# Howard Hill Form



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

I was just looking at the Rose City archery site, with Howard Hill on the homepage, looking at his form, sure doesn't look like the conventional wisdom, his bow arm is bent too much, seems like he is hunched forward a bit


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

They don't want you to know this, but the form isn't as improtant as a consistent anchor (whereevr that may be) and pointing at the target. Shhh!


----------



## AKRuss (Jan 10, 2003)

I've read that HH shortened his draw to accommodate the limitations of POC arrow shafting that was available for the weight bows he was shooting.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Sanaj -

One of the theories (that makes a lot of sense to me), is that when Hill got started, he couldn't get wood arrow stiff enough for his actual draw length, which was, IIRC, in the 31" range. So rather than shoot arrows with two soft a spine, he shortened his draw length to accomodate the wood shafts available at the time. If you look closely, most of the pictures of Hill show him drawing right to the back of the arrow head, think that was a coinsidence? (Can you say clicker?) By the time better arrow materials were available (which he used, BTW), seems that his "form" was so ingrained, there was no reason for him to switch. 

Hill's "split vision" was little more than a gap varient, so he tried to get the arrow directly below his eye - also, not an unreasonable notion, hence the slight and I Mean SLIGHT bending over.

As far as conventional wisdom is concerned, Hill was a great embassador for archery, on a world wide scale, and he was the best of the best for his time, but given the improvements in techniques used by some modern archers, to compete today he'd probably have to adapt to "current conventional wisdom" in some part or get his fanny whipped by most competitive college level shooters, forget the top flight guys.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying, I have nothing but respect for the man's menory and what he was able to do with and FOR archery, but to live in a fantasy would over "what was" is a mistake, IMHO, anyway. Mr. Hill was no fool, ever really think about why he stopped competing after 196 wins? Always better to retire undefeated, than have some kid come along and bust the myth. (I can't prove that, and to my feeble mind, it also makes sense.)

The man is dead, let's honor his memory by being the best archers we can, and not limit ourselves by trying to adhear to a myth.

Kegan - 

Sorry, pretty far off base. A solid anchor is only one part of the picture. I can be locked into my anchor as solid as a boat anchor and still change my draw length by 2 - 3 inches, without having to bend my elbow. That's where form comes in. Obviously, 2 to 3 inches will make a bit of a difference in the expected point of impact.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Hey Tony,

DITTO!

I was going to say most of that but you said it better. (smiley face goes here)

Dave


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Dave -

LOL, but you wouldn't have had all the typos ... :embara:

Viper1 out.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Viper1 said:


> Kegan -
> 
> Sorry, pretty far off base. A solid anchor is only one part of the picture. I can be locked into my anchor as solid as a boat anchor and still change my draw length by 2 - 3 inches, without having to bend my elbow. That's where form comes in. Obviously, 2 to 3 inches will make a bit of a difference in the expected point of impact.
> 
> Viper1 out.


I didn't mean solid, but CONSISTENT. Drawing the arrow to the head would insure consitent length- get I forgot to mention that outright:wink:. I have just seen alot of "bad form" archers who were good shots because of consistency in their "bad form". Guess I should be more clear:tongue:


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Years ago I watched Rick Welch's 2nd DVD. The first thing I noticed was that his hand didn't come straight back after release, rather, it flew off to the side of his face....consistently.

He's won more IBO world championships than any other recurve shooter, so he must know what he's doing. "Consistency"? You bet. :wink:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Kegan - 

Everybody these days thinks is OK to be different or "special". There are plenty off people who are very consistent, just consistently bad. If 999 people are doing something one way and being sucessful, and one guy is just as successful doing it another, that's fine, but I'll play the odds everytime. Not sure what you consider "good", but I haven't taken things like game harvested or IBO records serriously in .. well, never have actually. Taking pot shots at deer 10 yds away doesn't take a lot of shooting skill. That's why I always suggest the same benchmark and it's a shooting benchmark, nothing more. You're welcome to give it a try as well; kinda cuts through the bs.

Viper1 out.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Yawn....

Typical demeaning response. I'm not surpirsed.


----------



## 42WLA (Jun 13, 2006)

Get Howard's book, "Hunting the Hard Way" it will explain a lot about how and why he shot like he did. It should be on the book shelf of every traditional archer.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

The key is CONSISTANTCY. If an archer can draw, anchor and release exactly the same way everytime...their accuracy is generally more CONSISTANT...and being able to take advantage of our anatomy and it's biomechanics can make the draw, anchor and release more CONSISTANT, which can all lead to increased accuracy and increased efficientcy.

An archer doesn't HAVE to be efficient in all their movements to be consistant...but in most cases an archer DOES NEED to be CONSISTANT in order to be accurate or at least CONSISTANTLY accurate 

Ray


----------



## Martin Farrent (May 30, 2007)

42WLA said:


> It should be on the book shelf of every traditional archer.


Yes, it's of historical interest.

Follow Hill's style, and you're engaged in reenactment.

Incorporate later insights/developments, and we're talking about modern archery.

Best,

Martin


----------



## Farley (Aug 1, 2005)

I think the key point in all this is that Hills legend hasn't had a chance to be inflated, he did what he did and there is no denying it. He did it with tackle that in todays archery is considered "difficult". As with Byron Ferguson, they both manage impressive feets because they put the time and effort into knowing the tackle. Don't shoot like either one, shoot like yourself consistantly.


----------



## Alek2 (Jul 11, 2007)

Some of us enjoy reenacment. To shoot in our backyard and pretend that we are on some great hunt with Howard to read about his archery fets with that old equipment he used. Yes some of us had rather dream dreams than getting so technical that all the fun is gone. Will we ever be great archers? Probably not. And that's OK. The thrill is we have look across the shoulders of giants.


----------



## Martin Farrent (May 30, 2007)

Alek2 said:


> Some of us enjoy reenactment.


That's fine, Alek.

As long as beginners aren't pointed in the wrong direction (for best results), we can all enjoy whatever we like.

There's a reason many things have changed since HH, but there's no reason for everyone to embrace the changes.

I happen to like the changes, but that's all.

Best,

Martin


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Yawn....
> 
> Typical demeaning response. I'm not surpirsed.


Would you please explain what is demeaning about a simple statement of facts?



> Yes some of us had rather dream dreams than getting so technical that all the fun is gone.


The more I learn about this business of hitting the intended target, the more technical I have gotten. I'm having more fun than I did when I was shooting "instinctively" and having bad days when I couldn't hit anything and didn't know why. Frankly I've never understood the argument that "simple" automatically equals "fun". Missing is never fun.

Dave


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Dave T said:


> Would you please explain what is demeaning about a simple statement of facts?
> 
> Dave


Equating the act of winning more IBO world championships than any other recurve shooter to "taking pot shots at deer 10 yds away" is a statement of facts?


----------



## Alek2 (Jul 11, 2007)

I agree with both Martin and Dave T. We are all different. Some of us have technical minds and enjoy the progress that we have made. Thats how we got to the moon and have all the modern things we all enjoy. For example I enjoy my Glock pistol. Modern and technical. But I don't enjoy getting into all the details of how it works and how they figured out how to make it. Some people on the other hand realy get into that side of it. Thats good makes for improvements like those you mentioned in archery. Some of us like technical things some don't. Some of us just can't deal with getting too technical but I am glad we have those of you that can.


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

I have to admit a lot of these comments were unexpected. I have watched Howard Hill on videos, and his shooting was extraordinary, I have personally never seen anyone his equal though I know there are some great shots out there. His confidence in his system of shooting which is obvious when you study him is second to none. 
I could be mistaken as I haven't read all the literature available on him but I don't buy the idea that he adjusted his style because he was shooting a heavy bow using wood arrows and he had to shorten his draw, people have been shooting heavy bows with wood arrows for ages without having to do this.
And the idea that his equipment was primitive doesn't ring true, people have been making excellent properly spined arrows and accurate bows for a long time. 
Lastly though Hill definitely was somewhat of a blowhard, tooting his own horn, the greatest archer that ever lived, etc., not to mention some of his films, while fascinating to glean the pure archery-otherwise were pretty terrible in general (partly a generational quirk) he was an amazing archer, few stuntmen in films would allow an archer to literally shoot them (with a board backstop under their shirt) as in the making of the movie Robin Hood for instance; I'm a little suprised traditional archers would marginalize him~
sunaj
World class archer
(occaisionally in between misses)


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Alek -

I tend to agree with you. I've done a few "re-enactments" in my younger days and honestly had a blast. They are some of my fondest aechery memories. What Dave and Martin are saying is that there comes a point where, unless you are blessed with some incredible eye-hand co-ordination and nerves of steel (which I'm NOT), to become proficient at any sport requires some techical training. That's the best practices approach I alluded to earlier comes in. We all have to find the "technical point of diminishing returns" for ourselves, and while that point may be a moving target throughout our shooting careers, it's one that makes us do what we enjoy doing, the way we enjoy doing it and gets us to where we want to be.

If someones enjoys shooting selfbows and wooden arrows with tied on feathers, that's great, but it's not for me - that's a personal choice. If some one wants to improve their shooting skills, I might be able to help out, not because I'm the greatest shot in the world, but because I was lucky enough to learn to shoot in a time when accuracy and proficieny weren't dirty or ambiguious words. Hope that helps.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Alek2 (Jul 11, 2007)

sunaj
As I said above I am not into the technical. I can tell from his pictures that Howard used a different style that many would use or teach today. But as you say the proof was in the outcome. Byron Ferguson said in his book that if Howard were here today with the equipment we now have there is no telling what feats he could do. Then again he might as I suspect prefer his old bow and arrows. We all have our heros. One of mine from another sport was the Babe. People have broke his record and will. But if you go to the hall of fame and look at the gloves and bats he used how small an odd compaired to todays equipment you get a greater apprication for what he did with what he did it with. No matter how many home runs anyone hits the Babe, in my eyes, will always be the sultan of swat. To me the same is true of Howard Hill. There may be better shots now although I doubt it using the same equipment. We will never be able to prove that. Howard is gone. The Babe is gone. But when I read the things above as you mentioned or hear someone talk about the new record in baseball, I just grin and go on. In fact I will be in the backyard this evening shooting my HH bow and missing more than I hit and thinking of giants.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Alek2,

Good points.

Archery -- especially traditional archery -- is such a diverse pastime that pretty much anyone can find a niche they enjoy. Some like shooting paper targets, other's are into 3D. Some primarily focus on bowhunting, while the next guy may just be content shooting at stumps and leaves in the woods. It doesn't make one guy right and the other wrong, and differing priorities shouldn't be fodder for ridicule. As they say..."it's all good".

I kind of like to mix things up a bit. I go to a few 3D's every year and like stump-shooting. Since I joined a new archery club close to home (where members can go shoot indoors any time they wish) I shoot 1 or 2 300 rounds a month. In the end though, my first love is bowhunting, so most everything else I do archery related is geared toward that end.


----------



## Alek2 (Jul 11, 2007)

Viper
I agree with your post. And I really have gotten a lot out of your technical information on this forum. Wish I were close enough to get you to give me some pointers on the things you have learned over the years. I enjoy watching those target archers with their great form place arrow after arrow on the spot. Not putting the technical side down at all. I know from my own shooting that some people are born with that hand eye coordination that you mentioned that I was not. Sometimes I can put three arrows touching feathers and the next three well I get them on the target somewhere. I know that has to do with form and consistancy something I get right sometimes and sometimes not. Like I said you keep telling us those things you have learned and I'll keep trying to apply them the best I can.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Viper- When I say "good", I mean they can hit what they want at ranges they deem reasonable for huning (10-20 yards)- be it twig, deer, or target. Besides, there are many different forms, such as the mediteranian draw (as used by Ishi), the "English" style, with the draw behind their jaw around their neck. The two are quite different, and that's not counting the various Asian forms as well. What is consitent among their forms? Well, consistency. You don't have to be consistent with everyone else, just with yourself.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Alek - 

LOL, On the NFAA target, I'm still the king of the 21 4x score. (For the non target guys, that means 4 arrows in the X ring and 1 in the 1 ring - ouch.)

Kegan - 

That's where we have a disconnet. We're trying to campare apples to apples here. What you're describing is unfortunately meaningless. If a guy thinks he's "good" because he can hit a pie plate at 10 feet, wonderful, but in reality, he stinks, when there are guys stacking arrows at 20 and 30 yds. The whole idea of different styles is great, but only if you compare people shooting the same style. Ishi was a lousey archer by todays' standards; reality for English Longbowmen was that they were concerned with minute of castle accuracy, if that's what you're into, great get involved with clout shooting, it's about as close as you're going to get. My feeling is that a lot of people here want a little more than that, that's why they ask questions. If you don't want that, that's your business, no right or wrong with that. 

Same issue with people (one or two in particular) who always jump in with an exception as justifcation of people "doing things differently". It's the "I know a guy who ... scenario.) I've shot with a number of people in my time, probably before you were even born, and while everyone had their own ideocyncracies (sp?), the basic form was damn near indentical, the reason for that is that we're all issued the same basic equipment (body). 

The bottom line is where the arrows go, whether it's a bullseye, deer or whatever. I haven't taught hunter safety in years, but I still teach shooting "techniques". Just about everyone who thinks they're different - ain't. It's why a properly trained archer can shoot better than a lot of "trad" guys who are being "different" or trying to emulate a myth.

What you do it totally your business, there are a few areas I can help folks out with, and a lot I can't. And no, teaching some one to shoot like Ishi ain't high on my list of things to do, getting the most out of ancher who wants to shoot to the best of their ability is. YMMV.

Oh and regardin "consistency", what do you think proper (or biomechanically efficient) form is all about? It letting YOU be as consistent as possible, by doing the least amount of work as possible - get it?

Viper1 out.


----------



## Alek2 (Jul 11, 2007)

Viper you not only give us all this great info but a laugh as well. Did you ever consider being the standup commedian archer. That minute of castle is a good one.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Personally, I enjoyed everything I've been able to gather on Howard Hill. What few videos I've had the occasion to see have been exciting. Fred Bear is another whom I enjoyed watching videos of and he shot a heavy bow as well.

Howard Hill, was able to "instinctively" if there is such a word, loose a number of arrows in direction of his target faster than I could get my second out of my back quiver. Pretty awesome ... elephants to squirrels... but I think that the point of all of this is that he was a great showman, did not demean archery, infected many with the dream of archery through his exploits as did saxon and pope with Ishii and of course Fred Bear, the other ambassador of archery.

As to his form, I'm having trouble keeping mine consistent.. but for what my two cents delivers, is that when my anchor is consistent, my "sight picture" is consistent, and my brain only has one set of calculations to perform. When I cannot be "myself" I have to draw, actually look down the arrow from my anchor, and then to the target to even get close to hitting it.. which after all that taught me that full length arrows are what allow me to come to anchor.. once there, focusing on the target takes care of what I've practiced.

This is the last thing... Howard Hill shot thousands of arrows, and he is the type of guy that takes each shot as a learning experience, I'm sure of it, and though he may be beaten today by "techies" on target, I'd be quick to say that my money would be on him in the field.

Aloha... Tom


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Here's the dichotomy. An archer DOES NOT HAVE to have perfect text book form to be consistantly accurate as some might make you think but the archer's form needs to be CONSISTANT to be consistantly accurate.

The reason why proper form is taught is because it takes the least amount of effort to execute, which often translates into being more CONSISTANT.

Howard Hill did NOT have text book target form. What he did have was the abilty to CONSISTANTLY repeat his form with every shot...which should be PART of the goal of every archer.

If you study Olympic archers there will be variations in form from archer to archer just as there will be similarities.

A strong foundation is obviously better than a weak one. If something's not working...go back to the drawing board and start from the foundation up.

Ray


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Here's the dichotomy. An archer DOES NOT HAVE to have perfect text book form to be consistantly accurate as some might make you think but the archer's form needs to be CONSISTANT to be consistantly accurate.
> 
> Ray


I think that says it all right there. You only hit the the same hole with a rifle when your alignment with the target is identical... ok... consistent with the shot before it. 

Has anyone watched the Howard Hill video hunting elephants? Its been maybe 10 years since I've seen that video, but one thing I noticed and remember... he remained a constant while shooting, retrieving arrows, stringing, drawing and releasing.... smoooth and I'll bet if you had put a shadow graph on him, that his silouette didn't hardly change at all.

Aloha.... Tom


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

Which leads one to the conclusion that hyping form may not be the best way to get to your goal-in my case hitting what I want to hit. Frankly if I meet someone who shoots great, I want to listen to their ideas about what thery think makes them shoot great. Sometimes I have to wonder just how well some of the people that make a religion out of so called 'correct shooting form' really shoot themselves. Perhaps after one has really gotten to know their bow, how they shoot may just be how dang good they are, naturally. 
Ohmmmmm......

Your comments are always worth reading, Alek


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sunaj ... 

Does anyone really shoot well "naturally"?  It took me years to keep all my arrows on a 9" pie plate, then a 6" pie plate, and now maybe within 4" at 15 to 20 yards ... 20 years later... yer gonna give me a complex.... :mg:


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

Ratus,
I doubt many pick up a bow and shoot it well right off, but I do think start with a bow and shoot it well much quicker than others, and very well much more quickly in general, motivation is a key factor I'm sure , Bruce Lee once said said that it wasn't time so much as doing the work that gives one competence in a skill. 
I do think good shooters explore their equipment and experiment and find their own solutions themselves after a point, instead of always asking other people how to shoot well (not that I am in any way discouraging people seeking advice from others (I'm here aren't I but I don't put other opinions above my own judgement )


----------



## Martin Farrent (May 30, 2007)

sunaj said:


> Which leads one to the conclusion that hyping form may not be the best way to get to your goal...


Everyone deviates from good form - if only by accident. Some purposely do so, because some detail or other is easier for them that way. Mostly however, what is recognised as 'good' form is also the easiest path to consistency. 

Our bodies are very similar. So are our eyes. And brains.

Sorry, but the advocates of 'consistent' unorthodox form don't really know what they're talking about. It's not orthodox because it's harder - that's why!

Also, most of those advocates start out with whatever jumble of technique a bow may suggest to them, then attempt to make it repeatable. That is very different to a considered deviation from orthodoxy, such as Hill's reported reasons for shortening his draw.

Best,

Martin


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

Well it seems to me it depends on who you talk to, when you talk about so called "correct form." I have seen some people like Byron say a relaxed yet somewhat firm grip is appropriate for the bow hand, I have read where HH said your grip should be very hard (according to Byron in his book, Become the Arrow), then people use different anchor points, some the lip, the jaw, the ear, etc. Some use 1 over/2 under, some 3 under draw hand, some bend their bow hand more than others, some face forward to the target more than others, some angle their bow and some shoot vertically, etc. I thinik there is as much religion in this as there is science


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

sanaj -

Except for the "tightness of the grip" part, you're confusing form with style. You can have lousey form with a vertical bow as well as a canted one if you don't know what you're doing and vice versa. Split finger and 3 under each has advantages and disadvantages, again nothing to do with form, ditto for high and low grips. Poor shoulder geometry, floating or inconsistent anchors, dead or sloppy follow-throughs those are form issues.

I think you might want to re-read some of the previous posts and get a better feel for the definition of form. The science part has been pretty well defined. Also, there's nothing wrong with someone using less than a textbook from, providing there's a valid reason for that particular person doing it AND that particular person understands what he's doing and WHY (as was the case with Hill and the bend elbow). Sorry, but "because Howard Hill did it that way" or "Byron said so", ain't good enough for some of us.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Aspirin Buster (Mar 25, 2004)

Howdy gang-- I enjoy reading these threads. There are some amazing folks on this site and I learn things all the time...

One thing I think Howard Hill, Rev. Stacy Groscup, Byron Ferguson, and Fred Bear all had in common was control of the mental aspects of shooting. I'd say 90% of what I do as an exhibition shooter is mental. It's that important.

Yes good equipment set up & tuned properly is important. Yes to some degree you have to have good form... But having said that the mental aspect comes into play and must be emphasized. I've seen a mediocre shooter outshoot a much better shooter just by having control of the mental aspects of the sport. 

Al Henderson's book, "Understanding Winning Archery" is a great book. Although it doesn't really have much to do with instinctive shooting, it does deal with the mental aspects of the sport and how important it is. 

My two cents worth. Thanks...


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

Well I never said because HH or Byron said something it was immutable (you might reread my posts), I simply uised them as an example, first of all we have people saying different things on this thread, 

Martin says:

"Sorry, but the advocates of 'consistent' unorthodox form don't really know what they're talking about. It's not orthodox because it's harder - that's why!" which would suggest there really is one form best for all


Black Wolf says this:

"If you study Olympic archers there will be VARIATIONS IN FORM from archer to archer just as there will be similarities."
Which would indicate there are differences in form, as long as the archer is consistent, HE MAY/WILL SHOOT WELL

keegan says:

"They don't want you to know this, but the form isn't as improtant as a consistent anchor (whereevr that may be) and pointing at the target. Shhh!" which suggests (according to his post the anchor is paramount, and different people have different form.


I would agree consistency is the important point, but I don't think form is as rigid as I see people suggesting it is


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Okay, I'm done. This is getting unpleasent. But before I go, I would just like to say that Ishi was a GREAT archer- modern standards be darned. He loved archery and WAS good at it. He used the turks shooting method- and they were the horseback archers. I'm done now- this isn't fun:zip:


----------



## Alek2 (Jul 11, 2007)

Now see we have got too technical and taken all the fun out of our conversation. Let's all go out and shoot some arrows. I am looking for a picture of a python on the net to take home a put on my hay bale. When I shoot at it I will yell " put his head overthere Eddie".


----------

