Howard Hill maintained that recurved tips made a bow unsteady and "sensitive", thus unsuitable for fast, instinctive shooting.
Have any scientifically designed and conducted tests been made of this idea?
recurves unsteady?
-
MJuingong
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:54 am
- Location: New York City, NY, U.S.A.
-
Dan T
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:43 pm
- Location: New York
-
Nick
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:40 am
- Location: UK, Wales
I don't go along with this either. If recurves were so innacurate, people wouldn't have used them for thousands of years.
Howard Hill was a 'prodigious' archer - in a completely different league to most of us mere mortals. So, he would probably be more idiosynchratic in his opinions and approach - and his findings would probably not apply to most of the rest of us.
Unfortunately, I was put off recurves for many years by a flatbow fanatic (an archer of much greater experience - so I believed him!) - and subsequently found ths piece of advice to be b*ll***t! I find no difference in effective accuracy between recurved and straight bows - I miss the target equally well with both.
Howard Hill was a 'prodigious' archer - in a completely different league to most of us mere mortals. So, he would probably be more idiosynchratic in his opinions and approach - and his findings would probably not apply to most of the rest of us.
Unfortunately, I was put off recurves for many years by a flatbow fanatic (an archer of much greater experience - so I believed him!) - and subsequently found ths piece of advice to be b*ll***t! I find no difference in effective accuracy between recurved and straight bows - I miss the target equally well with both.