# What AxleTo Axle for Field Shooting



## distributor

In your opinion what is the best Axle to Axle Length on bows for Field shooting?

Short 35" to 37"
medium 38" to 42"
Long 43" to 47"

We all know that the short bows general will be a lot faster but with 
a sharp string angle, This would work for extream short draw shooters.

We know that the medium bows work real well for the 27" to 29" draw length.
The angle not quite as sharp.

With the longth axle to axle bows we know that this works well for long draw
shooters 30" to 33" draw length.

Give some of your opinions on this subject.


----------



## FS560

You kind of answered your own question. There is no ideal ATA for field shooting anymore than there is an ideal ATA for any specific kind of shooting.

Short bow, long bow, whatever, they are all accurate.

The ATA should be a selection that will provide the best fit of the archers's nose and side of chin to the string slope.


----------



## AKDoug

I like my 43" ATA bow at 29" draw. I don't feel comfortable shooting any shorter bows.


----------



## Marcus

FS560 said:


> You kind of answered your own question. There is no ideal ATA for field shooting anymore than there is an ideal ATA for any specific kind of shooting.
> 
> Short bow, long bow, whatever, they are all accurate.
> 
> The ATA should be a selection that will provide the best fit of the archers's nose and side of chin to the string slope.


I agree with your first 2 comments, but not your last. 
Side contact is a bad idea because the string wants to move sideways and by touching the side of the face makes that inconsistent. To test this yourself shoot some indoor and then take the string off your face but look through the peep. If you are not touching your face your will still hit the X. If you are touching your face you will now hit a RH 7-6 or worse on a Vagas face. 
Touching the nose is just not needed, that's what you peep sight is for. 

Here is Australia's top women shooter (target and field). As you can see, not touching her face.


----------



## Xs24-7

How can you justify statements like that when virtually every good shooter in the world uses an solid anchor on their nose/face?


----------



## Marcus

Because it's REALLY easy to test and is very conclusive once you do the tests, and no archer has shot 1440 yet. 

If you had something in your form where even the slightest change that you can not feel will cause you to miss the 10, wouldn't you think that perhaps it's not ideal?

The front of the nose is not an issue, but the side of the chin is, and using the nose is not needed to do what people use it for. 

This guy's pretty good.  No nose contact, only minor face contact.


----------



## field14

Marcus, "conclusive" my foot! YOU haven't the time nor the experience to get CONCLUSIVE evidence to supposedly prove your point.

You ain't gonna show one or two pictures of a couple of "top shooters" and tell us on here you have "CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE"...when the VAST MAJORITY of the shooters in the world do it just the OPPOSITE of what you say is "conclusive evidence."

Get real...1370 is great, but it isn't CONSISTENT 1400's...or even close to Roger Hoyle's 1414 FITA.

It isn't close to Dave Cousins' records either.

COUNTLESS THOUSANDS of WORLD CLASS archers use nose and face anchor contact points and you tell us with TWO pictures that you have "conclusive evidence" to the contrary.

You had better latch on to some coaching credentials, approach Australia's board of archery...FIRE the current Australian coach and YOU SIGN ON as the new coach of Australia's world team! Then, advertise your new "conclusive approach" to shooting perfection and become a world-class coach...you'll make millions.

Yes...I'm bantering you...engineer or no...you haven't enough "evidence" to use CONCLUSIVE in your statements...when there is way more than you can come up with to the CONTRARY and it is being done every day WITH face and NOSE contact; in fact , it's probably being done as I type this.

SOME can be successful with what you say is "CONCLUSIVE"; but by far the MASSES and MAJORITY....well they'll do it with the face/nose contact SOLID ANCHOR (and yes, they WON'T be bending the string around their face)...

Bait of the day: Straight HAMMER BRASS for big lunker Mackinaws.

field14


----------



## JAVI

I guess we could flood the thread with photos of Dietmar, Braden, Jamie, Cousins and other world record holders to make our point... but experience tells me that Marcus would still dispute the basis...


----------



## XP35

Personally, with my 28" AMO DL, I prefer the string angle on 38-40" upright limb angled bows. They fit oh so nicely. I like this fit for everything, hunting, 3D, spots......


But the shooters with the string so far off their face......I guess it could work. I tried no face contact a few years ago before anyone told me it wouldn't work. I shot OK, but it wasn't the best (FOR ME) for consistency. Whether it was in the setup or whatnot I couldn't say. I just thought that no contact could increase consistency. So I shortened the DL tried it for at least a month. I believe part of my problems were the lack of a good hand anchor point (unless I used a 2" loop) and the fact that the peep was so far from my eye and I couldn't get a peep with a big enough aperture to work for sight alignment. Relying only on the peep is not a good thing, especially on uneven ground.


----------



## Marcus

Please field14, you are embarrassing yourself. 

I said


> To test this yourself shoot some indoor and then take the string off your face but look through the peep. If you are not touching your face your will still hit the X. If you are touching your face you will now hit a RH 7-6 or worse on a Vegas face.


That is the conclusive evidence that touching the face makes a BIG difference to the impact point on the target. Keep in mind this is only just touching the face, not even firmly. 
My point is that if touching your face so lightly that you can barely feel it can make 4 rings difference at 70m, how can you possibly keep that consistent? Why would you risk it?
For the record I also tested poor peep alignment and even with extreme poor alignment still shot a LH 10. The string contact is the key. 

For the record I am not an engineer, did not claim to be. I said my info came from an engineer. Also I have shot 1371 once and 1369 once. However you have raised that twice now so I am glad you are impressed.  I don't claim to be the world's best archer, but I walk my own path and do not just take everything a 'pro' does as gospel. 

Think outside the box, you might shoot better.


----------



## Marcus

Javi
They are all excellent shooters, but I am shocked that someone like yourself would just ignore something as important as string interference. Recurve archers are well aware of this issue and the majority work very hard to avoid it. 
Personally I am NOT Cousins or Braden so copying them would be stupid.


----------



## field14

Marcus said:


> Please field14, you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> I said
> 
> 
> That is the conclusive evidence that touching the face makes a BIG difference to the impact point on the target. Keep in mind this is only just touching the face, not even firmly.
> My point is that if touching your face so lightly that you can barely feel it can make 4 rings difference at 70m, how can you possibly keep that consistent? Why would you risk it?
> For the record I also tested poor peep alignment and even with extreme poor alignment still shot a LH 10. The string contact is the key.
> 
> For the record I am not an engineer, did not claim to be. I said my info came from an engineer. Also I have shot 1371 once and 1369 once. However you have raised that twice now so I am glad you are impressed.  I don't claim to be the world's best archer, but I walk my own path and do not just take everything a 'pro' does as gospel.
> 
> Think outside the box, you might shoot better.


I ALWAYS think out of the box, Marcus. I can also appreciate that the Aussies are being taught AWAY from any face contact...IF TOO MUCH CONTACT...I fully agree that it is a SERIOUS PROBLEM....I whole-heartedly agree with this.

BUT....you gotta have "reference" points for SOLID ANCHORING....you gotta have references for that peep alignment too. I also agree that for sure POSTIVE consistency with the nose contact is tough to achieve as well. And in the wind with the bow being blown to kindgom come as well as the shooter...well...that is why I don't think we'll EVER see a 1440 FITA score...too many variables involved.

BUT....really, the ONLY thing that bothers me...is the brash use of CONCLUSIVE evidence....

Left side X with misalignment...well here, in TIGHT competitions....a LH X touching the line....AIN'T GOOD ENOUGH...you just LOST THE SHOOT OFF...gotta be INSIDE OUT X or you LOSE. And that Inside out X...isn't the "normal 10-ring"...it is the BABYX...especially at 18 meters indoors (VEGAS).

That is why....nearly ALL of the world class shooters use SLIGHT and I emphasize SLIGHT face contact (some even use a small kisser) with the string and SLIGHT nose contact for peep alignment.

Maybe the "Aussie coach" is on to something and it MIGHT become revolutionary...but CONCLUSIVE PROOF...that remains to be seen...

field14


----------



## JAVI

Marcus said:


> Javi
> They are all excellent shooters, but I am shocked that someone like yourself would just ignore something as important as string interference. Recurve archers are well aware of this issue and the majority work very hard to avoid it.
> Personally I am NOT Cousins or Braden so copying them would be stupid.


Marcus, 

I don’t discount the premise of no facial contact, but I believe that consistency is the real answer. If you can/could be consistent with no facial contact at all it would be a boon to your score. However in personal testing I could never achieve the necessary level of consistency with no contact. 

For me to alter my way of shooting and teaching to accommodate a style I cannot duplicate with at least promising results would be futile at best and possibly disastrous to my students. 

I do believe that the less contact with the string the better, but I also believe that the more reference points you can achieve the easier it is to be consistent. The trick is to find a happy and consistent medium ground…

I never copy any individual shooter, but I do study and analyze their form and styles. I believe that great archers of all styles and disciplines have certain commonalities and if one can duplicate those while developing their personal form it will only help.


----------



## Xs24-7

So copying the technique used by the worlds most successful archers would be stupid...but bull headily pushing an unproven technique which flys in the face of convention, results, and common sense is smart...:confused

Using one picture of Clint as justification isnt fair to him Marcus...especially one taken before he has moved his head over and anchored with the string lightly resting against his nose.
Clint himself would tell you he shoots a C4 because he likes the string angle and solid anchor he gets with longer bows(note:not forum conjecture...talked to him about it a couple weeks ago)
One thing that most good shooters will acknowledge, is that there are a lot of people who shoot good scores in practise...some even take them into tournaments on occasion...but what seperates a good practise shooter from a World champion is a solid foundation. You see a lot of archer say "I shoot 1370+"...and then shoot 1330 at worlds...why is that?...or archers who claim to shoot 345+ at 70m shoot a 109 their first 12 arrow match...and are beaten first round...you can get away with a lot during a relaxed practise session, but when the heat is on, a solid foundation based on proven fundamentals wins every time. If you look at the top archers in the world, yes you will some some variety, but the basic foundation and fundamentals reamins very much the same.


----------



## Marcus

Well we'll agree to disagree and see what happens in time. These issues show up during pressure situations usually I agree Ed, and this is a major one. 

However I will ask this one thing only



> My point is that if touching your face so lightly that you can barely feel it can make 4 rings difference at 70m, how can you possibly keep that consistent? Why would you risk it?


and answering "Cause Cousins does it" is not an answer, it's a cop out.


----------



## field14

Marcus said:


> Well we'll agree to disagree and see what happens in time. These issues show up during pressure situations usually I agree Ed, and this is a major one.
> 
> However I will ask this one thing only
> 
> 
> 
> and answering "Cause Cousins does it" is not an answer, it's a cop out.


And so it is a "cop out" for you to use a COUPLE of shooters that are shooting better with whatever.

CONCLUSIVE evidence ?????


I couldn't agree more with the idea of TOO MUCH FACE CONTACT causing SEVERE problems....especially with today's high letoff bows that take such a large load off the bowstring and make it as twistable as a pretzel...

but c'mon Marcus...just don't use CONCLUSIVE as a term so loosely....


the MAJORITY of the TOP WINNERS world-wide use SLIGHT face contact and nose-contact and it has been successful for MILLIONS of shooters, and MILLIONS of shots for lots of years....

Can't buy that NOW all of a sudden it is CONCLUSIVE that it is ALL WRONG....

Not enough evidence or data to support it quite that strongly..

We would go along with the statement that TOO MUCH FACE CONTACT is BAD NEWS...

But...NO face contact....you gotta finish with what it is that is being done to INSURE and CONSTANT, REPEATABLE, and CONSISTENT 'point of reference' for the anchor(s)...because FLOATING AROUND IN MID-AIR is NOT constant, repeatable, nor consistent enough to set world records, shoot higher scores, nor win tournaments.

TELL THE REST OF THE STORY....cuz they are NOT floating out there....with those anchor points.....

field14


----------



## Marcus

Who said anything about floating? There is no floating. In fact the release aids are very firmly anchors to the bottom of the jaw bone, there is no way that the hand can move around in that position. 
Also the line of forces are all correct and optimized. 

Sorry but so far the argument you have put forward is just "but, but lots of others don't do it so it's can;t be right!". 

So come on, please explain why you are think that being able to move your arrows 4 rings indoors by slightly touching your string is a good idea. I want facts, not "cause I think everyone does it". 

If I said that if I did something that could move my groups left-right to that degree you would advise against doing it.


----------



## Marcus

Another example, perhaps shows the anchor position better. You can see it is VERY stable. 

James Park
AR34
Vegas Indoor best: 300 30x
FITA best: 1386
90m best: 345


----------



## field14

Marcus said:


> Another example, perhaps shows the anchor position better. You can see it is VERY stable.
> 
> James Park
> AR34
> Vegas Indoor best: 300 30x
> FITA best: 1386
> 90m best: 345


Doesn't look like he is finally "set in" yet to me. I don't think the photo is "complete", due to the elbow alignment, the bow alignment, the hand position...it looks like he JUST NOW got to anchor to me, and is acquring the target prior to final "set in."

Also...AT VEGAS UNDER PRESSURE 30X....NO! He's NOT one of the FOUR to ever shoot 30X at Vegas.....It would be nice if he would come to Vegas this year and do it, however! 

NOW...get pics of OTHER WORLD CLASS...you know, Roger Hoyle, Jesse Broadwater, Nathan Brooks (Oh, you'll love this one), Jeff Hopkins, Eric Griggs, Reo Wilde, Dee Wilde, Sally Seipp, Jamie Van Natta, Nancy Zorn, Mary Zorn, Dean Pridgen, Chris White, Jimmy Despart....You know WINNERS consistently throughout DECADES....

Not just one or two that are having success of YOUR choosing to try to prove YOUR POINT...

In addition..>FINISH THE STORY TOO....in other words, what you say the AUSSIES are doing...has been TRIED BEFORE, no doubt in my mind, but for SOME REASONS....was eventually cast off...I don't KNOW those reasons...

What we all KNOW is that archers are resistant to change... and will pretty much follow what is being used and is successful over the long haul and what is used and done by consistent winners over time. Archers won't accept one or two or three things as conclusive proof...and "tested" when they don't even know what the control was, or if there was only ONE variable tested at a time to prove that it was indeed THAT variable that was making a difference, and all of it done under the same conditions....

You gotta finish your story...cuz they are NOT shooting better scores by abandoning what has been standard for years...and then not COMPENSATING by using something else to INSURE positive alignment...an it will be MORE THAN ONE THING, too....finish the story, Marcus....

I'm not saying you are wrong....but you don't finish the story....ad you keep avoiding WHAT they have done to make sure the REST of the alignment is completed.

field14:tongue::wink:


----------



## frydaddy40

Marcus said:


> I agree with your first 2 comments, but not your last.
> Side contact is a bad idea because the string wants to move sideways and by touching the side of the face makes that inconsistent. To test this yourself shoot some indoor and then take the string off your face but look through the peep. If you are not touching your face your will still hit the X. If you are touching your face you will now hit a RH 7-6 or worse on a Vagas face.
> Touching the nose is just not needed, that's what you peep sight is for.
> 
> Here is Australia's top women shooter (target and field). As you can see, not touching her face.


 If i may you are right but, look at her form. To much musle us at full draw, needs to be a bone on bone alinement. May need to ajust draw lenght a little longer so she can us her back musles to hold at full draw. Just something to think about. Us the B.e.s.t. method form model. It works. But hay, if she is the best then she don't need to get better.


----------



## frydaddy40

*wow*



Marcus said:


> Another example, perhaps shows the anchor position better. You can see it is VERY stable.
> 
> James Park
> AR34
> Vegas Indoor best: 300 30x
> FITA best: 1386
> 90m best: 345


 Know thats what i am talking about Very nice form. Bone on bone very stable and very effictent. frydaddy


----------



## frydaddy40

*one more*

 I do think that a touch anchor is the most consistent to remember for an archer. But some are scared of the string toaching there face.


----------



## frydaddy40

*ooooooooooooooooooo Sorry*

 I think the longer the better when it comes to axle to axle lenth and target archery shooting. I shoot 41" axle to axle Forge F2 at 50 pounds. Works great for me.


----------



## SuperX

distributor said:


> In your opinion what is the best Axle to Axle Length on bows for Field shooting?
> 
> Short 35" to 37"
> medium 38" to 42"
> Long 43" to 47"
> 
> We all know that the short bows general will be a lot faster but with
> a sharp string angle, This would work for extream short draw shooters.
> 
> We know that the medium bows work real well for the 27" to 29" draw length.
> The angle not quite as sharp.
> 
> With the longth axle to axle bows we know that this works well for long draw
> shooters 30" to 33" draw length.
> 
> Give some of your opinions on this subject.



Medium for me though my current setup is actually in between at 37.75" A2A.


----------



## Carroll in MO

I like a 38-42" for all my shooting
Carroll


----------



## Jbird

*Coincidence?*

That this new theory of no nose contact arrived about the same time you and James started shooting mini bows? If you guys changed your mind and starting shooting 40 inch bows again would touching your nose be back in vogue?
Just wondering.
Jbird


----------



## Marcus

Jbird said:


> That this new theory of no nose contact arrived about the same time you and James started shooting mini bows? If you guys changed your mind and starting shooting 40 inch bows again would touching your nose be back in vogue?
> Just wondering.
> Jbird


No, I was shooting a Trykon XL and a Ultratec XT3000 earlier this year and my anchor point was exactly the same, not touching my face or touching my nose. 
I don't mind shooting longer bows at all, nothing wrong with them, but they didn't score higher for me either. 

You have not shot 300 30x at any point field14, so clearly touching the face doesn't work for you. 

frydaddy40: Umm BEST method? You are looking at Australia's best recurve indoor shooter who has done alot of work both Mr Lee and James Park. There is pretty much no muscle use in her arms at all.


----------



## Brown Hornet

Are there US archers that don't get the string all up in the face that are top level archers? :noidea:

Well actually I do know of one. :wink:


----------



## field14

Marcus said:


> No, I was shooting a Trykon XL and a Ultratec XT3000 earlier this year and my anchor point was exactly the same, not touching my face or touching my nose.
> I don't mind shooting longer bows at all, nothing wrong with them, but they didn't score higher for me either.
> 
> You have not shot 300 30x at any point field14, so clearly touching the face doesn't work for you.
> 
> frydaddy40: Umm BEST method? You are looking at Australia's best recurve indoor shooter who has done alot of work both Mr Lee and James Park. There is pretty much no muscle use in her arms at all.


Marcus, have YOU shot 30X 300 vegas at any point yet? Since only FOUR EVER in the HISTORY of the VEGAS shoot have done it IN COMPETITION...and THAT is what COUNTS, then over the course of 30 years or so out of countless thousands of rounds..ONLY FOUR. And NEITHER OF US is on that list of FOUR. PRACTICE SCORES DO NOT COUNT EITHER>...anyone can pencil whip those...

Now...about your comment about face contact producing a low right 7 or something...I don't think that ANY VEGAS WINNER has WON the tournament by shooting 'em in the 7 ring...and ALL THE VEGAS WINNERS, recent AND PAST...have had FACE CONTACT, and more than likely nose to the string too...but of course....WINNING VEGAS doesn't count...at least not as far as YOU are concerned...you would figure that YOUR "innovative and conclusive proof" weighs for more than ACTUAL PERFORMANCE IN YEARS and YEARS OF COMPETITIVE SHOOTING...where the score COUNTS and the names go down in the record books.

MAYBE when some names appear in the world record books, win MANY tournaments such as VEGAS, WORLDS, NFAA indoor NATIONALS, Face2Face, European MAJOR Events and the like...and those are done by people using your "conclusive proof" people MIGHT just take it with more than a grain of salt...but until then....it is an IDEA....NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF. 

Have you shot 557 FIELD SCORES? Have you shot 450 perfect vegas rounds? Have you shot countless 60X 300's on the blue NFAA face?

Your "innovation" or whatever you call it about the contact thing is a GOOD THING...but you still 'refuse' to tell the REST OF THE STORY...probably because you DON'T KNOW the rest of the story...about the OTHER THING(S) done to make sure things are STILL in line and stay that way.

Just agree to disagree and get on with it...cuz many of us are NOT BUYING your supposed "tested and CONCLUSIVE PROOF"...especially since the best in the world have FACE AND NOSE CONTACT...and seldom if EVER shoot a low right "7"...unless the wind is howling...and the DO NOT DO THIS EVER indoors...to do so...is an INSTANT LOSS of the tournament.

We won't convince you and you certainly haven't convinced many of us either...so agree to disagree...and don't worry about today...since it is already "tomorrow" there down under...:wink::tongue:

field14


----------



## Brown Hornet

field14 said:


> Marcus, have YOU shot 30X 300 vegas at any point yet? Since only FOUR EVER in the HISTORY of the VEGAS shoot have done it IN COMPETITION...and THAT is what COUNTS, then over the course of 30 years or so out of countless thousands of rounds..ONLY FOUR.
> 
> Now...about your comment about face contact producing a low right 7 or something...I don't think that ANY VEGAS WINNER has WON the tournament by shooting 'em in the 7 ring...and ALL THE VEGAS WINNERS, recent AND PAST...have had FACE CONTACT, and more than likely nose to the string too...but of course....WINNING VEGAS doesn't count...for you either....
> 
> Have you shot 557 FIELD SCORES? Have you shot 450 perfect vegas rounds? Have you shot countless 60X 300's on the blue NFAA face?
> 
> Your "innovation" or whatever you call it about the contact thing is a GOOD THING...but you still 'refuse' to tell the REST OF THE STORY...probably because you DON'T KNOW the rest of the story...about the OTHER THING(S) done to make sure things are STILL in line and stay that way.
> 
> Just agree to disagree and get on with it...cuz many of us are NOT BUYING your supposed "tested and CONCLUSIVE PROOF"...especially since the best in the world have FACE AND NOSE CONTACT...and seldom if EVER shoot a low right "7"...unless the wind is howling...and the DO NOT DO THIS EVER indoors...to do so...is an INSTANT LOSS of the tournament.
> 
> We won't convince you and you certainly haven't convinced many of us either...so agree to disagree...and don't worry about today...since it is already "tomorrow" there down under...:wink::tongue:
> 
> field14



Actually Marcus hasn't shot Vegas but I know he has shot 30X rounds before....

as for the part about nobody winning Vegas without contact or shooting high scores outdoors.....not true....

I know of a certain shooter that I shot with at the Hill Billy shoot that has won Nationals and Vegas without contact. :wink:


----------



## field14

Brown Hornet said:


> Actually Marcus hasn't shot Vegas but I know he has shot 30X rounds before....
> 
> as for the part about nobody winning Vegas without contact or shooting high scores outdoors.....not true....
> 
> I know of a certain shooter that I shot with at the Hill Billy shoot that has won Nationals and Vegas without contact. :wink:


WHOM, may I ask? Name the names...a ONE TIME WINNER or multiple high placings????

and NO contact... how does this person anchor?

Again, please be advised....I'm NOT knocking the 'technique'; but...I'm sure not buying CONCLUSIVE PROOF that is being promoted and basically said that it is the best thing since sliced bread....This NO CONTACT thing has been tried before....and for whatever reason(s) didn't hang around.

But so was the "d-loop" tried before and abandoned...and now look how many use the "d-loop"...and how long it took to take hold by the masses...it too, was ridiculed for years.

But you can't throw something out there as conclusive proof with only a VERY FEW SAMPLE SETS...and a very few "higher scores than they've shot before"...cuz it is hard to PROVE that the "no contact" was the ONLY VARIABLE involved...and the "mental attitude" may have had as much to do with it as anything...
Something has to be done to cover the "maintenance of the alignment" part of the shooter's triangle...and THAT also has been ignored in Marcus' posts. Must be a "trade secret" or something, I guess.:tongue::darkbeer:

But it doesn't matter...the best in the world for decades don't count at all...since an occasional winner has more merit, I guess....

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## Brown Hornet

field14 said:


> WHOM, may I ask? Name the names...a ONE TIME WINNER or multiple high placings????
> 
> and NO contact... how does this person anchor?
> 
> Again, please be advised....I'm NOT knocking the 'technique'; but...I'm sure not buying CONCLUSIVE PROOF that is being promoted and basically said that it is the best thing since sliced bread....This NO CONTACT thing has been tried before....and for whatever reason(s) didn't hang around.
> 
> But so was the "d-loop" tried before and abandoned...and now look how many use the "d-loop"...and how long it took to take hold by the masses...it too, was ridiculed for years.
> 
> But you can't throw something out there as conclusive proof with only a VERY FEW SAMPLE SETS...and a very few "higher scores than they've shot before"...cuz it is hard to PROVE that the "no contact" was the ONLY VARIABLE involved...and the "mental attitude" may have had as much to do with it as anything...
> Something has to be done to cover the "maintenance of the alignment" part of the shooter's triangle...and THAT also has been ignored in Marcus' posts. Must be a "trade secret" or something, I guess.:tongue::darkbeer:
> 
> But it doesn't matter...the best in the world for decades don't count at all...since an occasional winner has more merit, I guess....
> 
> field14:wink::tongue:


Tom,

I understand your fight for the anchor . But the person I am talking about isn't a one time winner....I am talking about Jesse B 

I was totally blown by what I saw when I stepped back and watched him shoot.....now it doesn't look like he has no contact when you watch him shoot unless you are at the right angle...almost directly behind him. But I watched him shoot in Cumberland this summer and low and behold...he has doesn't touch his face....with anything.

Of course I didn't talk to him about it so I don't know if he has always done this or if it is something that he just started doing in the past few years....however he wasn't doing it in July so I can't imagine that he was shooting another way at Nationals or on Sunday of that shoot when he shot a 558 or so.:wink:

I am actually working on doing what Marcus has been talking about...a brothas lip gets int he way sometimes


----------



## Marcus

Never been to Vegas, been a dream since I was 12. I would not win it, I have so much work to do on my release aid usage under pressure that it wouldn't happen. However I can tell you my anchor is not what holds me back. 
However it is foolish and ignorant to dismiss things because someone has not won Vegas. Many of the world's best have not won Vegas. 

What I can tell you that as an ordinary guy I have seen my indoor Vegas scores improve dramatically since getting the string off my face. I went from 2 300's shot a year to 2-3 a week and have maintained that now for 2 years. No more shots missing for unknown reasons. Of course to be great I need to be able to do it every time, but that's OK, things don't happen overnight. 

Now the simple reality is this, and one that field14 is ignoring. If you are doing something that can been seen to affect the arrow impact point but such a huge amount, why would you keep that in your shooting system. 

Also another key is this. The Hooter Shooter is far more accurate than these 'Pros' and it does not touch the string. If you do touch the string with your finger on the HS you miss the 2 spot face indoors. 



> Something has to be done to cover the "maintenance of the alignment" part of the shooter's triangle...and THAT also has been ignored in Marcus' posts. Must be a "trade secret" or something, I guess


Umm, no it hasn't, it's not the point of the discussion. 
The 'triangle' as it is badly referred to is maintained by the anchor point of the release hand and the correct bone on bone alignments of the wrist, elbow and shoulder joints. Everything locks into place.


----------



## field14

Marcus said:


> Never been to Vegas, been a dream since I was 12. I would not win it, I have so much work to do on my release aid usage under pressure that it wouldn't happen. However I can tell you my anchor is not what holds me back.
> However it is foolish and ignorant to dismiss things because someone has not won Vegas. Many of the world's best have not won Vegas.
> 
> What I can tell you that as an ordinary guy I have seen my indoor Vegas scores improve dramatically since getting the string off my face. I went from 2 300's shot a year to 2-3 a week and have maintained that now for 2 years. No more shots missing for unknown reasons. Of course to be great I need to be able to do it every time, but that's OK, things don't happen overnight.
> 
> Now the simple reality is this, and one that field14 is ignoring. If you are doing something that can been seen to affect the arrow impact point but such a huge amount, why would you keep that in your shooting system.
> 
> Also another key is this. The Hooter Shooter is far more accurate than these 'Pros' and it does not touch the string. If you do touch the string with your finger on the HS you miss the 2 spot face indoors.
> 
> 
> Umm, no it hasn't, it's not the point of the discussion.
> The 'triangle' as it is badly referred to is maintained by the anchor point of the release hand and the correct bone on bone alignments of the wrist, elbow and shoulder joints. Everything locks into place.


Marcus, OBVIOUSLY the top end shooters that USE FACE/NOSE CONTACT...do NOT have WILD misses that they do not IMMEDIATELY know the reason for....and under the pressures of an INDOOR format...they flat do NOT miss WIDE or wild, at least NOT in we mere mortals' sense of a wild miss...Maybe to THEM a wild miss is touching the ten ring line or something, hahaha. 

They shoot 60X or 120X indoors like it is nothing...they shoot 555+ field scores every day...and they have the "contact" you refer to. They shoot 300 and 450 vegas rounds clean (with the exception of the "clean on babyX counts)..routinely almost like clock-work.

We mere "mortals" are also close to doing it routinely as well...but is the REASON for ALL the misses FACE CONTACT or NOSE CONTACT...I seriously DOUBT THAT...cuz these people are NOT surprised very often by an "unexplained miss"...of course realizing in their rarified atmosphere...ONE miss is one too many, haha.

What you are saying is making more sense...but there has to be SOMETHING in the matrix to KEEP the alignment with the head position, and keeping the peep site centered up without wavering the head position ONE IOTA....since there isn't a "contact" point other than the release hand to the jawbone (which of course I BUY as THE thing to be done anyways)....I'm having problems "buying" this because of my lack of understanding of the peep alignment issue without wavering the head position around and not having that "reference" contact. LOCKING into place doesn't quite cut it...I fully understand the bone on bone and shooter's triangle and all that correct stuff...BUT...

With the short ATA bows...the peep is so far from the string, that it becomes a MAJOR issue to try to keep the peep centered...or the scope centered (whichever way you look at it). It wouldn't take much if any off centering or head wavering to cause the same type of miss as having SLIGHT face and nose contact. Even a slight canting of the bow or wavering of the body can change that peep alignment in a heartbeat. We know of course heartbeat CAN affect impact point as well...but more to do with rifle shooters and learning to "time" trigger break to happen between beats, egads, the science of it all.

SO...there is something else along with this, but it isn't as "easy as pie", or OTHERS would be flocking to do it, know what I mean?

field14


----------



## Rchr

*Thread has been Hi-jacked!!*

F14 and Marcus although the subject you all have been discussing is a very interesting one lets get back to the question at hand.
Back to the subject:
I have a short draw 27" and a bow in the 36" A to A has served me well. My best field scores (550-555) have been shot with a 36" bow. I have also shot well with longer AtA bows up to 43".

During a conversation with George Chapman and a couple of other guys from PSE the subject of longer AtA bows came up. They all gave their opinion that the longer bows were better for indoor and to try and cut down on the length for outdoor shooting because longer meant more leverage for the wind to move your bow.


----------



## Marcus

See field you keep saying that the peep is too far away to centre correctly or that our heads are waving around. We wouldn't get the scores that we do if that was the case. No I am not outshooting Cousins, but I do shoot reasonably well. I wouldn't if what you are saying is happening. 

So field you are saying that the top guys don't miss because of face contact at all. Never ever ever. I say that it is just one piece of a large puzzle and when you are chasing points every little thing should be considered. 

BTW here is Cousin's anchor








As you can see he has clearly taken into account the string movement, hence why he has gone for a more recurve like string position around the front of the chin. I know that Dave uses a hooter shooter and will change his form if it doesn't hit the same spot he hits. I suspect this is a reason he has moved his head position. Of course I could be wrong, but it's a big coincidence. 


Back on topic (which it pretty much was) but anyway. World FITA Field Champ Chris White used a Hoyt Supertec to win the world title and to shoot 1386 at the world target in 2003. He then used a Switchback to to win the world games and world IFAA field, and to shoot the world double 70m record. He also has a 30" draw length. So clearly the short axle length doesn't hurt him.


----------



## Marcus

> Have you shot 557 FIELD SCORES? Have you shot 450 perfect vegas rounds? Have you shot countless 60X 300's on the blue NFAA face?


Field: No. Don't shoot that round sadly. Last shot it in 1991 I think.
450 Vegas: Yes, done that quite a number of times. PB is 158 10's in a row. 
NFAA: Yes, have done 300 60x, but rarely shoot this round. Won the world IFAA indoor postal twice as well in MJFU back in the early 90's with the only perfect scores outside of the MFU division. 

Anyway I have learnt from experience that while 3-4 of us are discussing it many many more are reading and hopefully a few think "you know, I do get these odd left or right shots I can't explain, maybe I should try fixing it". Your mind is too old to change.


----------



## WV Has Been

Marcus said:


> Anyway I have learnt from experience that while 3-4 of us are discussing it many many more are reading and hopefully a few think "you know, I do get these odd left or right shots I can't explain, maybe I should try fixing it". Your mind is too old to change.


I have anchored on my face/nose for 26 years and have never had it cause an issue with left or rights. You must be shooting extremely low valley weights to get the results you have posted. 7-6 ring at 18 meters from face contact is beyond extreme.


44" axle to axle feels much better than 40" but I have not seen much difference in score from one to the other.


----------



## frydaddy40

*the answer maybe*



rchr said:


> F14 and Marcus although the subject you all have been discussing is a very interesting one lets get back to the question at hand.
> Back to the subject:
> I have a short draw 27" and a bow in the 36" A to A has served me well. My best field scores (550-555) have been shot with a 36" bow. I have also shot well with longer AtA bows up to 43".
> 
> During a conversation with George Chapman and a couple of other guys from PSE the subject of longer AtA bows came up. They all gave their opinion that the longer bows were better for indoor and to try and cut down on the length for outdoor shooting because longer meant more leverage for the wind to move your bow.


I shoot a long ata bow for fita 41" forge f2 because it is very forgiving but i train in the wind every chance i get. Because it does take streth to hold i the wind, but i would rather have the forgiveness.  Frydaddy


----------



## mdbowhunter

I've shot my best scores with 43" bows. I prefer the string angle with the longer axle-to-axle length.


----------



## field14

Marcus,
There you go again INTERPRETING instead of READING and COMPREHENDING!

I did NOT say those of you without ANY contact HAD head movement....

I ASKED how you go about a technique to KEEP THE HEAD FROM MOVING...since you have no contact references to cross-check that the head HAS NOT MOVED.

Two completely different things...but then you don't READ...you interpret and twist things into the way you WANT to see them.


CONTACT or NO CONTACT...the top guns do NOT shoot 7's indoors at 20 meters from face contact alone, period!

Enough. Since you are the expert...answer the gentleman's QUESTION...and how he can go to ZERO CONTACT and eliminate his issues conclusively and finally, never to have them happen again....you have the conclusive proof, so set this guy up.....

Now I can INTERPRET and not read too..:wink::tongue:

I tire of this bantering....and....you don't KNOW the answer to the QUESTIONS I have asked...so you dance around it...typical.

My OPINION in answering his question...yours is a dead issue from this point on, haha....

With my SHORT DRAWLENGTH....ATA seems to be a non-issue until I get to a bow around 33" ATA...and then anchoring becomes problematical and consistent "reference" and "centering of my eye in the peep, or the scope in the peep becomes very "touchy" as it is difficult to keep the alignment at that extreme peep angle.

But, I still prefer bows of AT LEAST 39" ATA over shorter ones.

field14:tongue::wink:


----------



## Marcus

Sigh. 

I am not saying that you will get random 7's from face contact. What I am saying is that if you shoot a shot with contact and without that is the difference on the target. 
Now think about that. If that contact causes that much difference then imagine what would happen if you vary that contact even by such a little amount that you can not feel it. You will miss the X (Vegas). Now obviously some guys have shot 30x scores with contact, but then for that round they were on. I personally would rather not rely on getting everything perfect if I can eliminate one area of possible randomness from my shooting system. 

How do you get a consistent head position?
OK you have your anchor point. Your anchor is NOT the string, it is your release hand, which should be firmly against your jaw bone for solid bone on bone contact. That takes care of vertical. 
After that you use your peep sight to align with the scope. This is very easy to get consistant, far easier than face contact is. 
I did a test where I shot an X indoors, then put my scope dot against the side of my peep. Shot a LH 10. So even if I get my peep so badly wrong I would be an idiot to not notice it I would still hit the 10. 

BTW I am hoping to create a video to show all this.


----------



## distributor

*Marcus and Field 14*

Go back to the question of Axle to Axle, Which is better in most cases long or short for Field Shooting?


----------



## Brown Hornet

distributor said:


> Go back to the question of Axle to Axle, Which is better in most cases long or short for Field Shooting?


There is no better or best....

The best is what you shoot best or feel most comfortable with.....I don't like anything over 40" anymore. Most of my target bows will be in the 38" range (because that is what I like). My S4 38"....my next one will be as well. However I have shot 35-36" bows just as well without problem. The old wives tale of needing a long bow has and should be thrown out the window.

The womans FITA record was set this year with a Hoyt Vulcan...that bow is 33-34" long. I also know that Hinklemonster won Nationals shooting his S4 with Elite Limbs (42" or so) but he turned around and shot and won states with an S4 with Mag limbs...

If you like a long bow then shoot it....if you like a short bow....then shoot it. Neither is going to increase your score because one is longer or shorter.


----------



## distributor

*long axle vs short axle bows*



Brown Hornet said:


> There is no better or best....
> 
> The best is what you shoot best or feel most comfortable with.....I don't like anything over 40" anymore. Most of my target bows will be in the 38" range (because that is what I like). My S4 38"....my next one will be as well. However I have shot 35-36" bows just as well without problem. The old wives tale of needing a long bow has and should be thrown out the window.
> 
> The womans FITA record was set this year with a Hoyt Vulcan...that bow is 33-34" long. I also know that Hinklemonster won Nationals shooting his S4 with Elite Limbs (42" or so) but he turned around and shot and won states with an S4 with Mag limbs...
> 
> If you like a long bow then shoot it....if you like a short bow....then shoot it. Neither is going to increase your score because one is longer or shorter.


Brown Hornet What is your take on short bows and long draw length, Don't
you think that a long draw archer would be beter off shooting a long axle to axle bow some where around 43 inch bow?


----------



## JAVI

Brown Hornet said:


> There is no better or best....
> 
> The best is what you shoot best or feel most comfortable with.....I don't like anything over 40" anymore. Most of my target bows will be in the 38" range (because that is what I like). My S4 38"....my next one will be as well. However I have shot 35-36" bows just as well without problem. The old wives tale of needing a long bow has and should be thrown out the window.
> 
> The womans FITA record was set this year with a Hoyt Vulcan...that bow is 33-34" long. I also know that Hinklemonster won Nationals shooting his S4 with Elite Limbs (42" or so) but he turned around and shot and won states with an S4 with Mag limbs...
> 
> If you like a long bow then shoot it....if you like a short bow....then shoot it. Neither is going to increase your score because one is longer or shorter.




Not specifically because of the length of the axle to axle, but depending on your preferred style of anchoring, and the structure of your face you may find a longer axle to fit better. I prefer a 44” for indoors and a 42 for outdoors. Although I'm shooting 42” for both presently, I am considering a 40” for 3-d due to speed/draw weight considerations. My draw length is 29.0” AMO. 

I do lend some credence to the torsional stability of the longer bow as well as the theory that the longer bow may be a hindrance in high winds, although I feel that proper use of stabilizer weight systems can help decrease any issues.


----------



## Brown Hornet

distributor said:


> Brown Hornet What is your take on short bows and long draw length, Don't
> you think that a long draw archer would be beter off shooting a long axle to axle bow some where around 43 inch bow?


No....case in point from my last post. Hinklemonster has a draw over 30".:wink:

But really I have no clue what someone with a long draw "needs" I have a draw under 28". But there aren't many 43" bows made anymore are there...and people with a draw over 28" don't seem to be having a problem shooting good scores.:wink:


----------



## rsw

Without need for further explanation: Marcus is totally wrong, not just partially


----------



## rsw

No right answer to this question/statement. With modern equipment, ATA is no longer a significant technical issue, but purely a personal preference issue.


----------



## JAVI

Brown Hornet said:


> No....case in point from my last post. Hinklemonster has a draw over 30".:wink:
> 
> But really I have no clue what someone with a long draw "needs" I have a draw under 28". But there aren't many 43" bows made anymore are there...and people with a draw over 28" don't seem to be having a problem shooting good scores.:wink:


A 40" bow with an 8" brace height is approximately equal to a 42" bow with a 7" brace height for string angle. Depending on the cam diam of course...
:wink:


----------



## field14

rsw said:


> Without need for further explanation: Marcus is totally wrong, not just partially



Well, now, Roger...you KNOW Marcus will get in a huff over what you just said...his "proof" is CONCLUSIVE and beyond reproach, basically..>you just CANNOT shoot WITH FACE or NOSE contact...can't be done....all of those WORLD RECORDS and tournament wins....they are just FLUKES.... I just don't know how they can keep their arrows OUT of the 7-ring by shooting with face/nose contact...it must be some sort of MILLIONS OF MIRACLES being handed down.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Oh, I just thought of something....today's bows, when you get SHORTER ATA...that means BIGGER CAMS have to go onto them to get the DL...add to this PARALLEL limb design...and even tho the ATA is SHORT...the bow can give an "Apparent" string angle of a bow 4 or 5" LONGER.

My S4 was 43" ata...but it won't fit into a 45" Aurora bowcase unless I angle it and then cram it in there...so...in effect that 43" ata bow has probably the string angle of the former 45" or LONGER ata bows of yesteryear...then you take the parallel limb bows that angle the limbs closer back toward the shooter, and the string angle is even more shallow, so shooting the 37" bow is like shooting 40" or LONGER....
I hadn't realized this until I began thinking about cam sizing on the short bows and how far PAST the center of the axles the STRING actually is when it comes around those cams...and THAT is what gives you the string angle...sort of.

tom d. (field14)


----------



## JAVI

It's pro secret # 34:wink:


----------



## Brown Hornet

JAVI said:


> It's pro secret # 34:wink:


Well I ain't a Pro and I figured that out.....:wink:

I guess it pays to pay attention


----------



## field14

Brown Hornet said:


> Well I ain't a Pro and I figured that out.....:wink:
> 
> I guess it pays to pay attention


Any relation to Hoppe's #9, or maybe "LOVE POTION #9"???:wink::tongue:

field14


----------



## Brown Hornet

field14 said:


> Any relation to Hoppe's #9, or maybe "LOVE POTION #9"???:wink::tongue:
> 
> field14


No.... and certainly not Tinks 69


----------



## Marcus

rsw said:


> Without need for further explanation: Marcus is totally wrong, not just partially


LOL. I'll go change my anchor point right now. 

No no, I'll do it after I buy a Mathews. :tongue:


----------



## Jbird

*Marcus*

Try it boy! With those two changes you might give your wife a little competition.  LOL. Marcus I don't think you are getting any converts on here.
Jbird


----------



## field14

Marcus said:


> LOL. I'll go change my anchor point right now.
> 
> No no, I'll do it after I buy a Mathews. :tongue:


Marcus, Go read the post on the link below made today by DEAN PRIDGEN...known as XQuest on AT....

He "only" has 40 years of PROFESSIONAL shooting experience, 27 NATIONAL TITLES, in addition VEGAS WINS, Sectional and State Championships too numerous to count.

Pay special attention to what he says about ARROW SPINE...since YOU seem to think "spine is of no consequence...or that you can shoot ANY arrow out of today's compound bows.....Dean mentions SPINE in there twice....once with relation to the old BEMANS...and again later on...when it comes to "SPEED"...

Now, after we've read Dean's post...who do you think we are more inclined to believe and LISTEN TO? I'd be willing to wager that you might come on the short end of the stick!

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=574147&page=2

But then again....since you are "the new breed and generation"....I imagine you'll blow Dean's KNOWLEDGE and Expertise as "of no consequence" too.

field14


----------



## Brown Hornet

field14 said:


> Marcus, Go read the post on the link below made today by DEAN PRIDGEN...known as XQuest on AT....
> 
> He "only" has 40 years of PROFESSIONAL shooting experience, 27 NATIONAL TITLES, in addition VEGAS WINS, Sectional and State Championships too numerous to count.
> 
> Pay special attention to what he says about ARROW SPINE...since YOU seem to think "spine is of no consequence...or that you can shoot ANY arrow out of today's compound bows.....Dean mentions SPINE in there twice....once with relation to the old BEMANS...and again later on...when it comes to "SPEED"...
> 
> Now, after we've read Dean's post...who do you think we are more inclined to believe and LISTEN TO? I'd be willing to wager that you might come on the short end of the stick!
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=574147&page=2
> 
> But then again....since you are "the new breed and generation"....I imagine you'll blow Dean's KNOWLEDGE and Expertise as "of no consequence" too.
> 
> field14



Alright....alright....time to get off the Bandwagon Tom.

Marcus may not be 100% right...but his arguement does have merit...it's not like James Park is just some dude working at Gander Mountain that can't tie in a loop....

We aren't talking about spine... and if you really think that string/face contact doesn't mess with things at all...then you need to send Jesse a PM and look at Dave's pic again:embara: They anchor that way for a reason.:wink: You asked me who I was talking about...I told you and you let it go down the river like a dead fish and paid it no mind 

I can tell you that from seeing pics of you that you don't have the same facial contact issues that I do....and trust me it makes difference.:wink:


----------



## Jbird

*Hornet*

Come on now, you aren't exactly Bubba in Forrest Gump. LOL
Jbird


----------



## field14

Brown Hornet said:


> Alright....alright....time to get off the Bandwagon Tom.
> 
> Marcus may not be 100% right...but his arguement does have merit...it's not like James Park is just some dude working at Gander Mountain that can't tie in a loop....
> 
> We aren't talking about spine... and if you really think that string/face contact doesn't mess with things at all...then you need to send Jesse a PM and look at Dave's pic again:embara: They anchor that way for a reason.:wink: You asked me who I was talking about...I told you and you let it go down the river like a dead fish and paid it no mind
> 
> I can tell you that from seeing pics of you that you don't have the same facial contact issues that I do....and trust me it makes difference.:wink:


the "Fieldman" NEVER said that face contact doesn't "mess with things at all"....I KNOW BETTER THAN THAT! I've been around the game way to long and KNOW FOR FACT...that the top end shooters do EVERYTHING for a reason...or it doesn't get done, ha!

Believe me, what you said about Jesse B....it didn't go down the river, Hornet! It definitely sunk in! You and I know that those 'big guns" have things down to a fine art and science...and it is near utter perfection when they shoot...or they wouldn't be winners. But I don't think ANY OF THEM would ever say they have "CONCLUSIVE evidence" of anything....they are much more humble than that.

I messed with the issue of facial contact tonite, since over the past year, I moved my anchor more to the side...and have shot WORSE since doing so. Thus, tonite, I moved the anchor BACK to where it is more like "home"...as in more centered on my chin...which cuts face contact a TON "for me"...and yes, I was still missing...but by golly.....the left/right issues were vastly reduced.

We also both know that with the higer letoffs....string deflections can be so easy to induce...so anytime a person can minimize this deflection in any manner...it is a GOOD THING.

But you are right...the mule is beat to death, and should be put to rest....

This field forum is absolutely great...and even the side stepping of some of the issues has had educational benefits.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Brown Hornet

field14 said:


> the "Fieldman" NEVER said that face contact doesn't "mess with things at all"....I KNOW BETTER THAN THAT! I've been around the game way to long and KNOW FOR FACT...that the top end shooters do EVERYTHING for a reason...or it doesn't get done, ha!
> 
> Believe me, what you said about Jesse B....it didn't go down the river, Hornet! It definitely sunk in! You and I know that those 'big guns" have things down to a fine art and science...and it is near utter perfection when they shoot...or they wouldn't be winners. But I don't think ANY OF THEM would ever say they have "CONCLUSIVE evidence" of anything....they are much more humble than that.
> 
> I messed with the issue of facial contact tonite, since over the past year, I moved my anchor more to the side...and have shot WORSE since doing so. Thus, tonite, I moved the anchor BACK to where it is more like "home"...as in more centered on my chin...which cuts face contact a TON "for me"...and yes, I was still missing...but by golly.....the left/right issues were vastly reduced.
> 
> We also both know that with the higer letoffs....string deflections can be so easy to induce...so anytime a person can minimize this deflection in any manner...it is a GOOD THING.
> 
> But you are right...the mule is beat to death, and should be put to rest....
> 
> This field forum is absolutely great...and even the side stepping of some of the issues has had educational benefits.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


:thumb: gottcha...and I see what you are saying...

What I di though was notgo to the side....but go forward:wink: When I went sideways things go screwy...If I am not towards the fron to of my chin my left and rights (like you got) show up.

But to keep this thread on track.....axle to axle length doesn't really matter beyond shooter comfort IMHO. We all have our comfort zone within a certain range.


----------



## Marcus

> I messed with the issue of facial contact tonite, since over the past year, I moved my anchor more to the side...and have shot WORSE since doing so. Thus, tonite, I moved the anchor BACK to where it is more like "home"...as in more centered on my chin...which cuts face contact a TON "for me"...and yes, I was still missing...but by golly.....the left/right issues were vastly reduced.
> 
> We also both know that with the higer letoffs....string deflections can be so easy to induce...so anytime a person can minimize this deflection in any manner...it is a GOOD THING.


Thanks Tom, apology accepted.  Have a beer for trying it. :darkbeer:


----------



## Marcus

Jbird said:


> Try it boy! With those two changes you might give your wife a little competition.  LOL. Marcus I don't think you are getting any converts on here.
> Jbird


I'm not fussed about converting people, just sharing information. People can do with it as they wish.


----------



## Anear

frydaddy40 said:


> If i may you are right but, look at her form. To much musle us at full draw, needs to be a bone on bone alinement. May need to ajust draw lenght a little longer so she can us her back musles to hold at full draw. Just something to think about. Us the B.e.s.t. method form model. It works. But hay, if she is the best then she don't need to get better.


:sign10: She's shooting 60lb with seriously weeny arms. I can actually close my hand almost completely around my upper arm. No muscle there at all.

I'm not actually strong enough to rely on arm muscle to draw compound (60lb) or recurve (42lb). My back muscle is quite spectacular though and we do have footage around somewhere. Neither Mr Lee nor Mr Park have ever had issue with my back tension nor my release.

For the record, and I realise that some have implied that 1370s aren't very good, but I have shot 1370+ with 41"ATA and with 33"ATA. And with and without face contact. It's easier without face contact. And the ATA makes the bow lighter so I can weight it better for me. Longer ATAs also get blown around a lot in the wind.

My anchor point is very stable - the index and middle knuckles are quite firm against the jawbone.


----------



## Schme1440

Marcus said:


> Back on topic (which it pretty much was) but anyway. World FITA Field Champ Chris White used a Hoyt Supertec to win the world title and to shoot 1386 at the world target in 2003. He then used a Switchback to to win the world games and world IFAA field, and to shoot the world double 70m record. He also has a 30" draw length. So clearly the short axle length doesn't hurt him.


Dont forget he also shot a 1400 and I think that was with his Switchback but I cant be certain.


----------



## DanceswithDingo

I'm not an expert, nor a pro, but since I shortened my draw a half inch to get the string off my face my archery has improved significantly. I do feel that some Americans I have seen tend to be both overdrawn and overbowed to some extent (probably the perceived 'need for speed' ) :darkbeer:


----------



## JAVI

I've played with reducing facial contact with the string on several occasions believing that as little as possible would be the best option. And while I don't discount the results that Marcus speaks of, I myself have too much shot variation when compared to my normal reference points. Mostly with high and low shots, maybe some bows lend themselves to the concept better than others. 

Last night as an experiment I toyed with the effects of burying the string in my cheek, shooting as I normally do and very lightly touching the string to my face. The results were less than spectacular the shots varied from side to side of the X-ring on a NFAA 5 spot only slightly more than normal. There was also a tendency for the shots taken with a buried string to be a bit high, but again still in the X-ring. 

After reflection on these results, I decided that because I center my scope in the peep each shot not relying solely on my reference points and center my bubble as well that my variations might not reflect the results another may get.


----------



## swerve

Javi's theory on centering scope housing in peep works for me.I have also found that if I start to lose that centering, those are the shots that I need to let down and start over.


----------



## field14

DanceswithDingo said:


> I'm not an expert, nor a pro, but since I shortened my draw a half inch to get the string off my face my archery has improved significantly. I do feel that some Americans I have seen tend to be both overdrawn and overbowed to some extent (probably the perceived 'need for speed' ) :darkbeer:



Off the subject about the DL and poundage, but I've attended several "company sponsored" seminars while on shooting staff...

Before they got into the subject of poundage and drawlength, they had each attendee write their current peak weight of the bow they shoot most often and also the Drawlength that they were shooting...We posted this on the board next to our names.

Then: they discussed the following:

In ALL of those seminars (for dealers and staff shooters)...the companies involved were TRYING TO TELL THE DEALERS...that "stocking" the bows at 70 pounds and 29" or 30" AMO was catering to only 1-2% of the ENTIRE archery population...with regard to PROPER FIT AND DRAWLENGTH!

They basically said they had statistics that indicated that the American archery shooters were...95% overdrawn by 1-3" and 95% overbowed by 5-15 pounds peak weight.

The next step was for the instructor to use 3 methods of determining correct drawlength and write these down next to the shooters' names.

It was appalling....I can't remember the exact number % that were 1-3" too LONG with their setting....but it was absolutely astonishing! Myself, I was set 1/2" SHORT...but I do remember that there was only ONE or TWO in ANY of the seminars that were NOT at least 1" too LONG. MOST were 1 1/2" to 2" TOO LONG with their drawlength setting.

Then they told it like it IS....that based upon their statistics, the 95% of the shooters in American REALLY should be shooting a Drawlength between 26 and 28" AMO...and then proceeded to calculate the % in the seminar that SHOULD BE within this range...uncanny how the seminar numbers matched what the statistics indicated...and how the seminar numbers ALSO reflected the stats that 95% are OVERDRAWN by 1-3"!

They then made the point to the dealers..."Why are you ordering and STOCKING bows in the shop that only fit 1-2% of the population...of course the dealers' replies were...."CUZ THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE BUY." The instructor then said, "Well the way to stop it is to PROPERLY FIT THE SHOOTER with the bow he SHOULD have." Of course we know it is a vicious circle...afterall, the "customer is always right." hahahaha...Yeah, right...NOT when it comes to proper fit...when 95% don't seem to know what they are doing!

They then reiterated the age old way of telling if you are overbowed or not....the ole sit in a chair, kick your legs out in front of you and OFF THE FLOOR, and then draw the bow to anchor....If you cannot draw the bow back without lowering the elbow, skying the bow or doing some fancy gyrations with the bowarm, drawing elbow, shoulders, waist...then you ARE OVERBOWED...and should crank it down until you can draw in the chair with feet off the ground!

Sure broke some hearts and egos!

field14:wink::tongue:


----------



## Marcus

Javi
You seem to be assuming that we are not centering the peep in our scopes, or failing to anchor correctly. I can promise you that I am as firmly planted in the release area as you would be, if not more. The peep is very carefully centered around the scope housing lining up and holding there perfectly. 
I mean, that one is obvious really and well documented. 

This makes me wonder what you guys are doing to get the string off your face. 
That kind of movement around the X wouldn't make me happy personally. 



JAVI said:


> I've played with reducing facial contact with the string on several occasions believing that as little as possible would be the best option. And while I don't discount the results that Marcus speaks of, I myself have too much shot variation when compared to my normal reference points. Mostly with high and low shots, maybe some bows lend themselves to the concept better than others.
> 
> Last night as an experiment I toyed with the effects of burying the string in my cheek, shooting as I normally do and very lightly touching the string to my face. The results were less than spectacular the shots varied from side to side of the X-ring on a NFAA 5 spot only slightly more than normal. There was also a tendency for the shots taken with a buried string to be a bit high, but again still in the X-ring.
> 
> After reflection on these results, I decided that because I center my scope in the peep each shot not relying solely on my reference points and center my bubble as well that my variations might not reflect the results another may get.


----------



## Hutnicks

field14 said:


> Off the subject about the DL and poundage, but I've attended several "company sponsored" seminars while on shooting staff...
> 
> Before they got into the subject of poundage and drawlength, they had each attendee write their current peak weight of the bow they shoot most often and also the Drawlength that they were shooting...We posted this on the board next to our names.
> 
> Then: they discussed the following:
> 
> In ALL of those seminars (for dealers and staff shooters)...the companies involved were TRYING TO TELL THE DEALERS...that "stocking" the bows at 70 pounds and 29" or 30" AMO was catering to only 1-2% of the ENTIRE archery population...with regard to PROPER FIT AND DRAWLENGTH!
> 
> They basically said they had statistics that indicated that the American archery shooters were...95% overdrawn by 1-3" and 95% overbowed by 5-15 pounds peak weight.
> 
> The next step was for the instructor to use 3 methods of determining correct drawlength and write these down next to the shooters' names.
> 
> It was appalling....I can't remember the exact number % that were 1-3" too LONG with their setting....but it was absolutely astonishing! Myself, I was set 1/2" SHORT...but I do remember that there was only ONE or TWO in ANY of the seminars that were NOT at least 1" too LONG. MOST were 1 1/2" to 2" TOO LONG with their drawlength setting.
> 
> Then they told it like it IS....that based upon their statistics, the 95% of the shooters in American REALLY should be shooting a Drawlength between 26 and 28" AMO...and then proceeded to calculate the % in the seminar that SHOULD BE within this range...uncanny how the seminar numbers matched what the statistics indicated...and how the seminar numbers ALSO reflected the stats that 95% are OVERDRAWN by 1-3"!
> 
> They then made the point to the dealers..."Why are you ordering and STOCKING bows in the shop that only fit 1-2% of the population...of course the dealers' replies were...."CUZ THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE BUY." The instructor then said, "Well the way to stop it is to PROPERLY FIT THE SHOOTER with the bow he SHOULD have." Of course we know it is a vicious circle...afterall, the "customer is always right." hahahaha...Yeah, right...NOT when it comes to proper fit...when 95% don't seem to know what they are doing!
> 
> They then reiterated the age old way of telling if you are overbowed or not....the ole sit in a chair, kick your legs out in front of you and OFF THE FLOOR, and then draw the bow to anchor....If you cannot draw the bow back without lowering the elbow, skying the bow or doing some fancy gyrations with the bowarm, drawing elbow, shoulders, waist...then you ARE OVERBOWED...and should crank it down until you can draw in the chair with feet off the ground!
> 
> Sure broke some hearts and egos!
> 
> field14:wink::tongue:


Excellent info there Field. Maybe we need an "Are you overbowed?" or "how to make sure your bow fits" thread. 
I feel a lot better about my girlishly short draw length now


----------



## Dilligaf

field14 said:


> They then reiterated the age old way of telling if you are overbowed or not....the ole sit in a chair, kick your legs out in front of you and OFF THE FLOOR, and then draw the bow to anchor....If you cannot draw the bow back without lowering the elbow, skying the bow or doing some fancy gyrations with the bowarm, drawing elbow, shoulders, waist...then you ARE OVERBOWED...and should crank it down until you can draw in the chair with feet off the ground!


I've never heard that one before Field14, I will have to remember that one.


----------



## field14

Hutnicks said:


> Excellent info there Field. Maybe we need an "Are you overbowed?" or "how to make sure your bow fits" thread.
> I feel a lot better about my girlishly short draw length now



A common joke I pull on people at the range that make a comment about my short "LOGS" I am using for indoors. First, I look at their arrows, normally they are using aluminums or carbons of "small" diameter.

I ask them how heavy of a bow they are shooting, and most say 60 or 70 or somewhere in between, then I ask them drawlength...and they say, most of the time 29, 30, or 31"...of course I already know this stuff..but it makes them feel good, right?

Then...I lower the boom on 'em: I tell them my drawlength is 28", I shoot 47# peak weight, and I'm the ONLY ONE IN THE RANGE that is, now get this punch line.....

SHOOTING MAN-SIZED ARROWS! It generally gets a laugh out of them...and a point is made too.:wink::tongue:

Thought some of you might enjoy the humor....:darkbeer:

field14


----------



## Woody69

Dilligaf said:


> I've never heard that one before Field14, I will have to remember that one.


I have heard the part about being able to draw your bow while sitting, but i hadn't heard the part about having your feet off the ground at the same time ?

Woody


----------



## Anear

field14 said:


> and should crank it down until you can draw in the chair with feet off the ground!


Okay... humour the girl... how does this show being over bowed? How much over are we talking?

If you are using good ab and back control, seated with or without your feet off the ground should have no effect... I tried this with a range of poundages and can't see the relevance. 

Drawing smoothly is usually a good broad indicator, but I can still draw a bow smoothly when it's 10lb+ over my limit. Have done 70lb SPTs (recurve) for giggles and can make it look good... but it's 30lb over what I can shoot comfortably.


----------



## Hutnicks

field14 said:


> A common joke I pull on people at the range that make a comment about my short "LOGS" I am using for indoors. First, I look at their arrows, normally they are using aluminums or carbons of "small" diameter.
> 
> I ask them how heavy of a bow they are shooting, and most say 60 or 70 or somewhere in between, then I ask them drawlength...and they say, most of the time 29, 30, or 31"...of course I already know this stuff..but it makes them feel good, right?
> 
> Then...I lower the boom on 'em: I tell them my drawlength is 28", I shoot 47# peak weight, and I'm the ONLY ONE IN THE RANGE that is, now get this punch line.....
> 
> SHOOTING MAN-SIZED ARROWS! It generally gets a laugh out of them...and a point is made too.:wink::tongue:
> 
> Thought some of you might enjoy the humor....:darkbeer:
> 
> field14


That is funny I shoot fingers so I have told folks on more than one occasion I draw with my elbow, actually had someone believe it for a couple of minutes (don't try that at home kids).

Funny how marketing and magazines have turned draw length and weight into the adult equivalent of how "many beers you can drink, in college"


----------



## Hutnicks

Anear said:


> Okay... humour the girl... how does this show being over bowed? How much over are we talking?
> 
> If you are using good ab and back control, seated with or without your feet off the ground should have no effect... I tried this with a range of poundages and can't see the relevance.
> 
> Drawing smoothly is usually a good broad indicator, but I can still draw a bow smoothly when it's 10lb+ over my limit. Have done 70lb SPTs (recurve) for giggles and can make it look good... but it's 30lb over what I can shoot comfortably.


Off Topic. Welcome! Are you related to Marcus?

I think the test is the archery equivalent of getting out of a chair without using your arms.


----------



## Marcus

Hutnicks said:


> Off Topic. Welcome! Are you related to Marcus?


No not related, we don't do that in Australia.


----------



## Anear

Hutnicks said:


> Off Topic. Welcome! Are you related to Marcus?


lol I'm his wife. 



> I think the test is the archery equivalent of getting out of a chair without using your arms.


 lol What does that test?.. other than alcohol consumption? 

This is completely off topic, but I am quite curious as to how you can really test someone being over bowed. All the flailing around that goes on is usually more a sign of extremely poor technique. And the point at which I can no longer draw the bow back from a seated position with my feet off the ground, I can't do it standing up either (have tested this). None of the muscles used to draw the bow back are disadvantaged from a seated position... it's no different to shooting a tricky field shot. Don't get me wrong - if you can't do it, you definitely have problems... but they may be fixed with better technique rather than lower poundage.


----------



## Hutnicks

Anear said:


> lol I'm his wife.
> 
> lol What does that test?.. other than alcohol consumption?
> 
> This is completely off topic, but I am quite curious as to how you can really test someone being over bowed. All the flailing around that goes on is usually more a sign of extremely poor technique. And the point at which I can no longer draw the bow back from a seated position with my feet off the ground, I can't do it standing up either (have tested this). None of the muscles used to draw the bow back are disadvantaged from a seated position... it's no different to shooting a tricky field shot. Don't get me wrong - if you can't do it, you definitely have problems... but they may be fixed with better technique rather than lower poundage.


I can see this subject getting going so I started a new thread and perhaps we can take it over there.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?p=5558076#post5558076

Be great if Field would copy that post over as well


----------



## zorak

My personal opinion on axle to axle is the shorter it is the les control of movement you have. Somne guys like the short bows but I myself prefer the medium bows I have more control.

short-30 to 33
medium-34 to 36
long-37 to 41

Now thats just my take on where to classify the lengths. But I think if you are in a tree stand then you would want the shortest bow that you are comfortable shooting with. If you are out walking and have plenty of room then go with the longest one you comortable shooting with.I my self prefer 35-36 inch axle to axle then I'm getting the best of both worlds. Thats what I am comfortable shooting with and there is less chance of it getting hung up or bump tree limbs or other obstructions there are. But everybody has their own opinion on this matter. So take all the info you need from this and make the choice that suits your shooting style. 

doug


----------



## frydaddy40

*Ok*



Anear said:


> :sign10: She's shooting 60lb with seriously weeny arms. I can actually close my hand almost completely around my upper arm. No muscle there at all.
> 
> I'm not actually strong enough to rely on arm muscle to draw compound (60lb) or recurve (42lb). My back muscle is quite spectacular though and we do have footage around somewhere. Neither Mr Lee nor Mr Park have ever had issue with my back tension nor my release.
> 
> For the record, and I realise that some have implied that 1370s aren't very good, but I have shot 1370+ with 41"ATA and with 33"ATA. And with and without face contact. It's easier without face contact. And the ATA makes the bow lighter so I can weight it better for me. Longer ATAs also get blown around a lot in the wind.
> 
> My anchor point is very stable - the index and middle knuckles are quite firm against the jawbone.


 Sounds like you have it under controll. For the record 1370 is very good in my book. You must have been shooting recurve when you worked coach Lee he don't like compound. He told me thay were lazy archers.HA HA HA HA He's cool man thow, just likes recurve better i just can't figure out why.HA HA HA


----------



## frydaddy40

*Remember one thing*

It does not matter how you shoot( but correct form looks better) as long as you are CONSISTENT. That is by far the most part of archery. I think everyone will agree.


----------



## Anear

frydaddy40 said:


> Sounds like you have it under controll. For the record 1370 is very good in my book. You must have been shooting recurve when you worked coach Lee he don't like compound. He told me thay were lazy archers.HA HA HA HA He's cool man thow, just likes recurve better i just can't figure out why.HA HA HA


Actually I was shooting both. I shot both in the 2005 World Target. Mr Lee had lots of fun watching the Koreans get very confused by the whole thing. 

Mr Lee himself is shooting compound these days.


----------



## frydaddy40

*You gots to be kiding.*



Anear said:


> Actually I was shooting both. I shot both in the 2005 World Target. Mr Lee had lots of fun watching the Koreans get very confused by the whole thing.
> 
> Mr Lee himself is shooting compound these days.


Well,Well mybe old dogs can learn new tricks after all. Everyone one comes over to the Dark Side (compound). I new when i saw him in Georgia that he was looking like he wanted to try it. You know both are the same (pull a sting and shoot a stick) not that different. Maybe it will win his respect. Lets hope. Frydaddy


----------



## TECH SHOOTER

ok from what i have read on this thread and from what i know about james parks (if that is who has forced this bad from onto you) he has got alot of knowledge about this sport as he has been around since hte dawn of time but he has also looked WAY TOO FAR into the sport as well,, it doesnt matter what you do at this end....what matters is that happens at the other end after release.

Personaly i have tryed what you are talking about along with a few of my trainning partners, and found it to be utter crap. 

As for a conclusive result......the only conclusive result here is that you MARCUS need to understand that you and your wife need to step out of the shadow of james parks and get some of your own ideas.

I think that you need a hell of alot more research on this topic, as being a shooter for 19years, i have seen alot of flaws in this form that you so call to be the best form ever. 

face contact is fine to an extent and field14 pointed out. with out a consistant anchor.. weather it be 1,2 or 3 anchors,, i beleave that more anchors leads to a more consistant shot.

I think you just need to pull ya head in MARCUS you and ya wife. stop trying to get people to shoot such crap and let them shoot what they want. there are alot of people you shoot with face contact that will wipe the floor with you... just remember that.... and as for the top shooters in australia shooting like that.. ya wife might be clint is and you are far from it


----------



## Woody69

TECH SHOOTER said:


> ok from what i have read on this thread and from what i know about james parks (if that is who has forced this bad from onto you) he has got alot of knowledge about this sport as he has been around since hte dawn of time but he has also looked WAY TOO FAR into the sport as well,, it doesnt matter what you do at this end....what matters is that happens at the other end after release.
> 
> Personaly i have tryed what you are talking about along with a few of my trainning partners, and found it to be utter crap.
> 
> As for a conclusive result......the only conclusive result here is that you MARCUS need to understand that you and your wife need to step out of the shadow of james parks and get some of your own ideas.
> 
> I think that you need a hell of alot more research on this topic, as being a shooter for 19years, i have seen alot of flaws in this form that you so call to be the best form ever.
> 
> face contact is fine to an extent and field14 pointed out. with out a consistant anchor.. weather it be 1,2 or 3 anchors,, i beleave that more anchors leads to a more consistant shot.
> 
> I think you just need to pull ya head in MARCUS you and ya wife. stop trying to get people to shoot such crap and let them shoot what they want. there are alot of people you shoot with face contact that will wipe the floor with you... just remember that.... and as for the top shooters in australia shooting like that.. ya wife might be clint is and you are far from it


I'm not on either side in this debate, I don't know for sure which way is best myself !

But i have read most, if not all of this thread, and i can't recall where Marcus said anything about NOT having a consistent anchor, he just said that the anchor should be between the hand and face, not the string and face !

Besides how many different ways can you hold a bow and still have the peep and scope housing still line up perfectly ??? 

Woody


----------



## Marcus

Just cause you don't understand what I am actually referring to doesn't make it wrong. 
Never claimed to be as good as clint, few people in the world are, looking at your scores you certainly are not either. Happy to discuss my claims to anyone in person. 
You would be shocked to know who is doing this technique in Australia. If you knew who they were. 

I don't give a **** what people shoot. This is called a DISCUSSION. It allows people to make up their own minds. 



TECH SHOOTER said:


> ok from what i have read on this thread and from what i know about james parks (if that is who has forced this bad from onto you) he has got alot of knowledge about this sport as he has been around since hte dawn of time but he has also looked WAY TOO FAR into the sport as well,, it doesnt matter what you do at this end....what matters is that happens at the other end after release.
> 
> Personaly i have tryed what you are talking about along with a few of my trainning partners, and found it to be utter crap.
> 
> As for a conclusive result......the only conclusive result here is that you MARCUS need to understand that you and your wife need to step out of the shadow of james parks and get some of your own ideas.
> 
> I think that you need a hell of alot more research on this topic, as being a shooter for 19years, i have seen alot of flaws in this form that you so call to be the best form ever.
> 
> face contact is fine to an extent and field14 pointed out. with out a consistant anchor.. weather it be 1,2 or 3 anchors,, i beleave that more anchors leads to a more consistant shot.
> 
> I think you just need to pull ya head in MARCUS you and ya wife. stop trying to get people to shoot such crap and let them shoot what they want. there are alot of people you shoot with face contact that will wipe the floor with you... just remember that.... and as for the top shooters in australia shooting like that.. ya wife might be clint is and you are far from it


----------



## Brown Hornet

TECH SHOOTER said:


> ok from what i have read on this thread and from what i know about james parks (if that is who has forced this bad from onto you) he has got alot of knowledge about this sport as he has been around since hte dawn of time but he has also looked WAY TOO FAR into the sport as well,, it doesnt matter what you do at this end....what matters is that happens at the other end after release.
> 
> Personaly i have tryed what you are talking about along with a few of my trainning partners, and found it to be utter crap.
> 
> As for a conclusive result......the only conclusive result here is that you MARCUS need to understand that you and your wife need to step out of the shadow of james parks and get some of your own ideas.
> 
> I think that you need a hell of alot more research on this topic, as being a shooter for 19years, i have seen alot of flaws in this form that you so call to be the best form ever.
> 
> face contact is fine to an extent and field14 pointed out. with out a consistant anchor.. weather it be 1,2 or 3 anchors,, i beleave that more anchors leads to a more consistant shot.
> 
> I think you just need to pull ya head in MARCUS you and ya wife. stop trying to get people to shoot such crap and let them shoot what they want. there are alot of people you shoot with face contact that will wipe the floor with you... just remember that.... and as for the top shooters in australia shooting like that.. ya wife might be clint is and you are far from it



First off this was a discussion....Marcus wan't pushing his ideas on anyone.

You obviously have a bone to pick with Marcus....well guess what this isn't the place for it....so take your chubby some place else. It won't be toleraed.

*WARNING #1*


----------



## redman

my scepter 4 with mag limbs is the first short bow i ever shot for indoor 
round and it is shooting great for me


----------



## Hutnicks

Brown Hornet said:


> First off this was a discussion....Marcus wan't pushing his ideas on anyone.
> 
> You obviously have a bone to pick with Marcus....well guess what this isn't the place for it....so take your chubby some place else. It won't be toleraed.
> 
> *WARNING #1*


Oooh Ooooh, Can I vote for a "Knock down Drag Out Thread" (picture hand raised with that "teacher, teacher") look We create a thread and when things get tense you can move the inflammatory post there and they can "call out" their man and have at it! Might be a new moderation tool


----------



## Brown Hornet

Hutnicks said:


> Oooh Ooooh, Can I vote for a "Knock down Drag Out Thread" (picture hand raised with that "teacher, teacher") look We create a thread and when things get tense you can move the inflammatory post there and they can "call out" their man and have at it! Might be a new moderation tool


LOL...that would be entertiaining....:embara:


----------



## TECH SHOOTER

Marcus said:


> This is called a DISCUSSION. It allows people to make up their own minds.


 Yes it is, so why argue about what people think about your style?... i know you may not have ment to come arcoss the way you have, i do understand what oyu are talking about.. i just feel as though you should have more than just one anchor point. and as for face contact.. i have seen footage about it and found that the only time that face contact interups the movement of the string is if it is pushed hard against the face, or in some occasions the string clips the nose, cheeck, or lips apon release. i am yet to see any major issues with face contact.

As for my scores i have not shot a full round of FITA yet. so how can you compare me?? :nyah:


----------



## Marcus

Seen your IFAA scores.  :tongue:

That's all cool, you are of course welcome to share your experience as I am sharing mine and the findings of many others. This is not my style alone rather something that many archers, including some really top shooters, are doing. I have found it a huge benefit to my scores, and by sharing that perhaps someone else finds a benefit. If you don't want to try it that is fine, but to slam me AND my wife for sharing this info is not cool.


----------



## redman

I have a 27.25 draw and i like bows for field shooting at axel-axel 40-42


----------



## montigre

FYI, this thread is 3 years old..... :wink:


----------



## NockOn

3 years old but was stil a good read for those of us who might have missed it and there was even some of Brown Hornet ghost posts in there


----------



## psargeant

NockOn said:


> 3 years old but was stil a good read for those of us who might have missed it and there was even some of Brown Hornet ghost posts in there


I almost forget about the little guy now and then...

I just wish all the pictures were back...


----------



## NockOn

psargeant said:


> I almost forget about the little guy now and then...
> 
> I just wish all the pictures were back...


I couldn't agree more, AT did a disservice to the archery community when they removed all the pics.

This place is slow and boring now a days but the good thing about that, is that I have more time to shoot:wink:


----------

