3 ms·
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
by 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?
- jdmichal 12y ago> Do she really believe he has no idea where his arrow is going? Has no idea? Of course not. But there's a magnitude of difference between knowing roughly where your arrow is going within 10 to 20 feet, and within 30 to 40 yards. Olympic archers are accurate at 70 yards. Not to mention that longer distances also increasingly force an archer to take into account that arrow trajectory is not going to be a straight line, but an arch both vertically and horizontally.
- mcguire 12y agoPffft. 70 yards? Pikers. Lame-o. Ye olde longbowmen shot at 200-400 yards.[1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Range [2] http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/badminton/docs/chapter24/chapter24_1.html http://www.archerylibrary.com/books/badminton/docs/chapter24...