LOL...if I had to choose between those 2...I would have to pick LegolasEither Robin Hood or Legolas.
He may be the only man to do that but I'm pretty sure that Korean women have done that at least a couple of times. And, don't forget that archery returned to the olympics in 1972 but the team round didn't make it's debut until, I believe, 1988..Pace's last Olympic games.Justin Huish
Only person to win both (team & ind) gold's at one Olympic games.
I know nothing about Mr. Huish, but if we are talking about **archery skills** then factors not pertaining to archery ability are irrelevant. Howard Hill's wide range of achievements would qualify him as a top candidate for greatest archer of all time no matter what other factors might have been present. Really depends on what you mean by "great," I suppose.Plus, I think the lifetime ban for selling drugs would preclude Mr. Huish from consideration as the greatest of all time.
Defining "great" would be the key.I know nothing about Mr. Huish, but if we are talking about **archery skills** then factors not pertaining to archery ability are irrelevant. Howard Hill's wide range of achievements would qualify him as a top candidate for greatest archer of all time no matter what other factors might have been present. Really depends on what you mean by "great," I suppose.
Only relevant to morals, not archery ability. If by "great archer" you mean upstanding citizen with good standing in sanctioned competition who also has the world's greatest archery ability, then, yes, you could omit someone based on a ban by a sports sanctioning body. But if you mean "great archer" based on archery ability then the decision of a sanctioning body is totally irrelevant. Think about it, are you saying that to qualify as the "greatest archer" you have to be sanctioned FITA shooter? Surely not.Defining "great" would be the key.
However, a lifetime ban by the sports sanctioning body, thereby cutting short a career while at one's peak, would be more than relevant.
If that's the direction you intend to go, then Fred Bear would take top honor.I know nothing about Mr. Huish, but if we are talking about **archery skills** then factors not pertaining to archery ability are irrelevant. Howard Hill's wide range of achievements would qualify him as a top candidate for greatest archer of all time no matter what other factors might have been present. Really depends on what you mean by "great," I suppose.
I think Artemis would disagree with youApollo.
Nuff Said.
She could disagree, but she only picked up archery BECAUSE of her brother Apollo and asked for one of her 6 wishes to be a silver bow like his.I think Artemis would disagree with you![]()
Hello all together,
who do you think was the greatest archer ever and why?
I think it was Darrel Pace (...sorry Rick...)
The reasons: He was the first in the world to shoot a 1300+ round at the nationals in 1975. Then in 1979 he set a new world record with 1341 points in Japan. And although new equipment came up (carbon arrows, new string materials, carbon limbs...) this record wasn't broken till 1989, when Stanislav Zabrodsky broke the record at the world championships in Lausanne by just 1 point. I wonder, what Pace could have shot, if he had our equipment of today in those days...
Any other thoughts? I am looking forward to your posts.