3 ms·

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 m

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?
cratermoon 12y ago
So he's an entertainer, not an archer? Being entertaining is not a bad thing, but nobody would mistake Arnold in Predator for a real Special Forces operative.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  Is modern archery a sport for entertainment or a tool of war? I think the former. Kind of like kung-fu. And if nobody knew that Arnold was an actor, I think most people could be forgiven to mistake him for Special Forces with the right outfit...This guy seems more like Jackie Chan though - part athlete, part entertainer.

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?

cratermoon 12y ago

So he's an entertainer, not an archer? Being entertaining is not a bad thing, but nobody would mistake Arnold in Predator for a real Special Forces operative.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago
Is modern archery a sport for entertainment or a tool of war? I think the former. Kind of like kung-fu. And if nobody knew that Arnold was an actor, I think most people could be forgiven to mistake him for Special Forces with the right outfit...This guy seems more like Jackie Chan though - part athlete, part entertainer.