Troy Breeding wrote: All I can say is Ed must have some broad shoulders to be able to handle all the Ya Ya that as been thrown at him over his study.
I can’t understand why folks want to run it down when they havn’t given it a try.
Things improve and advance over time. If not we would all be driving a model “T” instead of the four wheel drives.
No kidding. Is there anything we currently use in the realm of traditional archery that wasn’t, at at one time, the result of someone tinkering, experimenting and refining an idea?
And why is it that so many who seem to have the most argumentative reaction to these ideas are those who have never tried them out, but merely convinced themselves that it couldn’t possibly be an improvement over the way that they’ve been doing things for years? Or worse, what someone they idolize did?
Tradition is a wonderful thing, when kept in check by an open mind. But sometimes I find the contradictions of what is considered “traditional” or not to just be downright hilarious, i.e. – longbows are more “traditional” than recurves, camo isn’t traditional (even though Fred Bear wore it, and used a recurve, but we revere him in every other way), or a definition of “traditional” that only seems to be what a handful of guys, in one country, were doing between the 1920’s – 50’s, etc…
And I think it’s fascinating that there actually is history (tradition) to the idea of EFOC, though it may not be the particular ‘tradition’ that most pay attention to.
It reminds me of the old Zen quote – “In the beginner’s mind, there are many possibilities. In the expert’s, there are few.”