Byron Ferguson is probably the best archer there is right now and maybe best there ever was. There aren't many around anyway so his impressive skills are all the more precious for that. However, his attempt to do a "Mythbuster" is just pathetic.
In one episode he tried to prove the ancient legend of Robin Hood splitting an arrow with another one during contest. So what did he do? He did the same. Almost the same. He actually pushed the first arrow further into the target with the second shot, creating a short crack in it in the process. That caused him to announce "the legend is true, Robin could have split the arrow". Well how about that for scientific thinking?
"Mythbusters" from Discovery Channel went out of their way to cover all the bases surrounding the myth, employing an experienced marksman themselves, shooting from all kinds of distances, even recreating the original design of the period arrow. Their findings were negative. Correct or not they are also valid because of the methods they used. A little (and amusing) lesson in scientific approach.
Here, on the other hand, we have an arrogant, smug fool who thinks his authority on marksmanship gives him the right to make superficial conclusions on things he knows nothing about. His shooting is enviable, his reasoning is an embarrassment. The world is full of people like that. Fits right into the "History Channel", which I like to watch but is not known for its credibility.
In one episode he tried to prove the ancient legend of Robin Hood splitting an arrow with another one during contest. So what did he do? He did the same. Almost the same. He actually pushed the first arrow further into the target with the second shot, creating a short crack in it in the process. That caused him to announce "the legend is true, Robin could have split the arrow". Well how about that for scientific thinking?
"Mythbusters" from Discovery Channel went out of their way to cover all the bases surrounding the myth, employing an experienced marksman themselves, shooting from all kinds of distances, even recreating the original design of the period arrow. Their findings were negative. Correct or not they are also valid because of the methods they used. A little (and amusing) lesson in scientific approach.
Here, on the other hand, we have an arrogant, smug fool who thinks his authority on marksmanship gives him the right to make superficial conclusions on things he knows nothing about. His shooting is enviable, his reasoning is an embarrassment. The world is full of people like that. Fits right into the "History Channel", which I like to watch but is not known for its credibility.
