5 ms·

In which I am crabby about viral archery videos

27 points by jsnell 12y ago

SlipperySlope 12y ago
Interesting that Mongol archers on horseback, in teams of 10 I believe, were the dominant military force over a vast part of euro-asia. You have some good points about the viral videos, but watching them gives credence to how scary 10 Mongol bowmen riding on fast horses could be to their opponents.
tedks 12y ago
Ugh. Why is this on hacker news? I can see the original video being an intellectual curiosity. But commentary and more commentary on top of that? What does this add? I really could not care less about this entire thing. I didn't even watch the original video (who has time for ELEVEN MINUTES of bow shooting!?). I hope this trend dies fast.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  Heaven forbid the discussion of something extend beyond the local and temporal realm of its submission on HN...
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  Good commentary is more valuable than the original content. Bad commentary is worth less than horse shit. And when I say "horse shit" I mean small smelly smears of it, because bulk horse shit does have value. Guess what sort yours is.
- taeric 12y ago
  This makes little sense. If you could see the original, then the followons make just as much sense. For myself, this post was just as much fun, if only for the links to more archery stuff on youtube.
  - tedks 12y ago
    That approach doesn't scale. Does mildly appreciating a skim of an archery blog post and clicking through a video mean that I need to skim EVERY archery related blog post and video? Where does it end? If someone links an engaging blog post on knitting do I have to go out and buy yarn?
    - taeric 12y ago
      No approach scales. Bitching that the collective vote here doesn't match your personal preference, though, is just silly.
protomyth 12y ago
The article has another link to this http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/ http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/ with the great quote: “He uses forgotten historical methods…” No, they were not forgotten. They just weren’t European.
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
I have been more entertained by watching Lars Anderson do archery for five minutes than any other archer on film, ever. Honestly, it was more entertaining and more memorable to me than any of the fake archery shown in the Hunger Games, Robin Hood or Lord of the Rings. I can't remember another archery video that went viral. Perhaps some of the claims are a little hyperbolic and self congratulatory, but you can't say "all this guy is good at is marketing". Please. It obviously took practice and skill to perform some of those stunts and I just don't understand why dissenting voices always need to cut people down instead of just making their case.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  > Perhaps some of the claims are a little hyperbolic and self congratulatory, but you can't say "all this guy is good at is marketing". No, some if not many of the claims are flat out wrong. If he had only marketed himself as a fast shooter, then there wouldn't be nearly so much discussion happening about this. But instead he asserted himself as some sort of expert on historic archery technique and that is what is being challenged. protomyth points out this link in another post which makes a more directed point-by-point argument: http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/ http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
    Sure, I meant to say "even wrong". I don't know why it's OK to start derisively calling him a "marketer" though. Does anyone think Lars is being malicious or inaccurate on purpose? I thought "cockup before conspiracy" was most people's motto. Regarding Jim MacQuarrie's takedown that you linked to, I'll say that while he abstained from name-calling I think some of his points are a little weak and/or nit-picky. For instance, if we have to dig out a black and white photo of an Indian putting an arrow on the outside of a bow, I'd say that the technique is probably largely not used by modern archers. So, we could say that it's generally been forgotten by most modern archers. Jim acts like the fact that it was a point-less arrow shot towards a knife is a big deal. Am I still a gullible fool if that doesn't even matter to me and I'm still impressed? My point is these authors seem mad. Maybe they should be because the general public is comparing regular, boring archers to this guy now. And what is the point of modern archery if not to entertain?
nkurz 12y ago
Andersen's description on the original posting of the video addresses many of these criticisms. I can't figure out how to link to it directly as text, but you can go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk, stop the video, and then click "Show More". Or view the copy below. --------------------------------------------------------- Published on Jan 23, 2015 The ultimate archery trick. Proving that Hollywood archery is not historical. Press release: http://clausraasted.dk/larsandersen/n.. http://clausraasted.dk/larsandersen/n... Podcast about how I started archery: https://soundcloud.com/claus-raasted/.. https://soundcloud.com/claus-raasted/... DO I HIT EVERYHING? I use a LOT of time practicing, and every time I set out to learn a new skill, a new trick or how to handle a new type of bow or arrow, it takes a long time, with plenty of misses. When I got the idea of grabbing an arrow in flight and firing before I landed, it took me months to learn. For a long time, arrows flew everywhere! But there's no trick in the video that I haven't done many times (except for splitting the arrow in flight – after I'd done that once I finished the video). The one with hitting the blade I've only done three times, though. All that running hurt my knees. ;-) ON MY BOWS AND POWER Many people talk about how what I do is only possible because I use bows that are less powerful than English longbows. They are correct. I'm 50 years old, and have been doing archery for only ten years. I'll never be able to shoot really fast with 100 lbs+ war bows. I tried, but it just produced injuries. Had I started at age 10, it would have been a different story. ;-) There is also a tendency from critics to assume that bows were always fired against plate armour (as at Crecy in 1346 and Agincourt in 1415). This was very much the exception. Many opponents had little or no armour at all, and Stone Age findings show that many animals were taken down by multiple shots. Also, in 1923 Saxton T Pope examined a number of historical museum bows from around the world. His conclusion was that most only had a tensile strength of 45-50 pounds. THE CHAINMAIL TEST Around 04:22 I penetrate chainmail. The arrows had bodkin tips, and the chainmail is riveted. However, while the gambeson is thick, it's not as thick as some I've seen elsewhere. But one reason the arrows penetrate is that I sharpen not only the tip itself, but also the edges of the bodkin tip. SHOOTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE There are archery traditions alive today which shoot the arrow on the right side of the bow, as I do. However, the places where most people come into contact with archery (Hollywood, The Olympics, archery clubs) do it left around the bow. THE BACK QUIVER Is it a myth? Yes and no. Some archers definitely slung their quivers on their backs for when they were marching, just like soldiers did with shields. We also can't rule out that some archers – who didn't care what arrow they picked from the quiver or who didn't need to move rapidly – had quivers on their backs, but we can rule out that this was a general thing as Hollywood makes it out to be. THE THREE LEVELS OF ARROW HANDLING The first level of arrow handling is having the arrows in a quiver, and drawing them one at a time. It's easy, and it's intuitive. Progressing from there to holding arrows in the bow hand takes practice, but it can be learned. There are some drawbacks, however. Arab Archery (the book) says that it's less useful, because the arrows vibrate when shooting with powerful bows, causing imprecise shots. The third level, keeping the arrows in the draw hand, provides a several benefits, but it requires that one is able to draw and shoot in one single movement without thinking. And that takes a LOT of practice. ;-) THE ULTIMATE TRICK TOOK 14 TAKES At first, I didn't think it was possible. You don't have time to aim or think, but can only do it if your reactions are completely instinctive. First of all, you need to be convinced that you WILL hit it, so you can “feel” the incoming arrow and fire at it instead of just flinching away. I was also in doubt whether it was smart to show this, because I don't want anyone to get hurt trying to copy the trick. I trained for years with soft boffer arrows and spent a LONG time before I tried it even the first time. And the arrow fired at me was not fired with a very powerful bow, though it was definitely dangerous enough! It was a light bamboo arrow with a metal tip, and the arrow I shot back was a heavier aluminum arrow. That the arrow split was just pure luck, and I'm not certain I could repeat it without first training for a long time. I believe it split because it hit just behind the head and made the shafts fluctuate against each other, causing the bamboo shaft to split lengthwise. I hope to try it again using a proper high-speed camera! FINAL WORDS Thank you for watching my videos and for reading. I will remove rude and dumb comments. I will also remove dumb “archery experts” comments. - Lars Andersen, January 2015
mcguire 12y ago
One of the odd personality changes that I've noticed in myself after 25-ish years on the Internet is that I now have essentially zero tolerance for whinges[1] of the form: "This one thing he said is completely and utterly wrong, therefore he is a pillock and should be shanked with a shiv.[2] (Well yes, the rest of what he said is perfectly true. But still.)" Elizabeth Bear's primary complaint seems to be "Andersen is shooting so fast that he doesn't have time for a full draw." This is true. It is the first thing you notice about Andersen's video, after the fact that he's jumping around like a loon. (The fact that he's hitting targets while doing so is a little impressive, isn't it?) She has other complaints about his technique, and about the "viral" video, most of which are also true. But what makes this rant a spectacular example of what sets off my own particular crab-osity is: "His tactics, though--speed shooting and so forth--are suited to a shorter recurve [...], which is designed to be shot in motion and from horseback." ...like (although not identical to) the one he's using in the video. So...did she just admit that somewhere between a third and a half of her words are irrelevant to her topic? Anyway, my bottom line is that I'd rather read a "...Considered Harmful" paper. [1] A lovely term that I picked up long ago, from the Internet. Oddly, I can remember a significantly isomorphic rant about its use from long ago. [2] Or shivved with a shank. I don't actually care. P.S. GRRR!! Argh! Razzlefrasin'...[3] I just read Stross's comment, "Dirk. YELLOW CARD. "Do not derail, annoy, or otherwise mess with the honourable guest bloggers, or I will be forced to take time out from this very important business trip to kick your ass. "In particular, do not derail a comment thread with idiotic quibbles before it even gets started. (Broken links, mis-spellings, okay: quibbles, not so much.) "Am I understood? "Signed: "The Mgmt." Derailing is specifically the point of the article. Idiotic quibbles are the whole raison debris of ye damned thing. Signed: Miffed. [3] Cf. Yosemite Sam.
- nkurz 12y ago
  You missed the part where she argued that his approach is wrong because it's impossible to be accurate when using it: "Also having a reliable anatomical point at which to anchor your draw, and a reliable stance, means that you have a reliable point of aim. Incredibly minor alterations in biomechanics--something as invisible as tensing your neck, or not fully broadening your back--can send an arrow wildly off course over distances as short as ten or twenty yards. Something as major as moving your draw point an inch? No freaking telling where that arrow is going." Regardless of how impractical and historically inaccurate his approach might be, do she really believe he has no idea where his arrow is going?

27 points by jsnell 12y ago

Interesting that Mongol archers on horseback, in teams of 10 I believe, were the dominant military force over a vast part of euro-asia. You have some good points about the viral videos, but watching them gives credence to how scary 10 Mongol bowmen riding on fast horses could be to their opponents.

tedks 12y ago

Ugh. Why is this on hacker news? I can see the original video being an intellectual curiosity. But commentary and more commentary on top of that? What does this add? I really could not care less about this entire thing. I didn't even watch the original video (who has time for ELEVEN MINUTES of bow shooting!?). I hope this trend dies fast.

jdmichal 12y ago
Heaven forbid the discussion of something extend beyond the local and temporal realm of its submission on HN...
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
Good commentary is more valuable than the original content. Bad commentary is worth less than horse shit. And when I say "horse shit" I mean small smelly smears of it, because bulk horse shit does have value. Guess what sort yours is.
taeric 12y ago
This makes little sense. If you could see the original, then the followons make just as much sense. For myself, this post was just as much fun, if only for the links to more archery stuff on youtube.
- tedks 12y ago
  That approach doesn't scale. Does mildly appreciating a skim of an archery blog post and clicking through a video mean that I need to skim EVERY archery related blog post and video? Where does it end? If someone links an engaging blog post on knitting do I have to go out and buy yarn?
  - taeric 12y ago
    No approach scales. Bitching that the collective vote here doesn't match your personal preference, though, is just silly.

protomyth 12y ago

The article has another link to this http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/ http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/ with the great quote: “He uses forgotten historical methods…” No, they were not forgotten. They just weren’t European.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago

I have been more entertained by watching Lars Anderson do archery for five minutes than any other archer on film, ever. Honestly, it was more entertaining and more memorable to me than any of the fake archery shown in the Hunger Games, Robin Hood or Lord of the Rings. I can't remember another archery video that went viral. Perhaps some of the claims are a little hyperbolic and self congratulatory, but you can't say "all this guy is good at is marketing". Please. It obviously took practice and skill to perform some of those stunts and I just don't understand why dissenting voices always need to cut people down instead of just making their case.

jdmichal 12y ago
> Perhaps some of the claims are a little hyperbolic and self congratulatory, but you can't say "all this guy is good at is marketing". No, some if not many of the claims are flat out wrong. If he had only marketed himself as a fast shooter, then there wouldn't be nearly so much discussion happening about this. But instead he asserted himself as some sort of expert on historic archery technique and that is what is being challenged. protomyth points out this link in another post which makes a more directed point-by-point argument: http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/ http://geekdad.com/2015/01/danish-archer/
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  Sure, I meant to say "even wrong". I don't know why it's OK to start derisively calling him a "marketer" though. Does anyone think Lars is being malicious or inaccurate on purpose? I thought "cockup before conspiracy" was most people's motto. Regarding Jim MacQuarrie's takedown that you linked to, I'll say that while he abstained from name-calling I think some of his points are a little weak and/or nit-picky. For instance, if we have to dig out a black and white photo of an Indian putting an arrow on the outside of a bow, I'd say that the technique is probably largely not used by modern archers. So, we could say that it's generally been forgotten by most modern archers. Jim acts like the fact that it was a point-less arrow shot towards a knife is a big deal. Am I still a gullible fool if that doesn't even matter to me and I'm still impressed? My point is these authors seem mad. Maybe they should be because the general public is comparing regular, boring archers to this guy now. And what is the point of modern archery if not to entertain?

nkurz 12y ago

Andersen's description on the original posting of the video addresses many of these criticisms. I can't figure out how to link to it directly as text, but you can go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk, stop the video, and then click "Show More". Or view the copy below. --------------------------------------------------------- Published on Jan 23, 2015 The ultimate archery trick. Proving that Hollywood archery is not historical. Press release: http://clausraasted.dk/larsandersen/n.. http://clausraasted.dk/larsandersen/n... Podcast about how I started archery: https://soundcloud.com/claus-raasted/.. https://soundcloud.com/claus-raasted/... DO I HIT EVERYHING? I use a LOT of time practicing, and every time I set out to learn a new skill, a new trick or how to handle a new type of bow or arrow, it takes a long time, with plenty of misses. When I got the idea of grabbing an arrow in flight and firing before I landed, it took me months to learn. For a long time, arrows flew everywhere! But there's no trick in the video that I haven't done many times (except for splitting the arrow in flight – after I'd done that once I finished the video). The one with hitting the blade I've only done three times, though. All that running hurt my knees. ;-) ON MY BOWS AND POWER Many people talk about how what I do is only possible because I use bows that are less powerful than English longbows. They are correct. I'm 50 years old, and have been doing archery for only ten years. I'll never be able to shoot really fast with 100 lbs+ war bows. I tried, but it just produced injuries. Had I started at age 10, it would have been a different story. ;-) There is also a tendency from critics to assume that bows were always fired against plate armour (as at Crecy in 1346 and Agincourt in 1415). This was very much the exception. Many opponents had little or no armour at all, and Stone Age findings show that many animals were taken down by multiple shots. Also, in 1923 Saxton T Pope examined a number of historical museum bows from around the world. His conclusion was that most only had a tensile strength of 45-50 pounds. THE CHAINMAIL TEST Around 04:22 I penetrate chainmail. The arrows had bodkin tips, and the chainmail is riveted. However, while the gambeson is thick, it's not as thick as some I've seen elsewhere. But one reason the arrows penetrate is that I sharpen not only the tip itself, but also the edges of the bodkin tip. SHOOTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE There are archery traditions alive today which shoot the arrow on the right side of the bow, as I do. However, the places where most people come into contact with archery (Hollywood, The Olympics, archery clubs) do it left around the bow. THE BACK QUIVER Is it a myth? Yes and no. Some archers definitely slung their quivers on their backs for when they were marching, just like soldiers did with shields. We also can't rule out that some archers – who didn't care what arrow they picked from the quiver or who didn't need to move rapidly – had quivers on their backs, but we can rule out that this was a general thing as Hollywood makes it out to be. THE THREE LEVELS OF ARROW HANDLING The first level of arrow handling is having the arrows in a quiver, and drawing them one at a time. It's easy, and it's intuitive. Progressing from there to holding arrows in the bow hand takes practice, but it can be learned. There are some drawbacks, however. Arab Archery (the book) says that it's less useful, because the arrows vibrate when shooting with powerful bows, causing imprecise shots. The third level, keeping the arrows in the draw hand, provides a several benefits, but it requires that one is able to draw and shoot in one single movement without thinking. And that takes a LOT of practice. ;-) THE ULTIMATE TRICK TOOK 14 TAKES At first, I didn't think it was possible. You don't have time to aim or think, but can only do it if your reactions are completely instinctive. First of all, you need to be convinced that you WILL hit it, so you can “feel” the incoming arrow and fire at it instead of just flinching away. I was also in doubt whether it was smart to show this, because I don't want anyone to get hurt trying to copy the trick. I trained for years with soft boffer arrows and spent a LONG time before I tried it even the first time. And the arrow fired at me was not fired with a very powerful bow, though it was definitely dangerous enough! It was a light bamboo arrow with a metal tip, and the arrow I shot back was a heavier aluminum arrow. That the arrow split was just pure luck, and I'm not certain I could repeat it without first training for a long time. I believe it split because it hit just behind the head and made the shafts fluctuate against each other, causing the bamboo shaft to split lengthwise. I hope to try it again using a proper high-speed camera! FINAL WORDS Thank you for watching my videos and for reading. I will remove rude and dumb comments. I will also remove dumb “archery experts” comments. - Lars Andersen, January 2015

mcguire 12y ago

One of the odd personality changes that I've noticed in myself after 25-ish years on the Internet is that I now have essentially zero tolerance for whinges[1] of the form: "This one thing he said is completely and utterly wrong, therefore he is a pillock and should be shanked with a shiv.[2] (Well yes, the rest of what he said is perfectly true. But still.)" Elizabeth Bear's primary complaint seems to be "Andersen is shooting so fast that he doesn't have time for a full draw." This is true. It is the first thing you notice about Andersen's video, after the fact that he's jumping around like a loon. (The fact that he's hitting targets while doing so is a little impressive, isn't it?) She has other complaints about his technique, and about the "viral" video, most of which are also true. But what makes this rant a spectacular example of what sets off my own particular crab-osity is: "His tactics, though--speed shooting and so forth--are suited to a shorter recurve [...], which is designed to be shot in motion and from horseback." ...like (although not identical to) the one he's using in the video. So...did she just admit that somewhere between a third and a half of her words are irrelevant to her topic? Anyway, my bottom line is that I'd rather read a "...Considered Harmful" paper. [1] A lovely term that I picked up long ago, from the Internet. Oddly, I can remember a significantly isomorphic rant about its use from long ago. [2] Or shivved with a shank. I don't actually care. P.S. GRRR!! Argh! Razzlefrasin'...[3] I just read Stross's comment, "Dirk. YELLOW CARD. "Do not derail, annoy, or otherwise mess with the honourable guest bloggers, or I will be forced to take time out from this very important business trip to kick your ass. "In particular, do not derail a comment thread with idiotic quibbles before it even gets started. (Broken links, mis-spellings, okay: quibbles, not so much.) "Am I understood? "Signed: "The Mgmt." Derailing is specifically the point of the article. Idiotic quibbles are the whole raison debris of ye damned thing. Signed: Miffed. [3] Cf. Yosemite Sam.

nkurz 12y ago
You missed the part where she argued that his approach is wrong because it's impossible to be accurate when using it: "Also having a reliable anatomical point at which to anchor your draw, and a reliable stance, means that you have a reliable point of aim. Incredibly minor alterations in biomechanics--something as invisible as tensing your neck, or not fully broadening your back--can send an arrow wildly off course over distances as short as ten or twenty yards. Something as major as moving your draw point an inch? No freaking telling where that arrow is going." Regardless of how impractical and historically inaccurate his approach might be, do she really believe he has no idea where his arrow is going?