Announcement

**Jammrock** · 2 March 2009, 13:52

I just can't see Russell Crowe as archer...

**cjolley** · 2 March 2009, 14:12

As long as it doesn't resemble the Kevin Costner version in any way, shape, or form...

**Dr Mordrid** · 2 March 2009, 14:12

It's strength and fine muscle control, not body type or even size or sex. I know a couple of small women who give most all of of the men they compete against total fits. These same women are wicked bowhunters, and one of them is my wife.

**cjolley** · 2 March 2009, 14:26

We had a US archery champion as the archery teacher at a camp I attended as a boy.
He wasn't anything spectacular as a physical specimen, no bulging arms or anything. He just had the touch.
He could casually lob arrows into the bulls eye from way down at the storage shack maybe 75-100 meters away.

He did hunt bear with a bow and arrow.

**Dr Mordrid** · 2 March 2009, 15:54

Originally posted by cjolley View Post

He did hunt bear with a bow and arrow.

So do we - it's quite common....bear, whitetail deer (ours can run 300 lbs), boar (500 lbs is not uncommon - these migrated into the upper midwest a few years ago) and sometimes elk if we win permits in the yearly drawing. We even fish with bows - quite popular here.

**Jammrock** · 3 March 2009, 08:06

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post

It's strength and fine muscle control, not body type or even size or sex. I know a couple of small women who give most all of of the men they compete against total fits. These same women are wicked bowhunters, and one of them is my wife.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... but Crowe is not the fine muscle control type. His acting style and body type scream hack and slash, not precision archery. That and most Robin Hoods are traditionally wiry types, which Crowe is not. Though I suppose if it's going to me more historically accurate he would be portraying a war veteran...

**Dr Mordrid** · 3 March 2009, 13:33

Looks mean nothing in archery or marksmanship in general....I've seen small and large, short and tall men, women and children of every habitus hammer targets and game consistently.

I'm 6' 1.5", over 300 lbs and have a weightlifters physique - hardly what would imply the fine muscle control 'type' especially given a history of being a football lineman, yet I've competed in both targets and field since age 20 and as a young man raced cars.

It's practice, practice, practice with a plus if fine muscle control was in the cards for you from the get go.

**Jammrock** · 3 March 2009, 13:46

I'm talking about Robin Hood days, not now. Bodybuilder size people back then swung around a warhammer, axe or sword, not shot a bow. Someone that strong, and skilled through training, would be considered a larger asset on the field than sitting back and lobbing arrows.

**Dr Mordrid** · 3 March 2009, 14:00

In England learning archery was at times mandatory for able bodied males, with fines or worse for those who didn't partake. By manhood these men were extremely dangerous on the battlefield, and English kings made great use of this resource. The first major English battle decided by archers (in support of armored infantry) was the Battle of the Standard in 1138 with the Scots. King David I's troops charged the English line and got pretty much perforated, sliced and diced.

By the next century an English archer could fire up to 15 aimed arrows a minute with an effective range of up to 400 yards, depending on the arrow and bow subtypes. 10 arrows/minute was considered a minimum.

I've tried English rounds with a longbow and believe me it ain't easy

Of course the downside was that insurgencies had experienced, able war fighters from the get go.

Announcement

Robin Hood (2010) gets the epic treatment

Robin Hood (2010) gets the epic treatment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment