There’s this video, which at least a dozen people have forwarded to me, is circulating the Internet at the moment purporting to “demolish every Hollywood myth” about archery and “prove that Hollywood archery is not historical.” Since apparently hundreds of sites have uncritically repeated its many preposterous and unsupportable claims, with the result that many people have asked me about it, I thought I should offer a detailed analysis.
The question really comes down to three separate categories; (1) the claims made in the narration; (2) the trick shots shown, and (3) Andersen’s actual archery ability.
We’ll start with the third. Andersen’s quick-shooting technique is obviously effective (if speed is the goal), in that he is able to fire a lot of arrows at a very rapid pace. It’s worth noting that the narrator goes to great pains to explain why shooting at close-up distances is so important and denigrates “warrior archers only shooting at long distances,” (just one of many totally false claims) in order to paper over the fact that the man obviously can’t hit anything that’s more than about 20 feet away. No doubt there are literally hundreds of failed attempts that were cut out of the carefully-edited video. His gimmick is speed, not accuracy, and it’s obvious to anyone who actually knows anything about archery that his complete lack of any kind of consistent form is going to require camera tricks and a lot of luck, which is exactly what’s on display here. He may in fact be the fastest archer in the world; he just shouldn’t pretend to be accurate.
The really egregious part is the staggeringly inaccurate, misleading, and hyperbolic narration, written by somebody with little-to-no actual knowledge of archery history and a willingness to distort facts to make a bogus case. Here are some of the patently ridiculous claims put forward:
“He uses forgotten historical methods…” No, they were not forgotten. They just weren’t European. Archery is one of the oldest human activities, found in virtually every culture on Earth, and dating back tens of thousands of years. There are wide variations in equipment and shooting techniques around the world, and Andersen’s “discoveries” are well-known to anyone who has ever studied Asian and Eastern European archery, such as Mongolian, Tibetan or Hungarian styles. The famous Native American archer Ishi was known for shooting in a style very similar to Andersen’s, putting the arrow on the outside of the bow in the style of the Yahi People of the Pacific Northwest. My friend Patricia Gonsalves (archery consultant for Arrow and owner of Lykopis Archery in Vancouver, BC) is currently making a documentary about precisely these allegedly “forgotten” techniques as they are currently being practiced around the world.
“The back quiver is a Hollywood myth.” This howler is put forward in the middle of Andersen’s ridiculous infomercial-like demonstration of what’s supposedly wrong with the back quiver. All it needs is an exasperated voice-over saying “has this ever happened to you?” The back quiver is not a Hollywood myth, it’s a historically-documented method of carrying arrows, albeit one that is more favored by hunters and traditional archers than by target archers. Archers are very practical; they use what works, and when they find something that works better, they change to that, and the back quiver was in common use throughout Europe and North America centuries before Hollywood existed.
The narration actually skirts close to accuracy when talking about target archery. With the invention of firearms, archery made the transition from weapon of war to sporting event, and with that came codification of rules, refinement of effective techniques, and modification of equipment, all in pursuit of what was regarded as the most difficult attribute to master. Something similar happened when the martial art of swordfighting became the sport of fencing. In the case of archery, accuracy at ever-increasing distances was chosen as the goal to focus on rather than speed or trick-shots. Having acknowledged that, the narration than launches back into bogus assertions and ignorance.
The narrator declares that shooting at a stationary target is “something that was unknown in the past,” which is patently absurd; archers who hope to hit a moving target such as an enemy combatant were obviously going to practice on a stationary target, and the modern archery target is a natural evolution of the ancient method; the difference is that what was once basic training is now the end goal.
Continuing on with a complete lack of understanding of the physics of archery, the narrator asserts “these archers started placing the arrow on the left side of the bow. This is probably due to the fact that aiming at a stationary two-dimensional target makes you aim with one eye.” In point of fact, no, it’s not. The reason for moving the arrow to the left side of the bow (for a right-handed archer) is something known as “the Archer’s Paradox,” a complicated collection of physics phenomena that results in the arrow hitting to the right even though when it’s on the bow it’s pointing slightly to the left. You can see it in the slow-motion footage during the tournament scene in Brave; as the arrow begins its flight, it’s oscillating back and forth, swimming through the air like a fish and moving to the left, until the aerodynamic effect of the air passing over feathers causes it to begin spinning, at which point the arrow turns and begins traveling to the right. (You can also see how simple and fast it is to place an arrow on the bow, despite Andersen’s absurd play-acting.) This scene was painstakingly recreated from high-speed footage shot by professional archers for Russell Crowe’s Robin Hood, using historically accurate English longbows. Placing the arrow on the left side of the bow compensates for this effect; without it, archers would have to aim to the left in order to hit their target. In point of fact, most archers, especially those shooting traditional styles, shoot with both eyes open.
“Lars realized that what we thought was historical archery only works well for modern target archery and Hollywood films.” What he claims as a revolutionary discovery is in fact common knowledge among archers. The fact that Andersen didn’t know this is evidence of just how little he actually knows about archery, or how little he thinks his audience knows.
The narration says that Andersen learned his techniques “from studying old historical pictures of archers.” What he obviously fails to understand is that artists in the past were as likely to be just as inaccurate and ignorant of archery techniques as artists today. They generally painted scenes that they either witnessed without understanding, or made up out of their heads, often based on what previous artists had done and compounding the errors. Unless an artist was illustrating a treatise on archery techniques and having their work reviewed by a competent archer, it is very doubtful that anything they illustrated is in any way a reliable record of archery form. What IS accurate is the archaeological evidence in the form of bows and physiological indicators in the archers’ bodies, such as separation in the shoulder cartilage, the thickness of bones in the bow arm and elongation of the bones of the draw arm, all of which is well-documented and known to competent historians.
“If he wanted to shoot like the master archers of old, he would have to unlearn what he had learned,” the narrator tells us. If Andersen had ever actually learned anything from real archers before going on his historical quest, he would have had a lot less to unlearn. What he had learned is the usual collection of bad habits that self-taught amateur archers always display, many of which continue unabated in his new, allegedly historic techniques. He is a terrible archer who can shoot fast. He shoots very fast. He shoots very badly very fast.
His new technique is described as “simpler and more natural, exactly like throwing a ball.” This is accompanied by a shot of him throwing a ball very badly and awkwardly. He throws about as well as he shoots, but nobody would ever put up that segment and try to compare him to Major League pitchers, because most people know how to throw a ball at least enough to know that this is not a particularly impressive example of the skill. Another fun exercise would be comparing Andersen’s clumsy attempts at running and jumping to actual practitioners of parkour, martial arts, or gymnastics. Frankly, I’m surprised people aren’t mocking his awkward attempts at action shots, since to me he looks about as impressive and coordinated as the Star Wars kid.
The real howlers pile up when the narrator tries to expound on the history of how ancient archers carried their arrows, telling us “in the beginning, archers probably drew arrows from quivers or belts, but since then, they started holding arrows in the bow hand, and later in the draw hand.” This is patently absurd, since the historic artwork shown during the sequence clearly illustrates that carrying the arrows in the hand is the oldest method, not a later refinement. The quiver, whether for back, hip, calf or saddle, was invented to simplify the archer’s life by getting the arrows out of his hand. The sequence shown in the video is exactly the opposite of the historic record, but it’s a lie they feel is necessary in order to build up Andersen’s credibility. The reality is exactly what the narrator later says, that holding arrows in the draw hand “requires immense practice and skill, and only professional archers, hunters and so on, would have had the time for it,” though truthfully, there were historically very few professional archers or hunters. Archery was just one of many skills a soldier was expected to have, and a hunter was also known as “somebody who liked feeding his family.” Here the scriptwriter is guilty of the sin of “presentism,” in other words projecting the attitudes and behaviors of the present onto people of the past. Specialization is a modern habit.
In reality, the quiver was the more modern invention that replaced the earlier method of carrying arrows in the hand. The narrator tells us “when guns started replacing bows, this technique was forgotten.” In actuality, it was forgotten long before that, when quivers were invented, in any culture that figured out how to make them. Many cultures never did; there’s plenty of evidence of aboriginal archers around the world who never adopted quivers, such as New Guinea and elsewhere.
After claiming that Andersen’s shooting technique is powerful enough that “his arrows still penetrate chain mail armor” (in truth, a 10-year-old with a 15-pound bow can penetrate chain mail at the short distances Andersen favors), the narrator again demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of actual archery, paired with Andersen demonstrating what he thinks modern archery looks like.
We’re told “modern archers use only one hand, but in the past, some archers allegedly used both hands to give the arrow more power.” This is utter nonsense, unless you’re talking about one-armed archers like Jeff Fabry. Any competent archery instructor will tell you that an archer’s power does not come from the arm, but from the back muscles, and both sides are used at the same time. A quick skimming of Archery Anatomy by Ray Uxford, Core Archery: Shooting With Proper Back Tension by Larry Wise, Why You Suck at Archery by Steve Ruis, Total Archery: Inside the Archer by US Olympic Archery coach Kisik Lee, or any of a hundred other books going all the way back to Maurice Thompson or Howard Hill will put the lie to this fairytale. Again, either Andersen and his team are that ignorant, or they hope the audience is.
Andersen then goes back to his emphasis on speed over accuracy, power or the avoiding of injury, asserting that “from old texts, we know that Saracen archers were expected to be able to fire three arrows in 1.5 seconds.” More interesting is the fact that apparently the Saracens had stopwatches. How Andersen arrives at this “fact” is anyone’s guess, but it’s a nice lead-in to his collection of circus tricks and stunts, most of which are also popular fare with magicians and martial artists, such as catching a very slow-moving arrow. Just as splitting an arrow can only be accomplished with the use of carefully-prepared equipment (using bamboo for the arrow to be split, for example), all of Andersen’s tricks require equipment modifications, careful camerawork and editing. Splitting an arrow by firing at a knife blade, for example, could only be accomplished by using an arrow without a point, which would require shooting from a distance of about 10 feet or less (an arrow without a point will decelerate quickly), and careful observation will reveal a camera cut between Andersen’s firing and the close-up of the arrow supposedly splitting (it looks to me like the arrow passes close beside the blade and doesn’t split at all, but we’ll give them the benefit of the doubt). The second arrow was obviously shot from only a few feet away and was prepped to split. As for the supposed shooting at an oncoming arrow, he may have eventually hit an arrow fired over his head (not at him), but again, it wouldn’t have split, and in fact it probably didn’t. It looks like the arrow was deflected, then he picked up broken pieces already on the floor. I’d love to see Mythbusters demolish this fraud, and I’m only disappointed that so many people are so gullible as to believe it.
Andersen should stick to demonstrations of speed shooting and leave questions of science, history and modern archery skills to people who actually know something about those things. Along the same lines, web editors should check with competent experts before uncritically repeating nonsense.
Special thanks to my friend, animator, artist, fire-dancer and traditional archer Anna Maltese, whose far more polite take-down of this video inspired my own, and my friend Patricia Gonsalves, who taught me almost everything I know about ancient and non-European archery methods.
For completeness: Mythbusters did two episodes on catching an arrow in flight. With a high-speed robot hand, they almost managed, and called it busted; under carefully engineered circumstances, a human “ninja” managed a “plausible” – so what Andersen demonstrates in that scene remains impossible in a combat situation. Sounds cool, though.
The thing about the mythbusters episode, is that the “robot-hand” remains stationary, while Andersen moves with the arrow. I personally know Lars, and I have seen him shoot in real life. He is legit.
You can catch it if it is going slow enough. It is all in how you manipulate your environment. In another interview on the web he admits that. I do not think you are going to catch an arrow from a modern PSE, Bear, Mathews, etc.
Archers paradox has to do with the spine of the arrow. And arrow that’s very flexible and is on the left will go to the right on that’s not will go to the left. If you put it on the other side of the bow it will do the opposite. So why would placing the arrow on the other side compensate for whats could archers paradox? It will just reverse it
Archers paradox has to do with the physics of the nock end absorbing more energy than the tip. Spine has to do with the arrow’s ability to properly distribute that energy.
Legit? Honestly? I’m sorry, I’ve been a National champion for around 7 years with a traditional bow. Represented my country and holder of countless national records. Your friend Lars is shooting arrows so fast, the only way he can do it is to draw his bow no more than 50% of it’s designed draw length. I have looked extremely closely and reckon, my best estimate is he’s drawing around 25lb weight for his speed shooting. This would barely scratch an enemy with a leather coat let alone puncture chain mail. Do you really think artillerymen wore armour for the look? They did so to remain protected against archers drawing around 150lb bows.
This video is pathetic unless you consider Lars a circus act. I challenge him to video a day with myself and other traditional archers shooting anything like a decent distance. Say, 90m, 185m etc.
And I call BS on you. “National champion for around 7 years”. A national champion would know exactly how long they have been a champion,…
http://www.teamusa.org/usa-archery/athletes/RichardButch-Johnson
Rekt
He’s rounding to the nearest year, Sherlock.
Wow. You’re right, a true professionnal would say the exact number of months and days he was national champion.
Somebody’s butthurt
I really don’t think so. Sounds more like fair criticism, from a person who’s definitely more qualified to vocalise it than all other armchair experts.
Legit criticism =/= Butthurt.
Lack of critical thinking –> Seeing legit criticism as butthurt.
Yet you are pathetic piece of crap, how do you managed that?
Your point is, “Lars doesn’t use his bow to its full potential, and it would be useless against armored enemy.”
Personally, I don’t think you have to use bow’s full potential every single time. Sometimes, drawing just enough force is enough. Sometimes, speed is more critical than accuracy. For instance, when a troop of un-armored rabble charging at you and they’re already very close. The target, since they’re close, would be (angularly) very big. And their impetus, need to be smashed immediately. Hence, rapid wounding shots. In times against armored opponent, you can switch style. My example is quite far-fetching, but my point must come across: you can rise to the occasion.
What Lars done with his video is telling a point, “There’s other way to use bow that what we usually see in sport competition or movies today, and I think my way is superior.” It might be superior, it might be not. But let’s prudent and welcoming rather than being passionately antagonistic about it. We might learn one or two thing from it.
Except that the tone of Lars’ video is entirely antagonistic, and the preposterous way his narrator lionizes him implies quite clearly that he knows more than he does about the reasons archery has evolved the way it has. Regardless of how small the stakes, disinformation is toxic.
It is really disappointing to see one of our country’s greatest archers come in here to harsh on Lars Anderson.
Not all martial archery is the classic long distance volley archery the Welsh longbow is famous for. Lars is showing what can be done with a very different style of bow, a horse bow. Which you, as a very, very experienced archer know.
Lars can’t do what you do at 90 meters – not even remotely, nor does ever claim that ability. And you can’t do what Lars Anderson can do in terms of speed. Not even remotely.
Why don’t we be fair. You can challenge Anderson to a 70 meter Olympic qualifying round – where you will soundly trounce him by a ridiculous amount. And he can challenge you to close quarters speed shooting. Where he will trounce you by a ridiculous amount.
I really don’t get why you can’t respect him for having the skills he does, ones you lack, nor why you feel a need to denigrate him. Surely your confidence in your own abilities isn’t dependent on belittling others. He has his skills, you have yours.
Also, since you “looked extremely closely” then surely you saw the footage where Lars Anderson easily pierced a riveted chain mail hauberk and a gambeson with his light weight bow. Fact is that chain mail is good at preventing cuts, but lousy at preventing punctures from pointy things, especially bodkin point arrows made just for penetrating chain mail.
For you to bring up your professional authority in your post as why we should believe you and then make counterfactual claims, with added hate, is very, very disappointing and, I think, unprofessional. Calling this man “pathetic” when, in fact, he has world record skills, is something I hope you will retract, as your claim speaks more about you than it does Lars Anderson.
Amen. There’s a reason that the longbow was invented, but there is also the reality that for thousands of years, and across the world, it was NOT yet invented, and something else was done. It’s clear that’s what Anderson is showing here.
Ill tell you why he came in here to slam someone else. That someone else has gotten more fame and recognition on a global scale for trick shots than he has ever gotten for being a gold medalist. Sour Grapes
My father was a surveyor in Arizona from 1953 on and he has shown me chain mail shirts worn by telegraph workers in the 1800’s. This allowed them to string wire through Indian lands without getting an arrow in the back. Local Natives thought they had some kind of magic and stopped trying to kill them, preferring to cut the wires down after the Magic white man left. Chain mail properly made stops broad points very well. That is why people wear 40+ lbs of woven wire on their bodies. I have myself demonstrated which weapons did what damage to men in mail… allowed a katana blow to my midsection in a two-handed shot. Hurt like getting hit by a re-bar but no penetration. When I leaned forward a bit the blow never even made it to my skin. Arrows, on the other hand, with narrow heads, managed to go in an inch or so, but with broad heads bounced off.
I shoot two Asiatic styles myself (Mongol, and Turkish ) Lars’ style has little in common with most Asiatic techniques used on horseback. The one thing his style has in common and the bigger Asiatic styles, is that the arrow is placed on the left side of the bow, although he uses a 3-finger-draw (As far as i can see<) instead of the proper thumb draw. Even horse archers didn't get AS close as Lars, otherwise they would've been stabbed with spears or other sharp things (or later on, shot with muskets)
Mail is easy to break though, and piercing a proper (Many layered) gambeson is FAR harder than the gambeson he used. I doubt Scote is much of an 'authority' on traditional archery, seeing as he most likely doesn't practice it. I do get Scote's annoyance though, as Lars is gruesomely misinforming people about the sport. This can seriously hurt the sport and people that are trying to use this odd technique. The main annoyance for me is that he's claiming to he's reinventing and rediscovering, and also implying that this is the superior techniques over others…
Actually, I never saw Lars shoot that chainmail. I saw a video of arrows hitting it, but there was no video of who actually fired them
This video is a very well-made and cut promotional video for his shooting style, but has very little evidence of him actually doing anything but shooting targets from very close range (oh, and the shooting 6 arrows down range to supposedly knock down 3 targets).
Well said.
But the author of this article says that a 10 year old with a 15lb bow could penetrate chain mail. ?
Chain mail has lots of very small gaps, bodkin points taper to a very narrow point with a length of around 2-4 inches, easily sliding through one of the gaps. if its just chain then penetration would be very easy, back it with leather and you may need something more like 30-40# with bodkin points at 30 yards to go in far enough to cause serious damage.
A 15lb Bow can penetrate chain mail on a wood mannequin easily because all of the arrows energy is released to the mail. While if the Mail is wore by a person the armour can move towards the body and has a cushioning effect which releases the arrows energy slowly and results in less actual penetration.
You do realize that your statement has just discredited this article. ….”.After claiming that Andersen’s shooting technique is powerful enough that “his arrows still penetrate chain mail armor” (in truth, a 10-year-old with a 15-pound bow can penetrate chain mail at the short distances Andersen favors), the narrator again demonstrates …….” So would someone tell me just who is full of $#!#. lol, I don’t care who is a champ or a chump. His speed shooting at close range is extremely impressive. Besides, when ever else would you need to speed shoot, but at close range. If an aggressor is 100yrds away, anyone can take their time and fully draw, aim, release and repeat. But with his speed, he could get you from 20ft away 3 times before you could get to him. Just saying…..
“Appeal to authority” is a logical fallacy, and you’re knee deep in it.
Criticism is fair, but I really don’t see the point of challenging an archer who makes a video about high-speed archery to a contest against traditional archers in their element, that makes no sense at all.
If you want to “debunk” Lars, you’d either call his type of archery useless, or beat him at it, not guide him to some other contest.
You are being more than a little dumb in that sad contribution.
The entire point is to show the difference between static, slow rate of fire, long distance archery and moving, high rate of fire, short distance archery.
Don’t denigrate his skills, he is not denigrating yours.
Fairly sure all of this doesn’t change the fact that you can’t do, what he can do. 😉
And if he shows the speed he can manage, does it mean that’s the only way he knows how to draw? Wow, some of you people really are angry as hell.
What kind of bow does he use? I need one to begin outdoor target shooting so I learn proper form and someday perhaps upgrade for hunting purposes. The olympic bows with all the counter weights look unnatural. I can’t tell what’s a good choice of bow.
As a coach I would suggest going for a take down recurve until you can pull ~40# comfortably over a 12 dozen shoot (tends to be cheaper than buying a new bow every time you want to go up in poundage). Once you’ve got to about 40# you should be able to reach 100 yards without too much difficulty. You dont need to have the longrods or weights on the bow to build good form and you can shoot without a sight to get used to shooting a traditional bow.
An English traditional long bow or a recurve. Thompson from Morgan town WV makes superb bows to your measure , from Osage , New Zealand Black Hazel etc.In the Uk and even Australia there are some superb bow makers . a book I can recommend is Professor Hagel -Zen in the art of Archery .
Incidentally I saw a religious cleric from Morgan Town WV who was an incredible shot on moving multiple targets , hitting regularly hand thrown aspirin targets in the air . He was or hopefully is, a scholar and a tremendous historical source on archery both East and West .He gave me a book that I still cherish on Saracen Archery .He was also an authority on flint /obsidian arrow heads and a superb Flint Knapper.A lot of what Lars was doing was very reminiscent, Grosscup also shot from any position including from behind his back with uncanny accuracy . I later adapted what I learnt from him for combat pistol . He shot without a traditional locking point and while he himself was in motion . He was also capable of traditional shooting at ranges of 100+ yds with great accuracy . There is I believe a place for instinct firing as well as the traditional long range shooting . My greatest shot was a one shot kill on a Boar on the Golan Heights at 50mts at night and he was barely visible . I used a traditional hold and eye techniques from instinct firing .
I agree, he is legit AND amazing
You can catch paintballs in your hands if you are quick enough/ready/in the zone and they go about the same speeds (roughly). Humans can perform calculations and readjustments in mid flight based on probable predictions of the arrows flight and readjust whereas the robot hand probably didn’t have that programming.
Pretty much, I’m uncoordinated and have managed to catch larp arrows from 50npound bows, so I can see other people catching higher draw bows.
This is not very difficult. LARP arrows are designed to slow down and do so as they have a broad foam point. Wood and aluminium arrows fly slower too. In our club we use Aluminium arrows for indoo practice.
If you try to catch a carbon arrow from an 38# Recurve or n 80# Compound Bow you will fail everytime.
Mythbusters has done some interesting stuff, but also designed some fairly poor tests over the years, such as the “sword cutting a sword” test. the problem with that one is they designed a machine to chop with a katana, which is precisely NOT how to use a katana. Katanas are meant to be drawn across the target in order to slice through it. Chopping is a good way to ruin a katana blade while doing minimal damage to the target.
Katanas can “chop”. In fact, many demonstration of Katanas show them ‘chopping” through items like bamboo. You are not necessarily intended to “slide” the blade along the target in a “cutting” motion in order to do damage. There is a reason for this, but “chopping” does not minimalize the damage.
I have studied and practiced Kendo and Kenjutsu, and there are plenty of moves that “chop”
I practiced Kurodahan Yagyushinkage Ryu Iaido for three years while living in Japan. The sword techniques used in Kendo and Kenjutsu are vastly different from actual combat techniques. Kendo is derived from Shogunate era attempts to give jobless samurai non-violent forms of mock combat with with non-lethal blows. It is nothing like iaido, and kendo practitioners that start iaido have a great deal of difficulty overcoming the bad habits they learn through kendo. The only technique using a katana for a chop is a kabutowari. All others, including bamboo and tatami cuts, are slices or thrusts. The more of the blade drawn across the target the greater the damage. As the original poster stated, chops tend to chip the katana blade. This is also why iaido schools do not typically cut bamboo; the hard joints can chip the blade by catching it. Iaido is about stepping into the place where you want the blow to be, then bringing the katana down in a fluid movement without leaning forward or rotating the katana outward with your hands. If you chop, you are overextended, your blade can easily get stuck, and you are unlikely to achieve the “one meeting” that is central to iaido.
I agree. Slicing is the motion needed to cut a man in half or to cut a single sheet of newspaper hanging from a hanger. I Know. Draw to your center, grasshopper.
That’s right. As I used to say to my (European) sabre pupils, “It’s a big knife, not a big axe”
Mythbusters is ENTERTAINMENT, not science, not engineered testing, but plain old TV. Like this speed archer, Mybusters is full of TV geek speak, attempting to wrap their simplistic one shot experiments in a aura of science-y sounding stuff. Most of their “Myths” could be busted with a pad of paper and a few physics formulas – but that wouldn’t be fun tv. Unfortunately, most American’s can’t think for themselves and just sit back and nod their head.
A person who actually knows anything about science would not make the comment above. Most fans of the show I know are science major/scientists who like it because they get their facts right. And as for the ‘pad of paper and a few formula’ comment, please go back to middle school and relearn the scientific method. You always have to test your hypothesis; until it have been test everything on the ‘pad of paper’ is just theory.
They also couldn’t find the reference for the Katana that cut through the water jacket if a Maxim gun from the Japanese-Russo War. they didn’t look too hard.
Entering “Katana that cut through the water jacket if a Maxim gun from the Japanese-Russo War” into google gives this page. Please advise.
So that makes it true?
After reading the article twice, I find Geek Dad to be just that, a geek and a dad. His article read like political minutia, lacking in facts or substance and leaning heavily on opinion in an effort to discredit a fellow archer, regardless if he had to have a couple takes to get it on film, his speed and close quarter archery is like nothing ever seen. Look below for the argument concerning and debunking the “Mythbusters” argument. I hope you don’t base you scientific beliefs on the findings of the myth busters , they were Hollywood special effects guys,,,,,,now they have a tv show……Their scientific assertions are remedial at best, but do solve the never ending question of , “How much Amfo does it take to disintegrate a concrete truck?”,,,,science at it’s purest! The answer is simple , as much as you can get you hands on legally.
I agree. The article just seems… mean, for lack of a better word. Unnecessarily so, in fact. If he was really just trying to “set the record straight” then there’s no need for the personal attacks upon the guy.
I find it ironic that he seems to be doing the same things that he criticized Lars for, hyperbole and presentism.
The name should be ‘NerdRage’ instead of ‘GeekDad’ 😛 The author contradicts himself at least twice whilst trying so desperately to dismantle and defame Lars. Is the narration on Lars’ video a bit inaccurate and over the top? Sure. Doesn’t change the fact that Lars can and does demonstrate some exceptional bowman-ship and a different view on archery in general.
@Author: I’m sorry you’re butthurt about Lars and his arrows. Maybe get some creme.
You should also read your articles prior to posting them, and if they sound like a five year old whining to it’s parents, you may want to try a rewrite, or perhaps just stop posting altogether!
Agreed. Male version of jealous pretty girl hating. Grow up, “Dad”, and set a better example for the kids, eh?? Appreciate what you clearly will never ever be able to do, and leave it at that.
dude you sound like your winging. Also its ironic that your being “mean” to ‘GeekDad”. Please review your argument before you post it.
This article is based in less fact than the video. Half of it was just criticizing a dude doing cool archery stunts, based almost entirely in opinion. So what if he threw a ball a little weird? He was clearly being facetious, and he probably doesn’t throw balls like that in real life. Besides, who cares how he throws a ball? Wasn’t this whole article about debunking a wicked cool archery video? When the narrator states that his methods were forgotten, he simply meant forgotten by a large majority of the populous. Most people don’t know that this was how people used to shoot bows. Oh, and let’s not forget that, while he could have done dozens of takes to get these good shots in the video, it actually takes skill and talent to hit a soda tab or split an arrow in motion. And are you seriously comparing his lack of gymnastic skill to a parkour practitioner? I’m sorry, but not only is that a proverbial “low blow”, but it is totally irrelevant to the main point of the article. I would find it entertaining to watch your own gymnastic skill compared to that of a Martial Artist’s. Perhaps you should address the log in your eye before you begin accusing others of the specks in their own. I hate to break it to you, but a legitimate argument would not have such blatant ignorance for slightly (and I stress the word “slightly”) hyperbolic statements or actions made in the video and such a collection of opinionated judgments. Your “dissertation” was feeble at best.
It’s not possible to debunk a “wicked cool archery video”. It’s quite possible to debunk a shitload of statements presented as fact that are incorrect.
Let’s be real, a guy who films videos of fake archery stunts isn’t going to know how to throw a ball like a man.
I love your reply Cousin Horace. well said! ! I don’t know anything about archery so I guess I’m one of those very impressed dummies that Richard wrote about but my thought is WHO cares about his nerdy “less than acrobatic” flipping around and unprofessional ball throwing, he IS hitting his targets, not just shooting arrows REALLY REALLY fast through the air. And Larz never claimed to specialize in anatomy. HE talks about using both arms at the same time for added strength (speed, whatever) you boast “an archer’s power does not come from the arm, but from the back muscles”, well and I could go further and say Latissimus Dorsi & Rhomboids to try to look even smarter. pft…. Leave the guy alone.
Agreed, that article is product of butthurt, probably nontalented geek that can´t admit his weakness to himself, I truly find it pathetic and I think ppl like him are absolutely unnecessary for mankind, kinda like cancer. Just small broken man with blog.
And yet you are doing the exact same thing that you are criticizing him for doing, which makes you a hypocrite.
Roasted
if you believe myth busters, you will believe anything, many things they call busted, i have seen done in real life. so believe what you want, but someone who practices over and over, can accomplish anything
You’re probably repeatedly fooled by scammers, like shell game and whatnot. “Man, I really saw that other guy that came before me really find out under which shell the thing was, so it must be totally legit!”.
http://www.snopes.com/info/news/larsandersen.asp
I don’t know, watch Bruce Lee play ping pong against 2 amazing ping pong players with nunchucks and you might just re-think what is possible. Mythbusters is certainly not an authority on anything. Unless this video was doctored or photoshopped or something, what he does is pretty amazing.
You d know that “Bruce Lee” video is not actually Bruce Lee right? It’s an Ad for Nokia.
Jesus dude .. you really can’t do a simple google search in order to make sure you don’t sound incredibly stupid? I won’t even look it up for you – I trust you. You can do it. I might just re-think what is possible if you manage to do the one minute of work to realize it was a commercial.
The arrow wasn’t travelling that fast which you can see by the fact the video was sped up so could be easily caught.
I would liken this video to watching a Jackie Chan movie – thoroughly choreographed and optimally edited. I wouldn’t expect Jackie Chan to be able to compete in the UFC or the Olympics, nor would I expect more than a shadow of historical accuracy in the film. That being said, his stunts are still pretty fantastic, and quite enjoyable to watch.
A tv show pronounced what this guy clearly demonstrates on video impossible – so your conclusion is that the show is correct and that what he did is impossible. Dude. Critical thinking lacking much?
I question anyone that calls someone a fraud for putting on a video showing what they can doo. I have seen far to many useless sites, like geekdad, slam people that can do stuff that they either think is wasteful, in their opion, and/or wrong; let alone misquote the video itself. I personally think that the writer should either prove him wrong or just shut up. period.
One very good thing about this video was that it gave my son and me a chance to talk about viewing things with a skeptical eye. We talked about which tricks seemed likely to be “true” (in that they happened the way they appeared to and in the way they were described in the video), and which seemed unlikely to be true. It’s a great video for this kind of thing because it’s fun to watch, because it makes a lot of testable (or at least researchable) claims, and because no one will be too emotionally attached to being right.
teaching critical thinking to your son good for you
” I’d love to see Mythbusters demolish this fraud, and I’m only disappointed that so many people are so gullible as to believe it.”
Mythbusters busted the splitting arrow myth not only once, but twice. In seasons 3 and 4, I believe.
As you said on your text, they only managed to split an arrow in two when using a carefully prepared bamboo arrow meant to be split by the arrow they shot. 🙂
What Mythbusters disproved was splitting an arrow completely down the middle from tip to tip. Splitting an arrow is very real, and they did that numerous times, and went to speak to modern archers, who all also claimed to have done that. But no one claimed to split it from tip to tip, and neither did Lars. He just claimed to split an arrow, which is exactly what would happen if you hit one in mid-flight.
The first thing I thought of about splitting an arrow with a stationary knife was, “You have an arrowhead that is at least as hard as the knife you’re using, right? Otherwise the arrow in itself is useless for anything. And an arrowhead isn’t going to split very well on a knife.”
I assume he used an arrow without a head for that. Splitting a metal arrowhead would require a lot more than just accuracy.
as you can see from the video, the arrow didn’t split, but the blade carved two splints out of its side
If memory serves, Mythbusters (in the episode that I saw) used dowel rods to represent the arrows to be split. At one time, arrow shafts were made from split wood billets- the shaft would follow the grain/fiber of the wood with no run out. GOOD guitar tops are made the same way. Dowel rods are machine cut from boards, with no regard to grain/fiber run out. If you attempt to split a dowel rod, it is luck-of-the-draw as to it splitting down the center.
They revisited the myth and carved their own arrows to match that spec after a lot of fan complaints. They still got the same result. The problem is the arrow is wobbling in flight, and the path it travels takes it out of the arrow it’s hit before it comes to a stop.
i have seen people in archery competitions split arrows before…. my friends dad has 3 trophies for successfully completing a “Robin Hood” shot….
How far down did they split? Six inches is the best I have ever seen and they normally splinter off to the side in less than three. Hitting the nock is not uncommon, that’s why they make 3 spot targets.
http://www.snopes.com/info/news/larsandersen.asp
For the love of god girl, Lars never said a damn thing about WHAT kind of arrow he used or if it did/didn’t have a tip. Nor did he mention what kind of shoes he was wearing as he flipped around all goofy like, so does that mean it makes him less impressive? Extremely fast and extremely accurate is what he was going for and he NAILED it!
Fun to watch though wasn’t it? Some more bows will be purchased, archery clubs will gain new members and facts will take their rightful place as some of those people persist long enough to learn to use a bow.
I say good luck to them.
Thats exactly how i feel! Who the hell cares if its real or not?! Its the internet people!! More than half the shit on here isnt real..
Lets just all be happy to see archery make a comeback 🙂
Being okay with someone convincing you of something that isn’t real is bad. This is how we become mindless.
I have seen the guy perform a lot of the things he did in the video IRL and he did not failed even once in doing the stuff
Well sure, but if you even read interviews with him he admits some of the stuff took up to 15 tries to get down.
I think the video is more interesting in that it kind of gives a bit more credibility to “close quarters” archery like you see from hawkeye in the marvel movies or Arrow on the CW series. I would agree with some though that much of it probably isn’t practical, and that’s fine. A Lot of Martial Arts aren’t practical.
I’m a Black Belt in Taekwondo and I’ll be the first to admit that a lot of the flashier stuff we learn is all but useless in a real fight jumping 540 kicks and the like. Sure looks cool and more importantly feels cool to do.
You just described every know religion on Earth. 😛 Unless you are a world renown expert on the forms and skills of archery, what makes you the voice to define this as ‘real’?
Yes but who is that little voice doing your thinking?
This.
Stop worrying about the narration and Just Watch Him Shoot.
As an archer, my problem with this surfaced when I went to the range to shoot. People will imitate it without any training or care for others around them. I watched a fellow make an arse out of himself then almost shoot someone thinking he could replicate this. The harm to archery clubs comes when they wreck the courses or hurt others (self harm seems deserved if you imitated this). I guess the arrow makers get a solid chuckle, because I found a LOT of broken arrows.
If it sparks your interest in archery, that’s wonderful. But I haven’t seen it spark interest in the way Hunger Games and Brave did, people who wanted to learn over people who think they know best. I have not run across any of these “Lars inspired” archers who don’t mock you or act like idiots. (and yes we’ve run across 5 so far since the video). To be lectured by a “Lars enthusiast” that I am shooting wrong when I am hitting my target and they are very much not, is annoying and enough to keep me off the course till this all dies down.
Not to mention the claims in the video are, indeed, absurd and ignorant. Ignorance isn’t cool 🙁
So you’re blaming the video for imbeciles imitating it ? I mean don’t get me wrong I’m sure the thing is fallacious as hell, but that’s kind of silly
Oh dear. This is the single saddest butt hurt critique of Lars I’ve read so far. “The harm to archery clubs comes when they wreck the courses or hurt others”. Really dude? He shouldn’t show off the fact that he can do something you couldn’t do in a hundred years bacause someone might went to copy him and then they might hurt themselves? Wow.
You’re not quite right about people not being emotionally attached to being right about this. There’s a world of butthurt going on right now between archery historians and Lars’ supporters.
Well, since you critiqued a work of satire, I feel that your in-depth analysis falls flat. Although I do appreciate the real information you provided for each false assertion.
You claim the video is satire, but it’s not clear if that is the case. Certainly the satirical content is indiscernible unless the intent is to point out that many people will believe anything they see on the internet if presented entertainingly or with an air of authority (Or, as in the case of this video, both.) in which case it would seem to have achieved that goal fairly well.
That said, either way it’s still reasonable for people knowledgeable in the subject of archery to criticize it as many people seem to be taking it at face value.
Mythbusters is entertainment, not science, and they’ve been very wrong before. Pulling them up as some kind of certificate just betrays your own ignorance. Arrow catching is very possible, arrow splitting too. It’s not even that hard. Going off Mythbusters is like going off Carmen San Deigo for your historical facts. You just end up looking like a rube. Also, really doubt your qualifications to talk about anything but the most basic archery. One historical archer, Matt Easton (who is also a qualified historian and archeologist) backs up or at least finds credible many of Lars’ assertions about archery, particularly archery fired on the move and at short distance. There’s a lot more right than wrong in Lars’ videos, you’re just getting too sweaty over his over the top presentation. Maybe lay of the ham rolls and you’ll get a bit less flustered by it.
BINGO
lol, brutal! but spot on.
A) Mythbusters didn’t really test anything resembling what is in the movie. While they did test certain theories regarding catching arrows and splitting them, I have yet to see an episode where they run around testing the effectiveness of speed drawing.
B) Why is Mythbusters not science? why can’t it be both entertaining and scientific. Yes, they have been wrong, but the system of testing and the methods they use are, usually, correct. The point of their show is to test a theory using the scientific method, and they execute that well. Just because their results are not what they predicted doesn’t mean that they are wrong, it just means their hypothesis was incorrect, which is quite natural in science.
C) If Mythbusters is a gateway for people to get interested in science more, or Carmen San Diego is a gateway for more history research, who are you to call them a rube? If they make an incorrect assumption, don’t call them an idiot: help them by providing better resources. Don’t make people feel bad for being interested in something that is fun and interesting.
I like mythbusters simply because they introduce the need to Question what we see or know …!
Too many people and kids these days accept everything they are told , hear or see as facts …!
When i was a Kid my father always told me …Believe nothing you hear , a quarter of what you read and only half of what you see !!!
And i must admit i didn’t really understand him when i was small but as i grew older this has stood me in good stead and i know he was speaking the truth …it has helped keep me from trouble over the years !
Did your Dad tell you that, or write it down?
Clever, Jacko. Well played. I believe the original quote is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, who likely nicked it from an older source.
You say that Mythbusters didn’t test the effectiveness of speed drawing; but that’s the one thing that Geek Dad allows that Lars does legitimately well. So why does that matter with regard to this discussion? People are just commenting on the things that Mytbusters *did* test that *were* present in the movie, namely arrow-splitting and arrow-catching.
It’s not that his presentation was over the top, it’s that it appeared amateurish and awkward. I see a guy hopping around looking like a fool, my first impression will be that he is some sort of fool. Anything else he presents while doing so is going to be viewed through that lens.
You’re a fucking idiot. It’s amazing that you remember how to wipe your ass.
Yeah i know what you mean …because i kept thinking he didn’t look like the sharpest arrow in the Quivver !
“Frankly, I’m surprised people aren’t mocking his awkward attempts at action shots, since to me he looks about as impressive and coordinated as the Star Wars kid.”
You know you’re right when the other guy falls short on legitimate arguments 🙂
Honestly while I’m somewhat on Geek Dads side you’re right it does nothing but make you look like a moron when you resort to semi- “ad hominem” attacks (semi because it’s really just verbal abuse which has no place in any kind of logical break down or anything).
Surprised nobody’s already posted the obligatory xkcd link regarding the “Mythbusters is not science” line: http://xkcd.com/397/
Paul,
I agree with xkcd, but there is a big difference between doing a lot to teach the masses about scientific method, and actually following it.
the fact remains that their experiments are often flawed (poorly rigged robots, inaccurate substitutions, etc) and poorly executed (unskilled/untrained staff, always the first time with no practice, etc), and conclusions are reached based on them that are being referenced by the masses as fact.
mythbusters scientific method:
-can an airplane fly?
-we will build an airplane that only uses the most basic flight characteristics that can be found in a high school textbook
-next we will get grant to fly the airplane since he went to highschool and read that textbook
-the airplane has crashed shortly after takeoff. grant has died. myth busted. airplanes cannot fly.
Most of the things tested on Mythbusters are exactly that: myths. They try to recreate them the way they are described in the myth, or the way something supposedly happened in a book or movie. If they were testing whether someone could use the only most basic flight characteristics to build an airplane that could fly, as shown in a movie or TV show, they would build one in that manner. They are trying to show whether the myths they are testing could actually be true by replicating them.
Way to completely miss the point. His analogy was correct. The point is that they often *do not* recreate the myths accurately.
It seems more like they decide what they want the outcome to be, and then setup a flawed experiment to achieve it.
Off the top of my head, they “showed” that sound could be used to break glass by letting a guy shove his mouth against it (ie, it wasn’t just sound applying force to the glass), and they “showed” that you can’t survive being buried alive by having Jamie get buried alive and then aborting the test almost immediately before anything even remotely fatal happened (“the coffin buckled a bit under the weight of the soil! this myth is BUSTED!!”)
The fact they didn’t stick a camera in the coffin instead to see if it’d have actually collapsed at some point just demonstrates that they’re way more concerned with being entertaining than being scientific (watching him cry about how the coffin was definitely going to cave-in soon surely kept people on the edge of their seats, despite the fact he’d have never been put inside the coffin if there was any chance of that happening).
And sometimes they make such absurd claims that even the average person can say “hey, that outcome isn’t correct, wtf? are you dumb?” and then they show they have scientific integrity by just doing a retest in a later episode which is guaranteed to always get the opposite outcome of the original test.
“The fact remains that their experiments are often flawed (poorly rigged robots, inaccurate substitutions, etc) and poorly executed (unskilled/untrained staff, always the first time with no practice, etc).”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Fucking well put!
How does one Recreate a “myth” accurately?
Got anything besides ad hominem attacks, unsupported assertions, and one dubious academic reference? Oh, and by the way, I’m a professional historian and archaeologist, so fuck you, pal.
Thank you! This was painful to read.
You’re a professional historian and archeologist? Really? “Fuck you, pal?” You must have some interestingly written academic papers.
Historians are allowed to be people too.
Matt Easton is “a qualified historian and archeologist”? bahahahah Wow, some people are so desperate to try to prove Lars’ lies as true they will state absurd claims.
If Matt Easton is a historian then Emma Watson is an English Lit. professor, and George Bush is another historian.
Please, quit talking before you hurt yourself.
http://xkcd.com/397/
http://xkcd.com/397/ 😀 That is all.
I’m sorry you feel that way.
They guys who hosted Mythbusters were guests on Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Startalk Radio show, and they told how the purpose was to set up urban myths to see if they could actually be done or not. They worked as prop artists for different movies and commercials, and they approached these demonstrations with scientific principles in mind, not just to give a song and dance.
A tv show tries to discern whether something can be done or not. They fail to do it so they deem it undoable. A while later someone does it on video. What exactly are we discussing here?
Has he competed in any organized matches?
Has Matt Easton done a video addressing Lars Anderson? I completely missed that, but ever since I’d seen Anderson’s video, I’d love to hear Easton’s opinion on it.
Matt Easton also has a video explaining the “Archer’s Paradox” and the thumb-release that Anderson uses, which requires the arrow to be on the right side of the bow. Looks like the author of this article heard about it and leapt to conclusions without fully understanding it.
Chill out there tiger. Name calling and the agressive stance you take on the internet makes you seem (hence the word seem, i aint making crass judgements about your character) like a bit of jerk. Jim makes valid points. There are valid points in the pro-Lars crowd too. I personally like watching him shoot and it gets me excited to go out and loose some arrows. There is always the ability to mute the sound and enjoy some awesome shooting. Oh and Jim, he does have quite a few longer distance shots that show some real accuracy. PS he needs to learn how to throw a ball.
“Frankly, I’m surprised people aren’t mocking his awkward attempts at action shots, since to me he looks about as impressive and coordinated as the Star Wars kid.”
Someone arrived too late when arguments were given. So he needed something else to shoot with 🙂
Pps my reply was to the fella above me, not directly to Jim
Also Ishi shot at extremely close distances
Found the Lars fan ^. Absolutely everything in this video is cringe-worthy and I don’t know archery. He’s over the top and amateurish. Makes me feel embarrassed on his behalf.
He throws a ball like a girl. Lars is from Mars.
Where I come from, that’s a compliment.
This is the thing that bothers me. Guy works 10 years on something and some random on the internet wants to prove them wrong somehow. If you want to impress me or dazzle me with your “knowledge”, perform the video as it was performed and prove you can actually do it. The video IS the facts. Who cares what the narrator says to spice it up, especially considering Archery isn’t quite “fascinating” to the public eye. Ironic that this piece is labeled around gullibility.
“Some random on the internet”=”an archery coach”.
A butthurt archery coach getting schooled by Lars Anderson.
Sure, and the narration in Lars’ video is pretty hyperbolic overstatement when it comes to history or implies modern archery is “wrong.” (Though, come on, he is an enthusiastic LARP nerd who’s using a non-native language and has given additional context to his shooting in easily accessible formats online, if we want to get on people not doing their homework)
But to me a modern competitive archery coach complaining that it’s gotta be fake or that he has terrible form seems like a competitive sniper/rifleman complaining that nobody could do what a trick-shot gunslinger does or that a handgun specialist doing a combat simulation course has awful rifle form.
Just seems like an angry bad-faith rant (especially the jab about people in history not having ways to measure short intervals of time, which is demonstrably false; try breaths, heartbeats, time for an arrow shot a particular distance to hit the ground, etc.).
If you watch his other videos, he explains how he came to the “3 arrows in 1.5 seconds” thing. He refers to a text that said that the Saracen archers need to have the third arrow in the air before they see the first arrow hit the ground (at 60 bow-lengths – which he calculated to 69 feet). Whether or not that text is accurate or applicable, I cannot say.
Why does anyone shoot arrows at the ground? 😉
throughput: “Why does anyone shoot arrows at the ground?”
The ground can hit you hard! Haven’t you been too drunk sometime…? 😉
I will take exception to the “some random on the internet” comment. I’m a USAA certified Level 3 archery coach. Over the last 14 years, I have taught over 13,000 people, age 2 to 90, how to use a bow, have worked on-set for TV shows and movies and have written a few articles on the subject.
No, I can’t do the leaping and running parts any better than Lars can, because I’m 56 years old and have a crushed foot from a motorcycle accident 20-odd years ago. I have, however, taught actors and stuntmen how to do those tricks and to look like they know how to use a bow, and their footage turned out pretty good.
If Lars Andersen is that good an archer, why doesn’t he compete? Could it be because, as I said, he can only shoot at large targets at close range?
“Who cares what the narrator says to spice it up?” Anyone with any respect for history or truth. When somebody knowingly says something that is demonstrably false, that’s called lying. when they unknowingly do it, that’s called ignorance. I’m not sure which is more offensive, but both warrant a stern rebuke, even for trivial subjects like archery.
Two things I think you were wrong on though are criticizing Lars’s gymnastic/parkour techniques. He isn’t trying to portray himself as some great acrobat, so of course he’d be amateur in such things. I do think he could help his case though by doing some live demonstrations for skeptics of his skills. It’s one thing to do in a video, totally something else to pull it off in real life.
OP will surely deliver… It’s only been like 2-3 years since Lars’s first video. Scheduling a live audience is tough stuff.
13,000 people? in 14 years?
A conservative estimate. From 2002 to 2012, I taught about 15 first-time students a week every week. When Hunger Games came out in 2012, that increased to about 45 a week and hasn’t let up. We’re closed two weeks a year. That’s 15 x 50 x 10 (7500), plus 45 x 50 x 2 (4500) = 12000, plus 14 years’ worth of private parties, Boy Scout merit badge workshops and individual lessons.
Wow, that is fantastic, Jimbo. I’ll bet you have a merit badge in jerking off, too.
Who cares?? Big deal, big classes, lots of beginers. Where are those monster analytical skills when you use data like this?? So you taught thousands of beginners to do very basic archery?? Really, the numbers say not a thing about your skill or expertise or credentials to analyze and PUT DOWN this vid and the archer. Again, bitter jealous guy….
First troll reply: “Yeah? What do *you* know about archery compared to our hero Lars?”
Jim’s reply: “Actually I’ve been an archery coach for years. ”
Second troll reply: “Oh yeah? Well, um, er, that doesn’t count! Somehow…”
Oh the facepalmings.
2 people a day for 14 years equals that.
If you’re a coach/teacher, you’re going to do classes. Classes tend to average 5-25 people, depending what kind of class it is. They can get as big as 40 for some places (Probably got more than one teacher, but still).
Sure, you’re not going to teach people every single day for an entire year. But break the year into work days and then into classes, you can have 2-5 different classes day, more on weekends, different people per class and yeah.. it’s really not hard to reach 13k people taught. Even if it was just one or a couple of lessons for some of those people.
I don’t want to be a dick, but, and this is important, Having done Martial arts for over a decade I can tell you that everyone who teaches it isn’t necesarilly qualified to really teach it. Not that this is the case here, I’m just stating that strict adherence to the “this guy is a teacher of x” argument whole not fallacious certainly have a broad spectrum of grey. My issue with this reply is the fact that the author writes it in such an antagonizing way. If you want to take the high ground and get your point across you don’t need to make fun of the guy.
I’m not sure I’d want to go to a teacher who felt the need to make fun of the way someone he didn’t like threw a ball.
You are talking apples and oranges. What he is demonstrating is close in reactionary archery, which by and large mimics the bulk of archery in warfare until the advent of the fully armored knight on horseback( and even then did not exist in the bulk of the world’s battles). What you are talking about is long range extremely accurate archery which, except when hunting at long range in open areas is seldom anywhere near as useful. The argument is not much different than the one over sixguns versus shotguns. You can practice your draw and spin a sixgun in your hand,point out the fine engravings and special grips, and pretend accuracy is the most important thing in the fight, – but when it comes down to it the dumb mug with a twelve gauge and buckshot will win nine times out of ten. Why? – speed of dispersal of lethal power.
The “bulk of archery in warfare” consisted of archers shooting at targets 8 feet away from them? Or needing to kill two people at their table with whom they are sharing a drink?
Seriously….. The depths people go to to hold on to their dream some nerdy hero is correct is amazing.
The bulk of warfare would have been relatively small scale skirmishes. And yes, that probably meant close-up archery.
To Towser:
What skirmish’s are you thinking of, like when the Mongolians faced the Chinese and outraged their crossbow men with their horse bows (similar to some of the bows lars uses)
Or azincourt where longbow archers would volley horsemen and then kill the survivors in close quarter with knives/poleaxes other close quarter weapons, instead of expending energy on pulling a 100# plus bow to shoot someone who could quite easily be killed with a quick knife in the eye.
I can do running jumping shots, I can do shots from mid air, I can shoot two arrows while upside down. The most arrows I’ve shot in one minute is 21. Do i do these things on a regular basis? No, i do them to work out film shots and the feasibility of such tricks. Mr. Anderson is a fast archer, a very very fast archer but a fast archer at a certain range with a certain draw weight at a certain distance. It is trick archery and it has its own place in the wide world of archery but it is far from historical archery.
I am a historical archer and spend hours and hours of research actually studying these methods. Mr. Anderson claims certain ‘historical facts’ yet he cites no actual source. Mr. Mike Loades & Jim have made some good points regarding his ‘historical’ claims and use of art works as his one of his sources.This is one of the reasons that the narration is indeed important. The narrator serves to explain what is going on during the film and in this case, many false claims.
So, while Jim cannot run and jump because he is an old archer between just the two of us we can do much of what Mr. Anderson does. I would endeavor one day to be as fast him using proper, researched techniques.
Thank You, Patricia. I appreciate your cool perspective.
If you’re an archery coach, I have to assume you’re really only familiar with modern sport archery, and not historic archery. Otherwise, how do you explain your misrepresentation of the “Archer’s Paradox”? You suggest that the arrow needs to go on the left side of the bow, but that is only true with the finger release that’s used in sport archery, and not with the thumb release that’s often used in horse archery and indeed by Lars Anderson.
Missing that important detail undermines your point and your credibility on historic archery.
Ohh you poor thing, you have a hurt foot do you? But your ability to comment on the internet is unimpaired I take it? You taught 13 000 people? Well then, clearly Lars needs to take his video off youtube as it shows him doing stuff you can’t do. Do comfort yourself with “at least he´s not competing”. If he was competing in the discipline he’s showcasing – new, spectacular techniques such as actually shooting a goddamn arrow down mid flight – people like you would stay in the spectator seats. “Yes, he can do all sorts of stuff that our conservative hobby possee hasn’t even thought about, but how good is he with doing our routine moves, huh? Huh?”. You sad twat.
The video is the facts in the same way that the X-Files was the facts on alien abduction. You can achieve a lot in post edit, even with a laptop and cheap cam.
I know from personal experience that the video is not always the facts. My first impression on watching the video was the thought of how many takes it must have taken for some of the shots, and a notice of the exaggerated slowness in clips where he could then shoot the arrow or catch it mid-flight. I can accept that he has some skill and ability with the bow, but also much of what he does is thanks to using a low-poundage draw bow (and, if you look closely at the image, he doesn’t draw it back fully and thus decreases the force further). While his accuracy and ability to do trick shots are undeniable, and he can be accurate because his draw length is accurate and consistent, he simply cannot squeeze much force out of that draw and poundage of bow. At longer ranges (read: anything more than the ten to fifteen meters shown on the video) the arrow would start to slow down drastically, drop a lot faster, and lack the energy to penetrate a target. Given that he is claiming in the video it is a historical battle technique, one wonders who would have used it and why: Certainly not the medieval Western bowman, who would be expected to seriously inconvenience a charging horse at a hundred yards.
Thank you so much for writing this. I’ve been spending the past few days trying to undo the historical-accuracy damage this schmuck has inflicted all over my Facebook wall.
It isn’t the content of your article that is repulsive, because honestly, your facts are likely more accurate than the video, your tone however is rather childish. Your motivation to belittle the subject of the video and any audience that was entertained by it is short sighted. A different approach with a less judgmental attitude may serve your purpose better, unless your purpose was to alienate your readers. If in fact you wanted to educate your audience on the subject, I think you could have done so without degrading both them and the video.
When people lie and misrepresent facts, it is morally wrong not to be harsh and judgmental. Lars Andersen has no idea what he’s talking about, and he is quite simply making stuff up.
The passage from the book about Arab archery that he cites as evidence is in fact a folk-tale, a conversation between two fictional characters. He knows this and lies about it.
You do realize that with your tone, people are more likely to be skeptical of your claims than Lars, who at least has a video to back it up. Your aggressive, self-righteous tone is hurting your cause. If you have the facts, let them speak for themselves.
So you’re saying it’s true because its on video. Is it even more trite because it’s in colour?
I am curious to know how a video ‘backs up’ historical claims?
Would you be more accepting of Jim’s skills if you saw a video of him shooting? Or mine?
Yes, of course we would be more accepting of anyone’s skills if there was a video demonstrating them. I’m not sure why that is even a question; videos can be faked but currently you and Jim are at the level of believing you just because you say we can believe you. Although from the messages I have read I’m far more inclined to believe you than Jim, simply because you seem much more reasonable.
Jim, you say “More interesting is the fact that apparently the Saracens had stopwatches. How Andersen arrives at this “fact” is anyone’s guess’
Maybe he googled it? Something you didn’t.
Saracen Faris, 1050-1250 AD (David Nicolle, Osprey Publishing) p. 11
“horse-archer would probably have been able to loose five arrows at between 30 and five meters from enemy when charging at full speed.”
A horse can travel between 11m to 13m per second (just google “top speed horse”). Those 25 meters can be covered in 1.9 seconds at 48 km/hr.
You’re misrepresenting facts. It seems like your article is more about “it can’t be true because I can’t do that” than “it simply can’t be true”.
Watch your tone and do your research before trashing other’s research. Less the be just as harsh and judgmental with you.
Perhaps if Mr Andersen’s research was presented as research (and was properly supported) rather than as a vaguely supported youtube video he would not face such criticism over his research methodology.
That’s not the point here. The author of the article discredited Mr Andersen’s research and did so in an unprofessional way and without taking a moment to google it up. It took me less than ten minutes to find that piece of information and post it here. Ten minutes Jim could have spent that would have spared him looking like an idiot and worse yet a hypocrite.
Making comments like this one “More interesting is the fact that apparently the Saracens had stopwatches.” is totally out of line. It gets worse when Jim doesn’t take the time to figure out if it is true. Sure, Mr Andersen didn’t put a bibliographical reference at the end of the video, but then go look at some BBC video, do they list all the bibliographical references at the end? Hardly so.
It would have been nice if Mr Andersen had included such bibliographical references, it would have spared Jim a great deal of lost face. Unfortunately Jim jumped the gun as they say and called Mr Andersen a liar without in turn having evidence for such a claim. The base for calling Mr Andersen a liar was not knowing about the 1.5 second data, not being able to fire at such a rate, and probably not being able to jump around like Mr Andersen. Jim’s ignorance is not Mr Andersen’s problem and the fact that Jim is ignorant of many things Mr Andersen says and does in the video does not entitle Jim to make such uninformed comments and more so in such and unprofessional tone.
Jim just fell prey to his own words and is now paying the consequence as he lied and misrepresented Mr Andersen’s facts. “When people lie and misrepresent facts, it is morally wrong not to be harsh and judgmental.”
“when people lie and misrepresent facts it is morally wrong not to be harsh and judgmental” That is going up on my wall as one of the truly greatest d-bag statements I’ve ever seen on the internet. It sounds like what Jihaddi John would say on an Isis video just before cutting off someones head… the fact that you say it (with probably equal passion) about an archaic form of combat now practiced only as a game speaks volume on your immediate need to get a life. Why do you hate this man that you have obviously never met and has no effect on your version of this game? Lots of opportunities to do good in the world… I hope you find one.
If his video was simply showing his speed shooting, there would be no issue; I’d be posting it the way I did Iza Privezenceva when I wrote about Tauriel in the Hobbit II. As I said, it’s the demonstrably false claims about both historic and modern archery that I object to. The assertion that he “discovered” supposedly lost techniques that are actually common practice in many parts of the world is deceitful and dishonest. It’s not so much his archery demonstrations (except when he deliberately does it badly to slander target archers), it’s the narration. The page he cites from Arab Archery is a folk tale about fictional people, but he cites them as if they were real and claims their alleged expertise as evidence of his own greatness.
Beyond that, apart from his rapid-fire technique, virtually everything being described as “amazing” and “the best archer in the world” is actually stuff that every reasonably decent archer can do.
These guys are pretty impressive (though I wish they were showing where the arrows are hitting), but more importantly, they aren’t claiming to have discovered revolutionary lost techniques. They’re just doing cool archery tricks. If Lars were just doing cool archery tricks and not claiming to be something he’s not, I’d be applauding him.
Ferafact, much cooler moves than Lars 🙂
To “discover” has several meanings – one being of personal discovery. The fact that a hobby archer found that some of the way he was shooting resembled how you shot arrows in the past has no bearing what so EVER on whether other people do it. Most people, like the video points out, only know of archery from TV and movies – and they almost exclusively do it the same way. Standing still, back quivers, etc. You know – like you teach your students.
The only dishonesty in this is you trying to defame someone for not doing things how you would do them. Albeit probably a lot faster than you could. Which is the point.
I enjoyed your write up, but the video you posted is a bad example.
Like Lars, they are visually impressive, and show tricks the could be done, in theory.
However, the reason they don’t show where the arrows are hitting is probably because the arrows are digitally added in. if you watch closely, the bows don’t bend when when they are drawn (they don’t even have bowstrings).
So your critizism is about how he moves, and how it looks??
Maybe if the people from both videos met, you would be impressed. Maybe a little bit of show helps you believe science. – I wonder what science you believe to be true, if you need a dazzling show.
He hits targets from far away, up close, catch things midair, hits both moving and not moving, hits multipe targets really fast and so on.
Trying to debunk that? – Maybe you should go try out what he shows in the video. Maybe someone can fire an arrow at you, well close by, as it would be really stupid to aim for the head right? Let’s see the video response on youtube. You can go Myth Busters on him.
He tells us he has rediscovered a known way of archery that has been lost since the arrival of the firearm. This is actually the truth nowadays, we use a completely different set of skills for archery in both competition and hunting (mostly for fun with hay-animals in the forrest, I’m sure you know them, they also dont move). He’s not claiming it’s his idea, it just means he has found it within the pages of history and lore. The discovery helps him to be as fast as he can and do what he does in the video. Looks like a pretty decent archer to me.
Also the fact that way back in the day, it was not only long range combat, it was also short range, you didn’t know?
Archery practice was also on moving targets, and while moving yourself “Hey you there from opposite army, stand still, I have to shoot this arrow at you, it will take me 30 seconds to concentrate on your head, and I cant run over behind this tree, you can see that, cant you” – This dialogue is you Jim, and a fellow archer trying to kill you first.
Many paintings, wall paintings, books, letters, statues, stone tablets and so on tells a vivid tale of how things were done back in the day.
Like how to build things, move things and so on. Just because another kind of tablets has been invented today, it doesn’t make people in the year 564 any less inventive. Someone writing on “Geekdad” would know that, wouldn’t he?
“Frankly, I’m surprised people aren’t mocking his awkward attempts at action shots, since to me he looks about as impressive and coordinated as the Star Wars kid.”
You know you’re right when the other guy falls short on valid arguments.
Actually I had your reaction at first, but after af few twists and turns in historybooks and googling it, I found that Lars is very much right about the few things he claims, that archers back then would do, including the thing about quivers. They were not needed on the back for every situation, standing still yes, but moving around fast to surprise the enemy in dense forest, no.
Sadly people don’t study paintings as much as they should do for historical reasons. I guess photographs are needed, that way you cant cheat the eye. I’m sure some young singer with a large… is pretty happy about that.
Even the bible is useful for historical reading, however some things are a bit off, I guess we all agree.
Now, Let’s see that video response, where you tell the story straight. Lars is out there practicing 7 days a week, and you’re sitting in your chair, get a move on 🙂
First, do not commit major physics blunders yourself when attacking other’s claims.
Your “archer paradox” explanation of right-left side difference is a physical blunder (hint: archer paradox effect is mirrored when you mirror arrows placement)
>When people lie and misrepresent facts, it is morally wrong not to be harsh and judgmental.
Bullshit. Pointing out untruths does not require name-calling or belittlement. It simply requires that you present the facts as they are. If you need to resort to attacks on Andersen and his audience to get your point across, then I have to wonder how strong your points actually are. You bring up a lot of good points that you throw away by basically saying “Hey idiots, I can’t believe you bought into this guy’s crap because you’re too stupid to know these historical details about archery” I’m paraphrasing, but that’s how I read it as somebody who only watched the video once and walked away thinking it was neat without thinking about it again. Andersen’s abilities may be up for debate, but there’s no disputing that your article was unnecessarily confrontational to the people you were trying to educate.
Agreed. Regardless of factual content, It was rude, obnoxious, and sounded like a teenager wrote it for a facebook post. I.e. Unprofessional.
What are “lost” or “forgotten” techniques, skills, knwloedge depends on context. I could argue that composting is a lost skill. Someone could argue “no it isn’t, my neighbor does it quite regularly and efficiently” and then go on to show that she or some group of hill people have passed this knowledge down for generations. Ha! It wasn’t lost. It is extremely rare for ANY knowledge to be lost to ALL of civilization across the globe. It is even more rare to rediscover it. It is pretty safe to assume that is not the threshold he was aiming at. I took it as meaning “this knowledge isn’t commonly known to the the average archer, and is probably contrary to the common practices taught today…. expect flame war in three… two… one….” Kinda how it went down too.
As to how realistic, usable, repeatable…. lost knowledge…. blah blah blah his video… One could argue for/against depending on the thresholds we have for what is really fuzzy logic.
Is his style useful for hunting? Are we talking about in a survivalist environment where someone walks into a woods looking for eats? He could nab small game all day at short range (if he can find it). He could be pretty efficient at bow fishing. On the other hand, someone who hunts deer would laugh at the suggestion of using his technique. Warfare? Are we talking about defending a village against raiders or two armies meeting in an open field? Ranges, how open the combat terrain is, and how much force is required to incapacitate the target will vary.
Anyway, he is showing an unconventional technique. Almost like clockwork, it gets the established community up in arms. This isn’t new. It’s kinda a predictable thing on the net. Who is right? Everyone depending on what lens you view it through.
So… you claim Anderson is not an accurate archer but you show zero proof to said claims. I would love to see you and anderson go head to head and see who is more accurate. Most archers could take some of the shots in this video a thousand times and still not hit those targets. Even if the historical statements are false or misinformed this guy is an amazing archer and clearly demonstrates that in his video.
Um, no, he’s not an amazing archer. Howard Hill was an amazing archer.
Now wait a minute! Is this a fruit damn stand daddy-o?!?!?
Take it easysauce Howard!
Sorry Jim, but the Howard Hill video didn’t help your cause. Maybe if you had posted a silent version of it, but the narration was cringe-worthy and a tad offensive. “My, my… how times have change” ugh!
Also I agree that your tone (regardless if you are right) is off-putting.
Finally, even if Lars video is a fake, he’s still gets my admiration for cleverness, ingenuity, daring and entertainment.
Well done Lars.
There’s a video floating around showing all the BS in the Howard hill video as well. Changing arrow heads, distances, etc.
Howard Hill was obviously great a archer, but those targets were not particularly long distance, maybe ten -twelve yards for many of those shots.
Get a life man. Make a video yourself so we can enjoy it too. I actually learned something from his video. Can’t shoot over 20 feet? Did you watch the video beyond the 3rd minute? I know you will say his consecutive hitting of targets at long distance was the result of multiple attempts, but why should I believe you and not him? Did you even do any background check on him? He seems to be a renowned member of an archery guild.
Can you please elaborate on what it i that you actually learned from Lars’ video? Just curious…
Several of the previous comments rolled into one:
“Chief Big Thunder and Chief Buffalo Killer?” –patently false and offensive to boot. There was a Chief Big Thunder (for all that the video guy was clearly just making up two “indian-enough” names), he lived around 1605. No record of the other one.
And in the tone of your own criticism: saaaay… all of those fancy trick shots were extremely close range! And in a clearly edited video! He must’ve just been faking everything! Lousy fakers. All of ’em.
And why was there a sharp, vicious-looking tip on the arrow the camera looks at when Howard shoots the apple? Doesn’t that seem a little unnecessarily dangerous to, oh, I don’t know, anyone sane? And then why does the arrow ricochet from the force afterwards?
Clearly Howard was a horrible, deceitful, lying, selfish, schmuck of a faker.
…Oh wait. I don’t mean that at all. What I mean to say is that I honestly didn’t know the guy, and he probably was an excellent archer. His videos were clearly edited and his narrator was a bit on the loopy side, but I can’t deny that he was good at what he did. And the same goes for that Howard Hill guy too!
————————————–
Really. Why all the hate for the Danish fellow? I’ll admit, I’m not an archer so maybe I just wouldn’t understand. But I do know a little bit about writing and arguing… and I hate to say this but your angry tirade is just as unfounded as some of the more… questionable assertions the video’s narrator makes. Next time, just check the snopes or something. In fact, here: http://www.snopes.com/info/news/larsandersen.asp
This Howard Hill video looks far more fake than Lars’. For example, look at his “second” shot through the board/bottle at 5:30, and watch the arrow. For one he’s standing about 10′ away. Secondly, the arrow looks like it’s moving slower than physically possible. The mirror shots? Please. Why the cuts? All of the “hard” shots don’t show him shooting and the arrow landing in the same shot (hint: because it didn’t happen). And the fake arrow sound effects. Nice. And talk about clumsy, watch this guy pull from his quiver and reload an arrow. It always looks like his first time doing it, not smooth at all and he has to stare at his bow and switch hands each time. Not very effective.
I don’t know why you keep preaching about long range shots. This is not what was used on battle fields. An arrow traveling 200-250 fps going a couple hundred yards is in the air for seconds. You’re not trying to hit a single target, you’re aiming for a mass of men. Individual targets on battlefields aren’t stationary for that long. You’re mixed up between sport archery (what you apparently teach to beginners all the time) and historical archery used in battle, in which you have yet to demonstrate any actual knowledge or cite any facts that are contrary to Lars’. When you’re trying to hit a single person in battle, it’s at close range.
You keep alternating between saying Lars is wrong, and then that he’s right but good archers already know all that stuff. Which is it?
Your whole article just comes off as jealously. Look, you teach archery to kids and other beginners. Good job. But true masters don’t teach basics, it’s not about quantity. You don’t have 14 years of experience, you have one year of experience repeated 14 times.
Lars didn’t make the video go viral. If he knew it would get such exposure he’d probably have put in better production quality. The narrator is probably his own voice clearly doing a silly impersonation of a dramatic narrator. It’s a guy who’s really good at what he does just doing some demonstrations. It went viral because it’s incredible. Nobody is watching the video for historical accuracy. It’s 5 minutes.
Oh, indeed. Quite incredible.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKMCZkOXFBc&w=420&h=315%5D
I don’t run in archery circles so I haven’t experienced it, but I have no doubt believing the “world of butthurt” you describe exists. It’s a consequence of the internet. Free access to limitless sources of information leads to a democratization of knowledge, but for many without proper education or context it also leads to a democratization of truth. Thus we have the modern state of “truthiness” (Thanks, Stephen Colbert!) where many people choose to believe things that feel truer to them than the readily verifiable reality, or want something to be true so badly they’ll argue with actual experts who know better.
I some additional replies have popped up that I didn’t see when I made my reply. They mostly prove my point. The video is cool and fun to watch, but not knowing anything about archery I choose to defer to the experts on the actual details of said video, both the historical claims and the skills on display. Others choose, from their position of ignorance, to assume they know better than someone who has taught and studied archery for years because they want the video to be true.
Others seem to be taking issue with the use of the word “gullible” in the headline, even though it’s not so much an insult here as an accurate description of the state of mind of someone who gets hot under the collar because they choose to believe a carefully edited video over the word of actual experts.
Finally we have the guy whose argument is basically, “If you’re so smart, why don’t you do what he done?” Never mind that Jim lays out a pretty convincing argument for why nothing done in the video is particularly impressive save perhaps for the speed at which Lars can shoot, but, “If you can’t do it yourself then you can’t criticize!” is truly the lowest and most useless form of rebuttal.
Donald, thanks so much for your insightful comments. What makes them especially interesting is your fucking stupidity, but that’s also what makes you so entertaining. Anyhoo, you may now return to your favorite pastime of buttering your head and cramming it up your ass.
Interesting to learn that there are just as many pathetic, intellectually substandard, and willfully ignorant cunts in the field of archery as anywhere else, “John Blernt.”
Or better yet, in the fields of history and archaeology, which seem rife with slack jawed ass sniffers. But, look, thanks for taking time out of sucking your mom’s dick to make yet another worthless comment. We appreciate your unbridled devotion towards being a steaming shit pile.
Claiming he’s “only good at close range” doesn’t prove anything. Kyudo archers only do demonstrations at close range as well, and they’ve got an excellent history of long range archery.
The quiver argument is interesting. In some of Lars’s pictures, the archers are both carrying arrows in hand and a quiver. In a few shots, so is Lars. I think the quiver argument is quibbling– Lars’s argument seems to be that quivers are good for carrying arrows, but drawing from them is slow. Thus, carrying a few in the hand for quick shooting is best, and then you draw a few at a time for a reload.
Lars is very belittling to modern target archers, which may explain some of this friction. He’s basically calling the long range competitors “target shooters”, and saying their techniques are no good on a real battlefield. There is some truth to that, too– its the difference between someone who can hit a distant target with a gun on a range, and a soldier in the middle east.
As for the timing of the shots… Historically, Saracen and British archers were able to have four arrows in the air before the first one landed. By some napkin math, that amounts to about 1.5 seconds or less, so being able to fire fast is important. Now, I’ve heard modern archers decry that as a myth, that you can’t get off finely aimed shots in that amount of time. This is likely true, but given that most combat occurs at close ranges and that if you have a hundred archers, dodging four hundred arrows is not possible, fine aiming is not needed.
The guy in this video looks like he should be drooling in a corner wearing a little white helmet. His acting is so bad it would make William Shatner cringe. The only thing more “mentally challenged” than Lars’ video is anyone who mistakes it for reality.
When I think of English longbows in battle, I don’t think short range. The bows on the Mary Rose were measured as 180lb draw! That’s not a short range bow. That’s artillery. But absolutely, it’s easier to hit an army than to hit a single target.
I do recall hearing from other SCA archers that speed-shooting wouldn’t have been the aim of a Welsh longbowman though, because of the logistics of ammunition. You get two arrows per goose, and as I understand it, that meant arrows had to actually be rationed, so you’d have volleys where everyone lets off one shot (at least in the Hundred Years War, by the end of which England had to buy yew for bows from Germany because they’d already used up all their own yew).
It’s an interesting perspective on different archery styles, and I’m not surprised that it has drawn out such scathing criticism from experienced archers. Anything new is heresy to orthodoxy, and these attacks are a verbal version of burning him at the stake. He makes some good points when drawing on historical sources; not everything the narrator says about the history of archery stands up, but really, these are different debates about different issues, and far too easy to attack. Also, he is using a traditional bow – of course his accuracy isn’t going to compare with those modern machines we see at events. It’s not the point. The point is v e r y simple: there are other ways to shoot….. for other purposes, in this case, speed. End of the story. Yes he’s a showman, so of course there were probably plenty of re-takes. Would you have liked to see all the re-takes? Wouldn’t that be boring, and not really helpful to the case he is making that there are alternative ways of shooting.
You may be right though that this is a style originating outside the west…but you can’t know for sure. Bows and arrows have been replaced in European wars from the 14th century onwards, and even then competed with crossbows. Longbow use was often limited to formation combat mass volleys. Speed was important, but not necessarily rapid speed, because they fought as a unit, not as individuals (like horse archers for example, who tended to be mobile skirmishers)
English archery in warfare lasted well past the 14th century. Mass volley is a waste of arrows when you only have a small number. To get 1000-4000 archers shooting as a unit is a damn near impossible feat in the heat of battle also why would you not bring archers who were marksman when you have to use them to defend king and country? These archers started at age 7 so by the time they went to war they were trained killers.
Yes indeed, 1000 – 4000 archers….sounds like mass volley to me 😉 Of course they were “fairly” accurate, and the closer the target came, the easier it was to hit it. Longbows were replaced with guns that weren’t as accurate, which speaks a lot about how they were used. But this is a different discussion: Lar’s video shows a speed technique, and in certain combat situations. its close-up speed that was needed.
They were also replaced by crossbows in many cases, if I remember my history, which is accountable to time from initial training to battle ready.
Well no English Longbows were replaced by guns because easier to train. They were far superior to crossbows back in the day and deadlier with longer range.
The funny thing about what you wrote, to me, is that I’m an SCA archer, so actually at events I only see traditional bows, and I see them shot with a very high degree of accuracy. We’ve also got one local guy who shoots a Mongolian horsebow and another who shoots a Japanese yumi, and the arrow placement on the thumb side versus the back of the hand? Yeah, absolutely, immediately, first thing to pop into your head if you’ve seen Mongolian or Japanese archery…is that it’s an Asian technique.
Just FYI – no such thing as a horsebow and if you use that term with a bunch of guys who uses Asian bows, you will be laugh at.
Ah Jim, I was really hoping you wouldn’t use Mr Hill. He was a fantastic archer and outdoors man but all his trick shots were from a freaking close range same with Byron Furgeson. I’m not discounting their abilities but if we are going to nit-pick distance then we have to be real with it. Also, the “Hill-billies” (as I like to call them) all are for the most part static trick shooters. They stand or kneel and take their time, Lars may shoot from a close range as well but he has incorporated an elevated heart rate, movement, split second changes, and a speed not seen in modern times. His info is not always correct but to discount his ability is a shame. Not everyone likes Olympic recurve and not everyone wants to hunt so asking why he doesn’t compete is like asking why you do and then following it up with what does it matter what a score card says. You do it because that is the style you love and appreciate the best and I bet the same could be said for him. I shoot warbows and trad Korean bows, I could care less about Olympic recurve but I appreciate the work and time these marksmen put into their trade. Play the video again but put it on mute and blast welcome to the jungle, it helps!
If he still LARPs maybe someone could try to take him down in-character. 🙂
When we were kids, we were proud to know that Howard Hill came to Utah to hunt. We wished that we could be there to see him in person. I also enjoyed watching Lar’s video. Yup, I was a very amateur archer.
I wonder if the author of the article have indeed tried contacting said archer he is quick to try and debunk.
For some perspective on how Lars views other archers, and (spoiler) it isn’t derisively, here’s what he had to say about the people whose videos he used for the speed comparison (in the original video’s description):
“To compare speed I have added 4 other good fast archers together !
to show the time it takes to shoot 10 arrows.
It is completely unscientific and not objectively
The 4 other archers can probably shoot faster than these video.
1: Lajos Kassai famous and fabulous Hungarian.
Fastest horseback shooting in the world !
He was the one who first inspired me to fast shooting.
Shoot and teach the horses and archery system
he has developed.
A system based on pre angerede arrows.
2: Iza Privezenceva tough Russian girl.
Fastest quiver shooting in the world!
She shoots a new and very interesting inverse system developed by Seregedel.
3: DasDaan Dutch archer
He shoots a “”classic”” quiver system
4: Bo ” CombatArchery” cole American archer.
Shoot and teach the system he has developed
A fairly simple straightforward system, without the pre angerede arrows”
I would also recommend looking at the description to the Youtube video that started all of this recent hoopla, because he is fairly upfront and addresses a few of the questions/criticisms people have (though obviously not all of them and it doesn’t help with any problems people have about the presentation in the video or if folks think he’s a complete fraudster).
Good god I regret ever posting the video of me splitting an arrow at 25 yards with a compound bow ..The only one that I have ever done in 40 years of shooting and not only that but I also regret ever posting pictures of the many custom bows that I have created with my own two hands friends and family were only to quick to compare my experience at shooting to a five year old compared with this super hero “Lars Anderson” I am not worthy to ever shoot another arrow as far as they are concerned. With grins from ear to ear they pointed there fingers look look look ha ha you cant do that!!! And in my defense I most certainly cant I can only turn away in shame at what I have become they stand on the mountain top screaming LARS LARS you are the master of archery they have found there hero the one who could finally out shoot the master to not only outshoot but to totally destroy and they bask in there glory at seeing the master fall… but as I turn away apperiently in shame I smile and start to giggle and think what a bunch of idiots hehehehehe they actually believe this is for real.. In there haste to knock me down they only confirmed what I already new that Lars Anderson will never be as good as I NEVER!!! I challenge him in any arena at any time.
Archery IS a lost art in its own, no amount of wise cracking will change that. The knowledge we have of european medieval archery (combat in general) we have because of archeological finds and written accounts. With the emergence of the machine and the industrialization, emphasis was put on mass production and something like the fletchers (who made arrows and bows for a living) became obsolete as bows were not viable in a world turning to rifles.
The bows in existence today are in no way an accurate represantations of the bows in use around 1096 for instance as the art was lost in favor of efficiency. The same goes for trebuchets, every known copy of a trebuchet is a replica based loosely on original designs as the instructions for building one are impossible to come by. The last actual trebuchet found in Denmark for instance, was chopped up and used for fire wood during a coal crisis.
It pains me to see how unwilling the author of this piece, is to just give Lars the credit he deserves and what pains me even more, is the apparent character assassination attempt going on here. Lars is referred to in derogatory terms and the one armed athlete is never mentioned as such (despite the fact that lars is using “real bows” and not competition bows) Why the hate ??
Also… Mythbusters are not the ultimate authority on everything, they are special effects experts and have a very good knowledge of physics, but they can be wrong too, so stating that “they debunked it, so it can’t be true” and then claiming to be an expert on a form of combat noone in the world today has ever experienced is nothing short of comitting hubris.
Know you history and when engaging in a scientific debate, keep the language as such, it might be “fun” and get alot of hits on the site to be rude, but it reads as an embarassing apology for the authors own shortcomings.
Very well stated.
No, not really.
Well, yeah, it was atom brain. Please remember, your opinion doesn’t count for shit.
Are you saying longbows were not used after 1096? Or that we have no actual representation of them in modern archeology?
Also, archery never was a lost art, it was lost in the West, even outlawed by the Pope at one point, but it was never ‘lost’.
The pope outlawed crossbows but for for only a short time
Really? I did not know that. I stay away from crossbows because archery is enough of research topic to take up my time. If you could let me know where you got that info I would love to pass it on to my crossbow folks. Cool, thanks.
I’ll try to find it for you.
We have a diagram for how to build a trebuchet frame, in a sketchbook from the mid-13th century by a frenchman named Villard de Honnecourt. The upper part is missing, but it allows for replicating the winch system and framing timbers. Of course, not medieval trebuchet was standardized.
Modern bowyers can and do replicate historical surviving bows from the medieval period (and earlier) of which there are a great many.
Actually we don’t have any medieval longbows. We do have Tudor era longbows retrieved from the Mary Rose and can be seen in the Mary Rose museum in Portsmouth, England.
On the top of my head we have seven 9th-10th century ones from Haithnabu and a 10th century on from Ballinderry, as well as quite a few fragments, of straight stave selv bows made from yew. In addition we have other types of self bows of course, and a great many fragments. There are also many predating the medieval period, from the danish bog finds such as Nydam.
Allow me to correct myself, warbows. It also depends on exactly how you define longbow. Many are of the thought that a longbow must have horn nocks and be of a certain shape, as well, a bow that is long, isn’t neccesarily considered a ‘long bow’. I’d very much like to further discuss this. Please feel free to contact us at the link Jim has posted above.
Thank you for the information, I guess I’ll have to add the museums holding these bows on my next trip.
I’ll pop him an email. The highest-yield Haithabu bow and Ballinderry have a draw weight of around 100 lbs, so they are in the warbow ballpark. I have always found that attempting to over-describe medieval equipment to create a category that adds little to the description of the artefact that would not make sense to contemporaries of the artefact adds little to the discussion.
Actually..we have medieval bows…… the ballinderry bow (c. 950 I think, and very well preserved0 and the Waterford bow – which is a “short longbow, by some definitions. These bows have some VERY interesting features that would make this discussion seem like Sunday school.
There are so many cool bow finds out there. Even if I am not a dedicated toxophile, I find it really interesting. A few years ago a norwegian archaeologist did a Ph.D. with a really interesting catalogue – weapon finds from norwegian medieval cities. In the process, a number of thin wooden objects previously identified as “ski parts” were recatalogued as what they actually were – parts of composite bows which seemingly were very common in especially Bergen. In 2011 Ivar malde, an accomplished bowyer, wrote a masters’ thesis on the “tvividr” (“two-wood”) composite recurved bows of medieval (high medieval mostly, 11-1350 or so) origin in Norway. They resemble Samii bows, and they mostly seem to be light hunting bows. Some examples: http://kviljo.no/bue/tvbtb.jpg and http://kviljo.no/bue/april12/8.jpg
having experienced Lars in person i can only say he is awesome sauce with a bow, hatefull peoble should take a deep breath and relax. no matter the distance, this video shows incredible reaction time and speed, and as i remember the are also som longshots against mansized targets at high speed, so saying he can’t hit at long range is ridiculous
If you want a real example of speed and accuracy look up Kassai – he can do the speed and accuracy thing with a real bow on horseback in armour, and without all the fancy editing. Not as fast as Lars claims to be able to do, but damn near and using a repeatable period technique.
Exactly Kassai is one damn good archer, and he made my mongolian bow too 😉
Somebody has their archery jealous pants on.
Somebody has their moron pants on. And that someone is you!
Wow, the wrongness, and Jim didn’t even crush this guy as totally as he could be. In England, I believe it was Longshanks who required the yeoman to turn out every year for target shooting competitions, to make sure that they could hit the broad side of a barn, or better.
Dude rocks if you doubt his skill or say its faked visit him at the lyngby archery club where he filmed it and see that he is legit. I promise to send you some footage next time we see him (uncut ofcourse)
The narration is over the top, but so is your take down.
“We’re told “modern archers use only one hand, but in the past, some archers allegedly used both hands to give the arrow more power.”
He’s talking about his push-pull drawing system although inarticulately. In order to get the arrows on the boat faster he is pulling the bow back towards him so that he can catch the string again more quickly, then he pushes the bow out while also pulling string. That’s what he means by two hands, not that there’s only one hand involved.
Just another blog with someones opinion on something trending that happens to be within their own interests.
What else is new.
Sorry Cain, but the historical facts can’t be argued with, they were written by medieval chroniclers as they happened. In every medieval battle where archers were heavily involved, the archers were used at the beginning of the battle, at long range. Try reading the accounts of any of the battles of the Hundred Years War, or the Wars Of The Roses.They also did not shoot at fast as you claim- the object was not rapid shooting but concentrated volley shooting, thousands of arrows being loosed simultaneously- that’s why medieval archers were so effective on the battlefield. Once the two armies came to close combat, the archers in every case, threw down their bows and used their other weapons- swords, axes, mauls, whatever they had. They effectively became light infantry and fought alongside the men-at-arms. As far as Lars’ speed shooting is concerned, it is indeed impressive, however in military terms it means nothing if your bow isn’t powerful enough to kill what you hit. I would however, love to see him repeat the feat using a military draw weight bow (say 120lb+) – then i’d be impressed!
A 15lb bow and arrow with the right tip will easily kill you from 20 feet.
Yes, unless you are wearing any significant armor, in which case it would either bounce off or become entangled in the layered underpadding.
Penetration depended far more on the arrow head than on draw force. Broadhead possession was a “hangin’ offense” in many areas for quite a long time (its highly relevant, fill in your own blanks). Arrows fired in vollies at long range were traveling at terminal velocity. Only a “special” head would penetrate armor regardless of how many tons of draw you apply. If you are loaded for deer, you won’t do much more than give the armored target a nasty paper cut. But if you used…. bla bla… you would certainly penetrate. Sure. And he could also target weak spots with his volley. It’s a different style with its own pros and cons/
Just thought I’d post this as I just saw it.. It’s lars’ comments to bow and draw weight:
ON MY BOWS AND POWER
Many people talk about how what I do is only possible because I use bows that are less powerful than English longbows. They are correct. I’m 50 years old, and have been doing archery for only ten years. I’ll never be able to shoot really fast with 100 lbs+ war bows. I tried, but it just produced injuries. Had I started at age 10, it would have been a different story. 😉
(…)
Also, in 1923 Saxton T Pope examined a number of historical museum bows from around the world. His conclusion was that most only had a tensile strength of 45-50 pounds.
That might be true in the Western sense, but remember Lars mostly studied the books and chronicles of Eastern archery, like Arab Archery, Saracen Archery, and Kitab fi Ilm An-Nusshab. Eastern Horse archers used to charged the enemy while rapidly unleashing a barrage of arrows, and then retreat. Speed shooting is certainly one of the important elements here, together with accuracy.
I suppose the Mongols who shot arrows in quick succession while on horseback, were militarily insignificant. (Also good at moving targets such as birds) Except they conquered much of Asia and their scout force under Subotai easily defeated European armies. Europe dodged a bullet only because the Khan died.
I am a reasonably well read individual with a interest in archery and I have never seen his technique before. So I am glad he published his video. If you knew about it and could replicate it why didn’t you? It had never crossed my mind before that a bow could be a close quarters combat weapon. So I thank him for sharing his skill and knowledge and if you can do better by all means make a video and I’ll watch it too.
Whether or not Jim can “do better” is irrelevant to his criticism which is based on his knowledge of archery history and technique and has nothing to do with his own skill as an archer.
You can learn more of his technique from book like Arab Archery, Saracen Archery, and Kitab fi Ilm An-Nusshab. Those are texts written primarily during the Mamluke period in the Middle East.
This is one of the most hater-ish article’s I’ve ever read. “Archer”? You can’t even admit the guy is an archer? He made a fucking video like 5 minutes long of him shooting a bow and arrow better than anyone I’ve ever seen. You went so far as to screenshot, crop, and upload an image from the clip of him throwing a ball just to help make fun of his ball throwing skill? His video clearly butthurt you and in “MY OPINION” this article makes you look like a little jealous crybaby.
“This is one of the most hater-ish article’s I’ve ever read. “Archer”? You can’t even admit the guy is an archer? ”
Yeah, that headline clearly telegraphs the prejudicial tone the of article.
The term archer is descriptive of someone who shoots a bow. It isn’t a title that must be earned and adjudicated. Lars Anderson is clearly an archer.
Thank goodness, I was starting to think I was the only one who thought he looked pretty ridiculous doing all of these “archer” antics.
This is just a hater article, I’ve rarely seen so much envy frothing out of the words on a screen. The archer in the video has incredible skills, and who knows what the real history of anything is anyway.
“…and who knows what the real history of anything is anyway.”
Certainly not you, you ignorant twat.
‘Hater” is the dumbest thing ever said. Lots of people know what the real history of things is. there is this thing called “Knowledge” out there, where real people know real things from study and learning. Might want to try it sometime.
The term “howler” is similarly telling as it conveys personal disdain, not intellectual critique.
The reactionary tone of this article, contrary to promoting a sense of authority and education, does nothing to convince those “uneducated” in the art of archery of the credentials of the author. If anything, the overt need to discredit by making personal sport of an individual, going so far as to tear at how one speaks (while intentionally disregarding the intended message, screams bias. Bias born of envy and closed mindedness.
Methinks the author of this article is just looking for support from his chosen audience – those who support his way of viewing archery and history. Not Lar’s audience at all.
Come on, you’re just mad you can’t make anything 1/100th as entertaining as this video. Sure, most everything he does is *highly implausible* but you don’t have to be such a smug nerd in how you point it out. Or maybe you do?
Yeah, how dare he call out a lying fraud? The gall!
Hi Jim – I think you haven’t done your case much good by your title – invective on so many levels. Why is Lars an “archer”, (inverted commas). Since you use inverted commas in that manner, I might as well. Does Lars have to qualify or get a certificate of conformance to be a “proper archer”? And why does his video demonstration audience gullibility? How do you know what the audience takes from this? He has demonstrated a fast shooting technique that makes possible the previously fantastical-seeming historical accounts (held to be fanciful, by orthodox and closed-minded “experts” who can’t shoot as fast using their own methods).
There is a phenomenon in both amateur and professional sporting organizations whereby dominant coaches stamp out any views that don’t conform to their own view, and while I am not saying you are one of these coaches (how could I know), your attacks on the demonstrator (the “archer”) and anybody who takes the technique seriously (the “gullible audience”) certainly reminds me of a toxic trainer or two that I have encountered.
“Inverted commas” are called quotes.
Unless you’re British.
One should always double check ones assumptions before invoking snarky pedantry.
http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/inverted_comma
The word you are missing is “also”. As in “there are “also” other techniques for shooting…..or….. I “also” know what “condescending” is….. Glad my Degree in English came in handy. If that is your reply then perhaps you are making the same mistake as this article: attacking the message style rather than the technique is demonstration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark
This rebuttal is the only thing more bait-worthy than Lars’ video.
It claims a factual high ground by “myth busting” but really is slightly pathetic. Lars doesn’t claim whether what he does in all cases is repeatable or even practical.
But what is apparent from the video is that Lars actually did some amazing, or at least interesting, feats. This cannot be said about the author of the article.
Jesus Christ, are all you anti-science, anti-history mouth-breathers in junior high school? “That dumb trained professional archery instructor can’t jump like the all-holy Lars, so he’s just dumb! And totally dumb!”
Time for your beds, little minds.
Enlil, have you read the article? From the beginning I found it difficult to give the author much credit because of his vindictive tone even though he had many reasonable points. It seems as if he has an axe to grind against Lars and was using this opportunity to spill a little “internet blood.” It colored his opinion as both petty and mean spirited.
Sure, there was obviously some questionable editing in the video, and I found a number of Lar’s historical assumptions to be incorrect, but I also found the same true of the author. This doesn’t lessen either man’s claim of being an archer. Jim MacQuarrie would seem to have the reader believe that there is only one style of archery, and if it doesn’t fit what he teaches it is therefore incorrect. This is not true at all. The techniques used by English longbowmen were different than those used by the Mongols which were in turn different than what the Japanese employed. Lar’s style and training would fit into the small scale skirmishing style used by many cultures (including Native Americans, South American tribes, and the close-up hit and run tactics used in the East). From what I can gather, Mr. MacQuarrie doesn’t seem to realize those tactics were just as valid as what was used in Western Europe. Also, your own habit of insulting anyone who questions Mr. MacQuarrie hardly helps his case. They tend to portray you as the junior high school child throwing a tantrum just because someone happens to disagree with you.
I agree. Although Lars lacks certain key historical points in his videos, he nonetheless has a valid style of archery used by many cultures. He probably would not win a long distance archery contest but his talents should not be disregarded. He is a very fast shooter and has a high degree of short to medium range accuracy as shown in the videos.
MacQuarrie seems to have a personal issue with Lars. His argument focused far too much on historical misconceptions and long range shooting while only giving credit for speed. His argument of styles of archery carries little weight outside of the European style of longbow men behind the cavalry and infantry. The Europeans were skilled archers who decided the outcome of many battles. However, they were not mobile archers such as the mongols who could fire very accurately while on horseback. this combined with their deceptive luring and trapping tactics routed many European armies during the time of Mongol expansion.
One other key point the author fails to touch on is the ability for Lars to use the bow in both the right and left hand while exhibiting both speed and accuracy. This skill set is uncommon amongst modern archers. The main point that I am trying to make is that just because MacQuarrie seems to have an issue with Lars because of his non-traditional style does not mean he is any less talented than any other professional archer. Credit needs to be given where it is due. This article was an ego driven attack on somebody with a different set of skills. If MacQuarrie wishes to attack the archery style of Lars, he should at least be able to best him at his own game.
But wouldn’t it be gullible of me to just take this article at face value?
Apparently logic is completely foreign to you, as is learning and history, so perhaps it’s time to let the adults talk now.
Thanks for the article.
Lars is an amazing trick shooter. If that’s all he claimed to be, then I’d love him. But since he is claiming to have discovered the lost art of archery, he falls into a whole new arena. The fraud/egotism of that bit is what is annoying.
There are trick shooters with firearms. They are amazing and pretty much always ten times more exciting to watch than real shooters doing competition shooting. I love watching them. But if they started talking about having rediscovered the lost art of shooting, ignored by the entire world until their genius came along…ew.
Sounds like sour grapes.
Because he’s not a lying fraud like old Lars? Moronic.
You know what? The comments are actually more interesting than the article itself. I’m no historian. Neither am I an archery expert, but honestly, even if I did read history or hear from so-called experts, I will never know what to believe these days. Also, I have to agree with most comments here. Maybe the author’s intention was good, but the way the whole article was laid out read much like a ‘butthurt, can’t accept the fact, or what seem like facts,’ kind of thing. Sorry, Jim. It just ‘sounded’ like it. Lars’ video is definitely over-the-top, borderline informercial, but it is still entertaining and open enthusiasts and non-enthusiasts to the possibility of archery outside of competitive one that general folks like me have seen so far. But as a thinking person, I reserve my rights to be skeptical but that doesn’t mean I will discredit him, after all, I do not know him personally. Opening up our minds is the key, me think. The failure to accept that there is even a slightest possibility of such ‘trick shots’ result in an hurting article. When phone was first invented, even brilliant business minds thought it was just a gimmick, a novelty that wouldn’t for the love of God lasts. And look where we are now? For that, I thank our forebears who kept their minds open and accept things as they come. The good ones, though. Of course, Alexander Graham Bell obviously had nothing to do with this article; all I was trying to say is, nothing is absolute in this world.
Oh, good plan there. Never doubt anything you see unless you know that person personally. Your brand of pseudoscientific relativism is what’s killing this world. You’re a classic example of the open mind that has fallen out of its skull.
You are the worst person in these comments. Do you have a comment that isn’t full of nasty bile?
Not for those who deny history, science, and critical thinking, carl. I’m done being polite to that class of troglodyte.
Sorry your dad’s article got trashed. Don’t be hurt though. Mommy still loves you.
Some of these non-thinking Lars defenders deserve all of the bile in the world.
Really? The moment you used Brave, a CARTOON!, to demonstrate your vast knowledge I lost all respect.
Did you catch the part where Brave was done based on motion capture of real archers? This guy actually wrote an article back when the Brave trailer came out saying how great it is that they actually got the archer’s paradox into there based on that motion capture. He also went on about how Hawkeye’s arrows would never hit what they were supposed to if they weren’t CGI’d in, and that Katniss’s technique is good (Jennifer Lawrence was trained by Olympic archers for the movie).
He used Brave as an accessible (ie, easy to find) example of the slow-motion reality of what an arrow is doing when it leaves the bow, because finding the original slow-motion capture used to make the video render would’ve been a bit difficult to do, and I doubt he has the equipment to film a slow-motion capture himself.
That is simply not true.
mein gott, the jealousy that oozes out of this post is unbeliavable.
Everyone! Jim went out on a limb and shared his views on another archer. Maybe you believe that he did it well or that he crashed and burned but the big thing is that he put himself out there and shared his views. Some of you that are crying foul and that he is a “hater” should look at yourself in the mirror. It takes guts to swim against the stream, that’s all
“Maybe you believe that he did it well or that he crashed and burned but the big thing is that he put himself out there and shared his views”
Funny how neither Jim nor you offer that same sentiment towards Lars Anderson.
I’ll say it again for you, I like Lars’ Video
You mention his accuracy sucks, Mr. McQuarrie. Funny, looked to me like he was hitting what he was aiming at. I challenge you to duplicate his video, using your own self-professed “superior” methods, with greater accuracy. Until such time as you accomplish this, please refrain from opining on this matter, as it only highlights your poorly-veiled envy.
In defense of Jim I say you, Fred Wilcox probably have the IQ of a rock.
Thanks for this – I’ve been telling people much the same things, and it’ll save me time to simply link to here. One note: you included a ‘howler’ in your article that rivals anything Lars offered: no, a fifteen-pound bow could not penetrate historical rivetted maille backed by padding, as it was historically worn. No no no.
Exactly!
Both sides make good points. There does seem to be some real butt-hurt going on right now within the archery community. On the other hand, it also does look like some of Lars’s video was edited. I think if he put on a few real-life demonstrations for skeptics to demonstrate his skills in real-life, it would go a long way to countering skeptics.
I do not necessarily agree that his technique is bad. I mean what is “bad” technique in archery anyway? If his technique works for him and feels natural to him, then it is good technique. Just different technique is all. But again, he should demonstrate that it actually works, that he can hit targets.
I do not know why a man like Lars would make nonsensical claims about archery or do things like make fake videos about his skills in this day and age when it doesn’t take being a genius to know that people knowledgeable in the subject will rip apart your claims if you are a fake.
Also, why does speed shooting arrows have to mean sacrificing accuracy?
The narrator’s a bit of a blowhard, but Lars’s own input (as posted on the youtube video’s notes) is pretty forthright. Take a look, it addresses a lot of the would-be takedowns in this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
His older video (with computer-voice narration presumably written by Lars) also addresses some potential criticisms and questions about technique in the notes (and has nothing but complimentary things to say about current masters of more “conventional” archery, as Michael McLullan pointed out): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g