
In which I am crabby about viral archery videos - jsnell
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/01/in-which-i-am-crabby-about-vir.html
======
WorldWideWayne
I have been more entertained by watching Lars Anderson do archery for five
minutes than any other archer on film, ever. Honestly, it was more
entertaining and more memorable to me than any of the fake archery shown in
the Hunger Games, Robin Hood or Lord of the Rings. I can't remember another
archery video that went viral.

Perhaps some of the claims are a little hyperbolic and self congratulatory,
but you can't say "all this guy is good at is marketing". Please. It obviously
took practice and skill to perform some of those stunts and I just don't
understand why dissenting voices always need to cut people down instead of
just making their case.

~~~
jdmichal
> Perhaps some of the claims are a little hyperbolic and self congratulatory,
> but you can't say "all this guy is good at is marketing".

No, some if not many of the claims are flat out _wrong_. If he had only
marketed himself as a fast shooter, then there wouldn't be nearly so much
discussion happening about this. But instead he asserted himself as some sort
of expert on historic archery technique and that is what is being challenged.

protomyth points out this link in another post which makes a more directed
point-by-point argument:

[http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/](http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-
archer/)

~~~
WorldWideWayne
Sure, I meant to say "even wrong".

I don't know why it's OK to start derisively calling him a "marketer" though.
Does anyone think Lars is being malicious or inaccurate on purpose? I thought
"cockup before conspiracy" was most people's motto.

Regarding Jim MacQuarrie's takedown that you linked to, I'll say that while he
abstained from name-calling I think some of his points are a little weak
and/or nit-picky. For instance, if we have to dig out a black and white photo
of an Indian putting an arrow on the outside of a bow, I'd say that the
technique is probably largely not used by modern archers. So, we could say
that it's _generally_ been forgotten by most modern archers.

Jim acts like the fact that it was a point-less arrow shot towards a knife is
a big deal. Am I still a gullible fool if that doesn't even matter to me and
I'm still impressed?

My point is these authors seem mad. Maybe they should be because the general
public is comparing regular, boring archers to this guy now. And what is the
point of modern archery if not to entertain?

------
protomyth
The article has another link to this [http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-
archer/](http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/) with the great quote:

    
    
      “He uses forgotten historical methods…” No, they 
      were not forgotten. They just weren’t European.

------
mcguire
One of the odd personality changes that I've noticed in myself after 25-ish
years on the Internet is that I now have essentially zero tolerance for
whinges[1] of the form: "This one thing he said is completely and utterly
wrong, therefore he is a pillock and should be shanked with a shiv.[2] (Well
yes, the rest of what he said is perfectly true. But still.)"

Elizabeth Bear's primary complaint seems to be "Andersen is shooting so fast
that he doesn't have time for a full draw." This is true. It is the first
thing you notice about Andersen's video, after the fact that he's jumping
around like a loon. (The fact that he's hitting targets while doing so is a
little impressive, isn't it?) She has other complaints about his technique,
and about the "viral" video, most of which are also true.

But what makes this rant a spectacular example of what sets off my own
particular crab-osity is:

"His tactics, though--speed shooting and so forth--are suited to a shorter
recurve [...], which is designed to be shot in motion and from horseback."

...like (although not identical to) the one he's using in the video. So...did
she just admit that somewhere between a third and a half of her words are
irrelevant to her topic?

Anyway, my bottom line is that I'd rather read a "...Considered Harmful"
paper.

[1] A lovely term that I picked up long ago, from the Internet. Oddly, I can
remember a significantly isomorphic rant about its use from long ago.

[2] Or shivved with a shank. I don't actually care.

P.S.

 _GRRR!! Argh! Razzlefrasin '...[3]_

I just read Stross's comment,

"Dirk. YELLOW CARD.

"Do not derail, annoy, or otherwise mess with the honourable guest bloggers,
or I will be forced to take time out from this very important business trip to
kick your ass.

"In particular, do not derail a comment thread with idiotic quibbles before it
even gets started. (Broken links, mis-spellings, okay: quibbles, not so much.)

"Am I understood?

"Signed:

"The Mgmt."

Derailing is specifically the point of the article. Idiotic quibbles are the
whole raison debris of ye damned thing.

Signed:

Miffed.

[3] Cf. Yosemite Sam.

~~~
nkurz
You missed the part where she argued that his approach is wrong because it's
impossible to be accurate when using it:

"Also having a reliable anatomical point at which to anchor your draw, and a
reliable stance, means that you have a reliable point of aim. Incredibly minor
alterations in biomechanics--something as invisible as tensing your neck, or
not fully broadening your back--can send an arrow wildly off course over
distances as short as ten or twenty yards. Something as major as moving your
draw point an inch? No freaking telling where that arrow is going."

Regardless of how impractical and historically inaccurate his approach might
be, do she really believe he has no idea where his arrow is going?

~~~
jdmichal
> Do she really believe he has no idea where his arrow is going?

Has no idea? Of course not. But there's a magnitude of difference between
knowing roughly where your arrow is going within 10 to 20 feet, and within 30
to 40 yards. Olympic archers are accurate at 70 yards. Not to mention that
longer distances also increasingly force an archer to take into account that
arrow trajectory is not going to be a straight line, but an arch both
vertically and horizontally.

~~~
mcguire
Pffft. 70 yards? Pikers. Lame-o.

Ye olde longbowmen shot at 200-400 yards.[1][2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range)

[2]
[http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/badminton/docs/chapter24...](http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/badminton/docs/chapter24/chapter24_1.html)

------
SlipperySlope
Interesting that Mongol archers on horseback, in teams of 10 I believe, were
the dominant military force over a vast part of euro-asia.

You have some good points about the viral videos, but watching them gives
credence to how scary 10 Mongol bowmen riding on fast horses could be to their
opponents.

------
nkurz
Andersen's description on the original posting of the video addresses many of
these criticisms. I can't figure out how to link to it directly as text, but
you can go to [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-
ly9tQGk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk), stop the video, and
then click "Show More". Or view the copy below.

\---------------------------------------------------------

Published on Jan 23, 2015 The ultimate archery trick. Proving that Hollywood
archery is not historical.

Press release:
[http://clausraasted.dk/larsandersen/n..](http://clausraasted.dk/larsandersen/n..).

Podcast about how I started archery: [https://soundcloud.com/claus-
raasted/..](https://soundcloud.com/claus-raasted/..).

DO I HIT EVERYHING? I use a LOT of time practicing, and every time I set out
to learn a new skill, a new trick or how to handle a new type of bow or arrow,
it takes a long time, with plenty of misses. When I got the idea of grabbing
an arrow in flight and firing before I landed, it took me months to learn. For
a long time, arrows flew everywhere!

But there's no trick in the video that I haven't done many times (except for
splitting the arrow in flight – after I'd done that once I finished the
video). The one with hitting the blade I've only done three times, though. All
that running hurt my knees. ;-)

ON MY BOWS AND POWER Many people talk about how what I do is only possible
because I use bows that are less powerful than English longbows. They are
correct. I'm 50 years old, and have been doing archery for only ten years.
I'll never be able to shoot really fast with 100 lbs+ war bows. I tried, but
it just produced injuries. Had I started at age 10, it would have been a
different story. ;-)

There is also a tendency from critics to assume that bows were always fired
against plate armour (as at Crecy in 1346 and Agincourt in 1415). This was
very much the exception. Many opponents had little or no armour at all, and
Stone Age findings show that many animals were taken down by multiple shots.
Also, in 1923 Saxton T Pope examined a number of historical museum bows from
around the world. His conclusion was that most only had a tensile strength of
45-50 pounds.

THE CHAINMAIL TEST Around 04:22 I penetrate chainmail. The arrows had bodkin
tips, and the chainmail is riveted. However, while the gambeson is thick, it's
not as thick as some I've seen elsewhere. But one reason the arrows penetrate
is that I sharpen not only the tip itself, but also the edges of the bodkin
tip.

SHOOTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE There are archery traditions alive today which
shoot the arrow on the right side of the bow, as I do. However, the places
where most people come into contact with archery (Hollywood, The Olympics,
archery clubs) do it left around the bow.

THE BACK QUIVER Is it a myth? Yes and no. Some archers definitely slung their
quivers on their backs for when they were marching, just like soldiers did
with shields. We also can't rule out that some archers – who didn't care what
arrow they picked from the quiver or who didn't need to move rapidly – had
quivers on their backs, but we can rule out that this was a general thing as
Hollywood makes it out to be.

THE THREE LEVELS OF ARROW HANDLING The first level of arrow handling is having
the arrows in a quiver, and drawing them one at a time. It's easy, and it's
intuitive. Progressing from there to holding arrows in the bow hand takes
practice, but it can be learned.

There are some drawbacks, however. Arab Archery (the book) says that it's less
useful, because the arrows vibrate when shooting with powerful bows, causing
imprecise shots.

The third level, keeping the arrows in the draw hand, provides a several
benefits, but it requires that one is able to draw and shoot in one single
movement without thinking. And that takes a LOT of practice. ;-)

THE ULTIMATE TRICK TOOK 14 TAKES

At first, I didn't think it was possible. You don't have time to aim or think,
but can only do it if your reactions are completely instinctive. First of all,
you need to be convinced that you WILL hit it, so you can “feel” the incoming
arrow and fire at it instead of just flinching away.

I was also in doubt whether it was smart to show this, because I don't want
anyone to get hurt trying to copy the trick. I trained for years with soft
boffer arrows and spent a LONG time before I tried it even the first time. And
the arrow fired at me was not fired with a very powerful bow, though it was
definitely dangerous enough!

It was a light bamboo arrow with a metal tip, and the arrow I shot back was a
heavier aluminum arrow. That the arrow split was just pure luck, and I'm not
certain I could repeat it without first training for a long time. I believe it
split because it hit just behind the head and made the shafts fluctuate
against each other, causing the bamboo shaft to split lengthwise.

I hope to try it again using a proper high-speed camera!

FINAL WORDS Thank you for watching my videos and for reading. I will remove
rude and dumb comments. I will also remove dumb “archery experts” comments.

\- Lars Andersen, January 2015

------
tedks
Ugh. Why is this on hacker news? I can see the original video being an
intellectual curiosity. But commentary and more commentary on top of that?
What does this add?

I really could not care less about this entire thing. I didn't even watch the
original video (who has time for ELEVEN MINUTES of bow shooting!?). I hope
this trend dies fast.

~~~
taeric
This makes little sense. If you could see the original, then the followons
make just as much sense.

For myself, this post was just as much fun, if only for the links to more
archery stuff on youtube.

~~~
tedks
That approach doesn't scale. Does mildly appreciating a skim of an archery
blog post and clicking through a video mean that I need to skim EVERY archery
related blog post and video? Where does it end? If someone links an engaging
blog post on knitting do I have to go out and buy yarn?

~~~
taeric
No approach scales. Bitching that the collective vote here doesn't match your
personal preference, though, is just silly.

