180 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Aug. 9, 1913. 
worth mentioning. This spring he bought a 
second-hand lancewood bow and six arrows, and 
with these he so rapidly advanced that by June 1 
he averaged 400 at the York round, getting pro¬ 
portional scores at the three distances about as 
follows: 
lOOvds. 80yds. 60yds. Total. 
40-170 36-136 19- 95 95-401 
He shot no arrows at 6o yards except in 
the York round, though he shot many extra 
scores at ioo yards. 
His old lance bow broke in two or three 
places, and with it patched and wrapped he con¬ 
tinued his steady advance until he had passed 
500 at a single York, and reached an average 
of 450. Then he and the writer visited F. S. 
Barnes at Forest Grove, Oregon, picked a fine 
piece of yew, and ordered it made into a bow of 
forty-eight pounds for the doctor. When it was 
finished and in the doctor’s hands, the writer 
was invited to visit the doctor and see the “bap¬ 
tism of blood,” but could not attend. In a few 
days there came the first score, 111-519. Two 
days later, 118-558. A little later, 123-635! Of 
course, I hurried to see him. I couldn’t stay 
away. My own shooting has so fallen away that 
I could not interest one shooting in such grand 
form, but I took my bow with me and we shot 
a double York round, July 26 and 27. I think 
the doctor was so anxious to give a fair display 
of his great advance that he became nervous, for 
his first dozen at 100 yards yielded almost noth¬ 
ing. After that he pulled himself together, and 
the first York round was recorded: 
J. W. Doughty.51-237 41-191 21-111 113-539 
On the next York, the doctor’s duties at the 
hospital kept interrupting our shooting so much 
that we almost came to the point of abandoning 
the round, but after much nervous tension, the 
doctor having operated on a patient’s mangled 
hand in the time, we got through the round, the 
doctor’s score being: 
49-203 42-212 22-120 113-535 
The double round being: 
100-440 83-403 43-231 226-1074 
My own score looks like 
alongside such archery: 
87-325 73-297 45-247 
a child’s 
205-869 
work 
Dr. Doughty has never tried the short 
ranges of the American round, and abhors the 
60-yard range, never shooting it except as a part 
of the York round. He is deliberate, makes no 
unnecessary movements, draws as he slowly 
raises the bow to his point of aim, dwells fully 
two seconds on his aim, and looses with a 
smooth, backward motion. The loose is rather 
dull, and the trajectory is not flat, but there is 
a steady “stateliness” about the flight of his 
arrows beautiful to the eye. 
I hope Dr. Doughty may see his way clear 
to attend the National Archery Tournament this 
year, for, while I should not expect him at his 
first public meeting to reach the heights achieved 
by veterans like Bryant, Richardson, Taylor and 
Wills, nor by the new star in the archery sky, 
Mr. Rendtorff, yet I feel confident that even 
under the most adverse circumstances he would 
compile a total that would have won the medal 
at three-fourths of all our national meetings. 
After only three months of actual experi¬ 
ence with the bow, he is one of the four greatest 
archers I have ever known. 
What a field we shall have this year if all 
our best shots attend! Bryant and Richardson, 
Taylor, Rendtorff, Wills and Doughty, Elmer, 
Hertig and Holmes! 
What joy it would be if the writer could 
only sit under the shadow of a great elm, with 
Williams and Sidway and Clark and Maxson 
and Beach, and others of the old days, whose 
“great bows lie in their halls unstrung,” and 
watch this contest of the giants, and talk over 
our old delightful battles, lost and gone! 
Questions for Consideration in Boston. 
BY W. H. WILLS. 
Secretary Bryant, in his circular accom¬ 
panying the program for the National tourna¬ 
ment, asks archers to consider three important 
matters which will come before the National 
meeting in Boston. The third one he mentions 
that of “clearing up the error concerning the 
financial year of the association,” I think I can 
clear up. 
At the annual meeting in Chicago, in 1910, 
it was conceded that the revenues of the asso¬ 
ciation must be increased. There was a long 
discussion as to how this should be done and 
to what extent. After the discussion had gone 
on for some time, with all sorts of suggestions, 
I offered a resolution, which, after some debate 
and a little modification, was unanimously 
adopted. 
That resolution provided that all fees ex¬ 
cept the target fee, were due Jan. 1, and if not 
paid by Aug. 1, the delinquents were to be auto¬ 
matically dropped from membership, and such 
delinquents, to be reinstated, must apply as new 
members. My recollection of the terms of this 
resolution is perfectly clear. I understand that 
the confusion regarding its terms has arisen 
from the fact that the minutes of the 1910 meet¬ 
ing were lost. So the fiscal year of the associa¬ 
tion begins Jan. 1. 
The “proposed change from the point system 
in determining the championship” was debated 
at considerable length in these columns last 
winter. I was one who did not join in that de¬ 
bate. I see that Dr. Weston, who started it, has 
brought the matter up in the Christian Science 
Monitor of July 25. He says he hopes the 
change will be made. So far as I remember, 
Will H. Thompson was the only one who dis¬ 
sented from this view in last winter’s discussion. 
I take my stand with Mr. Thompson on this 
matter, and in the main because of the reasons 
he advanced. I see no object in making this 
change, and I agree with Mr. Thompson that 
for sentimental reasons, if no other, we ought 
to keep our methods like those of our English 
brethren. 
In this connection I am going to take issue 
again with Dr. Weston, where he advocates in 
the Monitor that we add up the combined scores 
at the York and American rounds, and National 
and Columbia rounds, and award the champion¬ 
ships accordingly. This question of the cham¬ 
pionship was brought up at the Boston meeting 
last year, and was referred to a committee who 
are to report on it at the coming meeting. I 
would remind this committee that at the Chicago 
meeting of 1910, Homer Taylor offered a reso¬ 
lution that the winners of the York and National 
rounds, respectively, be acknowledged and de¬ 
clared the champions of the association. This 
resolution was passed with only one dissenting 
voice, and should have gone into those same lost 
minutes. The association has never rescinded 
this resolution; and I contend that until such 
be done, the champions of the association are 
the winners of the York and National rounds, 
while the winners of the American and Columbia 
rounds are the winners of the respective cham¬ 
pionships of those rounds, and that only. The 
winners of the less difficult and comparatively 
easy events ought to be amply satisfied with the 
prize awarded him or her. This winner gets the 
satisfaction of a range championship, and a 
pretty medal besides. Isn’t that enough? My 
views on the question of long and short range 
shooting are well known, but I would be the 
last to impose them upon those who differ from 
me. At the same time we ought to be able to 
recognize what it is that makes efficient archers, 
and what most advances the sport. We have 
won and maintained a standard of archery in 
this country, and have advanced it to such an 
extent that we have four or five archers here 
who can defeat any like number of English 
archers every time. We do not want to take 
a step backward in the way of lowering our 
high standard, so I am opposed to making the 
change advocated by Dr. Weston and am going 
to work and vote against it. And much as I 
regret to differ from the Doctor, whose opinions 
merit and enjoy our greatest respect, I also am 
against abandoning the point system. 
Experimental Archery. 
Jersey City, N. J., Aug. 3.— Editor Forest 
and Stream: I have read with considerable in¬ 
terest the many capable archers’ experiences on 
the above subject, and cannot help comparing 
the English with the American archers, at least 
in my mind. When we read and carefully study 
our best exponents’ views, we are. I am afraid, 
left in utter chaos as to what lines to adopt to 
get best results. I am no expert with the bow, 
therefore my opinion can't count for much; but 
I feel inclined to give the views of some English 
archers who have given archery a lifetime’s 
study, just by way of showing how many men 
have many minds. 
Dr. Elmer states how he rigged up apparatus 
to test the flight of arrows and the varying re¬ 
sults. Now the machine is by no means new, 
having been tried by Fergie, of Edinburgh, about 
twenty years ago, and again by myself some 
nine years ago. I cannot bring to mind the de¬ 
tails of Fergie’s experiment, but I can give my 
own experience, and how I came to take the 
subject up again after a lapse of years. Mr. 
Lewis Waller, the well-known actor, was about 
to stage Robin Hood as a play, and in one act 
the hero is required to shoot an arrow from the 
wings (behind a tree), said arrow to find its 
billet in a proclamation card some forty feet 
off. Ayres and Aldred both refused to take the 
risk where a stage crowded with people were 
concerned, and I was applied to with the result 
that the performance went on all right, and was 
repeated here in the United States last year, 
probably with the same machine, if I may call 
it such. Now, the difference between Elmer and 
myself was that the doctor requires at least six 
arrows to fly alike, whereas I only wanted one, 
and my best results always brought the arrow 
(Continued on page 189.) 
