The value of endorsement

  There is a subject I'd like to discuss concerning Howard Hill information that is being shared these days.  One of the reasons for this blog was to give out information that was as accurate as possible as to the Hill style of equipment and shooting.  How do we know what's accurate?  There's lots of people saying that they knew Hill, were taught how to shoot or build bows by him, drank coffee with him, etc.  It seems though that some of this information doesn't all jive together, as it should.  So who's right?

  Back in November of 1975, the closest confidant of Howard wrote a letter to be used as a forward to a book. This confidant had been married to Howard for 53 years and knew him better than anyone.  His wife Elizabeth.  The following is an excerpt from John Schulz's second book "Straight Shooting"

   "From early in my bowmaking career, Howard put great confidence in my ability as a bowyer.  After his death, Mrs. Hill gave me "the mantle" in an unqualified endorsement, to exclusively represent all of Howard's shooting and bow making methods, she wrote:

    Among the thousands of archery friends and admirers of my late husband, Howard Hill, if I were picking one to describe and explain Howard's methods in every detail, I know no one that I would trust to do so correctly, fully and in detail as I do John Schulz, the author of this book about Howard.  How he hunted, his methods, his every requisite in hunting and shooting are all accurately described. My husband and I have known and been close friends of John and his brother Dan since they were boys, when all of us lived in California.  It was there as a young man that John learned shooting and bow making under Howard's tutelage."

   This letter is unknown to a lot of Hill style longbow admirers because they've never read Schulz's two books.  So here it is, to set the record straight.   Elizabeth said she knew of no one she trusted better than Schulz.  No family member or close friends of the many that she and Howard had.  None of the admirers or followers.  Huh.  Something to think about, really.  I would guess that if there were others as qualified as Schulz, Elizabeth would've made some provisions to that point, but she didn't.  Schulz mentions in his video that there are "some who claim to represent his style (Hill's)...you'd better check their credentials or you'll be misinformed".  I take this to mean he is referring back to the endorsement by Elizabeth Hill as to his knowledge and abilities.  

   So I am doing nothing else in this blog but passing along information that was given to me by John Schulz personally, or what he wrote in his books, or said and showed in his video.  I like to think that someone who spent years with Hill; months of bowmaking training, months of shooting training, and years of close relationship with Hill to be someone to listen to above anyone else.  I also wonder that if there are other "authorities" who know all about the Hill methods, and were alive when Hill was and are occasionally telling it abroad that Schulz didn't know what he is saying, or that they know more than Schulz, or that Schulz is wrong...I question where these people were all these years when Schulz was alive, to openly challenge Schulz's publicly stated endorsement by Mrs. Hill.  As far as I know, while John Schulz was alive and able to publicly refute erroneous statements,  there were no challenges made. So then, think about these things, please, and make informed decisions as to where you're getting your Hill information.

   Through this blog I will introduce photos, references, etc. to back up my writing.  I try to say things as I see them, but as accurately as possible without any discrepancies.  Photos and writings help dispel those discrepancies that are running rampant in the area of Hill style equipment and shooting.

   Just as a couple of simple points to think about and ponder, to give examples of where I'm coming from.  I will present the facts as I see them.  Make up your own minds...

   First.  The Hill shooting glove.  It has been said in various mediums over the years that Hill's shooting glove was open on the ends of the finger stalls so his fingers could stick out and he could feel his anchor.  Proof presented of that was someone's fingers in the glove that indeed did stick out.  It is a well-known fact that Hill had very big hands.  It stands to reason that a glove made to fit his hands and fingers would be big and perhaps sloppy on a smaller hand.  Fingers smaller than Hill's would indeed stick out the end of a large finger stall.  That doesn't mean that Hill's technique was to feel his anchor with his bare fingertip.  Here's some photos to show my point:  One is a still taken from a short he made, another is a photo from his book "Hunting the Hard Way" and two are from a popular book "The Complete Book of Archery.  None show his fingers sticking out, on the contrary they are recessed into the glove he used later in his career and the early glove has leather covering the ends of the stalls.  So when looking at this evidence, and comparing it with teaching to the contrary, it places a little doubt as to the Hill knowledge of the persons promoting it.  I specifically asked Schulz about the open ended glove style, knowing that he had made them back in the day and used them along with Hill.  I was expecting some answer as to the technical reason, maybe for the finger to feel the anchor or something such...his answer was "it was easier and faster to make them that way".   No other reason given.  I didn't need any more clarification than that.

        

  Another example is the talking of the bows Hill used.  What were his standard shooters, the hunting bows and exhibition bows etc.  We see photos of him shooting certain bows and we usually surmise they are his favorites, not trial bows.  I would think that if he's shooting in public, it's with a bow he's comfortable with, not just testing out.   Here's a photo of White Eagle, one of his favorites.  It's a popular photo, showing the belly and back and the condition of the facing and backing.  It has darkened a little over the years but it's obvious that the back is dark material and the belly is light material.  It has been said that this bow was used for photos in the book "The Complete Book of Archery" wherein Hill was interviewed and many photos taken of his tackle and hunting methods.  The clothing and binoculars worn by Hill is consistent throughout the photos in the book, showing the photos were taken probably during the same excursion.  On the cover photo the bow shown has a white or cream back and photos in the book show a white belly.  White Eagle had a white belly, but a dark back...so is this bow really White Eagle? See for yourself.  

   Another of Hill's favorite bows, "Lil Sweetheart" given to Doug Walker when the lower limb tip was broken off, has a white belly.  You can see the writing on the limb in the photo of Hill and Walker. This same writing font is slightly visible in the photo of Hill leaning against the car.  Notice Hill's clothing then look at the last photo of him shooting...same clothing and a bow with a white back.  Pretty simple to deduce that the bow in the last two photos is the same bow, same photo shoot.  If this bow is white back and belly, and the White Eagle bow is white belly, dark back, then it's probably not White Eagle that Hill is shooting in the book photos, but perhaps Lil Sweetheart.

   I guess I'm going the long way around to say what Schulz said...check the credentials.  I want this blog to be a place where information is gathered that accurately represents the Hill style, to dispel the misinformation that has run amuck concerning it all.  It takes accurate analyzing of photos, sharing of the information, and above all, not being so proud or conceited to think that you have all the answers.  The ability to change your mind if something is proven contrary to what you've always thought.  I will present evidence as I have discovered it over time, and I welcome informed discussions based on true information that may shed even more light.

   When I asked Schulz about a certain piece of misinformation that was being presented as an element of the Hill style, which obviously wasn't,  he replied to me in a text exchange which I've kept for years.  This is our back and forth:

    "Thanks Nate.  Mrs. Hill's endorsement should put the whole issue to rest for anyone with half a brain. Facts are facts. They may be assailed but can't be denied. I rest my case. 

     Thanks for your reply, sir.  I knew as much would be forthcoming. With your permission I can reply with the spirit of your words to those who bring up questions about the matter.  Nate.

    You are a trusted friend - do as you please.  Thanks, J.S. "

   So with those words from Schulz, I will endeavor to answer in the spirit of his words, the questions concerning the Hill style of tackle and bowmaking and shooting as Schulz has shared with me and with all those who've read his books or watched his video.   For now,

   Shoot straight.