Horace A. Ford or Howard Hill

Status
Not open for further replies.

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
In people's opinions which of these two was the better archer and why?

For those that are unaware of either (hang your heads in shame) here is a little intro. (from wiki)

Horace A. Ford (1822?1880) is known as one of the greatest target archers of all time. He first picked up the bow in 1845, and a mere four years later won the Grand National Archery Meeting held in the United Kingdom. He proceeded to win an unmatched, eleven consecutive championships, and a twelfth "comeback" win. His high score - that of 1271 in the Double York Round in 1857 - remained archery's high mark for over 70 years.

or

Howard Hill (November 13, 1899 - February 4, 1975) was an archer who was unofficially referred to as the "World's Greatest Archer". He is the only person to win 196 archery field tournaments in succession.[1] He was also a football, baseball, and basketball player at Auburn University.[2] He was inducted into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame in 1971 for his skill in archery.[3]

Looking at their dates, perhaps one is the re-encarnation of the other ;). Its a shame they weren't closer together because to watch them compete would be breathtaking.
 

DavidH

New member
Howard Hill was mainly a short range trick shooter, good for entertainment value, especially some of the films of him with young ladies;) I guess you can forgive the fact that he killed animals as it was a long time ago. I think if you put them both up on a York, Horace would win hands down. And he's British dammit;)
 

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
More than just a trick shooter, winning 196 field shoots in succession is nothing to be sniffed at coupled with the during the filming of the errol flynn robin hood he was the archer behind the shots. Some actors would get paid extra if they would allow wood to be put under their costumes and be shot by Howard.

But I'm not asking who is the best target archer, as likily Horace would win that. But who is the best archer overall in peoples opinions. So you have to think up your view as to what makes an archer?
 

DavidH

New member
More than just a trick shooter, winning 196 field shoots in succession is nothing to be sniffed at coupled with the during the filming of the errol flynn robin hood he was the archer behind the shots. Some actors would get paid extra if they would allow wood to be put under their costumes and be shot by Howard.
I believe when he tried to split the willow, they had to run a wire as he kept missing, but that's by the by.

What makes a true archer? one who holds a bent stick, but I guess that's by the by too:)

I wish we had some footage of Horace, we could learn so much
 
I'd go for Ford, a bit biased as I don't like Hill (okay, so I never met him, he may have been a great guy)

Okay, so it was a long time ago but why would you want to kill an elephant with a bow? Just a case of I can so I will. That and impressing everybody else, just like that p***k who thought it would be cool to shoot a cougar / mountain lion with a compound.

Sorry, that sort of thing really hacks me off. Okay, killing for food is one thing and I wouldn't have a problem with it but for the sheer hell of it? :thumbsdow

Best I go away now...............
 
M

Moose

Guest
Ford shot high scores on a target that did not move

Hill shot at small wooden blocks he could not see on a target riding a horse

I will say Ford because he is British but I believe Hill was taught by Ishi a Native American archer who is reputed to be the best archer ever and better than Hill by far

What about Fred Bear?


Moose on the loose
 

Raven's_Eye

Active member
Ironman
I'm loath to include Fred Bear in the comparrison because he used a flatbow (american longbow) rather than a longbow (english longbow), so different equipment that has an advantage.

@Eddie, personally don't know why he killed an elephant. Probably to prove a point about bows being just as good as hunting (though he did use a strong one) and do see if he could do it. I do see a difference between that and shooting animals with a compound bow though. Compounds were designed by hunters for hunters to be more accurate and more powerful with much less effort from the archer. (To all compound archers that might be offended I'm sorry but yes your bows are designed to be accurate compared to other bows) Plus from the videos on youtube I've seen all the hunters there are in hides or have had the animals drugged so they are easy to shoot, rather than track them down in the wild.
 

DavidH

New member
I totally agree with the comments about hunting as a sport, but it was a very different world back then. Having said that, it still happens in America.
 

Yew Selfbow

Active member
I think you have to consider the impact the two archers (Hill and Ford) had on the sport. Ford was credited after his death with dramatically improving the quality of the scores of his competetors during his 11 year reign as national champion and after the publication of Theory and Practice.
 

Furface

Moderator
Supporter
I would go for Ford because of his overall contribution. However, the discussion does feel a little like Bradman v Tendulkar (now where have I seen that recently?).
 

DavidH

New member
I would go for Ford because of his overall contribution. However, the discussion does feel a little like Bradman v Tendulkar (now where have I seen that recently?).
At least this has been a less contentious thread but who knows who might start posting;)
 

JohnK

Well-known member
Ishi was, reputedly, a good shot at game, but useless at target-style shooting. His skills are often romanticised in fiction. This link gives some more information on his ability as an archer:

Ishi's records with the Bow, from: "Yahi Archery", by Saxton T. Pope, 1918. An article on how Ishi, the last Yana indian, practiced archery: how he made his bow, his arrows, flaked arrow points, his method of shooting, how he hunted, etc.

Both Hill and Ford were brilliant archers in their fields, and it's difficult to compare them. Hill was a man of a different age, and they thought very differently about hunting game. That's a reason, mind you, but not an excuse.

I was told a story by an English bowyer about Hill. Apparently, he and Richard Galloway (the famous British bowyer, founder of the company that eventually became Border Archery) were out hunting together. Hill shot a rabbit, wounding it but not killing it. He pulled his arrow out of the animal and went to walk off. Galloway asked him if he was going to put the rabbit out of its misery. "It's not hurting me," he replied, and walked off.
 

DavidH

New member
thanks for the link John, that site is great isn't it? however this quote doesn't make Ishi sound that spectacular

At ten and twenty yards Ishi was proportionately much more accurate, and while not consistent, he could hit objects three or four inches in diameter with such frequency that it was a commonplace event. Out of every five arrows, one or two surely would reach the mark. In his native state, his targets were small bundles of straw about the size of a rabbit or quail, or he shot at a small hoop in motion.
 

DavidH

New member
Yep, there's a lot of romanticism in archery. But Robin Hood could definitely split a cotton thread at 300 yards. and drink a yard of ale while the arrow was in the air;)
 
I hope I'm not treading on anyone's toes when I mention that H. A. Ford's Theory and Practice is available as a free download from Project Gutenberg.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top