3 ms·

> 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

> 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?