Were the "greats" really THAT GOOD!?

[Matty]

I got to reading in the LEGENDS AND PIONEERS threads last night. Simply because I neglect to read so many other forums here. I get stuck on pow wow and classifieds all to often.
When I got to the Jack Howard section there's a great read by Charlie Lamb. In it he stated that Jack had no losses of animals to wounding with his bow and arrow. Which is truly amazing!
My point... We so often hear about all the greats and their amazing accomplishments. Fred Bear, Howard Hill, Ben Pearson, Jack Howard etc. Hundreds of animals collected by these greats  but what about the ones that weren't? We're they always up to par? Always at their best? Always winning?

Be clear, I'm not meaning this as a method of insulting these men or their greatness. AT ALL!  Just something that has piqued my curiosity. I'm sure these accounts exist out there. I would like to know about them.
We've all heard someone say after someone loses an animal "it's ok man, it happens to the best of us"
But the question is...did it happen to them?

[Cyclic-Rivers]

Matty,

I am sure animals were lost however....

These men had great woodsmanship skills, and often had guides.  Even a poorly hit animals was tracked for long distances. I have heard stories of a mile or more tracks after blood ran out.

[ddauler]

Of course they lost animals the modern concept of "ethics" didn't exist then Hill, Pearson, Bear would shoot at animals over a hundred yards. They believed more in giving the animals a "sporting" chance. This by no means diminishes their greatness. Hill won like 160 consecutive field archery tournaments! They would not have dreamed of waiting for the perfect 15 yard broadside shot!

[rkelly]

I haven't read Charlie Lamb's read on Jack Howard. And may stand corrected.  However, way back then, I was shooting a Jack Howard and read his comments on wound loss. Jack said he glued half a schick razor blade on each blade of his 3 blade heads and had not lost an animal with any hit.
I did that, too. And the results were quite rewarding.
If you can get the trad-gang DVD, the sharpening tips are great.
Perhaps a number of guys don't understand the necessity of RAZOR sharp heads.

[Ulysseys]

Actually Matty I just read Trailing A Bear by Robert Munger, Fred Bear's hunting partner and was surprised by the accounts of wounds, misses, and extremely far shot "attempts".  Likewise if you read Jay Massey you'll find the same thing.

[wingnut]

If you watch the old Bear videos you see on many occasions him leave camp with a quiver full and return with a few or no arrows left.  They took a lot of shots that we call unethical today.  They also shot longer distances in practice then most do today.

I always find it interesting that the modern traditional bowhunter has immortalized the fantasy of the hunters of old and not the real story.

Mike

[LongStick64]

I look at it this way, look at what we have, Tradgang, youtube, google just to start. We have enough information that we can learn what probably took them years to do, we can do in days. So I give them all the credit. I have a 1964 Bear Grizzly, just beautiful with the Zebrawood riser and brown glass, it has lasted as long as I have. That shows me they had great knowledge.

[ChuckC]

As in many things we do, archery and bowhunting has evolved over the millennia to reflect the current way of thinking.  

As today, some were very good. most were decent and some were not so decent at all in shooting and in shot considerations.  

And of course, some were above and beyond.  Of course it is of their exploits that we read.  

Nobody wants to read of the fumbles of ChuckC, but many will buy up everything from their perceived heros or icons as a better word.

They then often get quite defensive at the suggestion that their icons may have done things "differently".  Remember, that was then, and we are judging them now under a different set of norms.

ChuckC

[longbowman]

I guess just between me and the fence post...I would like to never read, on a public forum, about another lost or wounded animal.  I've been doing this for more than 50 yrs. and anybody who hunts knows it happens but I just feel it should be something that is a learning step between us, the animal and God.  Just my thoughts.  In a book, it can be talked about very tastefully and has been done so because it happens but anti hunters don't buy those books normally yet they thrive on-line.

[Charlie Lamb]

I have no reason to doubt what Jack told me himself about wounding loss. He was an exceptional shot and hunter. I even tried razorblades glued to my 3 blade broadheads with amazing results.

[FerretWYO]

There are accounts from the greats of misses and wounds. I know of a deer that fred shot they spent days looking for and found it. As was said above the woodsmanship and skills of these guys were above what we have today.

Another thing to think about was Fred Bear and others like him were not only exceptional shot but there lively hoods were based on the growth of archery.  In order for it to grow they had to show the public it was absolutely effective.

[Jayrod]

Originally posted by wingnut:
If you watch the old Bear videos you see on many occasions him leave camp with a quiver full and return with a few or no arrows left.  They took a lot of shots that we call unethical today.  They also shot longer distances in practice then most do today.

I always find it interesting that the modern traditional bowhunter has immortalized the fantasy of the hunters of old and not the real story.

Mike

VERY WELL SAID!

I study the Howard Hill videos very closely. I watch shots over and over in super slow motion, watching for the particulars and little variations.  I talked to man in Wisconsin that came from Pennsylvania, that shot with Bob Swinehart at his local outdoor range. One day he asked if he could watch Hill and Swinehart shoot. During the various practice shots, Hill stopped the process and claimed that his release was off. So he spent some time shooting at a stack of bales shooting up close. Then went back to shooting at the game targeted bales.  When I asked how bad did he shoot when he lost his release. The old fellow said that he never missed one, but he did notice that at times Hill had an inch or two of arrow in front of the bow, then after he fixed his release, he pulled the point onto the bow and was really baring down on the bullseyes.  Even Hill and Bear could make bad shots, they were not gods or machines.

[Roadkill]

Yep, many of us used the Schick blade option.  They even made a broadhead that allowed the blade to be injected it.
A llost animal is hard on every ethical hunter.  There are some, however, that just continue without the comensurate reflection on the why and how of the wound and loss.

[Sixby]

I saw Howard Hill setup two wood disks on a spindle each had a hole in it. He spun one in one direction and the other in the other direction , walked back about 15 yards and turn and shoot and the arrow went through both holes at the same time and into the backstop stopping the disks. Yes He was that good. Not sure about the others because I never saw them shoot. I did see Fred on American Sportsman ect. Saw a movie of Ben shooting a javilina clear across a canyon and running . He pinned the little pigger. Pretty amazing stuff.
However the finest display of shooting I have ever seen is by a present day guy called Lars Anderson. U Tube, It is the most amazing thing I have ever seen.

God bless, Steve

[Bladepeek]

i doubt if we will ever know, as the witnesses are also gone. I think we have to admire their extraordinary abilities, as these have been thoroughly documented. They lived in a different time, however.

Teddy Roosevelt was a great rifle shot, but read his records of African hunting. They took running shots at game at 200 yards because the game was wary and they couldn't get closer. The fact that they connected at all is testimony to their ability, but there were a lot of misses too. Not what we would consider ethical today. (Doesn't mean people aren't still doing it, though).

[JohnV]

It is nearly impossible to have candid, objective discussions about the old timers seeing how many are practically worshipped these days.  None were perfect.  Shot selection left a lot to be desired.  When you read accounts of their hunts you often come across tales of emptying the quiver at an animal at long distance. These gentlemen had many accomplishments worthy of admiration.   Having the opportunity to hunt virgin areas where animals had experienced little if any hunting pressure helped to ensure the success of many ventures.

Swinehart said in his book about Hill, how he found it amazing that sometimes he would miss relatively easy shots, but he hit a running deer at eighty yards.  The book does not say that they found the deer, but then it does not say that they did not find the deer either. Hill also said that over the years when people talk of game shots they made that they get longer with the passing of time.  I have read of some accounts of Hill's shooting that are a bit unbelievable. Perhaps he pulled the shot off, but it could not be done consistently enough to use or perhaps it is just something from someone's imagination.  another like the film of Ben Pearson shooting a passing duck, pretty impressive. I shot a passing goose once that was pretty impressive. It would not have happened if the farmer with plowed and disked field next to the public marsh would not have given me permission to land my arrows in his field and promised to keep everyone and everything out of it for me.  I should have taken a picture of those 17 bright red Howard Hill arrows stuck out in that field.

[FerretWYO]

I keep seeing things like shot selection was poor and what not.

What is completely being missed is the progression and the change in ideal these Greats brought to the forefront. They were on the leading edge of the learning curve. Modern bowhunting was being born and these were the men and women that changed how hunting was viewed and developed the Ethics we value today.

[reddogge]

I've not read of any of us who have shot with Fred Bear. Many have met him and I believe Mike Mitten was in the same camp with him and handled his bow but didn't shoot with him. I believe he was an above average shot with a bow.

I believe the old timers were very comfortable with their shooting ability and the ability to put an arrow into an animal's vitals. I believe they didn't obsess over the weight of their bows, their FOC, their aiming methods, how far to practice from, how they gripped the string or anything like we do these days.

That they took some questionable shots at game I have no doubt and have read about that in books. That they lost and wounded a few I have no doubt either. Chances are they didn't write about it because that wouldn't sell books or bows. One of the most pure archer/hunters in my mind was Bob Swinehart and books about him are worth reading.