Having read Asbell's books, attended his workshop at Denton Hill, listened to one of his tapes, seen his video and read his TBM articles nowhere did I notice any contention on his part that his way is 'THE right way to do it'. On the contrary, he seems to out of his way to allow for shooters to choose what works for their own circumstance. He definately does believe that his method is effective, and he does provide detailed guidance for the how and why of his perspective. But isn't that how any well-planned description of method, whatever method it happens to be, should be handled? I don't shoot Asbell's style, but I do admire the approach he uses for supporting his views. Not sure how any of the Asbell theory has anything to do with 'cheating', aiming, Howard Hill or a perceived conspiracy against elevated rests, though.
As suggested in some of the prior posts, the image of elevated rests being target-oriented might have been honed by what kinds of rests are being used on todays bows, both compounds and modern recurves. Rests with multiple moving parts...metal, plastic, Teflon, rubber, metal alloy and all manner of patent-pending paraphenalia. It started way back with simple 'bumps' of wood or leather, then feather strips, then rubber/plastic horns (like the BEAR rest), then metal Springys and Flippers (bergers on the side...any fries with that?), and eventually morphed into huge and wildly complicated metal/plastic concoctions looking more like spaceage plumbing than an arrow rest. Precision tools. Target shooter tools.
Admittedly, those early feather and rubber rests are hardly the same as their modern cousins. But both types ARE elevated rests, and thus the potential for an image connection, albeit a remote one, remains.
Perhaps the general worry about rests, and indeed about the recent interest in using target gear mentality in developing new hunting gear, is that the simplicity and even the identity of the bow and arrow ('simple stick and string') might be compromised by adding progressively complicated 'devices', with the intent of 'improving' on that original simplicity. Anyone comparing hunting bows of the Howard Hill era with today's newest creations can see the differences in approach...and perhaps at least recognize why some are concerned even if not agreeing with it. In cases like the early elevated rests the worry doesn't seem warranted. But, there's always the eternal question that begs a response...as a group of archers aspiring to the challenge of pursuing game with simple stick and string...where DO we draw the line?
Topic: Why prohibit elevated rests?? (Read 3843 times)
