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.
Roller. Fucking. Blades. Guy has a 2″ vertical. Unnecessary to even go into this much detail
Posted on 26 January, 2015 by Jim MacQuarrie
Jim, do you even own a bow or hunt or have you ever used one!? You sound really bitter and angry, that’s not how most geek-dads act. If you practiced archery you WOULD send it out to the rest of your friends with the caption – holy crap. Was this a legit critique or are you just trying to draw readers to your posts or the geek dad site?
Nothing says “This guy is a lame trickster, move along” than a massive envious critique.
Words are cheap…. I say duel!
The author here is being very unfair from what I can tell. There certainly were a handful of techniques that were used for some of the shots, the bamboo arrow to split, the tip-less arrow hitting the blade to split, catching the arrow was likely sped up, etc. However, the fact remains is Lars seems to be very skilled at using a form of archery most westerners are unfamiliar with (forgotten may be a stretch, but it’s appropriate for his target audience).
I do think his historical claims are comparing apples to oranges a bit. He seems to be comparing very different style of archer in the west vs east as if they are one in the same. A similar comparison would be to compare a sniper rifle to a pistol, yes they are both guns, but one is purpose built for extreme accuracy and range at the expense of speed and close quarters combat, while the other is purpose built for speed, portability, and close quarters combat. The same is true about the varying styles. Here’s a really good discussion on the different style Lars is using vs typical western styles: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/13xlf6/worlds_fastest_archer_reinventing_the_fastest/
Interesting. I’d totally show this article to my young son except for the railing on gullability bit. He got into archery and found the video pretty exciting.
Knowing next to nothing about archery what I heard from the original video was this “blah blah blah blah, shoot fast, blah blah blah blah, shoot fast, blah blah”
I’ll have to let my son know the video is definitely not a representation of accuracy.
I´f i didn’t see it my self i don’t believe it.. Hey, its on video (youtube) Wake up!! There wasn’t any fake whit those things i witness.. And “blah blah blah blah, shoot fast, blah blah blah blah, shoot fast, blah blah” Hey Lars is selling the video, if it was a video with medical rectal instruments there properly were Piano, string and harp music, and the narrator would have been Morgan Freeman.. Newsflash!! Its a homemade video about the unbelievable archer who have trained him self up for some amazing things. Well its not American, but again then i would have shut it down halfway..
Right, because hitting targets at long range is what archery is all about… That skill would be useless in close quarters. Being able to shoot three guardsmen in the face in under 2sec, however, would be a very valuable skill. Ancient bowsmen would possess BOTH skills. You do realize that they would practice all day, day after day, year after year, right?
“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. ” Wow, this capper proves how insanely JEALOUS Jim MacQuarrie is. This article was painful to read, the seething anger was absolutely juvenile. So this short video, where Andersen barely speaks, is enough for the author to know exactly how much Andersen knows about archery? Get over yourself Jim, this was a fun video that brought a lot of exposure and interest to archery. Instead of being infantile and angry, you should be happy what it has done for your sport.
Very well put. The jealousy and vitriol here is astonishing…
The comment about Saracens having stop watches… Do any research? In another video about Lars, it says: “Fire the third arrow before you can see the dust of the first hitting the ground at X distance.” The timing required for this can be easily calculated.
I found this article through a post by ‘The Skeptics Guide to the Universe’, reading it from the perspective of a scientist and a skeptic, this entertaining read has a number of flaws and fails to accomplish the grand claim of the title.
The article does a very good job of pointing out that the narration stretches the truth and wanders into fiction. But interspersed with this debunking of the narrative, are claims about the skill of the archer ‘Lars’. It is stated that he is a very poor archer, that the video required numerous takes to make him look good, he lacks precision, etc., etc.. These are certainly possibilities, but we have no evidence of any of this. You don’t know how many takes the video required, or how often he hits his marks off camera. If you wanted to maintain credibility, it would be ideal to stay in the realm of fact.
Still, fun write-up about a fun video.
Wow, I can’t believe you have so much hate for a guy who just made a corny internet video. This is the first time, and will be the LAST time, I’m on geekdad.com
Are most of the posters here are so serous and out to lunch that they can’t see the whole thing was shot (so to speak) as a complete piece of farce and that Lars is the Monty Python of Archery. You all need to relax a bit and take it for the parody it was obviously made to be.
Yeah…. nah. Not buying it.
This article sounds like sour grapes to me.
The narration clearly does not “denigrate” archers only shooting at long distances, unless you cannot understand English. It says (at 3:15) that slow (i.e. competitive) archery gave people that impression. I’d go a step further and say that the pop culture portrayal of archers is they were only used long distances. Most movies or TV shows using massed archers show them as long-range “artillery” firing in advance and support of cavalry or infantry. The narration only says that Lars’ research showed this is not the case.
MacQuarrie, you state “…that artists in the past were as likely to be just as inaccurate and ignorant of archery techniques as artists today.” There are a lot of books and television programs (Nova is one that comes to mind) where archeologists and historians consult historical descriptions and illustrations to find out what something looked like. You can draw what you see without understanding why or how it was done. I would venture that illustrations and drawings would be one source of information about ancient archers. Using the physiological data and artifacts alone would offer an incomplete picture of archery. To his detriment Andersen only relied on illustrations and didn’t mention reading the science or history about old archers. Regardless, pictures can be a very important part of archeology and history.
It’s also not fair to use Brave as an example of accurate depictions of the movement of arrows, but claim that ancient first-hand accounts of archers are bogus.
While the video is silly and sophomoric, there are good ways to offer criticism. Your article, Mr. MacQuarrie, lost the chance to talk about archery and how the “lost methods” are culturally diverse ways of shooting an arrow. Raise the level of discourse and we can all learn and appreciate this beautiful martial art.
Sorry, I’m a lifelong archer, and this is nitpicking. Especially the dig about “using both arms.” Most archers use one rigid arm to hold the bow, and they draw with the other. Lars’ point is that he draws with both arms, simultaneously pushing and pulling. (If you really want to nitpick, most of the draw is usually facilitated by the archer’s back muscles…not the arm.) Sorry, but what Lars does is amazing. And it can’t be compared to standing 25 or 50 yards from a stationary target with sights and stabilizers and cams and counterweights, waiting for just the right moment to release a single arrow. It’s the difference between hand-to-hand combat and being a sniper. At the very least, give the guy props for demonstrating a different kind of archery than what we’re used to seeing. It doesn’t take anything away from the amazing feats of champion target archers, it’s just a different shooting style.
The best thing about this is your angry tone. It’s as though you believe this video matters in some historical context when in fact it’s just really excellent entertainment. It’s as though you are “debunking” the medical techniques demonstrated in the television show M.A.S.H. Then again, I guess you are writing for your audience and selling those page views.
Hi, while the facts do sounded odd, like the 1.5 seconds, yeah that always sounded odd, I think the reasoning for him looking so awesome at least for me it’s because a circus act is precisely what someone like Hakweye should be, and hence his style should look awesome for Hawkeye and so he proved that in that precise instance Hollywood was wrong, in movies like Avengers or Arrow, the targets are not that far away, so accuracy is not an issue, force might be so to check that one out should be the focus, perhaps the narration is the real problem, because it disregards everything, but the technique while not sophisticated and not good for distances should work for superheroes specially Hawkeye whose archery is literally a circus trick evolved into full archery. It seemed to me that he was talking about techniques that made sense for Cavalry archers mostly and he was obviously talking about small bows and no english longbows that actually take effort and time to shoot and were used strategically so that this was not a handicap, so I’ll call bullshit on the narration, I found it odd the measure of seconds, but I don’t neccesarily think the way he uses the bow is useless in a combvat situation, yeah for sports and distance it makes no sense but a target coming at you at three mts you could shoot two good shoots and hurt him quite good and I think that was the point of that archery and it would be awesome in Arrow and Avengers to see that kind of movements precede a full close combat attack with the bow as auxiliar melee weapon.
“paper over the fact that the man obviously can’t hit anything that’s more than about 20 feet away.”
Except the Danish archer has. Just one of the many false hoods from your link.
Irony of how the link goes into with the premise don’t believe everything on the internet, then proceeds to push out the same bs.
BTW no where in the video does the narration push that he’s super accurate as a main point of the video. That is the author of this blogs strawman.
Alot of the infomation in this blogpost is straight out wrong, and the post seems to be a jealous attempt from a so called “archery instructor” to get some validation because he think archery is only about hitting targets from long distances. Never listen to a guy who goes out of his way to shit on somebody more skillful than he with such quotes as “paper over the fact that the man obviously can’t hit anything that’s more than about 20 feet away.”
I’m really scratching my head here wondering why you don’t acknowledge the tongue in cheek tone of this video. I’m almost positive you’re pretty smart guy. I suggest your next article be titled Why Fun Isn’t Fun.
I would also like to debunk the fact that he says his style of shooting is effective on horseback BUT THAT HE IS RIDING ON A MOTORCYCLE! Mythbusters should do a show that figures out whether or not motorcycles are horses.
LOL! 🙂
What a shame that this is the criticism recommended by NPR; because it’s as mean-spirited as it is well-reasoned and apparently historically accurate, I couldn’t get through more than half of it, because I’d rather be ignorant than be taught something in this way.
http://www.lykopis.com/lars-andersen-fact-or-fiction/
Adam, I invite you to read this.
The video is a fake. Check out scene at 3:05 when he supposedly catches the arrow. The editor messed up when meshing the frames together because you can clearly tell it’s edited. First you can see that Andersen moves remarkably fast from his stance. Then if you focus on the person shooting the arrow, you can see how the frames don’t match up.
I am a national champion of Kenjo, Kenjutsu and Archery for around 70 years, and furthermore once knew someone who had a brother who allegedly had a bow and I think I can safely say, that you are all pissing away day light in which you could do something useful…
Jeppe for the win.
The guy’s an amateur trick shooter. Cool the nerd rage and enjoy the awesome spectacle. I understand that people who are heavily involved with archery get upset when there’s misinformation or heavily biased information given out. Nobody likes to be contradicted on their dear held beliefs and it creates a knee-jerk reaction. Which is what GeekDad has had. It basically devolves into a squabble between 7 year olds. ‘Nuh uh, uh huh, no YOU’RE THE BOOGER FACE!!’
For the vast majority of people who watch this video, they’ll go ‘Oh wow that’s super cool’, post on their facebook page, and promptly forget about everything they heard within a week or two. Some people might be drawn to research further and realize some of the claims made are a little specious and will readjust their views accordingly.
I really see no inherent harm in this video. It might draw some more people into being interested in archery as a sport, in which case they’ll learn all about how Mr. Lars may be right or wrong. Or they’ll view it as a piece of 15 minutes of fame, trick shooting entertainment. Win-win for archery fans either way.
Stop the nerd-on-nerd violence people! Shame on you. Seriously, just enjoy a fun video.
Also I’ll just put the description under the vid up where Mr. Lars defends his points/tricks. (this would be the uh huh part of the argument). I don’t agree with all that he says, but I don’t think it’s right that some people are blasting him for doing something he really enjoys and is good at it.
The ultimate archery trick. Proving that Hollywood archery is not historical.
DO I HIT EVERYHING?
I use a LOT of time practicing, and every time I set out to learn a new skill, a new trick or how to handle a new type of bow or arrow, it takes a long time, with plenty of misses. When I got the idea of grabbing an arrow in flight and firing before I landed, it took me months to learn. For a long time, arrows flew everywhere!
But there’s no trick in the video that I haven’t done many times (except for splitting the arrow in flight – after I’d done that once I finished the video). The one with hitting the blade I’ve only done three times, though. All that running hurt my knees. 😉
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. 😉
There is also a tendency from critics to assume that bows were always fired against plate armour (as at Crecy in 1346 and Agincourt in 1415). This was very much the exception. Many opponents had little or no armour at all, and Stone Age findings show that many animals were taken down by multiple shots. 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.
THE CHAINMAIL TEST
Around 04:22 I penetrate chainmail. The arrows had bodkin tips, and the chainmail is riveted. However, while the gambeson is thick, it’s not as thick as some I’ve seen elsewhere. But one reason the arrows penetrate is that I sharpen not only the tip itself, but also the edges of the bodkin tip.
SHOOTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE
There are archery traditions alive today which shoot the arrow on the right side of the bow, as I do. However, the places where most people come into contact with archery (Hollywood, The Olympics, archery clubs) do it left around the bow.
THE BACK QUIVER
Is it a myth? Yes and no. Some archers definitely slung their quivers on their backs for when they were marching, just like soldiers did with shields. We also can’t rule out that some archers – who didn’t care what arrow they picked from the quiver or who didn’t need to move rapidly – had quivers on their backs, but we can rule out that this was a general thing as Hollywood makes it out to be.
THE THREE LEVELS OF ARROW HANDLING
The first level of arrow handling is having the arrows in a quiver, and drawing them one at a time. It’s easy, and it’s intuitive. Progressing from there to holding arrows in the bow hand takes practice, but it can be learned.
There are some drawbacks, however. Arab Archery (the book) says that it’s less useful, because the arrows vibrate when shooting with powerful bows, causing imprecise shots.
The third level, keeping the arrows in the draw hand, provides a several benefits, but it requires that one is able to draw and shoot in one single movement without thinking. And that takes a LOT of practice. 😉
THE ULTIMATE TRICK TOOK 14 TAKES
At first, I didn’t think it was possible. You don’t have time to aim or think, but can only do it if your reactions are completely instinctive. First of all, you need to be convinced that you WILL hit it, so you can “feel” the incoming arrow and fire at it instead of just flinching away.
I was also in doubt whether it was smart to show this, because I don’t want anyone to get hurt trying to copy the trick. I trained for years with soft boffer arrows and spent a LONG time before I tried it even the first time. And the arrow fired at me was not fired with a very powerful bow, though it was definitely dangerous enough!
It was a light bamboo arrow with a metal tip, and the arrow I shot back was a heavier aluminum arrow. That the arrow split was just pure luck, and I’m not certain I could repeat it without first training for a long time. I believe it split because it hit just behind the head and made the shafts fluctuate against each other, causing the bamboo shaft to split lengthwise.
I hope to try it again using a proper high-speed camera!
FINAL WORDS
Thank you for watching my videos and for reading.
I will remove rude and dumb comments.
I will also remove dumb “archery experts” comments.
Thank you Jim MacQuarrie for clearing this up – I was quite skeptical when I saw his first video some time ago, same with this recent one. Thanks to all the experienced archers who brought their own contribution in the comments too.
While I understand the claims of Lars Andersen are infuriating and how the video is edited is clearly “lying” to its audience, it might be better – for archery as a whole – to remain as calm as possible when reaching to a mainstream audience.
I tried archery a few times some 10 years ago, loved it, but never got around joining a club (or getting a bow) – I’m still part of that mainstream audience. But I always pictured archery as an activity that is spiritually, mentally and physically calm and strong – something where the strength of the mind, muscles and nerves is equally developed to form a complete self.
In all honesty, seeing an archer expressing bitterness and anger when it comes to archery is quite a painful sight for me. Why can’t we just wrap it up as “trick archery”, point out it’s historically inaccurate for entertainment purposes, and let people “dream” about parkouring ninja archer? I’m sure mainstream people wouldn’t mind: what they want is seeing cool stuff, they don’t want to rewrite the history of archery with just a “cool” video.
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, nor why you feel a need to denigrate him. Surely your sure knowledge of 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 counterculture 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.
I smell a hurt butt, better cram a tampon up in there before you drown in your own shit. This article is a stinker, Im sorry but you just seem so jelly on poor Lars.
To everybody calling Lars “A trick shooter”, well, “shoot really fast” is one of the best tricks in any military book. Sometimes you’re shooting a few heavy armor targets and you want quality over quantity. But other times you’re shooting big groups of milita/conspricts with little to no armor (because really for most of history only the rich nobles and elite veterans could afford proper metal armor) and you want quantity over quality. I quite liked his video because it showed that yes you can shoot arrows really fast if the need arises. And he does that as a hobby he started at the age of 40. If Lars had started at 10 he would probably be able to use heavier bows and whatnot.
I have some experience as a Kyudo archer myself, and I have to agree that although many ancient techniques are still being practisioned, most people in the modern world don’t know them, so Lars video is a great way to spread interest in archery, in particular to show how it’s not all single shots. I had already read some historical documents that claimed bows could also be used as “medieval machine guns” to pin down enemy formations. Even if they had good armors/shield good enough to whitstand the arrows, they would be slowed down by the constant impacts, as the kinetic energy as to go somewhere.
And yes, the article itself here just reads like a giant butthurt. “My slow steady shots are the only TRUE archery way, damn Lars for challenging that!”. The comment section was a lot more interesting than it.
Why would you want to kill the rich nobles when you can capture them and ransom them back to fund your campaigns?
Is it possible that the whole thing was intended as a put-on? Andersen’s body language seems to be too over the top to be taken seriously.
In a vicious rant against Danish archer Lars Andersen, Jim MacQuarrie, claims a factual high ground but shows a lack of professionalism and knowledge. While a person is allowed to express their opinion in a critique, he should have done a minimum of research done to validate his claims before making the unfactual remarks against Mr. Andersen. Several of Mr. Andersen’s comments have been validated. I don’t know if Geekdad has any standards re fact checking and professioanl standards but Mr. MaQuarrie has shown little of either.
But what is totally unforgiveable, is when this amateur writer responded to valid criticism of what was a poorly researched and badly written critique by posting on his facebook page. He flippantly replied “ .. if I were a woman, I would have gotten death and rape threats by now.” How dare he compare the totally warranted criticism leveled at his rant and the horrible, violent experience of being raped? Mr. MacQuarrie has not only shown himself to be completely unprofessional in his postings but is not anyone I would take my child to learn about good sportsmanship, ethics and open mindedness in any sport.
http://youtu.be/IU4PSENakKw Finally an expert I can believe in. Mr. MacQuarrie take notes on how a proper crtique is done. Note the research done and the polite but factual way he presents his arguments. You need these skills
This whole article seems like sour grapes to me
Haters gonna hate, anyone? 😛
Saying you can’t look at historical picture to learn something about historical techniques and construction is wrong. The assumption should be not that artists then knew as much about archery as artist today know about archery. As a baseline you should be talking modern combat. Guns, etc. Even the average person has a baseline familiarity with it. Then you have to account that these works were not just random scribbling. They were commissioned by people who would know better. Just like as artist today would do research if they were doing a military portrait for a general they would do a little research to make sure they were doing it right. Artists who turned out technically inaccurate work probably wouldn’t be getting many return customers.
Also having been a part of several groups doing historical recreations from period art, The issue isn’t usually one of technical inaccuracy. The issue is one of detail and that there are certain assumptions people make when they create art. Art is often a form of visual shorthand and you have to know what would have been considered common knowledge then to make sense of it at times. Coming at recreation from the assumption that it’s technically inaccurate just means that you’re going to make a whole lot of mistakes.
Lars forgot the “i” in his name, didn’t he? “Lars” should be “Liars”. He’s so full of poppycock! Reminds me of profs at University — all knowledge, no common sense.
Well, this little video surely turned up a lot of controversy. I am no archery champion. I got into archery for a while when I was a kid, that’s about it. The “traditional archers” make it seem like this guy is denigrating them as though he is superior in every way. While I will concur that the narrator makes some rather outlandish and somewhat questionable statements, that does not take away from the very specialized sort of skills that Lars demonstrates.
Comparing what Lars is doing here to “traditional competitive archery” is like comparing some guy doing trick shots with a shotgun to what Chris Kyle did as a sniper, it is two different worlds.
I don’t think that anyone is trying to say that everyone should quit shooting their bow the way that they learned to and switch over to how Lars does it. No, what Lars does would not fit in with the way some armies fought back when they used bows and arrows as weapons. As mentioned, they drew bows with very high draw weights and shot the arrows for hundreds of yards. By the same token, if what you wanted to do was to ambush an enemy in a wooded area, where you would be dealing with close quarters, you would MUCH rather have someone with skills like Lars possesses than one of those long range archers.
It’s a video of trick archery guys, not a threat to the entire archery training industry. Think in terms of how American Indians used their bows from horseback or in close quarter fighting rather than how Medieval armies used longbows or how competitive target archers use their bows.
It is an entertaining video showing some very unique skills, not a threat, nothing more, nothing less.
Your tone is kinda nasty and alienating. Yeah, maybe the video is kind of goofy, but given that the average person watching it doesn’t have the knowledge about “traditional” archery used in your post to debunk it, your “why are so many people falling for this?!” tone just comes across as insulting to your audience.
The information in the post is great..and I still had to force myself to read it. I guess it probably makes you feel pretty valorous or tough or something — maybe makes you feel a little superior to others to debunk stuff like this in the sort of tone you use. If I feel the need to share something debunking this video, though, I’ll look for something written by someone who is less of a (less polite word meaning “anus”).
(You could have been just as nasty towards archery guy without insulting your readers. Might have picked up some new followers that way while still getting to feel like a tough guy.)
Reading through this entire comment section is pretty interesting. Everybody is attack someone for something….. and utter lack of discussion after someone lays down their own thoughts.
I will tell you the real lost skill that Lars Andersen proves the skill of a decent discussion.
Well, when you completely gaff your attempt in your first point, there is little reason to read the rest, especially when I have covered this in my blog with Anna Maltese’s attempted rebuttal video. http://robertcourtland.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-taste-of-real-archery-debate-of-sorts.html
When I watched the video I knew the arrow catching was bogus as I could see it was not fired at full power. Snopes later confirmed. What impressed me was his shooting speed and a few of the other tricks like shooting over the barrier.
While Lar’s critics have some points, so do his supporters. So let’s please stop with the “I’m-smarter-than-you because-I-believe-x” stuff.
Even if all he can do is shoot really fast: It’s REALLY, REALLY FAST! And sure, it’s probable some of his video is bogus, but IT LOOKS REALLY AWESOME! How are you not impressed by that? I never imagined someone, especially another archer, would react to that video with such biting criticism. You make a lot of fair points; now I want to see Lars go to some sort of competition or demonstrate some distance shooting.
But the whole article reeks of a fragile ego. It feels funny, criticizing a critique. Couldn’t resist.
I’m no archery expert but as a HEMA practitioner I have read many treaties and have a reasonable understanding of combat (armoured and unarmoured), as a skeptic I’ve also learnt to spot bullshit very quickly and identify where it’s flaws are.
Lars is genuinely skilled at what he does but that doesn’t excuse the fact that his video was dishonest and or ignorant in many of the ways outlined in the article and as such drastically over reaches with it’s claims of effectiveness in combat..
The first red flag to any rational person should be what Lars says at the bottom of the video description:
“Thank you for watching my videos and for reading.
I will remove rude and dumb comments.
I will also remove dumb “archery experts” comments.”
You should be [b]immediately[/b] sceptical of anyone who deletes comments. Either they are trying to hide valid criticism or they are pussies (and therefore we should be extra sceptical of their information martial matters).
The only thing other thing I’d add is a deeper criticism of his chainmail shooting demonstration. He appeared to be shooting from about 10 yards if that. simply penetrating CM and having the arrow stick in to the gambeson is not enough. A warrior with any determination in this situation would have reached Lars and ended him before he had chance to draw the third arrow. Firing one arrow full draw would be far better than firing 10 like this. This would NOT have been an effective historical strategy against armoured opponents..
This is literally the worst article I’ve ever seen on geekdad.com. which is usually pretty awesome. It’s filled with bile and jealousy and zero facts and literally the second word in the entire article is obvious butthurt jealousy because it puts the word “archer” in scare quotes as if the person who quite literally filmed these actions is not a “real” archer according to Jim MacQuarrie who teaches young children to string a bow a few times and then never sees them again and could never reproduce these feats in his life.
I strongly question GeekDad’s hiring of someone who can do no better than this. This is not what GeekDad is generally about: it’s about encouraging awesomeness, it’s about repeatable science (Jim MacQuarrie should show how his techniques are better), it’s about being respectful to others who try to improve their skills. This article is anti-that in every possible way.
Jim MacQuarrie, I challenge you to make a video of your own skills at *anything* that rivals Lars Andersen’s skills in the videos that you posted.
Yeah, when I saw the way “archer” was in quotes like that I was like, what the hell? That’s just so petty, it’s actually pathetic. The dude quite clearly has legit bow skills, there’s really no need for this dismissive, supercilious attitude.
The Danish archer Lars Andersen has been a true viral super-hit, after his video called ‘a new level of archery’ has been viewed over 25 million times.
As with many other viral hit, his video, however, been criticized, including from the US archer instructor Anna Maltese.
In his video responses claiming Maltese among other things, that Lars has not substantiated its historical arguments, and she put on the whole question the premise that Hollywood invented the modern understanding of Archer .
Lars Andersen himself is annoyed matched, but he does however take criticism calmly.
– I have been in doubt as to whether I should relate to it or not, but the problem is that it’s so stupid. As one of my American friends, then one thing that you do not know much about what you are doing, but this is clearly made with an evil intention, says Lars Andersen Ekstra Bladet.
– For example, she starts to say that the video I made about the general way to shoot a bow, but it makes it just does not, it’s all about the existence of some expert systems once, he says.
It IS populist
He recognizes, however, that several of allegations of the original video is very coarse.
– There is no doubt that my video is populist and provocative and everything. For example, we say in the video that Hollywood invented the quiver, and they did not, of course, but they popularized it. But she could also just have opened the description of the video, for which it is, says Lars Andersen.
– If I had made a video about historical archery had lasted two hours and had perhaps been seen by 100,000 people, if I was very lucky, and otherwise by 1000 people.
One of the criticisms that have fallen Lars Andersen most in the chest, the American critic’s comment that it was not possible for Saracens to measure how long a half second, which is the time Lars in his video says their archers could shoot three arrows of place.
– It is simply too stupid, because she has not checked it, and it would soon be able to investigate the origins. It’s like she says you could also shoot just as quickly by having the arrow on the other side of the arch. That you just can not. It is not for fun, that I am the world’s fastest. This is because the technique is better, he says.
Handles arrow with his back to
One of the things that especially has awakened a stir in Lars Andersen’s video is the point in the video where he grabs an arrow in the air and shoots it back. The detail put Anna Maltese also questioned by saying that it is only possible because the arrow, he claims, are shot off at low speed.
The criticism takes Lars Andersen also with a smile.
– I certainly did never said that it is possible to seize an arrow at high speed. I would never say that she makes you want to be able to defend himself by grabbing an arrow. The story I have been based on, is about someone who has seized an arrow at a relatively large distance and shot it back again. I does not postulate that one can grasp an arrow is shot close, he says.
He also adds that in his video not trying to produce something totally unrealistic picture of reality.
– There were some clips we ended up cut out of the video because it was simply luck. For example, I grabbed at a time when I was standing with my back to, and it was simply too stupid, says Lars Andersen.
‘Frightening’
But despite the criticism, he now and then being greeted by, stern Lars Andersen, however, to continue to pursue his hobby.
– I’ve got a lot of positive feedback, but I think since it is frightening that it will go so far, and that there is someone who will actually spend so much time making a video in response, he told Ekstra Bladet.
Google translatet from http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/spaendte-lars-buen-for-haardt-nu-skyder-han-tilbage/5435601
First let me say I have been a passionate student of the bow my whole life and shooting in general .
I have taught what I believe that; the key to shooting a bow is subconscious not conscience thought processes, to people trying to learn to shoot for years. ALbiet mainly with a compound , but the only real difference is the use of sights for a reference .I have been able to take that philosophy combined with less than average athletic ability
and consistently beat much more talented people for years with hard work .In that time I have learned a lot about
that very fact that subconscience training is the key to a consistent perfect shot . This guy Lars has capitalized on that very concept and obviously taken it to a new level , and anyone that tries to discredit that should be considered petty and jealous in my opinion . I can say that because I am a dedicated student of the game and this man inspires me to believe just what might be possible with a bow similar to those in modern times like Fred bear , Howard Hill ,Fred Eickler ,Byron ferguson, and Tim Wells not to mention the countless great pros that do things accuracy wise that were probably NEVER done .