Traditional: Misunderstanding What Was.

[John Dill]

I believe the word "traditional" came about after the compound craze to identify it and give it "identity" by participating archers as an original form of archery before the compound days. The word "traditional" became a problem when certain mindsets within the traditional group made newcomers and oldtimers feel as though their equipment had to meet their ideology. That continues today....and their is some frustration caused by it. I feel like times are changing though. I believe the good old days are now. We have a broad base of all facets of "Traditional Archery" to choose from. From most any ideologies to most any equipment a person chooses.Good post George.  :D

[Rico]

I think it's time to look at what was traditional in 1967, as opposed to 2007

  Nothing was "Traditional" is was just archery  The term traditional as we use it today didn't come about until compounds. 1967 is well before compounds.
 When it did it simply ment a recurve or longbbow and it didn't include all the bells and whistles you could and can get on  compounds, all of which will work better with any compound than todays best recurves.

[Rob DiStefano]

Originally posted by Rico:
... 1967 is well before compounds. ...

H. Allen patented the first compound in '67 and as soon as the word got out by mid '68 there was the Allen compound and then there were all the other "old fashioned traditional bows" (meaning, at that time, recurves).

[ChuckC]

Hey guys...how bout we all agree on a term.  "Traditional" means... not compound.  Nothing else.
ChuckC

[George D. Stout]

Rico....none of these "terms" will do us any good in a brick fight 8^).   However, discussions such as these are always provocative and may keep us from getting dementia....or at least hold it off for awhile.  

Now....what were we talking about?

Rob....that confound bow did not take off until Tom Jennings wrapped his paws around it and pushed it like crazy in the early 1970's.  Prior to that it was like any other novelty that not many people were interested in.  A few guys from California....well there you go 8^).  Tom was quite a salesman and almost single-handedly sold that bow to the masses through hands-on advertising.

[Rob DiStefano]

Originally posted by George D. Stout:
... Rob....that confound bow did not take off until Tom Jennings wrapped his paws around it and pushed it like crazy in the early 1970's.  Prior to that it was like any other novelty that not many people were interested in.  A few guys from California....well there you go 8^).  Tom was quite a salesman and almost single-handedly sold that bow to the masses through hands-on advertising.

Not in my experience in the New England area - more than a few guys were buying Allens in '68 and '69 for both target and hunting.  The Allen target guys were *cleaning up* the shoots and that also started the compound/recurve classes, which spurred on the Allen, and then Jennings and PSE marketing and sales took off.  All of that alone single handedly brought up the 'traditional' word - IMO, because it was so radical a bow design, unlike the difference between a longbow and recurve where 'traditional' was never a spoken word.

Whatever, the bottom line to me is that they're all words and you can make any word fit or not, as you like.  We're good at that.     :D

[George D. Stout]

Rob....That's a fact.   I remember old Tom at Forksville, Pa., Bowhunter Festival, standing at the target line with a quiver full of arrows and a wood-riser Jennings compound.  That was the first one I ever saw in the raw.  I think it weight about six pounds.  That was about 1973 or 74.

[GrayRhino]

George, I appreciate your post.  I shoot a Widow with a Merrill sight and have noticed that not all 'traditional' archers are as gracious as yourself.  

I was visiting a southern state and heard that they had a traditional shoot on a particular weekend.  I thought it would be fun to go and meet some other archers and shoot some 3d targets.  I called and found out that Saturday was the recreational shooting day, and Sunday was the competitive shooting day.  I explained that I used a sight and asked if that would be a problem, and told them that I would only be able to come to the Saturday recreational shoot anyways.  

Well, to make a long story short, I was told that I could not even shoot the course on Saturday as long as I had a sight on my bow.  I could understand them not wanting me to shoot in the competition, but just getting along side some fellas and shooting to have a good time?  Oh well.

Well, I took my boys out with their longbows and we had a ball stump shooting on some farm land and I never did make it to the 'traditional event'.

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but George, I sure give you a      for the initial post.

[Jon Stewart]

Way back when I shot a compound I had a guy say that I was shooting it the "traditional way".  I guess because I had no sights and was using a tab.

[Alex.B]

thanks George. That was excellent

Alex

[FAIRCHASE]

I still every now and then shoot my ole Bear with
patched Merrill sight holes. Ive been bowhunting now for 49 years, and still get after it come bow season. (Have Bow Will Travel) Always Traditional
Old School. Regards Carl

[TSP]

The term 'traditional' is a real word that applies to many things including archery, both in concept (see the dictionary) and in practice (its used a million times every day in spoken word and written narrative).  So lets forget about that whole 'it never existed' theory.  It did, and it does.  But exactly how its defined relative to archery is the never-ending debate.  It could reasonably be applied to any archery procedure, process, or article of gear that we wish to put it in front of..and debated that way.  But we'll never all agree to its 'suitability', whether we're discussing bows, arrows, aiming techniques, clothing or even morals/ethics.  About the only thing we CAN all agree to is that our own personal definition is the absolute right one, lol...which of course solves nothing in the finding-common-ground department.  By default we have all agreed to disagree.  If thats not a stubborn traditionalist characteristic I don't know what is.

The case that George makes is interesting but by no means definitive and in some ways overly presumptive.  What might be seen as obvious 'misunderstandings' by some may actually make lots of sense to others, and vice-versa.  And who can say one side or the other isn't at least partly right?  

One thing's for sure...there is no 'absolute truth' to be gained by bean-counting.  Why we shoot and what we shoot is affected by so much more than the sum of encyclopedic-like research or recitations of chapter-and-verse statistics.  What we each see and believe to be traditional is borne much more of our own experiences, convictions and aspirations than of the preachings of self-appointed experts, and rightfully so.  

I have my perspectives on what traditional is.  You have yours.  How about we let the hunting laws, tournament rules and our own convictions decide how to apply the term for a given situation and avoid wielding our personal opinions like fire-and-brimstome gospel from the bully pulpit.  We can all benefit from being less 'rigorous' in our attempts to persuade/ dissuade and more accomodating in our attempts to understand.

[Molson]

Long about '93, I happened across an issue of Traditional Bowhunter magazine in a local grocery store.  Prior to that, I knew nothing of recurves or longbows, instinctive shooting, or any other thing that had to do with traditional archery, even though I'd been bowhunting for about seven years.

There wasn't talk of sights, or carbons, or metal risers or any of this stuff that's new but isn't really new because it existed before.  There was talk of simplicity, challenge, dedication, self-reliance and so on.  A genuine love of something bigger than what you held in your hand.  That is what drew me to this sport.  Something more than I already had.  

I can tell you this, if the stories in Traditional Bowhunter magazine read, "I estimated 20 yds and leveled my 20 yd pin" instead of, "concentrate and pick a spot" I would not have seen the difference and would not have even had the slightest curiousity.  Why would I?

That's not how it read though, and I saw there was something else out there worth pursuing.  For me, it wasn't the promise of better scores, or better accuracy, or more game kills.  It was the promise of "Traditional Archery". If you've done any reading about it at all, I don't need to explain it.  

"Traditional Archery" is not a way of life for me, although I'm guilty of making that statement before.  It's a way out of my way of life.  It takes me away from what is, to a place similar to what was, but can never be again.  That to me is something special, and something worth being loyal to.

The truth is, I'm not going to treat you different if you show up to hunt with sights strapped to your longbow.  It's your choice.  But I might give you a look and in the back of my head, I'll be thinking you're missing something.

[Adirondackman]

Tsp - That is one of the best posts I have ever read concerning this subject. Well thought out and very well put. My hats off to you. I put in for a Moose permit every year. If I ever get lucky enough to draw one ,like to stop by to meet you. Maybe fling a few arrows (The "Traditional" way).

[Chisler]

Excellent thread.  Great job George.  I'm with pseman - a new "trad guy".  I know I'm lucky to have a few willing coaches/mentors that are more than willing to help when asked.  A couple books have helped a lot also.  But my whole "trad" experience has been complimented and accelerated by this website - the ideas, the support and encouragement, the camaradarie... that I see and feel here have been invaluable to me.  THANKS!!  and Happy Thanksgiving.

[George D. Stout]

tsp....what you say is true about the word tradition and traditional; however, what seems to drift over people's heads is the "term" was not used to define the genre prior to the compound.  To sit and cerebralize all of the connections is fine...but it's not at all what I was referring to.  

I hate the term because it is so ambiguous; just look how folks can't even understand what I said in the first place.  Tangents are like that road not taken in the woods, and folks veer-off rather easily.  My only inference regarding the stupid term is this:  It was not used to define the shooting of stickbows prior to the compound.  That's it...nothing else...nada!!!!!!

I am quite aware of the definition of tradition and traditional and how they apply to everything in the universe.                    

The gist is....that some folks want to believe that sights are for compounds and will make "traditional equipment" nothing more than compound bows.  Sights were here prior to the compound....before we used the term to define the genre!!!!!!!

[TSP]

George, I admire your persistence and your posts usually make for pretty good reads.  But you need to let go on this one, buddy.  Most folks aren't nearly as far out in left field as you seem to think they are when it comes to understanding what's trad.  I'll bet that most understand your position very well and quite a few probably even respect your point of view.  Its just that they are just as cock-sure it's wrong as you are that it's right, lol.  

Freedom for each of us to form our own opinions and pick our own path...its a wonderful thing.  Hey, maybe THATS the real gist here!

[George D. Stout]

Oh for pete's sake 8^)...

Shoot well, TSP and have a great season.  Some day you will be a TBSP.   Just kidding 8^).

[TSP]

Lol...thanks George.  I'll make you a deal.  I'll be more tablespoony about expanding my ideas in the genre of trad beancounting if you'll be less 'stout' in your traditionally nontraditional mindset.        

[George D. Stout]

You got it my friend.  Peace....out.