Is it really necessary?

[dadicus]

at the moment i use the normal stance. but i'm only shooting up to 60 yards. the club coaches have told me that the more that you elevate your bow arm that you lose draw length, therefore draw weight. have tried this and yes thier correct. try it. so when i work my way up to any longer distances will be using the exaggerated stance, or will be tilting back from the waist.
i'm shooting a 40lb bickerstaffe special. will be doing my first tournament in september. see the calender lincoln castle shoot.

[English Bowman]

You should never aim from the shoulder, always tilt from the waist. As your coaches say aiming with the arms will change your draw length and lead to inconsistancy.
Aiming from the waist doesn't produce an odd stance, it's the correct way of shooting at any distance, used by archers of all styles.

Daniel

[dadicus]

thanks for that daniel. the coaches in our club, though thay are at county level, don't know a lot about longbow shooting they do what they can. the nearest wev'e got is harold who's been shooting for over 50 years, but really only want's to shoot for fun now though he has helped a bit.
don't have a lot of elevation at 60 yards. have tried shooting at 80 yds and tilting from the waist certainly does the trick.
any other tips would certainly be appreciated.
will be doing my first competition at lincoln castle in september so will get a good look at other longbow/people. only been shooting longbow for 3 months and thei's only two of us in the club anyway.

[Jerry Tee]

As for the wide stance you must remember the purpose to which the weapon was put and that was war. The enemy should be engaged effectively as soon as possible. That means that the first rounds of arrow should be shot at very long ranges. so the wide stance enabled the archer to bend the back leg and clout shoot into an area rather than shoot at individual targets. As the ranges came down due to the approach of the enemy there would not have been time to change your stance if you had to keep up a good rate of fire. when the range became so close that the enemy would be on you before you could take up your sword and shield you stopped shooting and prepared for the melee. If your arrows had done the job there would be a lot lass of the oppsition to kill.

[English Bowman]

I agree with the idea that they would have started shooting at long range, which would lead to a "clout stance," but the idea that there would not have been time to change the stance is a bit far fetched in my opinion. It is possible to shoot more than 20 arrows in a minute. (I know, I've done it) but I think that a rate of a dozen a minute is far more likely in combat, maybe less. How long does it take to adjust a stance? What would you do in combat, shoot at short range in an unsuitable stance and shoot it badly, or miss shooting one arrow whilst adjusting your stance and make the next one, and the one after, and so on count? I'd change my stance.
Daniel
P.S. The pedantic side of me has to point out that the correct term is rate of shot, not rate of fire, as you don't fire a bow, there are no explosives involved, and firing an arrow is the act of setting fire to it before shooting it. Sorry, but people talking about firing arrows is a pet hate of mine!

[Jerry Tee]

You are right about the rate of shooting and not fire.