I felt like discussing this since I have been more conscious of what my gripping arm and hand is supposed to do these days and am in the pursuit of appropriate technique here.
So I've been going through Saracen Archery and familiarized myself with the concepts of 'backwards elbow punch' for what the drawing hand and arm are to do and of course Khatra, or the forward motion one should achieve with the gripping hand and arm upon release. My question or reason for discussion is to be clear on the purpose here. So Khatra is partly used to ensure the arrow does not wrap over the rise like Tenouchi. Correct?
Also, regarding Tenouchi or even techniques that involve 'twisting' or letting the bow spin, are these supposed to happen naturally upon release or is the motion supposed to be forced? How should the arm and grip be or feel? What is a really good source one would recommend for learning more about how to achieve these techniques properly?
Bede
Khatrah is essentially the product of the correct application of the grasp. If the proper pressure from the belly side is slightly miss-matched to the finger pressure on the back, there is a natural tendency for the bow to rotate forward. The arrow is gone before the hand rotates the bow. Photography has proved this recently. With the Japanese bow, this is more complicated.
Taybugha stressed that the khatrah should not occur after the shot. What he was saying was it should not be an element of style, but a natural product of the correct shooting action. He was also critical of people who threw their arms back and up artificially.
geoarcher
Oh I see. So it has not the same purpose as the Japanese techniques since the arrow would come in contact with the riser.
I know when I use this though the flight of the arrow is usually quite good but not as perfect as it could be. So its purpose then is more to maintain proper push-pull effect?
What are good sources then for achieving "twist" techniques so that the arrow does not touch the riser? Aren't there other traditions rather then the Japanese techniques? Also it seems some twist techniques are more for show or rather to maintain loose grip so that the bow "falls" after release if I am no mistaken here as well.
Bede
Generally in the Middle East, striking the grip with the arrow during the shot was frowned upon. The arrowhead was drawn back in some styles until it was in contact with the side of the grip. This may have resulted in the arrow losing contact with the bow after the string was released. I have found with the hawk's grasp (changal-i baz), the arrow leaves the bow without touching the side of the bow or the thumb. The other grasps are a little more difficult to achieve the perfect passage of the arrow since they are more influenced by the pressure of the draw hand index finger on the side of the nock. Strangely no pressure can have bad effects in the same way too much pressure.
The Koreans start with the bowstring slightly farther from the arm than a straight draw would suggest. This puts a little twist on the bow during the draw and may contribute to the arrow clearing the bow cleanly. The limbs of the bow lean slightly to the side the arrow is placed on so that also contributes.
High speed videos of Japanese bows in action suggest to me that the bow does not start to revolve until the arrow has just left the string, but there is a possibility that the start of the rotation actually pushes the bow hand to the left as the arrow passes it. Flexure of the arrow is very evident in these videos so the archer's paradox probably helps too. In Archery: The Technical Side, there is a diagram of the movement of the bow grip of a long bow as the arrow is shot that suggests that all bows experience some push away from the arrow and the tension in the muscles pushes back after the arrow leaves.
geoarcher
changal-i baz = success! :D 8)
I found it particularly easy to accomplish this with my Turk bow. I believe in part the unique design of the riser helps out here.
It was harder to achieve properly though with my Crimean Tatar bow but this bow is a good 7 pounds heavier and the grips a little different. Needless to say I'll have to feel my way through the peculiarities more.
Nonetheless I get it. Amazing how its all in the grip.
Thanks Bede! :wink:
Bede
You might find than moving the pressure point between your thumb and fore finger down the grip towards the centre of the bow will help with the Crimean Tatar bow.
I had a bow that always kicked with a curved belly side of the grip and, by getting the hand closer to the centre of the bow, I turned it into a very smooth shooter. There are some old drawings out there of composites bows showing the arrow passing too high up the grip. In one case the artist told me the emphasis was on the unstrung reflex being compared to brace height and full draw. The arrow position was an unfortunate oversight. This has led to some strange bow designs. On original bows the arrow pass is easy to identify since it is the thinnest part of the grip. On many bows there is only enough room for the thumb to be above the centre line. I am referring to Turkish, Persian and Indo-Persian bows.
MupKo
Can you describe changal-i baz? Can it be used with Kaya KTB handle?
Bede
The grasp can be used on Kaya bows, though the grips are designed for the Korean grasp, which means they are slightly asymmetrical with a high spot on the belly running diagonally from top right to bottom left.
With the hawk's claw grasp, you push the bely of the bow with the area between the base of the thumb and the base of the index finger. Three lower fingers curl around the grip and pull it back toward the palm. The index finger is bent so that its tip rests on the back of the bow. The thumb folds down over the middle finger and is kept relaxed. The metacarpal from the base of the thumb to the wrist is kept horizontal.
I use this way of grasping the handle. It helps to keep the indexfinger and the thumb relaxed. If you apply the grip properly, the bow will rotate downward.
Bede
This technique is closer to the Manchu way of holding the bow. It does have the advantage of teaching you to relax the index finger and thumb. Its disadvantage is that with the arrowhead being drawn right up to the grip in the Middle Eastern style there is an increased risk that you might tense the index finger into the path of the arrow. This I am assured is extremely painful. Also this grasp is more comfortable with the larger grips of Manchu/Chinese/Mongol bows.
Adam is demonstrating the khatrah here by consciously turning the bow to show the motion after release. This would be for demonstration purposes. In shooting the rotation stems from the removal of the resistance to turning the wrist that occurs when the bowstring is released.
Amarutu
I made some progress lately with my "khartra" and other elements. I am happy with the results, but not yet ready with getting rid of errors. I try to use written techniques from the translated manuscripts such as Saracen Archery and Bogenhandwerk und Bogensport bei den Osmanen by J.Hein (~"Archery and Bowyery of the Ottomans") after Mustafa Kani's book on archery, to learn Turkish or Turkish style archery.
I want to put some of my ideas on this topic into this discussion.
geoarcher wrote:
My question or reason for discussion is to be clear on the purpose here. So Khatra is partly used to ensure the arrow does not wrap over the rise like Tenouchi. Correct?
My answer is: "It depends on what you understand as Khartra."
If it is only the forward motion of upper siyah with a rotating motion from the bowhands wrist, the answer is "no". This is - as Bede made clear - not able to eliminate the arrows scratching on the arrowpass. It just can't. It's only a forward motion.
If Khartra means the whole "follow through" motions to you, my answer changes to "yes". In chapter 20 of Saracen Archery are "34 Points" of the archers body, that should be tensed or relaxed. The point in the archers body I want to focus now is the shoulder of the bowarm, which must be relaxed according to Taybugha. This relaxed left shoulder allows my back muscles to move the bowhand to the left on the release of the arrow. This back-tension is build up at full draw, and is at the moment of releasing the arrow still tensed. This acts like a "pre tension" for a sideways motion of the bowhand. Pretensing is to me necessary to make this motion quick enough. It's purpose is to move the bow sideways, away from the arrow to avoid the arrows scratching on the arrowpass.
I hope that was not to confusing.
Now I want to add a sentence from the Hein/Kani book. On page 73, in the Chapter on aming (nazar) Hein wristes, what could be another description for this sidewaymotion:
"Hinzu kommt noch, dass die linke Hand unwillk?rlich die Abweichung des Pfeiles, die dadurch zustande kommt, dass der Pfeil nicht genau in der Richtung der zur?ckschnellenden Sehne liegt, korrigieren muss."
In English:
"Additionaly, the left hand must correct a sideway-deflection caused by the arrow resting not in line with the direction the bowstring-movement on the arrow-release."
I don't know if this is in the Turkish or original Version, too. This sentence is one of his points, why it is harder to aim with the turkish bow, than with a rifle. And ... well ... this point is a gem to me, not for the aiming troubles, but for the shootingtechnique.
I hope this helps.
Now to Bedes comment to the Swoboda Video.
Bede wrote:
This technique is closer to the Manchu way of holding the bow. It does have the advantage of teaching you to relax the index finger and thumb. Its disadvantage is that with the arrowhead being drawn right up to the grip in the Middle Eastern style there is an increased risk that you might tense the index finger into the path of the arrow. This I am assured is extremely painful. Also this grasp is more comfortable with the larger grips of Manchu/Chinese/Mongol bows.
Closer to Manchu? Interesting! Well ... I don't know Manchu-Technique very well ... but do You think so because of the stretched indexfinger? If so, I would agree for the indexfinger, which should be more folded with the hawk-claw-grip. The rest seems pretty "Turkish" to me.
And I don't think the straight indexfinger is a problem for Adam. He is tall and has long hands, so he must grasp the bow in an straighter line with the arrow then a shorter person. This makes the indexfinger parallel enough to avoid trouble. I would not recomend this straight finger too, but he can shoot with this "mistake".
Bede
The reason I made the comment about being closer to the Manchu grasp is because the thumb and the forefinger are almost parallel to the ground. This is clearly seen of some old photographs of Manchu archers. You can find them on the internet easily.
For a proper changal-i baz grasp, the arrow rests on the metacarpal of the thumb not on the thumb itself. Kani, when referring to it, is describing a variation meant for use with a siper and mushamma. This involves the mushamma separating the the middle and ring fingers and tightly clenching the thumb.
Hein did introduce his own ideas about archery into his work and Klopsteg criticises him for it several times, but they both made assumptions about shooting with a thumb ring that were based on the llimited information available to them at the time.
High speed photography, both of Japanese bows in action and pictures of me shooting Turkish style, shows that most movement in the hands occurs immediately after the arrow has left. I am not saying that they are consciously done, but the arrow is moving faster than the muscles can contract.
Bede
This is the relevant text from Saracen Archery.
grasp as before with the three appropriate fingers, but place the end of the thumb over the back of the middle finger... It will enable the archer to draw a longer arrow than is possible with any other kind of grasp┌ because the base of the thumb can then spread out,...
Though Taybugha concentrates on the advantages of the grasp for flight archery, the Persian manuals that have recently been translated show that it was used in general archery without overdrawing the arrow.
MupKo
If I understand well, during the draw lower part of palm is separated from grip, and after release three fingers press bow in palm rotating bow?
In my experience, sideways twist absolutely necessary to avoid fishtailing. I had my brother watching me shooting arrows of different spines and using different techniques and scoring fishtailing from 1 (none) to 5 (extreme fishtailing). Without sideways twist scores were 3-5, and with it 1-3. Arrow spine did not have so clear effect.
MupKo
If I understand well, during the draw lower part of palm is separated from grip, and after release three fingers press bow in palm rotating bow?
In my experience, sideways twist absolutely necessary to avoid fishtailing. I had my brother watching me shooting arrows of different spines and using different techniques and scoring fishtailing from 1 (none) to 5 (extreme fishtailing). Without sideways twist scores were 3-5, and with it 1-3. Arrow spine did not have so clear effect.
Bede
Putting a twist on a very low braced bow can avoid the problem of the arrow striking the arrow pass. This is common in Korean techniques. By twist I mean turning the bow is the hand so that the string is at a little more distance from the fore arm than a straight line to where the arrow will be at full draw. Carefully done, this can be a valuable technique.
The arrow striking the arrow pass can lead to horizontal fishtailing. Another cause is pressure against the side of the nock by the index finger. This can cause the arrow to bend slightly at full draw.
Vertical fishtailing can be caused by a nocking point that is wrong for the combination of the style of shooting and the balance of the bow limbs. sometimes the balance of the limbs is so far out that moving the pressure point of your grasp on the bow is necessary.
Arry
MupKo wrote:
If I understand well, during the draw lower part of palm is separated from grip, and after release three fingers press bow in palm rotating bow?
To my understanding you are almost right. The pressure of the three lower fingers is build up even before the bow is drawn. This is the pre-loading of a force which then, as soon as release occurs, makes the bow dip or rotate forward. It would not be possible to rotate the bow with a conscious movement fast enough.
Bede
This is a correct understanding of the grasp. The three lower fingers are balancing the push from the area between the thumb and index finger while the bow is being drawn. When the string is released, the bow rotates forward. It is important to regulate the pressure to match the strength of the bow. With a light bow, too much pressure can cause the upper limb to bend too much. A person with very strong hands can do this too so you must make sure your pressure is appropriate.
geoarcher
How about this technique, specifically how the bow appears to rotate or spin around after release in the hand that the bow is held in:
The bow is held at an angle to direction of drawing; as it is drawn the wrist is put under a lateral rotational pressure; on release the bow hand is relaxed as the bow rotates. This has an advantage with certain bows because the slight torsion in the bow hand seems to make the arrow clear the bow better. Chinese prints and paintings show the final position.
geoarcher
What type of grip is appropriate to achieve this? chagal-i-baz or does it have its own grip?
Bede
It is a Chinese style grip with the thumb resting on the side of the middle finger while the forefinger is extended. The Manchus used it too. The wrist is too high for the changal-i baz, but it has some of the same benefits. The torsion comes from the three lower fingers on the grip, but it isn't a conscious twist. Instead it is like the falcon's grip in using the natural dynamics of the hand and wrist. Yokhua's bow is particularly well suited for this technique.
geoarcher
For these grip hand techniques like chagal-i-baz and the one shown in the video I just posted, if I am not mistaken, pressure should be placed not against the plam of the hand, but in the area in between the thumb and index finger much the same as the methaphor goes when the ancient manusripts talk of 'holding and egg' as to how to hold the bow. Or are there exceptions to this?
I suspect the 'chinese' grip used in the video is perhaps similar to this?
You are right to say that the pressure is taken on the part of the hand between the thumb and index finger. It depends on how high the wrist is. On a high wrist the pressure is taken mainly on the thenar eminence, usually on the side towards the centre of the palm. On a low wrist like the changal-i baz, the pressure is taken through the flesh running between the base of the thumb and the forefinger. This is why Kani says one should fold in the flesh towards the palm. It stops a ridge of tense skin forming in the upper area of contact with the belly of the grip.
The three lower fingers are responsible for the firmness of the grasp and coincidentally for the rotation of the bow as the arrow is released.
I think the holding of the grip like holding an egg has more than one meaning since it is sometimes used out of context. In reality, you can hold an egg in one way so that it cannot be crushed so the comment can mean correctly orienting the grip in the hand. It can also mean holding carefully so that pressure is not concentrated in any one spot which has several implications. I think it originated as advice before shaped grips (with a ridge on the back) were developed. The earlier straight oval sectioned grips could be held in ways that caused problems like the "internal draw" of Saracen Archery. This approach may be present in the origin Japanese grasp too since that bow has no matn.
geoarcher
I see, so it depends more on the wrist height regarding variation. I notice Korean archers are indeed placing the pressure against the thenar eminence but in the photos I've seen they are usually aiming 'high'. I know different types of shots will require different grips depending on what the desired end result is.
So just to be clear, in the video I posted, is the pressure against the thenar eminence or upper portion of the hand between the thumb and index finger? When I see people do this technique, it doesn't always appear so clear and it looks like at times they pace pressure against the thenar eminence and then sometimes 'against the flesh'.
Arry
geoarcher wrote:
I know different types of shots will require different grips depending on what the desired end result is.
If you vary your bow hand grip, I think achieving continuity will be really difficult. I would go for one bow hand grip which works for you (ie, moves the handle out of the arrow's way and ensures clean arrow flight) and then just aim corresponding to the distance...
Bede
It appears to me that Yokhua is using the thenar eminence, but that is only an observation. Depending on the size of the bow grip and the individual shape of his palm, it might be slightly different.
The Koreans are nearly always shooting at 145 metres so that the slight aiming upwards is normal. Considering the light weight of some of their bows and the size of the arrows, the elevation of the bow hand is much less than you would need in most other styles of shooting.
Another thing to be said about modern Korean bows is that their feel is always much lighter than they really are. This is a subjective experience. Although I mainly shoot in a Middle Eastern style, I often use Korean bows because of their efficiency. The Korean bowyers have made a good compromise between a traditional shaped bow and the performance characteristics of modern materials. Looking at some of the bows I have seen this year, it seems to me that rapid progress is being made in other parts of the world too. For cost reasons, the majority of traditionally minded archers are going to use bows of modern materials; it's good to see that the bowyers are putting the extra effort into making better bows.
On the subject of grasps, it is good to shoot with one standard grasp that feels right and works well for you, but it does come in handy to know others well enough to use them in case of a hand injury or the chance to shoot an unusual bow.
geoarcher
Bede wrote:
Looking at some of the bows I have seen this year, it seems to me that rapid progress is being made in other parts of the world too. For cost reasons, the majority of traditionally minded archers are going to use bows of modern materials; it's good to see that the bowyers are putting the extra effort into making better bows.
I know I'm very pleased with my Mariner. My Golhan Turk I enjoy too. I'm trying to get a longer Hwarang as we speak. Are there any other synthetic makers you would recommend specifically?
Bede wrote:
On the subject of grasps, it is good to shoot with one standard grasp that feels right and works well for you, but it does come in handy to know others well enough to use them in case of a hand injury or the chance to shoot an unusual bow.
Agree though I am still trying to figure out what's best for me plus perfect certain grips. I know pressure in the right spots is the key to getting these right and a achieve a 'true' rotation. I think its good though to learn as much as one can.
geoarcher
I'd like to re-awaken this discussion with a few questions: I keep hearing about 'sideways Khatrah'. Where is that discussed exactly? Is it Saracen archery? Or is the source some other Arab and or Persian one? Many who practice this seem to suggest that 'sideways Khatrah' actually does effect the arrow but does it really?
Amarutu
'Sideways khatra' is just a trending word roaming through social media.
Whenever I ask a person directly talking about it, their response was always sth like: "Oh I just saw a Youtube-video." While not even remembering which one of course. Tbh it seems to me these people just like the word khatra. You can see many ways it is written as well. The more consonants one combines with another 'h' the better. I get you have to compensate for the Arabic letters (of the word خَطْرَةٌ) with no counterpart in Latin letters.
The argument in using the word khatra on social media for any thinkable bow-hand-motion is a perfectly possible translation of the Arabic word to the word "follow through." And with the variety of bow-hand-motions all now going by the word khatra, I've given up on finding any source beside Taybugha ("Saracen Archery"). It seems to me the word khatra is mistaken for another and shorter word for followthrough. And I perfectly get a shorter word is easier to use. But just because khatra is some sort of a follow through doesn't mean any form of follow through is the same as the khatra-follow-through. Just like a tree is a plant but not all plants are trees.
With the "trending word" roaming through the internet - anyone tries to hop on that particular hypetrain. Sometimes for clickbait-reasons, sometimes for other reasons.
But to be clear: Khatra is clearly described as a forward rotation of the bow in the bowhand in Saracen Archery.
I've given up on finding any source beside Taybugha ("Saracen Archery"). It seems to me the word khatra is mistaken for another and shorter word for followthrough. And I perfectly get a shorter word is easier to use. But just because khatra is some sort of a follow through doesn't mean any form of follow through is the same as the khatra-follow-through. Just like a tree is a plant but not all plants are trees.
With the "trending word" roaming through the internet - anyone tries to hop on that particular hypetrain. Sometimes for clickbait-reasons, sometimes for other reasons.
But to be clear: Khatra is clearly described as a forward rotation of the bow in the bowhand in Saracen Archery.
What I have in bolded from your quote is what I figured it would be. I was very cautious not to ask the FB ATARN group about this because I figured they would treat 'sideways khatra(h)' as some sort of canonical technique written by an ancient sage of some by gone era without question. And so I would have expected a response from them to sound something like 'yeah its definitely written but by who well and exact meaning, blah, blah, but we are 99.9% sure its this.'...or something like that.
I find not only discussions on youtube and FB regarding khatra somewhat suspect but also the re-examination of a certain right hand draw technique very questionable with annoyingly cherry picked evidence. Regardless, I wonder then what the basis is for that sideways technique? I suspect it has something to do with all those murals that keep popping up on the FB page showing archers with a bow in a somewhat similar position as what is demonstrated with so called 'sideways khatra(h)'. Although, I thought I heard somewhere that that's actually a 'Chinese' technique. But I'll digress for the moment....
Amarutu
Well there are archery-traditions with some sort of sideway motion. If there are Chinese ones - I can't tell, because I am not familiar with Chinese archery and sources at all. Though I picked up sth like a "painting the ground/floor" name in that context but as I just wrote ... I don't know Chinese archery.
But there is Tenouchi in Kyudo. Of course a lot more complicated and embedded in an archery-tradition with the odd yumi. I just wanted to mention it.
In Korean archery the archer grasps the bow caring about the distance between the bowstring and forearm. Depending on your choice of the distance you can get sth like 'sideways khatra' as a result. But I am not familiar enough with Korean archery to tell if this would be desirable at all or 'bad luck at understanding' for cherrypicking- or maybe even self-confirmation-bias-reasons.
But something tickled me in my process of understanding was a German (!) source from the 1900's for shooting an English longbow (!). The author (Dr. med. E. Mylius) wrote in his booklet "Das Bogenschießen - als Sport und zum Jagdgebrauch" (translating to 'Archery - as a Sport and for Hunting') about twisting the bow with its string into the bracer while advocating for most likely too stiff arrow-shafts (ash of the same diameter instead of English made softwood arrows for durabilitys sake).
That is - what I came up with before losing interest and focused again on what kind of archery I like to practice and teach.
Well there are archery-traditions with some sort of sideway motion. If there are Chinese ones - I can't tell, because I am not familiar with Chinese archery and sources at all. Though I picked up sth like a "painting the ground/floor" name in that context but as I just wrote ... I don't know Chinese archery.
I think some of this is covered in the 'Way of Archery' book but I have never bothered to investigate further.
But there is Tenouchi in Kyudo. Of course a lot more complicated and embedded in an archery-tradition with the odd yumi. I just wanted to mention it.
Indeed. Sometime after making this thread I started practicing 'renmei style' Kyudo (since summer 2016) and am affiliated with actual an budokai-dojo-club. So I'm familiar with the technique and even discussed it with Bede a bit in this thread before becoming a kyudo-kai. Interesting thing which I have come to learn about the tenouchi: it was not required or actually desired in Kyujitsu ('skill of the bow') - the actual military tradition in Japanese archery that the samurai would have practiced. Kyudo ('way of the bow') comes into play much later in Japanese Budo-history and is primarily meant to preserve the sacred practice of shooting the yumi after its relevance in warfare ceased. Kyudo also emphasizes other less tangible things through shooting the bow hence it often being referred to as 'Zen archery', which according to someone at my dojo from Japan, is not a cliched term to describe this type of archery. The actual purpose of tenouchi is unclear as most sensei will explain. It doesn't seem to ensure a 'center shot' interestingly enough which many think it does and have proclaimed in various sources. And I'll stop here for now regarding that....
In Korean archery the archer grasps the bow caring about the distance between the bowstring and forearm. Depending on your choice of the distance you can get sth like 'sideways khatra' as a result. But I am not familiar enough with Korean archery to tell if this would be desirable at all or 'bad luck at understanding' for cherrypicking- or maybe even self-confirmation-bias-reasons.
I have Korean bows too and shoot them and have been interested in what seems to be a 'torque' that some achieve when shooting the Korean bow. I think Bede and I discussed this in this thread but are we talking about 'torque' now in Korean archery or the 'sideways khatra(h)'-trending-term that looks 'Chinese' that all those FB guys seem to do? Confusing isn't it? I know from talking to Thomas Duvernay and having his older publication, there doesn't seem to be mention of this although I think I talked to someone from Korean eons ago who practices gungdo who described a technique like tenouchi that looks more 'torque'-like.
But something tickled me in my process of understanding was a German (!) source from the 1900's for shooting an English longbow (!). The author (Dr. med. E. Mylius) wrote in his booklet "Das Bogenschießen - als Sport und zum Jagdgebrauch" (translating to 'Archery - as a Sport and for Hunting') about twisting the bow with its string into the bracer while advocating for most likely too stiff arrow-shafts (ash of the same diameter instead of English made softwood arrows for durabilitys sake).
That is - what I came up with before losing interest and focused again on what kind of archery I like to practice and teach.
Now that's a new one but like you I don't have too much interest in western longbow shooting anymore.
Well there are archery-traditions with some sort of sideway motion. If there are Chinese ones - I can't tell, because I am not familiar with Chinese archery and sources at all. Though I picked up sth like a "painting the ground/floor" name in that context but as I just wrote ... I don't know Chinese archery.
I think some of this is covered in the 'Way of Archery' book but I have never bothered to investigate further.
You could be right, but if it is from the 'Way of Archery' book, then it is Ming Dynasty. Therefore a central Asian version of it could exist as the Ming-Chinese were somewhat influenced from there, too.
In Korean archery the archer grasps the bow caring about the distance between the bowstring and forearm. Depending on your choice of the distance you can get sth like 'sideways khatra' as a result. But I am not familiar enough with Korean archery to tell if this would be desirable at all or 'bad luck at understanding' for cherrypicking- or maybe even self-confirmation-bias-reasons.
I have Korean bows too and shoot them and have been interested in what seems to be a 'torque' that some achieve when shooting the Korean bow. I think Bede and I discussed this in this thread but are we talking about 'torque' now in Korean archery or the 'sideways khatra(h)'-trending-term that looks 'Chinese' that all those FB guys seem to do? Confusing isn't it? I know from talking to Thomas Duvernay and having his older publication, there doesn't seem to be mention of this although I think I talked to someone from Korean eons ago who practices gungdo who described a technique like tenouchi that looks more 'torque'-like.
Another possibility would be the FB guys are influenced by such a Korean technique maybe via Turkey and call it 'sideways khatra(h)' to give it a non-Korean label.
But something tickled me in my process of understanding was a German (!) source from the 1900's for shooting an English longbow (!). The author (Dr. med. E. Mylius) wrote in his booklet "Das Bogenschießen - als Sport und zum Jagdgebrauch" (translating to 'Archery - as a Sport and for Hunting') about twisting the bow with its string into the bracer while advocating for most likely too stiff arrow-shafts (ash of the same diameter instead of English made softwood arrows for durabilitys sake).
That is - what I came up with before losing interest and focused again on what kind of archery I like to practice and teach.
Now that's a new one but like you I don't have too much interest in western longbow shooting anymore.
My thought on this was: I can shoot an ELB without that by using fitting arrows. If shooting a reflexed bow with a fitting arrow as well I could avoid 'sideways khatra(h)'. So I ditched it and went on shooting without and not bothering anymore about any source for it since.
You could be right, but if it is from the 'Way of Archery' book, then it is Ming Dynasty. Therefore a central Asian version of it could exist as the Ming-Chinese were somewhat influenced from there, too.
This is another possibility where this whole 'sideways...' is from. See at 0:25:
What he demonstrates first before 0:25 looks like what Taybugha describes, but from 0:25 he goes 'sideways' with his khatra. To me this isn't a 'naturally produced torque' resulting from forming or positioning the right hand a certain way but rather a very deliberate turn of the hand. I don't know for sure where he got this, I don't think its from 'Saracen archery', but perhaps its in 'Arab archery' (?).
Another possibility would be the FB guys are influenced by such a Korean technique maybe via Turkey and call it 'sideways khatra(h)' to give it a non-Korean label.
And that's the thing, I think 'torque technique' and 'sideways khatra(h)' are two different things that seemed be mooshed together at times. This guy seems to demonstrate the 'natural torque' that the person I talked to from Korea mentioned:
According to the guy I corresponded with from Korea, this is achieved by slightly rotating the hand counter-clockwise at full draw which will allow for the torque to occur naturally upon release. I wager to say, somewhere, the Koreans have their own term for this and I don't believe it really has anything to do or even should be assigned to the concept of khatra that Taybugha writes of especially since the 'torque' occurs differently from the 'sideways khatra(h)'. I also suspect that these two things have two different purposes.
My thought on this was: I can shoot an ELB without that by using fitting arrows. If shooting a reflexed bow with a fitting arrow as well I could avoid 'sideways khatra(h)'. So I ditched it and went on shooting without and not bothering anymore about any source for it since.
Oh I see I think now if I understand you correctly: just use an appropriate arrow matched for the bow.
Actually according to Bede here on this thread, the reason to ensure a nice khatra happens per Saracen Archery/Taybugha is to have maintained an appropriate push-pull ratio of the bow and draw hand. That is if I understood him correctly. I believe it follows that if your push pull was done correctly, you'll look like the helmeted fellow on page 132 of Saracen Archery with the bow slightly forward and draw hand slightly elevated back. To compare, in Kyudo its considered important to maintain a proper push pull ratio and then after release your arms will be in a certain expected position if you drew correctly. I'm not sure if this is the intent here with khatra though or not. Like I said, it seemed that was being suggested here on this thread. Khatra I don't believe has anyone that has ever been able to prove convincingly that it really does anything for the arrow's performance like some 'torque' techniques do. So if not that, then I suppose it could be to ensure you have drawn correctly after release thus maintaining the proper push pull ratio required.
What he demonstrates first before 0:25 looks like what Taybugha describes, but from 0:25 he goes 'sideways' with his khatra. To me this isn't a 'naturally produced torque' resulting from forming or positioning the right hand a certain way but rather a very deliberate turn of the hand. I don't know for sure where he got this, I don't think its from 'Saracen archery', but perhaps its in 'Arab archery' (?).
But you can see his sideways motion originates from the shoulder instead of the wrist. His whole arm moves. Therefore I consider it sth else. He mixes khatra with a sideways motion of the arm as if he was moving the bow-handle away from the arrowshaft.
According to the guy I corresponded with from Korea, this is achieved by slightly rotating the hand counter-clockwise at full draw which will allow for the torque to occur naturally upon release. I wager to say, somewhere, the Koreans have their own term for this and I don't believe it really has anything to do or even should be assigned to the concept of khatra that Taybugha writes of especially since the 'torque' occurs differently from the 'sideways khatra(h)'. I also suspect that these two things have two different purposes.
What I see here in the video is the arrow hitting the bow-handle at about the fletching-area. Then the arrow goes sideways and a fix for the issue is the interpretation of torque/sideways khatra(h) he follows.
I agree on a balance in pushing and pulling. It is taught in Kyudo and Olympic archery and for good reasons as well. But khatra does not automatically make you archieve it. When you look at the bows in Saracen Archery, you see the upper limb is longer. If you tilt such a bow a bit forward to stress both limbs equally I think you get harder hitting arrows from it. And with the bow rotating a bit forward you can get a longer powerstroke as well without messing up too much of your technique.
Either way you could get a bit more power in your arrows. I'd like to repeat the experiment with a chrony some day. But some years ago the result was sth like +3fps. That could be within user error range. But still the bow feels more steady in the hand shooting with (Taybugha-)khatra - while messing with vertical precision a bit.
But you can see his sideways motion originates from the shoulder instead of the wrist. His whole arm moves. Therefore I consider it sth else. He mixes khatra with a sideways motion of the arm as if he was moving the bow-handle away from the arrowshaft.
People on FB and elsewhere will refer to techniques demonstrated in that youtube video I posted quite often as 'sideways khatra(h)' which naturally adds a bit of confusion to the mix whether or not it actually resides in that technique genre or not. I think even the Malta archery guy calls out doing a 'sideways khatra(h)' and it looked like that. What you had shown in the second video's early moments looks like some archer attempting to do what I'd consider a 'Korean-type-torque' with some exaggerated left arm motion that Taybugha I'd wager to say would view as an overly forced movement in attempt to throw in some type of 'khatra concept' at the last moment. The whole thing did not look all that natural and appears, I must say, to underscore the interpretive problems that ensue when there is a broken tradition in the teaching of an ancient martial art.
I looked over Arab Archery last night and there is something regarding the bow's position after release in which the string faces down to the ground. Not sure if that's the interpretive basis here for what's in the video I posted and 'sideways khatra(h)' talks in general. I may flip through my copy of 'Persian Archery' tonight to see if there is anything useful to add.
What I see here in the video is the arrow hitting the bow-handle at about the fletching-area. Then the arrow goes sideways and a fix for the issue is the interpretation of torque/sideways khatra(h) he follows.
Yes and of course he labels this supposed 'Korean torque' as 'khatrah' per his video title and discussion. But I'm viewing khatra as just being a slight forward movement of the bow per Taybugha and anything with a leftward movement or rotation as specific to some other technique category.
I agree on a balance in pushing and pulling. It is taught in Kyudo and Olympic archery and for good reasons as well. But khatra does not automatically make you archieve it. When you look at the bows in Saracen Archery, you see the upper limb is longer. If you tilt such a bow a bit forward to stress both limbs equally I think you get harder hitting arrows from it. And with the bow rotating a bit forward you can get a longer powerstroke as well without messing up too much of your technique.
Either way you could get a bit more power in your arrows. I'd like to repeat the experiment with a chrony some day. But some years ago the result was sth like +3fps. That could be within user error range. But still the bow feels more steady in the hand shooting with (Taybugha-)khatra - while messing with vertical precision a bit.
I somewhat recall chronographing for an effect that khatra may or may not have on the arrow's velocity when I first began chronographing but threw my hands up in the air because the results would vary so much in what appeared to be a tight range of values. And so I was not convinced that it could be demonstrated fairly or even clearly. The only thing I can say regarding what can make a real difference for velocity that was repeatable and clearly significant that's not so obvious to many at times was whether or not I was shooting with a well fitted thumb ring and its material composition. My metal ring I found to be the best and Karpowicz even mentions all this a bit in his book. Oh and of course what your arrow is made of in addition to weight, spine, fletching, length etc like you mention earlier. Whether or not your overall technique is good/well executed is yet another thing to consider here. I may re-investigate this matter in relation to Taybugha's khatra in the future but am fairly certain the same interpretive problem will be encountered again.
Its interesting though, because after revisiting Saracen Archery just now, the author's do in fact suggest that khatra does improve speed. The problem like I mentioned above is being able to prove that clearly and effectively. I always wondered however, if the way these ancient texts being not literal translations, such as with Saracen Archery, but rather a type of retelling heavy with commentary, causes some of the interpretive problems we encounter (?).
I looked over Arab Archery last night and there is something regarding the bow's position after release in which the string faces down to the ground. Not sure if that's the interpretive basis here for what's in the video I posted and 'sideways khatra(h)' talks in general. I may flip through my copy of 'Persian Archery' tonight to see if there is anything useful to add.
If you look for the description of bows in Arab-Archery, you won't find any mention of a bulbous part on the back (unless I've missed it). I thik this is a difference worth noticing. And the author advises to relax the bow-hand upon release and I think that doesn't go well with any way I can understand khatra. So I think Arab-Archery is about a shooting of different bows and without khatra then Saracen-Archery.
Yes and of course he labels this supposed 'Korean torque' as 'khatrah' per his video title and discussion. But I'm viewing khatra as just being a slight forward movement of the bow per Taybugha and anything with a leftward movement or rotation as specific to some other technique category.
Do you by chance know, why the Koreans use torque? I didn't get an answer beyond "its tradition/ works well/ I was taught so." I can respect all these, but always suspected it was necessary for shooting the sport-bows with <70lbs with their traditional bamboo-arrows while the Korean bamboo-species is cultured for making arrow-shafts for stronger bows. Maybe my suspicion is from the Mylius-Booklet and I am biased to a self-confirmation here.
Its interesting though, because after revisiting Saracen Archery just now, the author's do in fact suggest that khatra does improve speed. The problem like I mentioned above is being able to prove that clearly and effectively. I always wondered however, if the way these ancient texts being not literal translations, such as with Saracen Archery, but rather a type of retelling heavy with commentary, causes some of the interpretive problems we encounter (?).
Thats why I want to repeat the experiment. At least a 100 shots per bow, some actual statistics, different bows. I suspect it works well for some kinds of bows - just like tenouchi works well for asymmetrical yumis with the bowstring outside the center of the grip. But I do not know therefore the curiosity.
But the commentary-heavy style of these books is just an Arabic literature-genre. It's called ذهاب meaning opion/view/commentary/the author paints the former text he quotes in gold. In simplification you can compare it to a news-show. First actual news then commentary to help to understand. And yes of course it is just one of many aspects making these texts hard to understand.
Do you by chance know, why the Koreans use torque? I didn't get an answer beyond "its tradition/ works well/ I was taught so."
No one from Korea has ever explicitly said why they do this to me and I'm not even sure which shooting context its supposed to be used in exactly. All I can say is that the existence of such a technique is acknowledged by them. Among every westerner, the common view for why these 'torque' or 'rotational' techniques exist is that they effect the flight/accuracy of the arrow or even speed although this is questionable ground for a number of reasons it seems more evident to me these days.
To compare-contrast, flight correction/accuracy does not appear as the explanation among the Japanese as to why 'yugaiety' or 'yugaeri' (the actual term for the turning rotation of the bow in the left hand) occurs after forming proper left hand technique (tenouchi). Neither does improving arrow speed. If you poke around on FB and wander over to Kyudo World, you'll come across a study and discussion about all this. At Budokai's where Kyudo is taught, the exact reason is portrayed as an unknown. A few things here and there actually don't have clear explanations even in Kyudo despite the art having a fairly well established curriculum, with a ruling body for the mainstream styles in addition to an actual manual/text book developed by the ruling body. Likewise, all these details in KTB may have the same understanding or lack thereof. Based on what I've come to learn from Kyudo, this happens sometimes because the original intent was developed long ago but not recorded properly in some way for future generations to fully know and understand. Some things in Kyudo though almost appear to be kept secret and or the meaning occluded for let's just say less tangible reasons. But the later here is more my feeling. Some things I'm fairly sure were just not recorded properly but usually this does not concern technique I find interestingly enough.
But the commentary-heavy style of these books is just an Arabic literature-genre. It's called ذهاب meaning opion/view/commentary/the author paints the former text he quotes in gold. In simplification you can compare it to a news-show. First actual news then commentary to help to understand. And yes of course it is just one of many aspects making these texts hard to understand.
Which parts though of Saracen archery are not direct translations of Taybugha? I thought I heard somewhere that some of what is written is injection by J. D. Latham and W.F. Paterson but was never sure which was what exactly.
Amarutu
Thank you for the kind answer on the torque-question. The Mylius-booklet is the one I mentioned earlier as the German one on shooting a longbow.
Which parts though of Saracen archery are not direct translations of Taybugha? I thought I heard somewhere that some of what is written is injection by J. D. Latham and W.F. Paterson but was never sure which was what exactly.
The obvious parts by Latham and Paterson are between the table of contents and beginning of the doxology, image-plates (p136-137) and p174 to the end. Sometimes there are looser translations like on page 16-17 on bows but without a bunch of manuscrips predating Taybugha's with very similar content one can not tell where he quotes older works on the subject or therelike. There is basically no such thing in Arabic literature. You even need weird ways to indicate indirect speech in the Arabic language, because these are modern requirements. There is a lot of copying involved and you find anecdotes on scholars in their old age worrying about having one single error in their books being copied for eternity and therefore considering and sometimes not just considering burning all the books they ever wrote.
The obvious parts by Latham and Paterson are between the table of contents and beginning of the doxology, image-plates (p136-137) and p174 to the end. Sometimes there are looser translations like on page 16-17 on bows but without a bunch of manuscrips predating Taybugha's with very similar content one can not tell where he quotes older works on the subject or therelike. There is basically no such thing in Arabic literature. You even need weird ways to indicate indirect speech in the Arabic language, because these are modern requirements. There is a lot of copying involved and you find anecdotes on scholars in their old age worrying about having one single error in their books being copied for eternity and therefore considering and sometimes not just considering burning all the books they ever wrote.
I see. It looks like on page 68, the comment section appears to have some of Latham and Paterson's interjections (if not solely Latham and Paterson?). The part before where its talked about khatra improving the velocity of the arrow seems to be all Taybugha (?). However, the comment section here underscores the confusion that I often find in this book because Latham and Paterson talk about a 'raison d'être' for khatra that seems contrary to what Taybugha says, but then again I may not completely understand what Latham and Paterson are explaining here. Or is that all Taybugha in the comments section?
geoarcher
Actually I revisited my correspondence with my Korean contact from years ago concerning the 'torque' technique used in KTB. Here it is:
'you should more twist the handle, counterclockwise, when you release like a japanese technic,( tenouchi)
when the arrows is away, arrow must keep distance from bow body.'
His English was a bit rough here you can see, but I think 'arrow must keep distance from bow body' actually most likely does mean 'the arrow should cleanly pass by the bow's riser w/o touching'. Yes I know I am putting alot of inference on this rough bit of English but I do believe this is what he meant. This would imply perhaps that the 'torque' required here does improve accuracy from a Korean source albeit without explicitly saying so. Regardless, its a little more in depth then 'its how I was taught' or 'just works well'.
Well there are archery-traditions with some sort of sideway motion. If there are Chinese ones - I can't tell, because I am not familiar with Chinese archery and sources at all. Though I picked up sth like a "painting the ground/floor" name in that context but as I just wrote ... I don't know Chinese archery.
I think some of this is covered in the 'Way of Archery' book but I have never bothered to investigate further.
Yes. 'painting the ground' is in fact in 'Way of Archery'. It was a grip hand technique advocated by Tang Jingchuan. The one that appears in all those murals with the belly of the bow facing closest to the ground in the depcited archer's bow grasping hand. Gao Ying apparently did not like the technique and advised against it. I think I'll summarize grip hand techniques here:
Khatrah: forward movement of the bow gripping wrist after release. Referenced in 'Saracen Archery'. Used to improve arrow velocity.
Tenouchi: used in the Japanese tradition of kyudo. Involves grasping the bow handle in such a way that allows the bow itself to spin in the grasping hand after the arrow is released. The spinning of the bow is known as 'yugari' or 'yugaity'. The actual spinning of the bow/'yugari' in the grasping hand is the product of correct 'tenouchi' or correct left hand grasping technique. The two terms should not be confused with each other and the purpose of this technique seems unique to kyudo. Publications have shown that it does not improve speed or accuracy. The arrow seems to touch upon the bow still after the release according to some slow-mo videos. Its reason for use is actually unknown.
Korean torque technique: involves 'pre-loading' the grasping hand counter-clockwise (clockwise if holding the bow in the right hand) in order to make the wrist torque to the left or right depending on bow hand dexterity. This ensures a clean pass of the arrow over the bow without it touching the riser area at all. Improves accuracy and overall flight of the arrow. Used in the context of Korean traditional archery and probably elsewhere although I have yet to come across it referenced outside of KTA. Early in this thread, I believe Bede was alluding to that it can be found in old Middle Eastern archery texts although I have yet to come across any. In Korean, there are a few terms to refer to it as:
흩혀쥐기 or 'heu-tyuh-jwi-gi': has many meanings such as to 'scatter' or 'misalignment of grip'
쥐어 짜기 or 'jwi-uh-jja-gi': meaning 'squeezing' or 'twisting'
고자채기 or 'go-jah-chae-gi': meaning 'kicking the siyah'
활대 엎기 or 'hwal-dae-up-gi': meaning to 'laying down the bow'
Tang Jingchuan's 'painting the ground' technique: upon release, the upper tip of the bow 'paints the ground' and the lower tip of the bow moves towards the draw side of the upper arm. Essentially, what this guy does:
According to Gao Ying, this technique lacks utility and is simply executed for the aesthetic it creates. It is often depicted on all those ancient murals from the Shahnameh. Perhaps, because artists recognized its aesthetic qualities?
Throughout the years I have been learning and practicing various forms of Asiatic archery, I have come to witness these techniques mixed and mashed in various internet posted videos. It is important to categorize them and thus understand them in the unique role and or context which they were developed and to be utilized in.
