Why do whip ended bows have a bad reputation?

[Fox]

Saxton Pope said, way more importantly and still true; Every bow is a work of love. Discussions about what's best are always fine, of course sometimes it gets a bit heated, but let's not forget everyone is on the same side here;

Making bows, is making works of love that we may shoot or let others enjoy, which is admirable with a whip tiller or not, with a wholly circular tiller or not and u name it. So let's discuss respectfully definitely, but really everyone here is making a little work of love, so let's be honest and not dump on each other's works or step on each other's toes too much. All this is talking we're doing, is about and on the subject of, these lil personally made works of art and love, imho it'd be good keep this in mind too, when discussing/critiquing/comparing to the bows of others.

Ps, it's only so much one can do anyway, if we truly want maximized efficiency, best to find a compound bow or a rifle (;

+1.

——————-


Thanks pat, that was the quote I was looking for 

[Tom Dulaney]

After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.

This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.

The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.

Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.

[Tom Dulaney]

"It is not advisable here to go further into this subject; let it stand that the English yew long bow is the highest type of artillery in the world.

Although the composite Turkish bows can shoot the farthest, it is only with very light arrows; they are incapable of projecting heavier shafts to the extent of the yew long bow, that is, they can transmit velocity but not momentum; they have resiliency, but not power.'

  Saxton Pope

Nothing out of the ordinary.

From page 174 of Traditional Bowyer's Bible, vol. 4 (a frequently quoted book around here):

Horn-sinew composites

Good hunting-weight straight self bows outshoot most present hunting weight Asiatic composites. Occasionally an expensive imported composite will appear at a wood bow meet where bows are being chronographed. It's a difficult moment, because we know our simple wood bows will outshoot the composite, and know its owner doesn't know this, and that he doesn't want to know this. We try to avoid the comparison. Possibly the best hunting weight composites from the past would outshoot same-weight best wood bows by a few fps. The potential is there.

It is highly doubtful that Saxton Pope ever got a hold of a good Turkish bow. Turkish archery declined long beforehand and has been revived since, with a probable increase in performance and variety of draw weights compared to the bows made in the 19th/early 20th century. It doesn't seem like Saxton Pope was wrong based on the evidence available to him at the time. It may be that his actual assertion (that English longbows make for better artillery is correct. And in any case this has nothing to do with our discussion about whip tillered bows.


It would seem that most here are not really interested at all in actually finding out whether or not whip-ended bows are better. Basically it's "beat the world record now or you're wrong" at primitive archer, which I guess makes sense if we're going to be truly primitive.

[sleek]

After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.

This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.

The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.

Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.

So if I get published saying you are wrong, would you accept that, or would you just argue?

[Tom Dulaney]

After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.

This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.

The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.

Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.

So if I get published saying you are wrong, would you accept that, or would you just argue?

Get published saying whip tillered bows are less efficient than static recurves. That's the evidence I'm asking for.

[RyanY]

After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.

This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.

The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.

Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.

Again, you made the claim without evidence from the start. I don’t have to say anything because you haven’t backed up your claims with any evidence yourself. I also won’t waste my energy with anything else on this topic since clearly you don’t understand how to have a logical argument if you don’t understand burden of proof. You asked the question and are making the claim. Prove your point with evidence or sit down,

[sleek]

"It is not advisable here to go further into this subject; let it stand that the English yew long bow is the highest type of artillery in the world.

Although the composite Turkish bows can shoot the farthest, it is only with very light arrows; they are incapable of projecting heavier shafts to the extent of the yew long bow, that is, they can transmit velocity but not momentum; they have resiliency, but not power.'

  Saxton Pope

Nothing out of the ordinary.

From page 174 of Traditional Bowyer's Bible, vol. 4 (a frequently quoted book around here):

Horn-sinew composites

Good hunting-weight straight self bows outshoot most present hunting weight Asiatic composites. Occasionally an expensive imported composite will appear at a wood bow meet where bows are being chronographed. It's a difficult moment, because we know our simple wood bows will outshoot the composite, and know its owner doesn't know this, and that he doesn't want to know this. We try to avoid the comparison. Possibly the best hunting weight composites from the past would outshoot same-weight best wood bows by a few fps. The potential is there.

It is highly doubtful that Saxton Pope ever got a hold of a good Turkish bow. Turkish archery declined long beforehand and has been revived since, with a probable increase in performance and variety of draw weights compared to the bows made in the 19th/early 20th century. It doesn't seem like Saxton Pope was wrong based on the evidence available to him at the time. It may be that his actual assertion (that English longbows make for better artillery is correct. And in any case this has nothing to do with our discussion about whip tillered bows.


It would seem that most here are not really interested at all in actually finding out whether or not whip-ended bows are better. Basically it's "beat the world record now or you're wrong" at primitive archer, which I guess makes sense if we're going to be truly primitive.

I mean, that would be a fun challenge   

[Tom Dulaney]

After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.

This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.

The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.

Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.

Again, you made the claim without evidence from the start. I don’t have to say anything because you haven’t backed up your claims with any evidence yourself. I also won’t waste my energy with anything else on this topic since clearly you don’t understand how to have a logical argument if you don’t understand burden of proof. You asked the question and are making the claim. Prove your point with evidence or sit down,

Please show me where in the original post I made a claim.

[scp]

It would seem that most here are not really interested at all in actually finding out whether or not whip-ended bows are better. Basically it's "beat the world record now or you're wrong" at primitive archer, which I guess makes sense if we're going to be truly primitive.

It's like you are trying to argue a certain style kitchen knife is the best knife of all kind, using the evidence that a certain characteristic makes certain kitchen knives better. But there are all other kinds of knives, like hunting knives, utility knives, or wood-carving knives, etc.

All you have for whip-ended bows is the theory that whip-ended-ness might be better for the straight bows with some stiff handle section but with fully bending limbs including tips. It does not apply to others types of bows.

[sleek]

After looking through Tom’s posts, it’s clear that this is a recurring issue of bringing up some bizarre theory that misunderstands the actual evidence, arguing with others, and just fading away till the next post. I could not find any evidence that he has any experience building bows. Not sure if this pattern is age or culturally related but the lack of open-mindedness and bias is strongly apparent.

This is your third and final opportunity to provide a single verified reference that says anything to the contrary of what i said here.

The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. You have yet to post anything that would be considered empirical evidence and the “evidence” you have presented has clearly been misinterpreted by your implicit bias to come up with some grandiose claim you want to bring to the bow making community.

Thank you for admitting that you don't have any credible, published sources that say anything to the contrary of what I said.

Again, you made the claim without evidence from the start. I don’t have to say anything because you haven’t backed up your claims with any evidence yourself. I also won’t waste my energy with anything else on this topic since clearly you don’t understand how to have a logical argument if you don’t understand burden of proof. You asked the question and are making the claim. Prove your point with evidence or sit down,

Please show me where in the original post I made a claim.

Your first claim is that whip ended bows are looked badly upon. That was wrong. They are not, they have a purpose. let's start there.

[Tom Dulaney]

It would seem that most here are not really interested at all in actually finding out whether or not whip-ended bows are better. Basically it's "beat the world record now or you're wrong" at primitive archer, which I guess makes sense if we're going to be truly primitive.

It's like you are trying to argue a certain style kitchen knife is the best knife of all kind, using the evidence that a certain characteristic makes certain kitchen knives better. But there are all other kinds of knives, like hunting knives, utility knives, or wood-carving knives, etc.

All you have for whip-ended bows is the theory that whip-ended-ness might be better for the straight bows with some stiff handle section but with fully bending limbs including tips. It does not apply to others types of bows.

Ok but I'm really not trying to argue with anyone, I'm asking for evidence. When did this idea that whip-ended bows are less efficient become the norm (as it appears to be among internet users) and for what reason? What research was conducted and when? Cos I've looked high and low and haven't really found anything that would justify the dogma. It's just an atttude that is particularly prevalent among internet forumites. A lot of notable authors advocate whip-ends; some less notable authors with cheapie self-publishers don't.

[sleek]

Dude, you have no idea! You yourself said you haven't put the effort into verifying it and when you talk to folks who have, you ignore them!

[Del the cat]

Tom,
There is no validity in arguing on what you've read, or in spouting quotes.
Being written is not a guarantee of validity (unless it includes good experimental data or mathematical/scientific proof).
E.G One volume of TBB says the Mary Rose was raised from Plymouth harbour.... no it wasn't it was raised off Portsmouth... (I used to live down there and one of my old school mates was one of the divers).

People on here are interested in what you can do, make, demonstrate or at best an opinion based on solid experience.
The authors of books have had their say, and they can argue if they wish (if they are still alive!).
Many of us are published either on paper or on line, and where that is the case, we publish from our own experience.

You say:- "Ok but I'm really not trying to argue with anyone, I'm asking for evidence".
No one wants you to argue... your original post simply asked
"Why do whip ended bows have a bad reputation?"
It only ever needed one answer...
"They don't"

Being blunt, I for one am not interested in someone regurgitating the work of others, which they often seem to misunderstand or misinterpret anyway...
To quote a well known TV show:-
"And for that reason I'm out"
Del

[scp]

It appears that Tom is also intermingling bows with whip-ended tips, with whip tillered bows.

If we broaden the theory from bows with whip-ended tips to include whip tilled bows, it might be possible that the alleged benefit also applies to working recurves. To do this, we need to establish first what it means for working recurves to be whip tillered.

[Tom Dulaney]

Dude, you have no idea! You yourself said you haven't put the effort into verifying it and when you talk to folks who have, you ignore them!

Ahem... By verification I mean to provide independent published sources. I'm already aware many people here have covinced themselves that static recurves are better (mainly by buildng static recurves and otherwise non-whipping bows almost exclusively).