Hope this isn't too long, but here goes:
I’m going to venture back into the area of my own opinions/reactions… for whatever they might be worth. I’m not qualified in mechanics, physics or muscle structure, but I suspect all play a part in this issue. People differ in their structure… arm length, height, shooting form, etc. It seems entirely possible that one person could shoot a bow and get shock, and another with the same bow might not. Add to that that each bow is hand made and you can see that even two very similar bows may differ.
Given all of that, I was told that a firm, low wrist, heel down grip was mandatory for this type (Hill type) of bow… that, in fact, they were built and tillered on this basis, with the lower limb designed to accommodate the pressure from the heel of the hand. Also that a bent elbow was critical, that a straight elbow and/or straight wrist grip would equal shock. To me, that makes sense in that the straight wrist/elbow approach is going to provide transfer of any shock, rather than cushioning it.
Now, taking that a hair further, if you think of a bow as a giant flat spring, like any flat vibrating object, it is going to have a node… a spot where there is the least movement. If you grip at the node, you are going to have the point of least movement, or vibration. If your grip moves the node above or below itself, there will be more vibration or movement, i.e. shock.
If the bow’s lower limb is tillered based on an assumption that there will be pressure on the heel of the hand, changing that pressure is going to change the vibration of that limb, i.e., move the node, resulting in a greater feeling of vibration or shock in your grip.
As an experiment, I went downstairs and tried gripping first a bow, then a long thick dowel rod, using first a loose grip centered at the thumb joint and with the wrist straight, then with the lower wrist/heel of hand approach. I found that it was nearly impossible to keep any pressure at the heel of the hand and still have any power in the gripping fingers above that point. Conversely, if I gripped firmly with the fingers with no heel pressure, the bow or stick immediately canted forward. My conclusion… for good control and performance, any bow is going to have to be built/tillered with the grip in mind. In a recurve, there is usually a pistol grip designed in to compensate for this effect. If you use a grip that is not compatible with a specific bow’s design, you are not going to get good control and may well have moved the vibration node from its designed point, resulting in greater felt vibration.
Sheesh! That’s all a handful (no pun intended), but to me, it makes sense.
I suspect that this discussion is much like the endless debate about aiming techniques… there is no one absolute answer and any answers that there are may differ for given individuals. Maybe that’s part of the fun.
I will freely admit that there is a general consensus that recurves are easier to shoot and faster. There may be individual exceptions. I think you shoot a Hill because it appeals to you and you want to figure it out, or you don’t appreciate the extra challenge, or just prefer the recurve approach, and so, you will not end up being a Hill shooter.
Two comparisons that occurred to me were these:
In fishing rods, there are surf rods, baitcasting rods, spinning rods and fly rods. Each takes a different approach, and you wouldn’t use a surf rod with a baitcasting technique, or a flyrod with a spinning rod grip.
As far as bow performance goes, again, you’re back to what you want to experience in a bow. Compare it to rifle shooting… you wouldn’t go from high performance bench rest shooting to muzzle loading and expect identical performance. (I made that switch years ago.)
The Hill is what it is meant to be… a very traditional bow with performance appropriate to its design and purpose. Whether it’s the bow for you will depend on your reactions to it, physical and emotional. I do know that it take practice to get acquainted with it, but that once you do, it’s a good friend.
Dick in Seattle