This chimes with something that I've been thinking about for a while: the tension between historical reenactment and pure sport. Personally I see benefits and problems with both sides. I am slowly putting together a summary of the situation as I see it, that I shall post in due course. Interested to see your take on it...
EDIT: now posted.
Proposal for a scoring system
-
Dan
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:31 pm
- Location: England
I've revisited your proposed scoring system and applied it to the scores from the British Champs held this weekend. I'll do a full analysis later but I thought I'd post the highlights now:
I've just looked at the Korean results. Shot as a regular Korean but 80m track, 9.6s was the time allowed. Points gained for going faster, lost for going slower. Triple shot event you gained 3 bonus points if you hit all 3 targets. I haven't included those in the calculation because they aren't official WHAF rules. Double shot was very hard because the first target was 30m from start instead of 40m as usual.
Actual results, top 8: Name - score - total shooting - total time
Neil - 33.35 - 26 (not including 3 bonus) - 53.25
Dan - 29.11 - 31 - 59.49
Claire - 15.17 - 14 - 54
Zana - 12.28 - 9 - 49.33
Jon - 11.39 - 20 - 73.43 (not including 3 bonus)
Emily - 10.7 - 16 - 64.56
Anna - 9 - 12 - 65.33
Michele - 8.24 - 17 - 72.64
Divide score by time gives the following:
Dan - 0.521
Neil - 0.488
Jon - 0.272
Claire - 0.259
Michele - 0.234
Emily - 0.232
Anna - 0.184
Zana - 0.182
There were also 9,10 and 11, who swapped places a bit using the new system.
The big changes (apart from putting me in a position to demand the trophy from Neil) are Zana's drop from 4th to 8th and the promotion of Jon from 5th to 3rd and Michele from 8th to 5th.
Notable, I think, that Jon and Michele were considerably slower than the others but scored more highly in the shooting than some of the guys who rode faster and therefore outperformed them in the event as it is currently scored. They were both in their first competition and I have to say that the impression watching and judging was that they were not "better" than Zana, by the instinctive meaning of "better".
It may be worth mentioning that Jon and to a lesser extent Michele tended to shoot from less than full draw, not as a tactic, I'm sure, but through inexperience. These results may be skewed somewhat by that fact and I think that this scoring system would be best run in tandem with Gokmen and Neil's rule from Biga about not scoring unless you are at full draw.
Zana was the fastest rider but didn't score many shooting points. This was highly rewarded by the current system but not by Zarasp's.
I haven't worked it out exactly but my impression is that Zarasp's system means that the positions rely more heavily on shooting accuracy than the current system. It is therefore a good thing, in my view. Which has nothing to do with the fact that they say I win!
I've just looked at the Korean results. Shot as a regular Korean but 80m track, 9.6s was the time allowed. Points gained for going faster, lost for going slower. Triple shot event you gained 3 bonus points if you hit all 3 targets. I haven't included those in the calculation because they aren't official WHAF rules. Double shot was very hard because the first target was 30m from start instead of 40m as usual.
Actual results, top 8: Name - score - total shooting - total time
Neil - 33.35 - 26 (not including 3 bonus) - 53.25
Dan - 29.11 - 31 - 59.49
Claire - 15.17 - 14 - 54
Zana - 12.28 - 9 - 49.33
Jon - 11.39 - 20 - 73.43 (not including 3 bonus)
Emily - 10.7 - 16 - 64.56
Anna - 9 - 12 - 65.33
Michele - 8.24 - 17 - 72.64
Divide score by time gives the following:
Dan - 0.521
Neil - 0.488
Jon - 0.272
Claire - 0.259
Michele - 0.234
Emily - 0.232
Anna - 0.184
Zana - 0.182
There were also 9,10 and 11, who swapped places a bit using the new system.
The big changes (apart from putting me in a position to demand the trophy from Neil) are Zana's drop from 4th to 8th and the promotion of Jon from 5th to 3rd and Michele from 8th to 5th.
Notable, I think, that Jon and Michele were considerably slower than the others but scored more highly in the shooting than some of the guys who rode faster and therefore outperformed them in the event as it is currently scored. They were both in their first competition and I have to say that the impression watching and judging was that they were not "better" than Zana, by the instinctive meaning of "better".
It may be worth mentioning that Jon and to a lesser extent Michele tended to shoot from less than full draw, not as a tactic, I'm sure, but through inexperience. These results may be skewed somewhat by that fact and I think that this scoring system would be best run in tandem with Gokmen and Neil's rule from Biga about not scoring unless you are at full draw.
Zana was the fastest rider but didn't score many shooting points. This was highly rewarded by the current system but not by Zarasp's.
I haven't worked it out exactly but my impression is that Zarasp's system means that the positions rely more heavily on shooting accuracy than the current system. It is therefore a good thing, in my view. Which has nothing to do with the fact that they say I win!
-
mongolianarcher
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:51 am
- Location: Florida
I really have thought about this topic for a while now and I have an opinion that I wanted everyone still on ATARN to consider:
The system offered by Zarasp was very smart because it bases the scores on the averages of the archers...points gained per second basically (which makes perfect sense since horsearchery really is speed and accuracy weighed on equal levels).
A week or so ago I talked to Justin Ma about an idea for a new horsearchery track that included target penetration: and I think it is ironic that he also made such a comment on this thread several years ago.
But my idea is based on the terms of why (in my opinion at least) horsearchery is done: for an attempt at historical authenticity, connecting us with our ancestors; for physical fitness, thereby requiring us to further challenging ourselves in feats of strength and fortitude (as the English commentators have said of the Persians' skills); for marksmanship; for a degree of transcendence, molding man and animal into one beating heart; and, ultimately, to not only shoot at a target, but to pierce it--attack it. This is not a feminine sport as Zarasp pointed out before, and as Lukas Novotny has taught me: when doing Asiastic archery, you have to put a little "umph" into each shot. (An English saying)
What I told Justin Ma is as follows:
I think, in respects to the problem posed by modern-day equestrian archery, that perhaps there should be an armor-piercing and distance shooting rounds added to the events, in order to keep the line between sport, and martial art from being blurred completely. They will probably be as artificial and as ?faux-historical? as the Hungarian rounds are, but maybe they will allow high draw weights to show their might.
The idea I had for the ?armor piercing round? (or the Parthian course as I would call it) would focus on the archer?s ability to pierce metal from horseback. Perhaps metal plates, or brass can be used as a target. And the archer will be judged on the piercing (and aim) of his arrows. The course will have three major directions: one when galloping towards it (as if firing towards an enemy); the next arrow when turning at a 90 degree angle to whichever direction is the archer?s natural shooting side, right for right-handed and left for left-handed, and making one sideway shot; and the last when you make another turn going away from the target and having to do as many Parthian shots as you can. This round would make the archer show the actual skirmishing capabilities of a mounted archer, plus it would make the archer make full use of his maneuverability.
And perhaps the distance round can simply be like the 5 target Korean round, always having to draw from the quiver, and just be at a distance from 50 or 60 meters.
---Thus is my idea.
In retrospect, I think the idea of having just one arrow shot towards the target, one at a ninety-degree angle, and an unlimited amount when coming away from the target (shooting Parthian style) can be changed slightly:
Instead of drawing from the quiver initially, you are allowed to have one arrow nocked, and two in the bowhand or drawhand...which is historical since shooting in groups of three is often represented in coins, etc, and you will charge the target, each arrow hit piercing the target being a point, bonus points if shooting the "vital areas"; then, if you already discharged all your arrows, you draw one arrow from the quiver to make your ninety-degree angle shot; after that, you turn and shoot as many arrows as you can from your quiver while going away from the target.
---The whole course is to represent a skirmishing horsearcher and the course must be completed at full gallop (thus reflecting the natural energy of the battlefield or the hunt).
This course would solve several problems:
1. People's bad technique, since the piercing of the armor necessitates good form, full draw, and a strong bow.
2. Encourage GOOD horsemanship, since you must be able to go at full gallop not a pitiful canter.
3. It actually represents the martial aspect of archery and it models the potential that our ancestors and ourselves are able to reach in skill and physical power.
4. It DOES NOT put SPEED OF DRAW at a higher level than horse-maneuvering abilities, accuracy, and physicality. (For those that complain that this is unfair, war is not necessarily fair--but the fact that someone may have a stronger bow may not duly mean that they can outperform you...you might have better release abilities and accuracy and can thus make better shots or ride at higher speeds than he).
5. It allows heavier arrows to show their ability to perform and the armor piercing arrows that we all love to make can be used...this also may put carbon arrows in their place because a lighter arrow may not necessarily break metal as a stable, heavy arrow can.
6. It also does not give precedence to any one way of holding the arrows at the initial charge since only three arrows are allowed to be held, one of which is at the ready, and allows the competitors to use a variety of styles of military archery that is prescribed in all the archery manuals.
7. As mentioned in the other reasons above, this system also allows for a variety of bow techniques, incl. yumi archers and Qing-style bows, of which is completely marginalized by the Hungarian system that is used presently.
Obviously, this all has been based on my prejudice that Kassai-style archery is NOT an accurate representation of mounted archery, forgive me if I stepped on any sentiments, but innovation cannot be sidestepped out of love of older, faulty set-ups. Because when I watch and train for Hungarian styled courses, my anger flares up because I know that our true potential as horsearchers are not being reached and we need courses that truly challenge us...not just on our ability to hold as many arrows in our hand as possible.
A system that encompasses many different systems of historical archery techniques is needed, which also encourages actual accuracy rather than (as people have said on ATARN) children-level weights of bows, shooting arrows in a totally unrealistic fashion. How wonderful it is that the target is so close to the archer, and the horse moves so slowly and the archer is able to hold so many wonderful carbon arrows in his hand and shoot an arrow per second with his 30# bow! But in reality, if we go past our awe at the glory we give to "an arrow per second shooting" as the masses and the media give to Kassai and his camp, should we not rather be truer to the discipline than trying to just make it more popular?
And to mitigate the fairness of people's differing strength levels, perhaps there could be classes of "layers of metal plates" and such to divide people accordingly. There could be an open style class that allows any strength level to compete, and/or a traditional-only class, which requires natural bows and arrows (not necessarily hornbows...could be all-wood, or bamboo-composite bows as the Indians had or even Native American bows).
Any thoughts?
The system offered by Zarasp was very smart because it bases the scores on the averages of the archers...points gained per second basically (which makes perfect sense since horsearchery really is speed and accuracy weighed on equal levels).
A week or so ago I talked to Justin Ma about an idea for a new horsearchery track that included target penetration: and I think it is ironic that he also made such a comment on this thread several years ago.
But my idea is based on the terms of why (in my opinion at least) horsearchery is done: for an attempt at historical authenticity, connecting us with our ancestors; for physical fitness, thereby requiring us to further challenging ourselves in feats of strength and fortitude (as the English commentators have said of the Persians' skills); for marksmanship; for a degree of transcendence, molding man and animal into one beating heart; and, ultimately, to not only shoot at a target, but to pierce it--attack it. This is not a feminine sport as Zarasp pointed out before, and as Lukas Novotny has taught me: when doing Asiastic archery, you have to put a little "umph" into each shot. (An English saying)
What I told Justin Ma is as follows:
I think, in respects to the problem posed by modern-day equestrian archery, that perhaps there should be an armor-piercing and distance shooting rounds added to the events, in order to keep the line between sport, and martial art from being blurred completely. They will probably be as artificial and as ?faux-historical? as the Hungarian rounds are, but maybe they will allow high draw weights to show their might.
The idea I had for the ?armor piercing round? (or the Parthian course as I would call it) would focus on the archer?s ability to pierce metal from horseback. Perhaps metal plates, or brass can be used as a target. And the archer will be judged on the piercing (and aim) of his arrows. The course will have three major directions: one when galloping towards it (as if firing towards an enemy); the next arrow when turning at a 90 degree angle to whichever direction is the archer?s natural shooting side, right for right-handed and left for left-handed, and making one sideway shot; and the last when you make another turn going away from the target and having to do as many Parthian shots as you can. This round would make the archer show the actual skirmishing capabilities of a mounted archer, plus it would make the archer make full use of his maneuverability.
And perhaps the distance round can simply be like the 5 target Korean round, always having to draw from the quiver, and just be at a distance from 50 or 60 meters.
---Thus is my idea.
In retrospect, I think the idea of having just one arrow shot towards the target, one at a ninety-degree angle, and an unlimited amount when coming away from the target (shooting Parthian style) can be changed slightly:
Instead of drawing from the quiver initially, you are allowed to have one arrow nocked, and two in the bowhand or drawhand...which is historical since shooting in groups of three is often represented in coins, etc, and you will charge the target, each arrow hit piercing the target being a point, bonus points if shooting the "vital areas"; then, if you already discharged all your arrows, you draw one arrow from the quiver to make your ninety-degree angle shot; after that, you turn and shoot as many arrows as you can from your quiver while going away from the target.
---The whole course is to represent a skirmishing horsearcher and the course must be completed at full gallop (thus reflecting the natural energy of the battlefield or the hunt).
This course would solve several problems:
1. People's bad technique, since the piercing of the armor necessitates good form, full draw, and a strong bow.
2. Encourage GOOD horsemanship, since you must be able to go at full gallop not a pitiful canter.
3. It actually represents the martial aspect of archery and it models the potential that our ancestors and ourselves are able to reach in skill and physical power.
4. It DOES NOT put SPEED OF DRAW at a higher level than horse-maneuvering abilities, accuracy, and physicality. (For those that complain that this is unfair, war is not necessarily fair--but the fact that someone may have a stronger bow may not duly mean that they can outperform you...you might have better release abilities and accuracy and can thus make better shots or ride at higher speeds than he).
5. It allows heavier arrows to show their ability to perform and the armor piercing arrows that we all love to make can be used...this also may put carbon arrows in their place because a lighter arrow may not necessarily break metal as a stable, heavy arrow can.
6. It also does not give precedence to any one way of holding the arrows at the initial charge since only three arrows are allowed to be held, one of which is at the ready, and allows the competitors to use a variety of styles of military archery that is prescribed in all the archery manuals.
7. As mentioned in the other reasons above, this system also allows for a variety of bow techniques, incl. yumi archers and Qing-style bows, of which is completely marginalized by the Hungarian system that is used presently.
Obviously, this all has been based on my prejudice that Kassai-style archery is NOT an accurate representation of mounted archery, forgive me if I stepped on any sentiments, but innovation cannot be sidestepped out of love of older, faulty set-ups. Because when I watch and train for Hungarian styled courses, my anger flares up because I know that our true potential as horsearchers are not being reached and we need courses that truly challenge us...not just on our ability to hold as many arrows in our hand as possible.
A system that encompasses many different systems of historical archery techniques is needed, which also encourages actual accuracy rather than (as people have said on ATARN) children-level weights of bows, shooting arrows in a totally unrealistic fashion. How wonderful it is that the target is so close to the archer, and the horse moves so slowly and the archer is able to hold so many wonderful carbon arrows in his hand and shoot an arrow per second with his 30# bow! But in reality, if we go past our awe at the glory we give to "an arrow per second shooting" as the masses and the media give to Kassai and his camp, should we not rather be truer to the discipline than trying to just make it more popular?
And to mitigate the fairness of people's differing strength levels, perhaps there could be classes of "layers of metal plates" and such to divide people accordingly. There could be an open style class that allows any strength level to compete, and/or a traditional-only class, which requires natural bows and arrows (not necessarily hornbows...could be all-wood, or bamboo-composite bows as the Indians had or even Native American bows).
Any thoughts?
xie xie, thank you
Lu Ka Jiang,
Lucas Cooper
Lu Ka Jiang,
Lucas Cooper
-
Jake Levi
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:26 pm
- Location: Mikado, MI, USA
horse archer course
Why not an 'ultimate horse archer' course? Points only for hitting 3 targets, before those targets can click off a paint ball at the archer.
Horse archery replicates hitting an enemy, I doubt style with beauty scored any points with the khans, only putting arrows into the enemy and staying alive to take their wealth and women.
But maybe I'm a purist.
The ultimate horse archer is a concept that conjures up many images.
Horse archery replicates hitting an enemy, I doubt style with beauty scored any points with the khans, only putting arrows into the enemy and staying alive to take their wealth and women.
But maybe I'm a purist.
The ultimate horse archer is a concept that conjures up many images.
Jake Levi
-
mongolianarcher
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:51 am
- Location: Florida
Or perhaps the people on the sideline can throw tennis balls at the archer! Haha. And they will have to deal perhaps with the horse spooking and throwing them off while they have a bow and a loaded arrow in hand--that happened to me before at Lukas' estate: I threw the bow shot the arrow to the floor and held onto the horse's neck while the saddle slipped from under me. An interesting experience. Landed on my feet though!
xie xie, thank you
Lu Ka Jiang,
Lucas Cooper
Lu Ka Jiang,
Lucas Cooper
-
Bede
- Posts: 2360
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:57 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Making horse archery contests that replicate and explore actual fighting situations is difficult. For instance, for reasons of penetration, shooting to the rear at a stationary target is rather pointless since you are subtracting the velocity of the horse from the arrow and thereby reducing its effectiveness. However, as training for shooting to the rear, static targets are indispensable and scoring them is the best way to improve accuracy.
The Koreans now have a game where a horseman drags a ball target behind him and another horse archer shoots at it. In Arab Archery, a similar idea was described except the rope was tied to the cantle of the shooter's saddle. This had three advantages: 1. There was no one else and their horse to be accidentally shot. 2. The ball moved as fast as the archer so there weren't slow periods and speed could be managed by the participant. 3. With relation to the archer, the ball's movement was totally random. this improves safety, flexibility and difficulty. If you don't have a horse and think this is easy, tie a twenty foot piece of rope with a ball on the other end to your belt and run away from it trying to shoot back at the ball. Make sure the ground is flat and no one is in the way.
Qighaj is probably the best way to shoot at metal plates. If the plate is at regular target height there is a real risk of the arrow bouncing off and hitting you or your horse. If is is on the ground, the arrow, if it doesn't penetrate, it is likely to flip over and continue on it its original direction leaving you and the horse unharmed. The Pharaohs in Egypt shot at upright copper plates from chariots. Logic suggests they were as near to the direction of travel as possible to steal some extra velocity for the arrow so I think this was extremely dangerous. Of course if penetration is assured there is not so big a risk.
I really think introducing a discussion like this is a way of improving horse archery as a sport. It is really very young in the modern world and many things will be tried to find the best fit.
The Koreans now have a game where a horseman drags a ball target behind him and another horse archer shoots at it. In Arab Archery, a similar idea was described except the rope was tied to the cantle of the shooter's saddle. This had three advantages: 1. There was no one else and their horse to be accidentally shot. 2. The ball moved as fast as the archer so there weren't slow periods and speed could be managed by the participant. 3. With relation to the archer, the ball's movement was totally random. this improves safety, flexibility and difficulty. If you don't have a horse and think this is easy, tie a twenty foot piece of rope with a ball on the other end to your belt and run away from it trying to shoot back at the ball. Make sure the ground is flat and no one is in the way.
Qighaj is probably the best way to shoot at metal plates. If the plate is at regular target height there is a real risk of the arrow bouncing off and hitting you or your horse. If is is on the ground, the arrow, if it doesn't penetrate, it is likely to flip over and continue on it its original direction leaving you and the horse unharmed. The Pharaohs in Egypt shot at upright copper plates from chariots. Logic suggests they were as near to the direction of travel as possible to steal some extra velocity for the arrow so I think this was extremely dangerous. Of course if penetration is assured there is not so big a risk.
I really think introducing a discussion like this is a way of improving horse archery as a sport. It is really very young in the modern world and many things will be tried to find the best fit.
Bede
-
Jake Levi
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:26 pm
- Location: Mikado, MI, USA
Horse Archery
There seems to be quite a number of Horse Archery orgs. now, which leads me to believe there isnot a whole lot of unanimity as to how it should be done.
For my part no longer having horses it is now of academic interest, but, still of interest. As it was for hunting, and war it seems reasonable that the doing of it as an activity should replicate one or the other pursuit. Scoring as such should reflect a realistic action . A moving target and stationary ones are easier to duplicate for hunting then the war targets. I do know of only one archer who has done any actual shooting of bison from horse back. But bison size targets are doable. Hits and misses are easy to score.
How to replicate war time horse archery seems to be more involved, stationary targets being the easiest to do and to score. Moving targets the next level, and interactive targets the most difficult.
Something for everyone. Food for thought.
For my part no longer having horses it is now of academic interest, but, still of interest. As it was for hunting, and war it seems reasonable that the doing of it as an activity should replicate one or the other pursuit. Scoring as such should reflect a realistic action . A moving target and stationary ones are easier to duplicate for hunting then the war targets. I do know of only one archer who has done any actual shooting of bison from horse back. But bison size targets are doable. Hits and misses are easy to score.
How to replicate war time horse archery seems to be more involved, stationary targets being the easiest to do and to score. Moving targets the next level, and interactive targets the most difficult.
Something for everyone. Food for thought.
Jake Levi
-
Tapsnap
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:40 pm
- Location: Sharon, CT. USA
- Contact:
What makes you think that everyone in a battle was wearing thick metal armor ? As I gathered from my history classes, only the wealthy could afford armor. The vast majority went without. Half drawing a bow was perfectly adequate to deal with the surging rabble and fast shooting would actually be a major benefit in such a situation.
Killing the target was not even necessary. Wounding them was perfectly adequate. The bow was used in battle as much to create mayhem in the ranks as it was for killing. When it's raining arrows, it's really difficult to focus on holding the line. As many frenchmen were trampled to death at the battle of Agincourt as they were stuck through with an arrow. My point is, the bow was used in many different ways in a battle situation so getting hung up on penetration may be a red herring too.
Killing the target was not even necessary. Wounding them was perfectly adequate. The bow was used in battle as much to create mayhem in the ranks as it was for killing. When it's raining arrows, it's really difficult to focus on holding the line. As many frenchmen were trampled to death at the battle of Agincourt as they were stuck through with an arrow. My point is, the bow was used in many different ways in a battle situation so getting hung up on penetration may be a red herring too.