Home › Forums › Friends of FOC › New acronym or catchphrase needed for improved lethality
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
The discussion among bowhunters “out there” of the topic of this forum reminds me a lot of the current public debate about climate change.
From a marketing standpoint, one of the worst things that was ever done (albeit entirely unintentionally) was to use “global warming” as a catchphrase for the effects of greenhouse gases upon the atmosphere. If you understood the mechanisms governing the climate regimes around the world, you also understood the regional significance of any substantial global warming. But “global warming” was too easily misunderstood by people who were ignorant of the science and too susceptible to being mocked by those with an economic stake in denying its existence or effect. “Climate change” has been used more frequently in recent years, but it’s still not localized sufficiently.
The bottom line to all that Dr. Ashby has done is improving the odds of recovering an animal (i.e., ANY big game animal) at which a broadhead has been launched. It recognizes that “s—” happens along the way from release to recovery.
But this point gets lost all too often, IMO, especially among those who are too lazy or too set in their ways to read the entirety of what he has written. We need a better acronym or catchphrase than “FOC” or “single bevel broadhead” or even “lethality” to get the point across.
-
An interesting parallel that you draw!
Back in the day, I read everything Doc presented in detail. Keeping up with it all was a task, but it was so darned interesting. Fortunately, on another site at that time, I’d PM Doc and struck up an exchange, which lasted for a long time…
I often asked questions and was privy to clarifications. Ed is very precise about his research and when someone would post their “attempts” and draw conclusions, un-supported by DOC’s Research, he’d post that… not that he said it couldn’t be true, but that conclusions drawn outside HIS research, he’d clarify were not supported by HIS evidence.
In conversation & on various sites, I see so many false conclusions made and purported as facts, regarding his work… such as “If I ever choose to hunt buffalo I’ll worry about this EFOC thing”.
These sad souls were loosing site of the morass of data that is more directly applicable to us backyard hunters on much less demanding game.
I often wonder if the tremendous wealth of information that Doc generated doesn’t over-whelm some, and they start to mind-meld different studies into one???
With all due respect, I’m not sure that re-branding the intricate concepts will do much for those who are either unmotivated or do not have the “capacity” to delve into and understand the relationships to his work and varied conclusions.
In our INSTANT GRATIFICATION society today, if it’s not spoon fed, pre-digested and pre-packaged in instant consumption format, it seems to be rejected…whatever it is!
The dramatic increase in recent years of those interested in “traditional” archery, doesn’t mean they all came with the same drive to dig deeper into the realm of all that embraces the T-shirt that shows the long bow archer with the caption: Do it the HARD WAY!
-
My friend works as a bowtech in a big sporting goods store here. The archery industry sends catalogs to sellers, not just to push new products but also to discuss new concepts. Well, a recent catalog had a multi page article addressing Dr. Ashby’s research and how it can benefit the bowhunting community. So we are making some head way.
-
“Out there” is correct. The extent some go to refute and deny a comprehensive study leaves me shaking my head. The “by golly my 2016 and razorhead will kill anything on the plant….if I hit the vitals” well No Sh!t!!! Although…I’ve personally witnessed people hitting hogs in the vitals with their set ups and NOT get through to the vitals. Lol
Last time I checked the brain was a vital…this pic was taken at MCAAP. They hold trad only draw hunts there. Notice the bone growing through the opening in the blades as well as the shed antlers.
Stuff happens and an inch might as well be a mile when you
are only an inch short of a kill.
-
Doc Nock wrote: I often wonder if the tremendous wealth of information that Doc generated doesn’t over-whelm some, and they start to mind-meld different studies into one???
With all due respect, I’m not sure that re-branding the intricate concepts will do much for those who are either unmotivated or do not have the “capacity” to delve into and understand the relationships to his work and varied conclusions.
In our INSTANT GRATIFICATION society today, if it’s not spoon fed, pre-digested and pre-packaged in instant consumption format, it seems to be rejected…whatever it is!
I can’t help but think, rather than sluggish minds or short attention spans keeping people away from the Doc’s studies, it might be those same virtues that keep people away from compound bows, pin sights and laser range finders. A desire to do it the old way (keep in mind for people my age that could be anywhere from the 1970’s back).
We have all made conscious decisions to reduce our overall lethality by hunting with stick and string, instead of using all those modern, technical crutches. I think it’s an attachment to that spirit that closes many minds to FOC. If it was good enough for Mr Bear and Hill, why isn’t it good enough for me?
And I suppose the answer to that question is that unlike all those modern accoutrements that we avoid, a well made arrow won’t do a thing to help put itself in contact with an animal, it just makes sure that when you do everything right to make that contact, the arrow itself doesn’t let you down.
-
tigertrad wrote: “Hit hard, Track less”
…gets my vote
-
ausjim wrote: [quote=Doc Nock]I often wonder if the tremendous wealth of information that Doc generated doesn’t over-whelm some, and they start to mind-meld different studies into one???
With all due respect, I’m not sure that re-branding the intricate concepts will do much for those who are either unmotivated or do not have the “capacity” to delve into and understand the relationships to his work and varied conclusions.
In our INSTANT GRATIFICATION society today, if it’s not spoon fed, pre-digested and pre-packaged in instant consumption format, it seems to be rejected…whatever it is!
I can’t help but think, rather than sluggish minds or short attention spans keeping people away from the Doc’s studies, it might be those same virtues that keep people away from compound bows, pin sights and laser range finders. A desire to do it the old way (keep in mind for people my age that could be anywhere from the 1970’s back).
We have all made conscious decisions to reduce our overall lethality by hunting with stick and string, instead of using all those modern, technical crutches. I think it’s an attachment to that spirit that closes many minds to FOC. If it was good enough for Mr Bear and Hill, why isn’t it good enough for me?
And I suppose the answer to that question is that unlike all those modern accoutrements that we avoid, a well made arrow won’t do a thing to help put itself in contact with an animal, it just makes sure that when you do everything right to make that contact, the arrow itself doesn’t let you down.
Good observations, Jim, and I agree that much of the resistance comes from the mindset you describe. I’ve encountered the, “well if it was good enough for Hill/Pope/Bear/etc. then there’s no need to change it” mentality more times than I can count.
And I appreciate where that sentiment is coming from, at least in spirit. It would be hypocritical of me not to say that a number of my own choices of how I hunt, and why I hunt with the implement that I do, come from similar thinking and a desire to ‘keep it simple.’ But honoring our tradition, and blind adherence to tradition for the sake of itself, are two different things in my book.
I also see too many people who seem to think that our entire history begins and ends with certain notable individuals of the 20th century, and that whatever they did is the ‘end all, be all,’ rather than making the effort to grasp the much broader and varied history of our sport across millenia. If one only pays attention to the former, then the idea of what is ‘proper and traditional’ is quite limited. Expanding beyond that quickly drives home the point that what is ‘proper and traditional’ in bow and arrow design has varied greatly over time and place – including the not-so-new ideas of EFOC, reflexed longbows, minimal fletching, etc. We aren’t discovering anything new here – we’re just applying new terminology to old concepts (and in some cases, re-learning those old concepts) that have been well understood in various parts of the world since long before Saxton Pope picked up bow.
At the same time, I try to be careful to explain why I think these concepts have merit, but I also strive to stop short of coming off as though I’m telling anyone else what to do, or that other people are “wrong” if they aren’t doing things that same way I’ve chosen to. I find that approach is seldom successful, regardless of the subject.
😉
-
Smithhammer wrote:
I also see too many people who seem to think that our entire history begins and ends with certain notable individuals of the 20th century, and that whatever they did is the ‘end all, be all,’ rather than making the effort to grasp the much broader and varied history of our sport across millenia. If one only pays attention to the former, then the idea of what is ‘proper and traditional’ is quite limited. Expanding beyond that quickly drives home the point that what is ‘proper and traditional’ in bow and arrow design has varied greatly over time and place – including the not-so-new ideas of EFOC, reflexed longbows, minimal fletching, etc. We aren’t discovering anything new here – we’re just applying new terminology to old concepts (and in some cases, re-learning those old concepts) that have been well understood in various parts of the world since long before Saxton Pope picked up bow.
If there ever were an individual who was devoted to exploring changes major and minor when it came to traditional bowhunting, it was that guy with the fedora from Michigan. Pretty ironic that people would be citing him as a reason to stop examining possibly better ways to do this.
-
eidsvolling wrote:
If there ever were an individual who was devoted to exploring changes major and minor when it came to traditional bowhunting, it was that guy with the fedora from Michigan. Pretty ironic that people would be citing him as a reason to stop examining possibly better ways to do this.
So true. And he wasn’t the only one – a number of the folks now revered as ‘trad icons’ were a lot more forward-thinking than their idealizations now give them credit for. Heck, FB shot a recurve and often wore camo – those two things alone might hurt his chances of placing very high in the “trad hierarchy” of today, at least according to some. 😉
But of course, back then they weren’t trying to live up to some pre-conceived idea of “traditional” – they were simply bowhunters.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.