recurves unsteady?
Howard Hill maintained that recurved tips made a bow unsteady and "sensitive", thus unsuitable for fast, instinctive shooting.
Have any scientifically designed and conducted tests been made of this idea?
Have any scientifically designed and conducted tests been made of this idea?
I don't know about scientific studies, but I know the recurve has been a very successful tool for many instintive archers. As an example, see "Traditional Bowhunter" Feb/Mar 2006 - the article/interview with Stay Groscup.
I don't go along with this either. If recurves were so innacurate, people wouldn't have used them for thousands of years.
Howard Hill was a 'prodigious' archer - in a completely different league to most of us mere mortals. So, he would probably be more idiosynchratic in his opinions and approach - and his findings would probably not apply to most of the rest of us.
Unfortunately, I was put off recurves for many years by a flatbow fanatic (an archer of much greater experience - so I believed him!) - and subsequently found ths piece of advice to be b*ll***t! I find no difference in effective accuracy between recurved and straight bows - I miss the target equally well with both. :evil:
Howard Hill was a 'prodigious' archer - in a completely different league to most of us mere mortals. So, he would probably be more idiosynchratic in his opinions and approach - and his findings would probably not apply to most of the rest of us.
Unfortunately, I was put off recurves for many years by a flatbow fanatic (an archer of much greater experience - so I believed him!) - and subsequently found ths piece of advice to be b*ll***t! I find no difference in effective accuracy between recurved and straight bows - I miss the target equally well with both. :evil: