I think the real question is about expectation and adaptation.
If you have shot longbows with very efficiently designed limbs, in other words limbs in combination with heavier risers that express the optimal potential energy delivered to the arrow, and then you shoot one of many versions of a straight limbed bow with a lighter mass riser, you will feel excess energy not delivered to the arrow in your hand, arm and shoulder. There are ways to minimize the recoil with a heavier arrow and a firm grip, but there is no way to eliminate it.
A lot of archers shoot straight limbed bows with great accuracy. In fact many archers shoot straight limbed bows(which more often than not have slight back-set or follow the string) better than they shoot reflex/deflex designs. Is it adaptation, or expectation, or just a matter of being used to a certain design?
There are some great Hill style bows, and Hill style inspired bows out there. With all the experimentation that Howard Hill did with bow design throughout his lifetime, I wonder what he would have come up with if he had continued his bow experiments knowing what bowyers know today? The longbow has been around a long time, and it is still being refined and improved upon. And yet, having said that, a fine Hill style bow in the hands of someone who loves it is a mighty weapon with a noble history, and history is vitally important aspect of traditional archery.