinese had them, I believe. Generally speaking I agree though.
 

ChakaZulu

New member
I agree with this, and I'd go further and allow flat bows and longbows, providing that there is no arrow shelf or rest. I know that they are not recurves or asiatic, but let's include as many archers as possible without giving them an unfair advantage.

After all it might be fun to enter into that style with my ELB from time to time to see how the two bows compare.
I would have thought you could see how they compare by looking at the scores regardless of whether you're entered 'in' the same category, couldn't you?

What you're arguing for is essentially a traditional category that perhaps artificially excludes anything with a shelf. What would you call it, out of interest?
 

English Bowman

Well-known member
What you're arguing for is essentially a traditional category that perhaps artificially excludes anything with a shelf. What would you call it, out of interest?
True, guilty as charged. I would call it Traditional, but that's been taken. If not maybe Historical, but that's the IFAA class that is for authentically made bows of a pre-19th Century design.

Thinking about it, probably Historical would be the way to go.
 

Si2

New member
What about hinged bows? The Chinese had them, I believe. Generally speaking I agree though.
Hmm, you are correct - there's some data here:

Oriental Hinged and Take-apart Bows

They look to be very rare and mostly confined to miniature indoor sets. I wonder how many people shoot them these days?

The main reason is to bar modern multi-part recurves, who might be tricky to exclude on other reasons, apart from length and arrow rest.

Si
 

Si2

New member
What you're arguing for is essentially a traditional category that perhaps artificially excludes anything with a shelf. What would you call it, out of interest?
I think that would be a very well supported category.

I would find it fascinating to see all of those ancient bows competing against each other. When you shoot from the hand I think there would be very little in them all.

The core issue that lies at the root of this thread is the grouping of historic bows/arrows against modern. Barebow recurve is all inclusive, so we CAN all play, but our scores are skewed by our reluctance to move with the times.

Si
 

ChakaZulu

New member
So do we think it should just be a historical category, without reference to asiatics? I suspect asiatics would come out quite badly because they are so short.
 

Si2

New member
So do we think it should just be a historical category, without reference to asiatics? I suspect asiatics would come out quite badly because they are so short.
I think that was just pipedreams. AFBs need a home too.

If we get Asiatics set-up properly then we can compete and be judged alongside the only other GNAS established historic category in the UK - Longbow.

Let's stick to the Asiatics for now- I've trawled the archive here and this question/proposal has come up again and again. Let's see this one through.

I'll be loading a Western score up this weekend.
Si
 

English Bowman

Well-known member
So do we think it should just be a historical category, without reference to asiatics? I suspect asiatics would come out quite badly because they are so short.
Having seen some archers shoot the 50" recurves very well, I'm not so sure. I think that what they'd loose on stability they'd gain in arrow speed. I believe that the IFAA world champs Historical class was won by an archer using a short recurved bow this year. This was shot up against English Longbows. The top longbowman won one of the days and set a new world record, so the two seem fairly well matched to me, based on that one example.

Over the winter I'll get out my Mongolian and see what I can do with it, and how it compares with a longbow and an AFB. As I shoot one particular longbow all the time, if I shoot a spare longbow that I'm not used to, then it should be a reasonable comparison.
 

Si2

New member
Having seen some archers shoot the 50" recurves very well, I'm not so sure. I think that what they'd loose on stability they'd gain in arrow speed. I believe that the IFAA world champs Historical class was won by an archer using a short recurved bow this year. This was shot up against English Longbows. The top longbowman won one of the days and set a new world record, so the two seem fairly well matched to me, based on that one example.

Over the winter I'll get out my Mongolian and see what I can do with it, and how it compares with a longbow and an AFB. As I shoot one particular longbow all the time, if I shoot a spare longbow that I'm not used to, then it should be a reasonable comparison.
I would think there is a good balance.
The recurves are fast, yet twitchy.
The longbows are slower, yet a little more forgiving.

I think the longbow has more to come though. I see British bowyers experimenting and developing the longbow in it's GNAS form. Bamboo is not new, but it is being used with slim limb designs, tiny nocks, reflex and deflex, tapered cores, etc. Lots of thought and development. I've seen some very fast fps figures for recent longbows.

I think the horsebows are being developed but we don't see it in the UK as much because of this whole classification thing. Certainly for Samick to offer two versions there has to be a market, and the Grozer range is growing as well. The bows are certainly available.

Interesting times for the 'historic' bows.

Si
 
Top