[Archers] New Bow Classification (Period)

[Siegfried]

Wow Collum ...

Hrmmm, ok, let's dig into this:

> and from your interpretation of the rule:
> 
> True, hence why a single lamination, on either (or both) sides of the
>>bow was allowed.  It is also allowed in any material, partially from the
>>aspect of allowing substitutions (ie, fiberglass as a substitution for
>>period horn).
> 
> I have a core of wood throughout the bow.  (Not the same piece of wood but
> it is wood) and only one fiberglass lamination on the belly and back.

Is it only one piece of wood?  Or is it multiple laminations of wood. 
If it is one piece of wood, would it fall under the phrasing of: 'should 
not be simply 3 thin laminations'

The idea was that it was a stick, perhaps with a belly and/or back lam.

> [snip] about Mongol bows

You have points, do you have perhaps a better way of phrasing said rule 
to ensure otherwise?

> And also of course you have just disallowed many of the English longbow
> styles (i.e. Pip Bickerstaffe longbows which have no fiberglass but rely on
> several laminations to give them their power and structural integrity.)

(A&S Archery Junkie hat going on)
This is a period longbow that was made of multiple laminations???  I 
have not heard of such a beast, can you pass on documentation please?

And if such a thing DOES exist, then the definition problem just got harder.

> Nor could you shoot a traditional Yami to fit a Japanese personal since they
> gain their power from combining several laminations of bamboo.

Again, another good point.

> You also said:
> A bow with a single thin fiberglass lamination, shoots
>>nominally like one with a single horn lamination.  From 10ft away it can
>>be impossible to tell the difference visually.  Yet the fiberglass bows
>>can be much simpler to obtain.
> 
> Agreed but is the purpose to give a category that requires a bit more
> commitment to archery to achieve success or just to look like your shooting
> a period bow.  I don't know how a period definition can be written to
> include all the possible types of bows.  But you could do it with simple
> documentation.

Well, two things:

A) One of the primary driving factors of this, is to encourage us to 
LOOK like a medieval archery core on the field, similar to how the 
fighters are now REQUIRED to look like a medieval army.

B) I would love to see a completely utterly period category, but 
personally I think that is a bit much right now.  Making a category that 
perhaps 2-3 bows in Atlantia fit into, does not necissarily serve the 
community

C) The BIGGEST problem that I have with documentation, is well, 
documention.  Documentation can always be suspect.  Take for example 
anyone using 'The Book of the Crossbow' for documentation on crossbows, 
much of the data in there must be taken with a grain of salt, because it 
was made up where holes were and isn't quite right.  There are going to 
be hundreds of other sources similar on bows.  How is a marshal to know 
that this is 'good documentation' or 'bad documentation', and heck, 
marshal to marshal it may change and therefore the one bow is being shot 
in multiple categories.  It is not our job, as marshals, to be A&S 
judges (though I encourage everyone to go out there and do the A&S!!)
    Also at what level do you go?  You have documentation for the curve 
of the bow, and the built-up arrow rest, but what about the shape of the 
handle, are you sure it is quite right?  How about the tiller of the 
bow, did a period bow curve quite like that?  Are the nocks cut 
correctly, are they proper spacing, is there one or two, should they be 
cut in or built up, etc, etc, etc, etc,.
    These are all GREAT things in an A&S documentation, in a Display, a 
Competition.  These are all things that are going to create arguments on 
the field because you are going to be telling someone whether to shoot 
or not.
    Also this ends up requiring the archery to be an A&S minded person, 
to look up the documentation, know what is good or bad documentation. 
AGain, all good encourageable things, but getting away from the 
'shooting it' aspect, which is what us marshals deal with.
    We need to be able to give people a basic, easy, discription, such 
that they can walk up to a bowyer and look at a rack of bows wanting to 
get something to shoot in the 'period' division, and know what is and 
what isn't, without having to take photographs of the bow in question, 
run to the library, spend a few weeks researching it, then going back 
and finding that the bow was already sold.
    I am more than willing to agree that the wording might need some 
tweaking, but I really don't want to see us getting into documentation 
on the shooting line, and turning the marshals into 
'bow-authenticity-nazis'.

> I don't see any marshal having to be an expert in any period style.  If you
> want to shoot a period bow than bring something that shows what you are
> shooting was period.  It isn't A&S so it shouldn't have to be to elaborate,

But now the problem is, besides what I said above, you are going to need 
to have the marshal trust the person bringing the documentation, and 
that it is valid documentation, and wasn't actually a 17th century 
painting instead of 16th century, etc.

At which point, you might as well not have the requirement, because it 
isn't going to mean anything.

> Many kingdoms grant Laurels to archers who make a study of archery and the
> equipment.  Atlantia does not.

I personally would like to think that that last phrase should be 
'Atlantia has not', instead of 'does not' ... but only time will tell on 
that.

>  To
> open period classifications to almost any kind of "like" period bow will not
> lend us much credibility on the artistic and craft side of archery.

But then according to you, the fact that we allow armorers to make armor 
out of plastic and aluminum, and based on 'what works for the SCA' 
instead of period designs, means that armouring has no credibility in 
the SCA A&S side of things.

(pause for this to sink in)

Which is obviously wrong.  The 'use on the field' is a great thing ... 
but is a separate beast from the A&S competition and the wonderful 
mental debates that can occur at that point as to the validity of the 
documentation and 'are you sure that bit is right'.  (Which, I happen to 
enjoy greatly, if one couldn't tell from the length of this email)

>  I personally believe that if we
> continue to do this in our pursuit of archery as a craft we will eventually
> see archery hold a place in A&S equal to armoring or cooking.  But it will
> take a lot longer if we don't set period standards that will garner the
> respect of the A&S side of the SCA

See above.

Now, I think that one thing you have brought up, are the various other 
styles of period bows that this might not fit.  I perhaps could be 
ameanable to adding a phrase at the end of the period description, to 
the affect of:  "Or any other period style of construction of bows that 
can be documented" ... this allows the 95% mark to fit the phrasing, and 
the 5% to go on playing.  It also simply requires that it CAN be 
documented, not that it needs to be.  I'm not 100% sure on this wording, 
will need to let it sit on my brain, but throwing it out there.

Siegfried