This is the weightiest opinion (1).

Some scholars who permit distance-based competition stipulate that the two bows be identical in pull and flexibility, because archers compete over such factors; indeed, they may even shoot with a single bow and a single arrow. When the contract concerns accuracy, however, there is unanimous agreement that specifying the bows or making them equal is not a condition.

The second category is the contract that is judged by hitting the mark (2), and it has several conditions:

1. The archers themselves must be named, for what is sought is the very person of the shooter and an assessment of his skill and precision, not the competence of some unspecified archer (3). Hence, if two contestants agreed that each of them would be assisted by three, two, or even one unnamed substitute shooter, the agreement would be invalid.

2. It is not necessary to designate the bows or the arrows; even if they are identified, they do not become fixed and may be exchanged, because the aim is to ascertain proficiency, not to appraise the bow and its utility.

By contrast, in horse racing (4) the two mounts must be specified, whereas the riders need not be, for the object is to determine the horse’s speed of gallop, not the skill with which its rider urges it on.

Accordingly, if the parties stipulate (5) that no other bow may be used—meaning (6) that he must shoot with nothing other than this one—