# Accuracy of sites versus instinctive



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

It depends on a number things, but over all, on stationary targets, the best sight shooters will out shoot the best instinctive shooters by a wide margin.

KPC


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Well now you've opened a big ol' can of worms. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with gap shooting. I think a lot of good shooters that shoot instinctively got there by some kind or gap shooting while they were developing their skills. After a while the trajectory gets so ingrained in their mind it is no longer a conscious aiming method, but "instinctive", for lack of a better term. There are some really good shooters on this site that can explain their method of shooting, I would listen.

Comparing sighted archery and instinctive? Between archers of similar skills, and beyond more than a few yards, a few rare individuals, in special situations like moving targets or trick shots, my money is on the archer with a sight on their bow. For hunting though, there can be advantages to being able to shoot well without a sight, even if the ultimate accuracy might be slightly less. And there is the beauty of shooting without a sight. 

I've been shooting since I was a kid, and I honestly don't remember how I learned to aim back then. I was out in the woods just flinging arrows so I doubt there was any method to what I was doing. I like to think I shoot instinctively but it only works for me out to about twenty five yards. I definitely see the arrow in my peripheral vision so I assume there is something going on the the noggin at a semi-conscious level anyway (semi-conscious is about the best I can hope for). Beyond that I need a reference or gap or I will shoot low.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

Keeping my response strictly about aim method vs. accuracy; for most instinctive is the less accurate and less consistently accurate of the 5 common methods _i.e., instinctive, gap, string walking, face walking, sights._

Gap aiming will improve accuracy and consistency of accuracy but still will not be as accurate and consistently accurate as other methods that use "point on" aiming. Of course, using a sight is unarguably the best method for accuracy and consistent accuracy.

The primary arguments for or against a particular method that is not the "instinctive" method is KISS and that all of the other methods require you be able to competently estimate the distance to the target, and that instinctive shooters need not concern themselves with distance; so they claim. I am primarily a gap shooter, I also use sights, and I am also an instinctive shooter. When I shoot using instinctive, I always make a cursory judgment of distance to the target. Then too, my primary targets are generally not static paper or foam of particular known sizes. They come in different sizes and often are moving... changing distance.

Most instinctive shooters I ever knew were fairly good at close distances (0--/+15 yards) but even then they were not very consistent in accuracy.


----------



## spinsheet (Oct 30, 2011)

Just want to make something clear, I see nothing wrong with gap shooting (or sites) it just wasn't as satisfying for me, for whatever reason. I've also heard that anyone that is shooting instinctively is gap shooting, if only on a subconscious level; and that's fine too. I do know that I am highly inconsistent; I can shoot a pretty decent grouping in one volley and then send them all over the place on the next. It really keeps things exciting


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

When you say that gapping and using sights ... _"just weren't as satisfying for me,"_ do you mean that both methods did not enable the accuracy that you obtain shooting instinctively?


----------



## spinsheet (Oct 30, 2011)

I feel that I was more accurate with sites, but I also shot with sites for about 5 years. I left archery for about 20 years and am now back into it, using a recurve and shooting instinctively. I tried gap shooting but just could get into it, was never very accurate, then tried just shooting instinctively and feel that I am more accurate shooting instinctively than gap shooting; although not as accurate as when shooting sites. But I have also only been shooting instinctively for about 4 (winter) months now.


----------



## AngelRa (Nov 15, 2010)

This will give you an idea how the compound, olympic, and instinctive (bare bow) compare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbPN3Npi6cc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQFazkeZ7I


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

Sights make you much more consistent but you can't use them on the higher poundage bows.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

You can't compare the 2 

A bow with sights will be more accurately shot than a bow that is shot instinctive 

With that said that's why I love shooting bare bow 

Sights for me get vey boring


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

AngelRa said:


> This will give you an idea how the compound, olympic, and instinctive (bare bow) compare:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbPN3Npi6cc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyQFazkeZ7I


FWIW, *"bare bow"* and *"instinctive"* may or may not be the same thing. The vast majority of top "*bare bow"* shooters use some sort of aiming system, such as gapping.

KPC


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I shoot in two indoor 3D leagues and I shoot a recurve and instinctively and I shoot as well as the average compound shooters, but not as good as the best. I can usually average a 9 or better per target - the top compound guys are averaging better than a 10.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

If we take Field Archery purely because it's marked distance and puts everything on an even setting, you will see significant gaps in scores between the different shooting Divs and aiming methods.

When it's unmarked IBO/Fita 3D it's very hard to seperate which aiming method is more accurate as the distances involved are so short and scores tend to be quite tight.

IFAA (unmarked) 3D which has a max of 60 yards, again you start to see score gaps between aiming methods with the top shooters, hard to know (without asking everybody) who is Instictive but if you took Bowhunter Rec (fixed anchor either gapping or instinct) Barebow Rec (Stringwalking) it is VERY rare the top Rec Bowhunters div outshooting the Barebow Rec div as Stringwalking is a more precise aiming method.

This is from looking at IFAA world/European result/scores over several years, info is available on IFAA website for all to see.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

spinsheet said:


> I have been told that they are both just as accurate up to 30 or 40 yards, I've been told that site shooting is more accurate at and yardage, and the converse, that instinctive shooting is the more accurate at any yardage.


I don't know who told you that....but if their basing it on the average archer...they would be wrong.

True Instinctive shooting is a technique that few archers can truly master. It's no secret that some people are gifted with better natural hand and eye coordination...so some may just have to work harder at it...while others may need to try something else. 

Keep in mind....there are some archers who think they are truly aiming instinctively but are really just gap shooting at a lower level of awareness that a typical gap shooter is.

A true Instinctive shooter will shoot his bow rather quickly as a pitcher throws a ball. If an archer has developed their form to where they are using the arrow tip like a sight where it's point on or nearly point on....the brain has to consciously be aware of it because it will be in the archer's direct line of sight.

Different levels of awareness do in fact exist.



spinsheet said:


> I do feel that instinctive has a steeper learning curve than site shooting, but I'm good with that.


It definitely does.

In a perfect world with perfect archers....a more accurate aiming technique would not exist...but because we are human...and make mistakes...there will be aiming techniques that have advantages and disadvantages under specific conditions.

All one needs to do is research the different types of archery to see what dominates that particular competition or goal.

Ray :shade:


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Sights make you much more consistent but you can't use them on the higher poundage bows._


Destroyer: Why do you say that? What poundage would you consider would be getting into the too heavy category?


----------



## spinsheet (Oct 30, 2011)

I was wondering the same thing. Why can you not use sights on the higher poundage bows?

Wow, I just realized that I've been spelling sights as sites. I need to take off my web developer hat every now and then


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

WindWalker said:


> Destroyer: Why do you say that? What poundage would you consider would be getting into the too heavy category?


I could be wrong...but I think he believes that using sights requires the archer to hold at anchor and with heavier draw weights it becomes harder to hold at anchor.

The issue is...40lbs. may be light for some archers and a little on the heavy side for others....while 70lbs. may be just right for a few but is way to heavy for most.

It's all a matter of perspective and how strong the archer is shooting the bow.

Ray :shade:


----------



## thorwulfx (Sep 26, 2011)

It would seem to me that anything that gives you a consistent, precise point of reference would take one element of perceptual judgement off the table for the shooter to screw up. The more precise the point at which you can look, the smaller your range of possible errors. Just as the cross hairs on a scope are more precise than iron sights, the advent of sights is more precise than any relational mechanism that puts bow/shelf/arrow into relation with the objective. A shooter of a particular (platform agnostic, let's say) skill will likely perform better with sights. 

That being said...sighted trad shooting holds no interest for me. If I want to shoot with sights, I'll go the whole route and shoot my compounds. I have no axe to grind with anyone, and if you want to shoot sighted recurve with clickers, plungers, v-bars, and the whole nine, you go forth with my blessing. To me, the simplicity of the bow has an impact on everything. If it's just a bent stick, a string, my eye, and the target, every dead-on shot just means more. The fact that it's not as easy, to me, is part of the allure.


----------



## 187 BOWHUNTER (Feb 13, 2011)

Instinctive is just plain badass !


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

WindWalker said:


> What poundage would you consider would be getting into the too heavy category?


Honestly, any heavier than 50lbs for good consistent accuracy but I'm guessing there are some that will be shooting heavier for hunting. Most field shooters are under 50lbs. Probably shouldn't have said impossible but its not the norm to be using heavy bows and sights.




BLACK WOLF said:


> I could be wrong...but I think he believes that using sights requires the archer to hold at anchor and with heavier draw weights it becomes harder to hold at anchor.


Correct, harder and less consistent, release is getting really difficult.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

I think the majority of the Oly archers are all in the 53-55# range.... and they seem to do just fine. 

Same recurve with sight my indoor scores improve on the average about 10 points in an NFAA 300 round at 20 yards compared to my avg gap shooting.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

rsarns said:


> I think the majority of the Oly archers are all in the 53-55# range


Olympic classes or Olympic level archers? Most ILF limbs don't go past 52lbs for a reason and only the better limbs go to that weight.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

spinsheet said:


> My wife and I have recently taken up recurves and we are both shooting instinctively (just to clarify, we are not gap shooting). I used to shoot a compound with sites and must admit that I like the recurve and shooting instinctively more than the compound with sites; just my preference.
> 
> I am curious though, how does instinctive shooting compare to site shooting accuracy-wise? Not that it really matters, I enjoy instinctive shooting and want to be the best that I can at my chosen type of archery, site shooting no longer appeals to me (again, no offense to anyone, just my personal preference). I have been told that they are both just as accurate up to 30 or 40 yards, I've been told that site shooting is more accurate at and yardage, and the converse, that instinctive shooting is the more accurate at any yardage. I do feel that instinctive has a steeper learning curve than site shooting, but I'm good with that.
> 
> ...


Sights and knowing your distances, sights are going to win hands down.. exceptl maybe for a freakish guy who has laser vision or something.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

OLY level archers, some shoot over 50#'s. Most of the field archers I shoot with are in the 40-48# range... I am far from an expert though when it comes to this Oly style...


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

rsarns said:


> OLY level archers, some shoot over 50#'s.


Some do but how does that apply to us mere mortals?



rattus58 said:


> Sights and knowing your distances, sights are going to win hands down


Agree.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Look at the RU division in the IBO and FITA, or Barebow for IFAA. Nobody is winning those classes shooting instinctively, its all stringwalkers for a reason.

Now within classes that only allow fixed anchor and while keep the distances within a narrow range, instinctive shooting can be just as accurate as a gap shooter. The mechanics are identical, its just the software thats different.

-Grant

P.S. Top level Oly shooters are over 50# unless they have very long draw-lengths.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

yea grant and look at moving target competition there is a reason that instinctive shooters kick butt and stringwalkers, sight shooters, and gappers are left in the dust -


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> yea grant and look at moving target competition there is a reason that instinctive shooters kick butt and stringwalkers, sight shooters, and gappers are left in the dust -


Not really Ken, plenty of Gappers I know who are able to switch to Instinctive aiming for moving targets (myself being one), then they get the best of both worlds. 

Moving targets is not the norm in high level international World/Euro tourneys IFAA, IBO and Fita is really all about stationary targets. You put everybody in little boxes just because sombody Gaps/Stringwalks doesn't mean they dont know how to shoot moving targets instinctively or otherwise.

I think you missed the point of the question *"how does instinctive shooting compare to sight shooting accuracy-wise?"* as most tourneys are *not* moving targets I feel most of the answers here were valid and accurate.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> Plenty of Gappers I know who are able to switch to Instinctive aiming for moving targets (myself being one), then they get the best of both worlds.


Ditto!


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Gents - 

The point that's sometimes missed, is that the relative accuracy of a shooting system is always based on it's limiting factor. 

In the hands of a shooter with decent and consistent form, the sight will always be the most accurate and precise aiming system. In the case of a shooter with poor and inconsistent form, adding a sight to a bow may actually make the shooter less accurate. In the second case, all the sight does is exaggerate the poor shooting, compound the frustration and may send the shooter into a downward spiral. 

When evaluating a "new" shooter, adding a sight to the mix is a legitimate test to differentiate poor from from poor "aiming" as the limiting factor. 

Think about it: With consistent form, adding an aiming reference should allow the shooter to stack arrows all day long. They may not be in the bulls eye, but they should all cluster. With lousy from, adding a sight will show no change or a deterioration in accuracy.

Viper1 out.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

With archery it is pretty easy to stand back and look at the 'improvements' and see what was accomplished. Each time something was changed, modified, etc it was done to make shooting easier and more accurate. Start with a selfbow shot off the knuckles, move to a longbow with a shelf, then to a recurve off the shelf, add sights, add wheels/letoff, add release aids, etc until you end up with a compound unlimited rig - the ultimate in hand held archery accuracy. You just have to decide at what point along the evolution that you enjoy shooting and go with it. I like recurve barebow shot with a fixed anchor. It fits most trad classifications and more importantly fits my trad classification. It's all fun - enjoy it.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> When evaluating a "new" shooter, adding a sight to the mix is a legitimate test to differentiate poor from from poor "aiming" as the limiting factor.
> 
> Think about it: With consistent form, adding an aiming reference should allow the shooter to stack arrows all day long. They may not be in the bulls eye, but they should all cluster. With lousy from, adding a sight will show no change or a deterioration in accuracy.


I agree in some cases if not most.

Adding a sight does help eliminate the need to know exactly where to aim when the sight has been set properly...but by adding a sight...it can also add another element that an archer's mind may struggle with for some reason or another or require the archer to adjust their form to accomodate the use of a sight.

Some archers can't use a sight with their current form because of how the cant their bow.

Sometimes the cures and indicators are not so cut and dry.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Ray - 



> Some archers can't use a sight with their current form because of how the cant their bow.


That's not exactly true. Shooting with a sight and a canted bow may make it more difficult to position the sight to get on or near the target, but for this type of test, we're not technically looking for accuracy (bulls eyes), we;re looking for precision (grouping).

Even with a horizontal bow, the arrows may not go anywhere near where you want them to go, but they should still end up in the same place. Within the realm of practicality, the only thing that will stop a sight equipped shooter from being more consistent (group wise) is inconsistent from. Yes, that assumes the sight is solidly attached to the bow and isn't moving from shot to shot. 

Sure, some people just can't mentally or emotionally accept the notion of a sight on a bow, but psychological limitations (or biases) really doesn't disprove the theory.

Viper1 out.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> That's not exactly true.


I never said it was exactly true in regards to being able to apply to everyone. I always try to make that quite clear :wink:

As I said....it's a great test for some trad archers if not most...but not for ALL.

If you're trying to tell me that it's true for ALL archers as a perfect test to indicate the issue between form and aiming....than I have to disagree.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> yea grant and look at moving target competition there is a reason that instinctive shooters kick butt and stringwalkers, sight shooters, and gappers are left in the dust -


Thats funny, I stringwalk and gap as my primary aiming techniques. I have NO PROBLEM shooting moving or flying targets. 

Let me make this perfectly clear: when you expand your bag of archery tricks you don't loose anything along the way. Be it shooting a new bow, new aiming system or totally new type of competition. Unfortunately if all you have exposed yourself to is one aspect of archery then you lack the range of experience needed to understand this.

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> Thats funny, I stringwalk and gap as my primary aiming techniques. I have NO PROBLEM shooting moving or flying targets.


:thumbs_up



grantmac said:


> Let me make this perfectly clear: when you expand your bag of archery tricks you don't loose anything along the way. Be it shooting a new bow, new aiming system or totally new type of competition. Unfortunately if all you have exposed yourself to is one aspect of archery then you lack the range of experience needed to understand this.


I agree for the most part...but some of us need to also recognize that there are some people that actually benefit by just focusing on one aspect of archery and aiming...because of how they are wired. For some archers...trying to juggle multiple aiming techniques can hinder their overall accuracy when compared to just keeping it simple, where they master just one technique based on their specific goals.

Ray :shade:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

steve morley said:


> Not really Ken, plenty of Gappers I know who are able to switch to Instinctive aiming for moving targets (myself being one)...


If they "switch to instictive" for moving targets, they wouldn't really be gapping then would they?

That's a little like saying that I can shoot just as well intinctively as a guy with a sight...as long as I put a sight on my bow.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Lol kpc


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Reading this I just realized I gap shoot when waterfowl hunting with my shotgun.... LOL But wait I shoot geese with my bow too... hmmmmmm


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> _If they "switch to instictive" for moving targets, they wouldn't really be gapping then would they_


That's a_ "Duh!_" I do believe that is what Steve was clearly implying.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

When I started shooting I shot Instinctive, I knew nothing about Gap/POA (no forums in those days) it wasn't till I started shooting marked IFAA rounds 9 years after I took up the Bow tha I learnt to Gap shoot.

As I shoot many types of bows from English Longbows, Horsebows to modern ILF bows it feels perfectly natural to adjust my aiming style to the type of bow/shooting I'm doing, all the different aiming methods have their own merits and disadvanvages for me I just adapt my shooting to make best possable use of everything I've learnt in getting the arrow on target.

Whats with all these digs at other shooting methods or divisions _*"look at moving target competition there is a reason that instinctive shooters kick butt"*_ and it's not just in this thread, at this rate we will soon have to coin a new phrase 'Instinctive snobbery', yep Instinct is a great aiming method and has it's place in particular shooting situations, no more or less than any other aiming method.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - ummm - steve - the opposite is true - but I am not going to get into it - because nobody really gap shoots - EVERYONE is an instinctive shooter - right??? oh - wait - that is the other way around that we constantly hear -


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Whats with all these digs at other shooting methods or divisions _*"look at moving target competition there is a reason that instinctive shooters kick butt"*_ and it's not just in this thread, at this rate we will soon have to coin a new phrase 'Instinctive snobbery', yep Instinct is a great aiming method and has it's place in particular shooting situations, no more or less than any other aiming method.


And the ironic thing is...many of these archers that claim to aim Instinctively...actually aren't once a person understands the relationship with an archer's line of sight and how the conscious mind works with the objects within it.

I don't believe they are lying...but I do believe they only have a partial grasp on what it means to be truly aiming Instinctively.

Many of these archers, who claim to be Instinctive shooters are basically gapping at a slightly lower level of awareness than many typical Gap shooters. It's what I call Instictagap or Gapstinctive :wink:

This isn't meant to imply that there are no true Instinctive shooters...because they do in fact exist! 

Here's an example of someone who sincerely believes they may be aiming Instinctively but really are most likely just gap shooting because of how the arrow tip is in their direct line of sight with the target.









Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I see nobody trashing Instinctive here, just objective observations on different aiming methods.

You use ancient history as an excuse to trash other people and aiming methods, youre just fueling the fire which makes you no better than the ones that have trashed Instinct in the past, time to put the past behind you and start over or it will never end.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

and nobody trashed other methods either - at least not me - just that instinctive kicks butt on moving targets - which by all accounts it does - simple statement of fact. I don't care how anyone aims - I know how I aim, what I enjoy and what works for me - whatever works for you and you enjoy - more power to you


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I believe the OP was talking about accuracy, not speed, not balance of accuracy vs. speed.
Look at the score of the Trad vs. RU shooters for the last several IBO, or FITA world 3D. That is even over very short ranges of under 35yds, once you get past 40yds the gap between the aiming methods gets larger. 

In the accuracy game truely instinctive aiming is last place. Within the confines of some particular competitions it may hold its own for some archers.

-Grant


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

now who is bashing what - again - steve???


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> In the accuracy game truely instinctive aiming is last place.


Are you just generally speaking? Are you talking stationary targets? Unmarked distances? Marked distances? 



grantmac said:


> Within the confines of some particular competitions it may hold its own for some archers.


I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'hold it's own' but it can do more than hold it's own for some archers if you're trying to imply it can just hang with the pack. Some true Instinctive archers do have the capability to win certain competitions....but archery is also much more than just about competing.

Ray :shade:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

WindWalker said:


> That's a_ "Duh!_" I do believe that is what Steve was clearly implying.


I know what he meant WW. What I was saying was quite simple (and a little in jest). The fact that gappers can sometimes shoot instinctive, and instinctive shooters can sometimes gap isn't really relevant. The question was which style is more accurate.

The fact that a shooter that prefers to shoot style A, can also shoot style B when he needs to, does not change the fact that one style is inherently more accurate than the other.

KPC


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

GEREP said:


> The question was which style is more accurate.
> 
> The fact that a shooter that prefers to shoot style A, can also shoot style B when he needs to, does not change the fact that one style is inherently more accurate than the other.
> 
> KPC


I think the question has been answered and backed up with evidence from tourney results, at least between Gappers, Stringwalker and sights, Instinct is very difficult to come up with any evidence either way as we don't know if the person is shooting with Gap or instinct in a lot of these tourneys a little easier in IFAA as it's defined by Bowhunter fixed anchor (Gap/Instinct) Barebow Stringwalkers and sighted, you just look at results from several years to see the trend.

Very hard to say if Instinct kicks butt on moving targets as any tourneys I've taken part in you have no divisons, so unless you ask every shooter we have no idea who is using what aiming method, it's safe to say that Instinct is the best option for this type of shooting, that said the 3D moving/pop up targets I've shot in the USA I think most aiming styles would likely work (even stringwalking) as they're not moving at any great speed. 

I'm learning Barebow Stringwalking at the moment when the snow melts maybe I will try some moving targets with this aiming method and see how it works out, should be good for a laugh.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Steve - when you do you little string walking experiment with moving targets - make sure that they pop up at unknonw distances with a limited amount of time to shoot them - so in this sense you have to very quickly determine the distance of the target and where to put your fingers on the string for that distance.

Watching a pop up moving target challenge on video seems slow moving - but trust me - when you are shooting it and you have a crowd of spectators behind you - it seems or feels to be happenging MUCH faster that on video.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

I have shot with many top-notch bow shooters during my time and I don't believe I have ever met or known anyone to be so "obsessed" with telling the world he is an "instinctive" shooter and over-promoting the method as Sharp is.

It is not any one particular sighting method that "kicks butt," it is the individual using a particular sighting method that he or she is best skillful with that enables him or her to "kick butt." Are there particular methods that overall are better suited for certain (target) competitions? Yes. Does that mean that no person can shoot well in a particular target shooting venue unless he or she uses the sighting method that most use? No. Are there certain sighting methods that would impose a greater disadvantage if used to shoot moving or pop-up targets. Yes. Is it possible for some shooters 
to overcome the disadvantages and do well. Yes.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Ken compared to shooting aerial targets which is what I do, the moving/pop up targets I've shot in the USA are slow and I'm no stranger to shooting in front of crowds. 

With Stringwalking I've not really had time to get to know it really well but around 3 stitches on my tab from 10 to 30 yards, the easy option would be to use 20 yard crawl and blend gap and stringwaling together, like I said I will experiment and see if I can make it work.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

WindWalker said:


> I have shot with many top-notch bow shooters during my time and I don't believe I have ever met or known anyone to be so "obsessed" with telling the world he is an "instinctive" shooter and over-promoting the method as Sharp is.


I do know some people, who have tried to use it as a badge of honor to some how try and artificially elevate their abilities or use it as a crutch for poor shooting. Either way...it's really kind of sad when someone makes those claims under those circumstances.



WindWalker said:


> it is the individual using a particular sighting method that he or she is best skillful with that enables him or her to "kick butt." Are there particular methods that overall are better suited for certain (target) competitions? Yes. Does that mean that no person can shoot well in a particular target shooting venue unless he or she uses the sighting method that most use? No. Are there certain sighting methods that would impose a greater disadvantage if used to shoot moving or pop-up targets. Yes. Is it possible for some shooters
> to overcome the disadvantages and do well. Yes.


:thumbs_up

The discussion of aiming methods should really only be used for educational purposes to aide other archers in helping them achieve their particular goals.

IMO....it is wize for an archer to research the different aiming techniques to see if there are any general advantages or disadvantages with them based on their persoanl goals.

It's really not much different than how many archers should and do research on different aspects of form to help them achieve their goals.

It's unfortunate that some people use it as a label to try and elevate their skills/boast or put down others. It really shouldn't be used to do either one!

Ray :shade:


----------



## 187 BOWHUNTER (Feb 13, 2011)

The more I learn about archery the harder it gets, Im just guna shoot my bows and have fun


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

187 BOWHUNTER said:


> The more I learn about archery the harder it gets, Im just guna shoot my bows and have fun


Some people do in fact need to keep it simple. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that if that's how you're wired. The only time it can be a problem is if it's not helping you achieve your particular goals...which in that case....it may be time to re-evaluate what you're doing. The same thing can apply to someone who makes it too complicated.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Could be here in the US the instinctive is a viable aiming method because most of our hunting and competition shots are relatively short. Take that technique out to 65-70 yards and see how well it holds up. Peoples automatic response will be well I don't shoot deer at 75 yards - nope I don't either but, I do like to challenge myself when I practice.

Get out and shoot an American or Fita 900 round they are great practice and a bunch of fun - doesn't it get boring pounding out the same 15-35 yard shot over and over again? The sad thing about the state of American single string archery is most traditional archers (myself included until a couple of years ago) here in the US don't even know what a 900 round is.

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Matt - do you score perfect scores to 35 yards? Last I heard nobody has ever done that barebow - and until I can do something perfectly - it never gets boring. I am a first and foremost a bowhunter - I have no desire to shoot past 40 or 50 yards - and you are correct - shooting instinctive is not for someone who wants to shoot past 50 yards - shooting instinctive is limited to just past normal human ability - say to throw something. If I want to shoot something past 50 yards it will be with a rifle - come to think of it - I don't think I have even shot a deer with my rifle past 50 yards.

I know what a 900 round is and am not interested in it - I would much rather shoot a 3D course that is set up in such a way that is simulates hunting - the purpose that I and a great many people shoot a bow.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Semandi the Italian Barebow shot the last WA3D's worlds (Fita) he shot first two rounds 40 targets (33y max) shooting 20 x 11's and 20 x 10's, I would say thats just about as perfect as you can get with an unsighted Rec.

I enjoy this short range 3D game, its a different challenge with the pressure in knowing if you want to stay in the game you have to be in the kill all the time, WA is slightly different from IBO as all scores are set to zero after each round and bottom half of shooters are eliminated from tourney, if this 3D game was all I shot think I would go crazy, I do enjoy shooting longer Field shots.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Get out and shoot an American or Fita 900 round they are great practice and a bunch of fun - doesn't it get boring pounding out the same 15-35 yard shot over and over again? The sad thing about the state of American single string archery is most traditional archers (myself included until a couple of years ago) here in the US don't even know what a 900 round is.
> 
> Matt


Man, I love the 900 Round!


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Shooting at longer ranges will show you how your from holds up in a big hurry. Creeping a 1/4" results in a shot that is feet low instead of an inch or two. Shooting long range is fun and a real eye-opener, I suggest anyone with good fundamentals and a safe place to shoot try it. Watching those arrows in a big sweeping arch is really neat. No Sharp, I don't recommend it for hunting. There a big beautiful forest out there, don't let the trees get in the way.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

centershot said:


> There a big beautiful forest out there, don't let the trees get in the way.


Instinctive hunters can't see trees - selective eyesight powers and all


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

nope - we see it all and just focus all our conscious thoughts on what we enjoy and let the subconsious worry about the details.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'hold it's own' but it can do more than hold it's own for some archers if you're trying to imply it can just hang with the pack. Some true Instinctive archers do have the capability to win certain competitions....but archery is also much more than just about competing.
> 
> Ray :shade:


I mean that within the confines of some limited competition it can win as often as gap shooting depending on the individual archer. Once outside that particular form of competition it isn't competitive. Look at the score Steve just posted from the WA3Ds for Barebow, does anyone here shoot only 10s and 11s instinctively? Even on their home course and not under international tournament pressure?

What I'm getting at is this: the OP asked about potential accuracy between aiming methods. Sights will always trump everything with stringwalking a remarkably close second. Gap can be successful well out to beyond 80yds and instinctive can win inside 35yds. Which would you rate as having the highest accuracy potential?

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> I mean that within the confines of some limited competition it can win as often as gap shooting depending on the individual archer.


I agree with that.



grantmac said:


> does anyone here shoot only 10s and 11s instinctively? Even on their home course and not under international tournament pressure?


I HIGHLY doubt it. I've shot over a score of 400 on a 40 target 3D course once in my life where the targets were set between 15 and 40yrds. but I wasn't totally aiming true Instinctive. It's basically a blend between Gap and Instinctive where my level of awarness with my gaps are felt rather than consciously analyzed.



grantmac said:


> Sights will *always* trump everything with stringwalking a remarkably close second.


Here's where I have a problem with that statement. It's the use of the word ALWAYS. ALWAYS is not the case.



grantmac said:


> Gap can be successful well out to beyond 80yds and instinctive can win inside 35yds. Which would you rate as having the highest accuracy potential?


Again....it depends on the circumstances of what the target is, what the target is doing and how far the target is.

If you rephrased the question as to what aiming technique is inherently more accurate for the majority of target competitions out there...I would answer that it would be a close tie between Gap and Point of Aim, which many String Walkers and Face Walkers use.

Ray :shade:


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Always may not win, but if I were a betting man, I would ALWAYS bet on the sight..................a quick look at the 2012 Vegas tournament did not show any barebow shooters beating Brady - even the compound bare bow shooters. In fact you have to go to 24th place in the Classic Limited Male Championship division to match up to the best score from the first place bare bow compound shooter. Makes for a pretty strong case.


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

Come on now SB. You win one moving target event and that is your basis for saying that instinctive is by far the best method to shoot them? The only difference in you and Ryan was the bonus dot you hit. You won fair and square. I give you full credit and congratulate you, but you were shooting against gappers that did just fine. I think you should try and go to PA this year to shoot the longer targets -- not much further but a lot more small targets out to 30 yards. There is a lot more forgiveness in the short game. With no Masters class this year at TRAD Worlds and more people learning more and more about 3D shooting and aiming methods it will be interesting to see how the instinctive shooters fare this year. No predictions but I'm interested in how the scores turn out.

The question if instinctive is more accurate than a sight is absurd. If the shooters are at the top of the game (not recreational) then the sight always wins. Vegas is the ideal example - same distance, target size, great talent pool.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

centershot said:


> a quick look at the 2012 Vegas tournament did not show any barebow shooters beating Brady - even the compound bare bow shooters. In fact you have to go to 24th place in the Classic Limited Male Championship division to match up to the best score from the first place bare bow compound shooter. Makes for a pretty strong case.


AGAIN...that's just one venue and one style of target competition.

I still stand by what I said. ALWAYS is NOT the most accurate word to use to compare the different aiming techniques in regards to accuracy under any and every circumstance (always).

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Ranger B said:


> Vegas is the ideal example - same distance, target size, great talent pool.


Yes, there were close to 1,700 registered shooters, with many late registrations. One estimate was close to 1,900 archers from all over the world, including their Olympic team members. I know I shared bales with USA, Mexico, and Japan. One doesn't finish even in the top quadrant of that heap unless one is a world class archer, meaning in the world - too much competition, otherwise.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Ray:

Name me ONE international target, indoor, field or 3D championship where someone shooting in a fixed-anchor class beat any of the top 3 archers shooting sights and I will gladly concede that VERY occasionally an instinctive archer MAY be able to MATCH the accuracy potential of someone using a sight. Otherwise its all just subjective and emotional response.

-Grant


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Ranger - wow - do you really think that the only moving target shoot I attended was the one in TN? I have been in or seen several over the years and they have always been won by instinctive shooters - and common sense dictates this. Regarding the bonus dot - I hit it twice - in the three rounds of competition - I hit it two out of the three - and even when shooting against Ryan - had I not hit I still would have had him by 2 points, but that is neither here nor there - because I did hit it - and hit it twice - bummer that he did not - but such is life. I have shot at least a dozen moving target type novelty shoots over the years. 

I agree that instinctive shooting is not more accurate than a sight - unless - of course you are talking about fast shooting and moving targets - then instictive will almost always be the best way to shoot.

I find it funny that all these gappers and stringwalkers cannot bring themselves to admit that instinctive can be better in at least one form of archery - it must just kill them inside when an instinctive shooter beats them


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Buckmasters has been doing pop up 3Ds for many years. I've never heard of an instinctive shooter winning one of them. The Great Lake Games used to feature small moving targets in the archery competition. I can't say I've ever heard of an instinctive shooter winning there either. 

Are sights more accurate than instinctive? Is that even open for serious debate?


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

I met country singer Ernie Ashworth a few times; a decent but mediocre singer in comparison with the many good country music singers of that time. In the early 60's Ernie lucked out and had a huge hit song: "Talk Back Trembling Lips." It was the only No. 1 hit song he ever had during his entire career. However, for the next 49 years Ernie wore that famous white country suit emblazoned with gaudy huge embroidered red lips and tried to live and remain famous just off the one hit. 

Same with Billy Ray Cyrus and "Achy Breaky Heart."


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

WindWalker said:


> I met country singer Ernie Ashworth a few times; a decent but mediocre singer in comparison with the many good country music singers of that time. In the early 60's Ernie lucked out and had a huge hit song: "Talk Back Trembling Lips." It was the only No. 1 hit song he ever had during his entire career. However, for the next 49 years Ernie wore that famous white country suit emblazoned with gaudy huge embroidered red lips and tried to live and remain famous just off the one hit.
> 
> Same with Billy Ray Cyrus and "Achy Breaky Heart."


1 problem..with this..BR Cyrus has had 8 top ten songs and 3 top ten albums..and was a driving force in changing Americas outlook on country western music..While Achy Breaky Heart was his only #1 hit...it was still a triple platinum album..that had 4 top ten 10 hits on it..and was only eclipsed by Garth Brooks...so...he really isn't a 1 hit wonder...

Mac


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

Mac: Put the analytical side of your brain in sleep mode and go with the "drift." :wink:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

WindWalker said:


> Mac: Put the analytical side of your brain in sleep mode and go with the "drift." :wink:


I can't help it WW...cause I really _like_ Billy Ray...and it don't seem fair to group him into the same group as _him_...


so...:bartstush:...lol...lol...lol

Mac


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

I won the Possom Ripples Traditional shoot 3 times using the MOON method. = MOON method is the best method for aiming. On second thought, I'll just count the shoots where truly the best were assembled. Okay - maybe MOON method isn't so good.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> MOON method


Okay, I give! If MOON is not an acronym it must be the name of a person that shot using a particular method that became popular....or you are shooting at the Moon and hoping for the best. LOL!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> Name me ONE international target, indoor, field or 3D championship where someone shooting in a fixed-anchor class beat any of the top 3 archers shooting sights and I will gladly concede that VERY occasionally an instinctive archer MAY be able to MATCH the accuracy potential of someone using a sight. Otherwise its all just subjective and emotional response.


Seriously, Grant!

What is it that I'm saying that you can NOT comprehend???

THERE IS MORE TO ARCHERY AND ARCHERY COMPETITIONS THAN YOUR LIMITED VIEW OF IT!!!!

Instead of trying to understand what I'm sharing with you....you're stuck on the self imposed limits you have put archery into.

It's obvious you'll never understand what I'm trying to share with you...until you look outside of your box.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

Ray - what control group would you use when trying to determine which method is more accurate? I can't think of a better choice than Vegas because it is an ideal control group. You can't use the local 3D shoot because I can outshoot some compound guys there with a recurve, but compare say Ricky Stark (the best compound barebow shooter in the world) to Brady or Jake. That's comparing using the tip of the arrow at 18m to using a sight and the sight wins. I get that your hang up was using the word "always" but honestly when you use the top shooters in the world I can't find an example that would rule out "always."


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Ranger B said:


> Ray - what control group would you use when trying to determine which method is more accurate?


It's situational! You can't pick just one or a few events to determine what will ALWAYS be the most accurate aiming technique. 

*It should and must be based on the archers's goals!*

If an archer just wants to hunt and would like to include running rabbits and flying birds to their list of hunting pursuits...I guareentee that String Walking and Face Walking are NOT going to be the aiming technique that dominates those situations and circumstances!

Same thing with some fairly new archery competitions that are becoming popular over seas. It's aerial target and mounted horse archery competitions.

I'm not 'hung up' on a word because what I'm saying is true. To determine what aiming technique indicates an advantage over others...a person needs to take into account each and every situation the comparison is being made in.

For examples:

If someone was to ask me what aiming technique would show to be the most accurate over every situation...generally speaking...my answer would be Gap.

If someone was to ask me what aiming technique would show to be the most accurate in most marked yardage target competitions...generally speaking...my answer would be Point of Aim being used by String Walkers.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

We have all been talking about which is more accurate - instinctive or sight. None of us have been saying which is more accurate if you are shooting through barbwire at a quail launching from a rabbit's head.

Stringwalkers don't use point of aim. They walk the string and put the point of the arrow on the spot they want to hit. Point of aim is when the archer puts the point on an auxiliary point so as to achieve the proper elevation. At all points under point on distance the spot is below the target somewhere. They then aim at that point with the arrow but it impacts in the bullseye.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> For examples:
> 
> If someone was to ask me what aiming technique would show to be the most accurate over every situation...generally speaking...my answer would be Gap.
> 
> ...


Really? I think I'd put my money on sights.

:first:

KPC


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Seriously, Grant!
> 
> What is it that I'm saying that you can NOT comprehend???
> 
> ...


Again: subjective and emotional. There is only one way to compare the relative accuracy of various barebow aiming techniques and that is internationally recognized competition.

I only have to look at two things to make a determination as to what is more accurate:
Rules and Results.
If an aiming technique has been banned then its more accurate. 
If the same course or event is shot by two different aiming techniques and one clearly dominates results, then its more accurate.

This isn't about boxes. Although considering that I compete in 5 different forms of archery (FITA Field, 3D and indoor, NFAA 3D and indoor) and I'm starting to play with NFAA Barebow on the side for indoor and field. I've also shot movers, arial targets and hunt small game so something tells me that I've got a reasonable base to draw my opinions from.

Why any archer would want to limit their ultimate accuracy potential is beyond me. I take what is going to be the most accurate method that still fits within the rules I'm shooting and I use it.

-Grant


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Guys...take this from the top of what the OP asked about...and leave all of the other stuff out of it would you..

He said..and asked..



> My wife and I have recently taken up recurves and we are both shooting instinctively *(just to clarify, we are not gap shooting).* *I used to shoot a compound with sites *and must admit that I like the recurve and shooting instinctively more than the compound with sites; just my preference.
> 
> I am curious though, *how does instinctive shooting compare to site shooting accuracy-wise*?


He is asking a direct comparison to instinctual archery vs pin sights here..not using the arrow to aim..certainly not gap..and nothing about face walking...or string walking....this is a no-brainer..Sights win..hands down for over all accuracy in the majority of situations when dealing with accuracy for the majority of people..It doesn't matter if what the top shooters in the world shoot in competition...he didn't ask concerning the top shooters in the world...The majority of people will be more accurate the majority of time..because they have a sight to *aim with*..The majority people who truely shoots instinctually..will be able to concitrate more easily on any moving target...This is the way our eyes work..it's easier to focus on 1 thing..then tosee things out of focus when using a sight of any kind..This is not a reflection on those top shooters that can do well doing either way and certainly not saying they can't..but...for the majority of people *most of the time.* shooting stationary targets ...pin sights are going to be more accurate....

Mac


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I find it funny that all these gappers and stringwalkers cannot bring themselves to admit that instinctive can be better in at least one form of archery - it must just kill them inside when an instinctive shooter beats them


When I'm beaten I very rarely know what aiming style that person is using (unless he's a good friend) and I certanly dont go around asking everybody what aiming method they're using, sometimes I lose because I dont perform at my peak, other times I was at my peak and the guy just shot better than me, if it killed me inside everytime I lost I wouldn't be doing tourney shooting and it's never entered my thoughts that I was outshot by a superiour aiming method, only that the guy shot better on the day. Do you REALLY believe other people are so shallow?

You have such an obsession about proving Instinct kicks butt that anything anybody says about Instinct that doesn't fit your own concept you treat them as some kind of idiot who has no idea how instinct works or accuse them of attacking instinct, the general feeling I got from this thread is a lot of people said Instinct is a good choice for IBO/Bowhunting and moving targets, so I really dont understand what your problem is.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Ranger B said:


> We have all been talking about which is more accurate - instinctive or sight. None of us have been saying which is more accurate if you are shooting through barbwire at a quail launching from a rabbit's head.


Really??? All???? Go re-read posts #3,#4,#5,#6, #7and #13....ALL mention other aiming techniques other than Instinctive or using sights.

Do some of you guys really have blinders on when you read???

Since I didn't originally bring the other barebow aiming techniques up and I haven't been the ONLY one discussing them, the term 'ALWAYS' is still WRONG when used to describe which aiming technique is generally more accurate under ALL circumsatnces.

If you want to argue with that or how everyone else but me is only discussing sights vs. Instinctive....go for it!



Ranger B said:


> Stringwalkers don't use point of aim.


What do you think an archer who is shooting their Point On Distance is doing?

They are using Point of Aim...but they don't need a secodary aiming reference to place their arrow tip on because the target is their Point of Aim.

Point of Aim does NOT have to involve a secondary aiming spot if the archer is able to move their fingers up and down the string and place the arrow tip on the target.

Yes...archers who do NOT move their fingers up and down the string or move the anchor point must have a secondary aiming reference to place their arrow tip on when they are not shooting at their Point On Distance.

If your opinion applied to an archer who was shooting at their Point On Distance....what aiming technique would they be using if they weren't String Walking or Face Walking when they are consciously placing the point of their arrow directly on the target?

String Walking just allows the archer to place their Point of Aim right on the target or closer to it at various distances.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> There is only one way to compare the relative accuracy of various barebow aiming techniques and that is internationally recognized competition.


Please...that is NOT the only way!!!



grantmac said:


> I only have to look at two things to make a determination as to what is more accurate:
> Rules and Results.
> If an aiming technique has been banned then its more accurate.
> If the same course or event is shot by two different aiming techniques and one clearly dominates results, then its more accurate.


I agree. That's a great way to compare aiming techniques.



grantmac said:


> Why any archer would want to limit their ultimate accuracy potential is beyond me.


Are you serious??

Why would any archer not use a sight...ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CONCENSOUS IS THAT A SIGHT IS MORE ACCURATE?
Why would any archer not use a compond bow with 85% let off and a release?
Why would any archer not use a full blown Olympic rig?
Why would any archer want to use a primitive bow and arrows?

Yes...this is about boxes. Unfortunately...if it isn't relative to some of you...it just doesn't count.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GEREP said:


> Really? I think I'd put my money on sights.


I agree...but I didn't make it clear with that comment that I was talking about barebow aiming techniques :wink:

Sorry for not making myself clear.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Ah Steve - I am not obessessed with it - if you go back and read these posts - I stated quite clearly that the guys with sights shoot better than me and other instinctive shooters. 

Grant made this statement: _Look at the RU division in the IBO and FITA, or Barebow for IFAA. Nobody is winning those classes shooting instinctively, its all stringwalkers for a reason._

I just decided to point out that there is a division in which instinctive dominate too - and most agreed.

I would argue that there is much more too it than just the method of aiming in the RU and the IFAA barebow class - to use his terminology - the hardware and software is different in those classes - in the IBO RU Rests and plungers, stabalizers and clickers or other draw check devices are allowed on the "unaideded" bow - none of which are allowed in the divisions that an instinctive shooter would shoot. The same is true of the IFAA - they even allow a level on the bow for "barebow".


I find it amazing that all these guys feel a religious like compulsion to spread their aiming methods - grant and Ranger are constantly talking about why they can't understand how guys would not use methods that are "proven" to be more accurate - well - guess what - sights are proven more accurate - why don't you guys just put sights on your bows and get it over with - because that is the most accurate way to shoot a bow - PERIOD.

Most of these guys claim to have started instinctive - then they go to barrell shooting, then POA, then Gap, now they are all going to string walking - what's next??? I say put the sight on and get it over with and then when they realize that they can shoot a compound more accurate than their olympic bow with sights - the trad bow will hang on the wall, and then when they realize that a rifle is more accurate than a compound - that will be on ebay - 

ok - before you get all nuts - I am obviously being a bit sarcastic here - but if it comes to shooting a bow the way I enjoy it and a few points - I will take shooting the bow the way I enjoy shooting it over a few points ANY DAY.

BTW question for the string walkers - how does that work with a broadhead when bowhunting? It would seem to me that the arrow would fly differnetly with each different distance - is that the case?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Something to think about - sights are only better if a person has the form to utilize them. For some people with poor form instinctive might be better - I know when I was first starting out they didn't help much but, now it is night and day - I can put the pin where it needs to be hold steady and squeeze off the shot.

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

please - don't equate poor form with instinctive shooting - that is the problem with it - people think that to shoot instinctive they have to bend over, hunch up, stick their fanny out, and snap shoot - and that is unfortunate and the reason that many who try instinctive stop shooting that way - then they develop proper form at the same time they try some other aiming method and start shooting better and then go out and bash instinctive.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Ken,

I really don't see how you could possibly read that post as equating poor form with instinctive shooting - when I shoot instinctive I stand up with a vertical bow and a classic target stance.

I am learning stringwalking because it is new different and fun. I get instinctive aiming there is nothing wrong with it - I won a couple of state level belt buckles using it. But, the more I shoot the more I realize I like all aspects of archery - I am learning to stringwalk so I can shoot field and loving it. I like 300 rounds, shooting 75 yards, shooting bunnies and carp, I live to hunt whitetails and harass the elk once in a while - Heck if money was no object I would set up an Open class compound and see how i could do with that - I just love archery.

I don't know what happens when you stringwalk a broadhead because when I am hunting I put on a sight (it is after all the most accurate way) - I have killed well over 100 whitetail with my recuves shooting instinctively but, I just like the absolute 100 percent confidence a sight gives me at this point (personal choice).

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

you have killed over 100 whitetail shooting instinctively - but now need a sight - and a sight gives you 100% confidence - so with a sight you never miss or make a bad shot?


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

So where in Matt's last post did he state that he never misses or makes a bad shot with a sight?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Ah Steve - I am not obessessed with it - if you go back and read these posts - I stated quite clearly that the guys with sights shoot better than me and other instinctive shooters.


Agreed, yes you did say that, obsessed I still stand by that statement.




sharpbroadhead said:


> I just decided to point out that there is a division in which instinctive dominate too - and most agreed.


I think most here agreed instinctive was a better option, as far as I know we have no real proof that instinct kicks butt in moving target tourneys, I'm willing to listen if youre able to show some published results on this area.




sharpbroadhead said:


> I would argue that there is much more too it than just the method of aiming in the RU and the IFAA barebow class - to use his terminology - the hardware and software is different in those classes - in the IBO RU Rests and plungers, stabalizers and clickers or other draw check devices are allowed on the "unaideded" bow - none of which are allowed in the divisions that an instinctive shooter would shoot. The same is true of the IFAA - they even allow a level on the bow for "barebow".


Agreed but even with Oly target bow and wheels the equipment is quite different




sharpbroadhead said:


> I find it amazing that all these guys feel a religious like compulsion to spread their aiming methods - grant and Ranger are constantly talking about why they can't understand how guys would not use methods that are "proven" to be more accurate - well - guess what - sights are proven more accurate - why don't you guys just put sights on your bows and get it over with - because that is the most accurate way to shoot a bow - PERIOD.


I think you lost the plot here slightly, it's funny when several people said this about you, you return with this rubbish, All I've seen Ranger do is help people develop their form to a higher skill level, he still shoots all aiming methods and all types of bows if he promotes anything with religious like compulsion it's good shooting form, I admire what he has done to help people. You did a great job with your formaster video, I think you have a lot to offer here as you're a great shooter, it just takes a little more willingness to accept and respect other forms of Archery, which to me you obviously dont.





sharpbroadhead said:


> Most of these guys claim to have started instinctive - then they go to barrell shooting, then POA, then Gap, now they are all going to string walking - what's next??? I say put the sight on and get it over with and then when they realize that they can shoot a compound more accurate than their olympic bow with sights - the trad bow will hang on the wall, and then when they realize that a rifle is more accurate than a compound - that will be on ebay -


Just what is wrong with this, firstly it seems your now saying these people are lying about starting out instinctively, Archery is very diverse sport and some people enjoy exploring many areas of this sport has to offer, you want to ridicule people for exploring their horizons, you have a very narrow perspective of Archery.



sharpbroadhead said:


> BTW question for the string walkers - how does that work with a broadhead when bowhunting? It would seem to me that the arrow would fly differnetly with each different distance - is that the case?


watch Ty Pelfy in Modern Traditional DVD, shows him taking a Deer at 44y using Stringwalking, it obviously works quite well for him.


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

See sharpbroadhead there you go twisting again. He said 100% confidence - that's all. I have never tried to push guys into aiming either. That just fits your agenda. I have said 1000 times over that some guys can't naturally shoot free throws, nor can some guys shoot instinctive so I recommend they use a method that will help them make a lethal kill on an animal vs. poke and hope. We're just not as talented as you are so we need a crutch. You make assumptions and matter of fact statements yet many are just wrong. Here a while back when we were discussing large traditional shoots and you were going on about your **** Rapids shoot I mentioned over 500 shooters at the Tennessee Classic and you said, but that's not a competitive shoot, just a fun shoot. I left it alone because I tire of arguing with you but Pappy would never allow a "fun" shoot at Twin Oaks. It's always been a competitive shoot with some of the coolest awards I've seen. 

We have shot instinctive, but we have also shot using gap, point of aim, stringwalking, field, 3D, indoors, and even with compounds so we have an opinion based on experience. You refuse to try them but seem to feel that you have cornered the market on archery expertise. There is a whole world of archery out there but it's just out side the field of view you can see with those blinders on. We're not pushing it. We're just trying to expose people to it.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

centershot - in order to have 100% confidence - that would indicate that you never miss - 100% leaves no room for error.

Steve you are missing the point - the point is if all you want is the most accurate possible way to do something - then it will evolve or devolve into rifles. Anyone who shoots a "barebow" - is putting limitations on what they can accomplish as far as accuracy is concerned - a line is drawn somewhere. Some of us take "barebow" literally - that means a bow without a rest, sights, stabalizers, clickers, etc... - some take "traditional" to mean a selfbow, others any non-compound bow, etc...

It is about where YOU an individual draw the line - and since this is a "traditional" forum - there is a point where that line gets pushed too far and it is no longer traditional - that line has not yet been determined as a group.

For me - traditional is what it is for me - for you traditional is what it is for you. But to me when it becomes more about gaining a few points than just getting out there and having fun - it is no longer traditional - now it is something else.


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

The problem is that you seem to have no problem drawing the line for where to stop the aiming and equipment but where is the line at the bottom. People seem to have a license to be as bad as you want to be. Where is the line of ethics? I agree it's personal. I also agree that "barebow" was a class in archery before the words "compound" or "traditional" existed - even before 3D was invented. You mention RU with a smirk about "unaided" above but the fact of the matter is that there was an aided class in the early 90s which allowed sights but the class drew thin and it was eliminated. But RU remained due to participation. It's on the rise again now but not with new concepts. Stabilizers, draw checks, and elevated rests have been around for a long time. I have my dad's Wing Presentation with them on it and my dad is 80.


----------



## ChadMR82 (Sep 22, 2009)

I have tried both. I tend to hold anchor to long with a site and then I develop target panic as the pin dances around the X ring. It ends in me messing up my release or moving my bow arm. It ended up as more of "fling" than a shot. I like to shoot instinctive. I just focus on the spot and however it happens I hit the spot (sometimes) or at least somewhere close to it. I do not think I GAP but who knows. I just look at the spot, concentrate and let it fly. So for me personally, I am more accurate shooting instinctive. Do what works for you and have fun.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> centershot - in order to have 100% confidence - that would indicate that you never miss - 100% leaves no room for error.


What perentage do you take a hunting shot at, 100%, 80% 50%?



sharpbroadhead said:


> Anyone who shoots a "barebow" - is putting limitations on what they can accomplish as far as accuracy is concerned


If you think that you will never reach your full potential



sharpbroadhead said:


> It is about where YOU an individual draw the line - and since this is a "traditional" forum - there is a point where that line gets pushed too far and it is no longer traditional - that line has not yet been determined as a group.


Did you just become a Moderator on this forum, you sure are talking like one. When I talked about Horsebows you tried to shut me down with same BS.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Holy cow - what bs - 

1. I beleive words mean things and to say that one has 100% confidence in something means that they believe that they have 0% chance of a miss

2. Ranger - talk about twisting words - where did I say that a line has to be at the bottom - and since when is instinctive at the bottom - hmmm? It was good enough to beat you at your home range in your hometown - in your state where you are used to the ungodly heat - yet you dare to claim it is at the bottom - odd that I beat you by how much? I was in 4th and you were in 9th - what method was at the bottom there Jimmy? How ridiculous.
How dare you imply that I believe that people should have a licence to be as "bad as they want" 

I have never claimed that your method of shooting was at the bottom? I have never said that anyone has to be at the bottom. You better look at who is twisting words here.

Oh and now that I pointed out that I beat Jimmy - I will be accused of bragging or something - but he can say that I believe people should have a licence to be as "bad as they want" - question my ethics - claim that my method of shooting - which beat him btw - is at the bottom! wow

enough in this thread for m


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

If words mean things, then some people should then OWN the words they utter and print.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Dont worry Ken I'm sure your time will come and you will be IBO world champ :angel:


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

Okay, again we can't communicate. I never questioned your ethics or said you could be or was bad. I said, okay read slow without anger, YOU have no problem drawing the line on the equipment, BUT where is the bottom line? I am speaking to those who can't seem to get instinctive to work but go hunting anyway. I suggest that they learn a method that will make them better. ie. an aiming technique. I think they will enjoy archery better if they hit more. I am well aware that you beat me in the Recurve class at Trad Worlds Ken. I congratulate you. I have always said you were a good shot. It's recorded on servers all over the place.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Holy cow - what bs -


It's not bs. You calling it bs is bs :wink: 



sharpbroadhead said:


> 1. I beleive words mean things and to say that one has 100% confidence in something means that they believe that they have 0% chance of a miss


Soooo...what's your point? There are some people who are wired to believe that. In a moment a person can have 100% confidence in their abilities to not miss a particular target but still realize at some point they may miss one of the targets in the future. It is something that should be learned and taught...otherwise an archer risks developing target panic if they don't learn to have 100% confidence when they decide to shoot. An archer really should believe they can make the shot when they take it.



sharpbroadhead said:


> 2. Ranger - talk about twisting words - where did I say that a line has to be at the bottom - and since when is instinctive at the bottom - hmmm? It was good enough to beat you at your home range in your hometown - in your state where you are used to the ungodly heat - yet you dare to claim it is at the bottom - odd that I beat you by how much? I was in 4th and you were in 9th - what method was at the bottom there Jimmy?


The ironic thing is....I don't believe you have a full understanding of what true Instinctive aiming is....yet you claim to aim Instinctively when your bow and form is set up to place the arrow tip within your direct line of sight or very close to it for most of the targets you shoot at. When an archer does that....it's basically using the arrow tip as a sight...and it can not be totally instinctive. You may be using a lower level of awareness than what many other Gap shooters use....but you're basically Gap shooting at the same level I do. Let me make this clear. I do NOT believe you are lying. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Ranger B said:


> Okay, again we can't communicate. I never questioned your ethics or said you could be or was bad. I said, okay read slow without anger, YOU have no problem drawing the line on the equipment, BUT where is the bottom line? I am speaking to those who can't seem to get instinctive to work but go hunting anyway. I suggest that they learn a method that will make them better. ie. an aiming technique. I think they will enjoy archery better if they hit more. I am well aware that you beat me in the Recurve class at Trad Worlds Ken. I congratulate you. I have always said you were a good shot. It's recorded on servers all over the place.


I am not a competitive shooter. I can compete on the "can you hit that golfball.... or pebble... kinda thing, but 20 on a target... mucho concern... Hunting on the other hand is entirely different. I have a much different perspective on shooting. There are two kinds of swimmers... competitive swimmers and recreational swimmers... but they can all swim. One does a 100 meeters in 45 seconds... me maybe in a minute. There are two kinds of shooters as well... each with individual style. I'm not a trainer, but I've introduced a lot of people to shooting. The basics. The basics can successfully take you hunting. The basics can successfully give you opportunity to not embarrass yourself on a target line. The basics also give you something to build on. Some will and some will not be able to "finesse" their shooting, but hunting involves a lot of different skills that combine to success.

I'm a "Make the shot you can" kinda shooter, but there are many who "make the shot you think you can". Who's right? For me, if you don't stretch, you won't grow... I'm not saying that this should run your life, but you don't lose weight if your don't go to bed hungry. By the same token, you don't get to 50# from 45 without the "stretch". You don't make the perfect 10 without, in every of my experiences anyway, a few 8's along the way.

I love to watch a program on the Outdoor Channel, "Impossible Shots". How many misses make a hit.... Love it... and shows the value of perseverence. The other thing I notice, is that people adjust to their physique to accomplish the basics. Bottom line in MY OPINION, is that you have to like what you do, regardless of what you're doing to progress. Accuracy for me is everything to shooting in my style of shooting, and it should be for everyone when hunting, especially. I personally don't know hunters that just fling arrows into a herd, but I do know of them, have witnessed that very act on numerous occasion on a military base here that we can hunt... These aren't shooters and are certainly are hunters in the shooters stage.

Sights are sometimes a component of an aiming system/method. Anytime you can align things, you will be accurate, if the equipment does it's part. It's that alignment that matters... that's why I stress anchor as being the basics... for me anyway... and those I introduce to shooting with archery. Oh... and have fun... :grin:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

sharpbroadhead said:


> you have killed over 100 whitetail shooting instinctively - but now need a sight - and a sight gives you 100% confidence - so with a sight you never miss or make a bad shot?


Ken

My point was and is I DON"T CARE HOW PEOPLE AIM OR WHAT THEY SHOOT - instinctive is one way and it works well to a point but, there are many ways to get the arrow were it needs to be and my point in stating I use a sight was merely that I don't need a sight but, I choose to use a sight for hunting - there is a difference.

In answer to your question - no since putting a sight on I have not missed or wounded an animal - did I wound and miss animals shooting with out a sight? of course I did - I have been hunting with a recurve for 20 + years it is bound to happen - I took some stupid shots over the years and I am sure I would have missed and or wounded a portion of those animals if I was using a sight as well. 

I am a good instinctive shot and an experienced hunter but, I choose to shoot with a sight at this point - that is all it is - a choice but, there really should be no stigma attached to that choice. 

I am much much more selective about the shots I take now (I'm not 16 anymore) and I don't feel the need to kill and really don't feel I need to prove anything to anyone. I hunt because I love to hunt and I hunt with a recurve because that is the way I prefer to do it - I am sorry at this point I threw that number out there but, I hunt a bunch in several states and Montana has very liberal limits on deer. It is a little tighter now than it was but if I draw an extra buck tag I can still shoot 7 legal deer out here. At one point if you traveled a bunch I think you could kill 20 something legal deer out here with a bow.

Good thing my kids love venison.

Matt


----------



## muzzleloader50 (Mar 10, 2011)

test your instinctive shooting.
go to the shooting lanes .turn off the lites.lite a birthday candle at fifeteen yards see how close you can get
must be dark enough so you cannot see your bow or arrow
any way does not matter how we shoot as long as we enjoy it.
what works for me might not work for you


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> _Most of these guys claim to have started instinctive - then they go to barrell shooting, then POA, then Gap, now they are all going to string walking - what's next??? I say put the sight on and get it over with and then when they realize that they can shoot a compound more accurate than their olympic bow with sights - the trad bow will hang on the wall, and then when they realize that a rifle is more accurate than a compound - that will be on ebay_


When I read the comments of some that they believe they know what constitutes "traditional" or a violation of traditional, I picture them walking backwards past me in a state of pure ignorance while I have been walking forward for many years, eyes wide open and living and carrying the facts. I am now approaching my 50th year of shooting a stickbow and have personally lived and experienced the era that is now referred to as the "traditional" era. I have since discovered that I was a trad shooter long before I knew I was. 

Many that claim to be traditional and try to classify what is traditional today in relation as to what it actually was yesterday, know little to nothing factual of the era. Because I was there (the era), I and others like me are much more qualified to know what is acceptable as being deemed "traditional." My opinion is that I don't care what you put on the stick... whether it be a kitchen sink; as long as it is a recurve or longbow and does not have wheels, it's traditional.

Aside of individuals who believe they know what is supposedly traditional...but do not, and engage it trad ethics patrolling, it my unwavering opinion that it is the "traditional" competition rules and prohibitions that have been greatly responsible for furthering the misconceptions and misleading many to believe that what the rules allow or prohibit is a factual representation of "traditional." The rules and prohibitions in traditional competition are meant to simply separate the shooting categories vs. equipment/methods, and make things as equal among those shooting in a particular category as is possible. Nothing more.

In those days (we) were constantly using and experimenting with various methods, materials, and accessories to improve performance and accuracy; romance or how nice the bow looked was not a factor. In fact, most bows were camo painted or had camo limbs sleeves. Being we did not have the comfort gear that is available today; there wasn't a damn thing about bowhunting that was _romantic. _

Sights became very prominent; homemade or purchased. Some popular sights had a crude range estimation design. Some of us used range estimation tape or improvised "angle cards" affixed to the top bow limb. Shops would tap and install inserts so that we could use heavy steel stabs and riser mounted quivers. Many were getting up off the shelf and using elevated rests; the bridge-type rest were most popular but many also used the riser-mounted stick on's and the springy-thingys. 

When cut-past-center became the newest craze, those of us that still had bows that were not center-shot broke out the wood rasps and filed out the riser. Then we started dumping wood shafts and going with alloy and fiberglass. When the vinyl vane hit the scene many of us also gave it a try; some stayed with the vinyl, most did not. I did not. KISS was not the in thing. To abide by KISS meant to remain at a level we were trying to improve. As said. we tried about every gimmick that was hyped to improve performance accuracy. Some did, most did not. 

So when I read BS such as quoted above, and other statements by others that also consider the use of certain accessories and materials to be a trad violation and the road to eventually using a compound bow, or that the person might as well use a wheel bow, I know that person was not "there" and knows little to nothing about what was.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

muzzleloader50 said:


> test your instinctive shooting.
> go to the shooting lanes .turn off the lites.lite a birthday candle at fifeteen yards see how close you can get
> must be dark enough so you cannot see your bow or arrow
> any way does not matter how we shoot as long as we enjoy it.
> what works for me might not work for you


Instinctive is just a description for subconscious gaping - I don't think instinctive is a great description of what is going on but, it is the one we have and we all know what someone is talking about when they say it.

Matt


----------



## muzzleloader50 (Mar 10, 2011)

i do not know what my subconscious is doing when i shoot.i have been shooting recurve and longbow for about 45 years.
i pick a spot draw and shoot some times i hit dead on others i miss by a little bit but i tend to agree after you do things for a while the mind just knows what to do.
like how hard to throw
the ball to get it a certain distance


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> Instinctive is just a description for subconscious gaping



EEEEEEW! Ya just lit the fuse with that comment! Grab hold of something solid and hang on tight; this train is about to leave the rails.


----------



## Chupacabras (Feb 10, 2006)

I instinctively aim with the correct pin at a given distance. :wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

muzzleloader50 said:


> test your instinctive shooting.
> go to the shooting lanes .turn off the lites.lite a birthday candle at fifeteen yards see how close you can get
> must be dark enough so you cannot see your bow or arrow


That's not necessarily a good test for Instinctive shooting...because in most cases Instinctive shooting does involve a sight picture...not just a target.

It's a great test to show how every archer uses a sight picture and references within it to adjust their aim...or to show which archers can or do rely on more of their proprioceptive abilities.

There are different levels of awareness when people aim.

Some archers are completely aware of their aiming references and visually analyze them...while others can be less aware and shoot more by feel.

The thing that seperates pure/true Instinctive aiming from the other aiming techniques...is when the archer is NOT consciously aware of their aiming references and that is impossible to do...when the aiming reference is in the archer's direct line of sight with the target such as using a sight or shooting 3 Under and placing the arrow tip on the target while aiming for examples.

Ray :shade:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Chupacabras said:


> I instinctively aim with the correct pin at a given distance. :wink:


Hahahaha.... :grin:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Instinctive is just a description for subconscious gaping -


Generally and simply speaking...Yes...I agree...BUT...there is also more than just that going on that seperates it from the other aiming techniques for those that want to know the more complicated description :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Chupacabras said:


> I instinctively aim with the correct pin at a given distance. :wink:


You may use your pin at a lower level of awareness but it's NOT exactly the same thing as what true Instinctive aiming involves.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Well I can see that this has wound-up to the conclusion we all saw happening.

OSB is busy telling people that the only reason RU and Barebow shoot higher scores then the fixed-anchor classes is because of the equipment, which isn't Trad anyway. Of course he's avoiding the idea that Trad is a newer concept than BB and people have been stringwalking since before he knew how to walk or what string was.
I guess we're all just too busy deluding ourselves and one day soon we'll wake up with a compound hung from our favorite bow peg. Its funny because I do have a compound or two, right next to my selfbows, vintage recurves, a RD longbow and perhaps soon an NFAA/IFAA legal longbow. See I like archery, a lot, and I like to do as many different kinds as possible. My world isn't locked on 3D and hunting.

I will make this statement: The RU and BB classes are INCLUSIVE you can shoot them any way you want. You DO NOT see anyone winning them at the National or International level using a fixed anchor. Its just that simple folks. You wanna win you have to use the MOST ACCURATE aiming system possible.
The REASON the IBO Trad class can be won by an instinctive shooter is because the rules were specifically created to keep it a fixed-anchor class, a place for those who want to gap or do whatever to be competitive.

-Grant

P.S. Ray: Because I like doing things differently, same reason I shoot a bunch of different bows and different classes. Sights just aren't that interesting for some reason: too easy.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> P.S. Ray: Because I like doing things differently, same reason I shoot a bunch of different bows and different classes. Sights just aren't that interesting for some reason: too easy.


Do you not than see the irony in your statement? "Why any archer would want to limit their ultimate accuracy potential is beyond me."

If shooting with sights is to easy...than not using them makes achieving the same level accuracy harder if not nearly impossible for some archers.

The very same reason why you choose not to use sights...can be the very same reason why some archers don't want to String Walk and rather learn to aim Instinctively.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Do you not than see the irony in your statement? "Why any archer would want to limit their ultimate accuracy potential is beyond me."
> 
> If shooting with sights is to easy...than not using them makes achieving the same level accuracy harder if not nearly impossible for some archers.
> 
> ...


Then they can play in a fixed anchor class. Seems pretty simple from here. And in the fixed anchor classes gap shooting is the clear winner, except for some short-range unmarked competition where instinctive can compete on an even footing.
I prefer to shoot BB or RU, because FOR ME making an accurate shot is the most fun. However shooting in a sighted class loses some of that fun, most likely because the expected standard is perfection. I find there is a lot more "room to grow" in the unsighted classes. Sort of like why I don't shoot Trap anymore, perfection was the expectation.

I still don't get why someone would want to learn an aiming technique which VERY FEW people can make competitive when there are simple and successful alternatives.

-Grant


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Grant,
In league we both shoot with an "instinctive" archer.... I have had the pleasure of shooting with that nuckle dragger for a very long time... but when I asked him, "just curious but where is your point when you are shooting" he said oh, its down near the right bottom corner... So to coin a term I think the majority in their subconscious are GAPSTINCTIVE.... in 3D I guess I am a little of both, using the sight picture to guesstimate yardage, and seeing the tip of the arrow (or riser) in my peripheral vision. I do strictly gap shoot indoors and on long shots such as field shoots.


----------



## oxnam (Jan 3, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> That's not necessarily a good test for Instinctive shooting...because in most cases Instinctive shooting does involve a sight picture...not just a target.
> 
> It's a great test to show how every archer uses a sight picture and references within it to adjust their aim...or to show which archers can or do rely on more of their proprioceptive abilities.
> 
> ...


Over the years I have come across a lot of "instinctive" archers. From what I understand and envision, is their concentration is so intense on the target that they are blind to their site picture. To imply that the tip of the arrow is part of their shooting equation is almost insulting to some. That is were the shooting at a candle in a dark room or some other similarly lighted situation seems to be the true test if someone is absolutely shooting instictively because, for the most part, the riser and arrow tip are excluded from the shooters vision. That is what I have always considered instinctive.

I consider my style split vision. My focus is on the target but I a slightly concious of where the tip is in relationship to the target. I find this very helpful in shooting at extended yardages. In my mind, I know approximately what the sight picture looks like at 45 yards. I will come to full draw, conciously factor the approximate sight picture (this can happen before the draw) then I let my subconcious make the little adjustments. The longer the distance, the more important it is to do that concious consideration of the site picture. I don't find it difficult to adjust to different tips on my arrow where I would guess a true gapper would be thrown off a little when changing from a stubby field point to a 3" long broadhead.

I always felt that I shot "instinctive" on flying targets and close flushing birds because I don't think consciously and I can make accurate shots very fast. However, when we were filming for our dvd, I had a hard time making a trickshot that I wanted to include. This was the shot setup. A thrower was tossing a glow in the dark loop or bracelet with a diameter of about 3" and I wanted to shot through it with a Lumenok. Long story short, I don't shoot as instively as I thought and the normally simple shot was actually quite challenging.

Back to the original question, I would put my money on a good sight shooter versus a good trad shooter in most general shooting situations.


----------



## BOHO (Aug 7, 2004)

what a great thread !!! keep it going guys !!!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> I still don't get why someone would want to learn an aiming technique which VERY FEW people can make competitive when there are simple and successful alternatives.


Just because you don't get it...doesn't make it crazy or wrong for someone to want more of a challenge.

There are plenty of people that don't understand why we shoot trad bows...but that's their problem...not ours. We know why we each like it and the reasons may vary from archer to archer.

Ray :shade:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Wll I think AT is more accurate a SITE than Huntingnet.... :grin:


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

rattus58 said:


> Wll I think AT is more accurate a SITE than Huntingnet.... :grin:


LOL... I was wondering if anyone might bring up "site"....


----------



## muzzleloader50 (Mar 10, 2011)

i have shot at the candle in the dark. i've never hit it but have come close.i have a 10 year old who loves to shoot his long bow
our practice is not at paper targets and i have never shot at any type of leage or at lanes. we kick a soccer ball around and you do not draw or shoot till someone says go
i do not use the arrow or any kind of mark on the bow for referance and i shoot split fingers this considered instinctive by the way you only get 5 seconds to shoot at the ball


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

oxnam said:


> From what I understand and envision, is their concentration is so intense on the target that they are *blind* to their site picture.


*Blind*...doesn't mean they can NOT see the sight picture. It just means they are not consciously aware of their aiming references within their sight picture.



oxnam said:


> To imply that the tip of the arrow is part of their shooting equation is almost insulting to some.


It is insulting to some...but it shouldn't be. It's basically a break down in communication and understanding. Too many archers take it personally as if you were calling them liars....when it's just a matter of taking the time to try and understand what everyone is saying.



oxnam said:


> That is were the shooting at a candle in a dark room or some other similarly lighted situation seems to be the true test if someone is absolutely shooting instictively because, for the most part, the riser and arrow tip are excluded from the shooters vision. That is what I have always considered instinctive.


What you're testing is how well an archer's proprioception is.

Do you know what proprioception is?

It's something that all archers use but some utilize it more and some utilize it at a subconscious/unconscious level.

The sight picture is very important for many Instinctive archers that shoot with the bow and arrow in front of their face....which is why they can shoot better with the lights on than within total darkness.

Just because an archer can't shoot as well in total darkness does NOT mean they aren't aiming Instinctively when they normally shoot.

Ray :shade:


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> _in order to have 100% confidence - that would indicate that you never miss - 100% leaves no room for error._


WHAT!


----------



## oxnam (Jan 3, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Just because an archer can't shoot as well in total darkness does NOT mean they aren't aiming Instinctively when they normally shoot.


I guess it depends on your definition of instinctive and there are a lot of interpretations of this. If someone claims that they shoot instinctive with no influence from the arrow tip or riser, to me they are claiming to shoot purely instinctively or propiosceptively. By my understanding, instinctive and propioceptive could be used synonymously. Anyone making that instictive claim should be able to shoot the same, light or dark. 

Throwing a baseball is commonly used as an analogy for describing instinctive shooting and is also a great way to illustrate propioception. I think varying degrees of split-vision / gapstinctive are most common and quite effective. 

The archers that I have known that claimed to shoot "instinctive" struggled at longer distances especially beyond 20 yards. I always believed this was a result of only conditioning themselves to one sight picture or relative hand position that worked for close range. They were completely running on auto pilot up close and did well at it. A lot of this is just semantics though.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

rsarns said:


> LOL... I was wondering if anyone might bring up "site"....


:grin:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Just because you don't get it...doesn't make it crazy or wrong for someone to want more of a challenge.
> 
> There are plenty of people that don't understand why we shoot trad bows...but that's their problem...not ours. We know why we each like it and the reasons may vary from archer to archer.
> 
> Ray :shade:



I get it and I'm with you 100%. So long as people don't get upset or defensive when they are fairly beat by a more accurate technique that is allowed within their class rules. That is where I shake my head, people who dislike losing and would rather change rules then learn the skills required to win.

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> I get it and I'm with you 100%. So long as people don't get upset or defensive when they are fairly beat by a more accurate technique that is allowed within their class rules. That is where I shake my head, people who dislike losing and would rather change rules then learn the skills required to win.


I'm sooooo with you on that!!! I think it's poor sportsmanship to complain about someone who's playing by the rules.

I personally think there should just be 2 main trad classes in competition with maybe some sub-classes for primitive gear. A Bowhunter Class and a Target Class. The way I see it....is that there are generally 2 major mind sets...those that hunt and those that like to just shoot targets. Of course there are those that like to do both like myself...but than...I could just choose which class I feel fits me better.

All these rules get a little ridiculous at times if you ask me.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

oxnam said:


> I guess it depends on your definition of instinctive and there are a lot of interpretations of this.


LOL....that is soooo true.



oxnam said:


> If someone claims that they shoot instinctive with no influence from the arrow tip or riser, to me they are claiming to shoot purely instinctively or propiosceptively.


I agree...but based on what I've learned through sports psychology and biomechanics of the body....they describing what they do as best as they can without knowing the actual mechanics of the eyes, mind and body.

If you take that same archer and have him shoot in total darkness at a lazer pointed on backstop...he will shoot better with the lights on than with them off...and usually by a huge margine. The reason being....is based on the fact that their aiming is based on what they can see within their periphial vision.



oxnam said:


> Anyone making that instictive claim should be able to shoot the same, light or dark.


Have you ever witnessed anyone who could do that? I'm not talking by candle light because a candle can sometime emit enough light for the archer to make out his riser. I'm talking total darkness with a lazer pointer.



oxnam said:


> Throwing a baseball is commonly used as an analogy for describing instinctive shooting and is also a great way to illustrate propioception. I think varying degrees of split-vision / gapstinctive are most common and quite effective.


I agree. 



oxnam said:


> The archers that I have known that claimed to shoot "instinctive" struggled at longer distances especially beyond 20 yards. I always believed this was a result of only conditioning themselves to one sight picture or relative hand position that worked for close range. They were completely running on auto pilot up close and did well at it. A lot of this is just semantics though.


Again...I completely agree!

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

muzzleloader50 said:


> i have shot at the candle in the dark. i've never hit it but have come close.i have a 10 year old who loves to shoot his long bow
> our practice is not at paper targets and i have never shot at any type of leage or at lanes. we kick a soccer ball around and you do not draw or shoot till someone says go
> i do not use the arrow or any kind of mark on the bow for referance and i shoot split fingers this considered instinctive by the way you only get 5 seconds to shoot at the ball


We do something similar at the local range BBQ's. We stack up foam blocks with pictures or orc faces on them, then race each other to get as many as we can. The shooters using sights are generally lucky to get a couple shots before the rest of us are done with 4 or 5 each.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

oxnam said:


> I guess it depends on your definition of instinctive and there are a lot of interpretations of this. If someone claims that they shoot instinctive with no influence from the arrow tip or riser, to me they are claiming to shoot purely instinctively or propiosceptively. By my understanding, instinctive and propioceptive could be used synonymously. Anyone making that instictive claim should be able to shoot the same, light or dark.
> 
> Throwing a baseball is commonly used as an analogy for describing instinctive shooting and is also a great way to illustrate propioception. I think varying degrees of split-vision / gapstinctive are most common and quite effective.
> 
> The archers that I have known that claimed to shoot "instinctive" struggled at longer distances especially beyond 20 yards. I always believed this was a result of only conditioning themselves to one sight picture or relative hand position that worked for close range. They were completely running on auto pilot up close and did well at it. A lot of this is just semantics though.


True...

Getting a bit off track...How often do we trad shooters commonly mis-use phrases...especially the word...instinctual..to explain how we shoot...We do all have different ideas of what the word means to us...but...unfortunately..many still cling to antiquated meanings and use some type of rudimentary analogies to describe it..and then confusion sets in..because many have never really understood the true meaning of the word..they are going by what others have said.. 

The word instinctual...true meaning is simple...and very complete...it simply means...n·stinc·tu·al (n-stngkch-l) adj. Of, relating to, or derived from instinct...

Since the many here fail to understand what instincts actually are..and don't know or accept that we are born with them..not acquired..or learned..then it is a very simple transition to use the word improperly.....we liken many things to the word to describe how we do things like throwing a ball..opening a door..raising a glass of water to our lips to get a drink...and more importantly here what and how we shoot our bows to our very basic instincts..and in truth...we all misuse the word...Many feel since we can do this without actual using the reasoning part of our brains...we are doing this with another misused word...and that is the subconscious...We have used this word so much in our everyday life...that the majority of people don't really know that there is no part of the brain..that this actually exist in..but...to this day...it is still widely believed there is such a place...Others...especially on this forum...like to say it is just a different level of consciousness..because it can be liken to some type of trance state..unfortunately... this has never been proven medically either..we are only in 2 states of mind...awake...or asleep...and we have varying degrees of awareness...nothing more...nothing less...

So...if we are going to use the word for what it actually represents...then we should use the correct definition of what the word means...So...what is an instinct...It true meaning is..._Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.*Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience,* that is, *in the absence of learning* and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors....._ In plain English..a instinct or innate behavior...is something we inherit..it is something that has been passed on to us by our parents at birth...pure and simple...so...why is it..that 2 simple words...can cause so much grief and anguish on Archery forums round the world...?

Well...cause since doctors have been trying their best to prove something about each for well over 100 years..and many have elected to muddy the waters with all kinds of theories and conjecture..to help reinforce their meanings of things...and get them accepted into every day life without ever trying to physically prove they were correct...They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams...so...short of being put on the 6 o'clock every night for a month that the usage of the word has been used wrong by just about every lay person who has ever uttered it..._what the real meaning is_..so folks can realize and understand the difference...I don't think it's usage will every be 100% understood...I have also come to the realization that some here just want to fight about it..and won't accept what medical science has already proven..and I don't see the misuse ever stopping...namely because some would have to admit they were wrong in their beliefs...and I know that won't ever happen...

We have been conditioned to use the word in our everyday life...and it is accepted and widely used by almost every one in every feild....but...the basic problem still exist...and it's usage as many do use it is still incorrect...One of the main problems I see now by a few misguided folks...are those who choose to try to change the actual meanings to fit their beliefs..and using what some coaches,trainers,theorist are saying to prove their points...that is what the root of what most of the fights are lately..Common sense dictates what we should do..and say...but...many don't exercise it..

I do think there is something we can all agree on though...a common aspect to all of us so to speak...and that is..those that say they are a instinctual shooter...don't actually think about what they are doing..they just do it..and a big problem really manifest itself with some people now saying something like...*" I aim subconsciously "*...just to change and reinforce their misuse of all of the wording.... that this in itself is totally out of whack for what reality actually is...because the very basis of the majority of us in shooting instinctual all along has always been... *not to aim at all..* even though...in reality this is not the case......so..now..they are even trying to change a long held widely accepted belief just to fit theirs...and...so it continues...more fighting...more arguing..more debating ...and it has to be...because some of us want folks to understand the reality...not some theory..

So...why argue about the mechanics of it..It's pointless and time consuming and a simple question like which is the most accurate...using a compounds sights or shooting a trad bow without sights winds up into a full blow peeing match..of all of the different shooting styles...and doesn't really give any kind of clear answer to the OP's original question...Why don't we just say...I shoot a bow without extra sights attached to it and don't bother to think about what I am doing...wouldn't that save a lot of arguing...?

Mac


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Oxnam good first post, I agree and pretty much how I would desribe my shooting :thumbs_up


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'm sooooo with you on that!!! I think it's poor sportsmanship to complain about someone who's playing by the rules.
> 
> I personally think there should just be 2 main trad classes in competition with maybe some sub-classes for primitive gear. A Bowhunter Class and a Target Class. The way I see it....is that there are generally 2 major mind sets...those that hunt and those that like to just shoot targets. Of course there are those that like to do both like myself...but than...I could just choose which class I feel fits me better.
> 
> ...


Personally I think it should all come down to equipment and let the archer decide what techniques work best for them.
Barebow (as it is now).
Trad (off the shelf).

Simple; if you want to try and tune a stringwalking rig off the shelf then go for it (good luck). Something tells me though that almost all of the target types will go for barebow and the more Trad folks will stay with trad.
Much easier to police equipment then technique.

-Grant


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

oxnam - that is simply not true - to say that an instinctive shooter should be able to shoot the same in the light or dark is not accurate at all. Instinctive aiming is simply aiming at a subconscious level - meaning that the archer pays no conscious attention to the arrow the bow the distance - etc.... - and rather focuses all his conscious attention on the spot that they want to hit. If someone asked me where the tip of my arrow is when I aim in relation to the spot I want to hit - I can say in all honestly as God is my witness I have no idea - I focus on the spot and nothing else. Obviously on some level I am aiming - everyone aims - what the subconscious uses to aim I do not know - it could be the arrow tip - it could be the bow hand it could be any number of things - and is likley many things - but you have to be able to see - and obviously the peripheral vision is used by the brain on some level - the difference is between an instinctive shooter and a "gap" shooter is that the instinctive shooter does not give any conscious thought to it. 

I don't think about distance - and if I do - i blow the shot. I don't think about where the arrow is - in fact - sometimes if I draw fast and come down on the target differently than usual and I "see" the arrow at a conscious level - I will let down and start over because I do not want to think about it - i just want to focus on the target.

Regarding grant's last post - I actually agree with him - it is much more about equipment than aiming methods - I would be completely fine with a class that is recurves shot off the shelf with no sights, stabalizers, releases, clickers, etc... - how the guy wants to aim - I could care less


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> That is were the shooting at a candle in a dark room or some other similarly lighted situation seems to be the true test i_f someone is absolutely shooting instictively because, for the most part, the riser and arrow tip are excluded from the shooters vision. _That is what I have always considered instinctive.


Amen! Makes absolute sense. If a shooter swears that he or she has no conscious awareness or visual sight of any degree of anything but the "spot," then the person should be able to hit the spot, or close to it, regardless of distance, if the spot is all that is visible.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I have shot the wick off of a candle more than once - copying the Byron Ferguson trick - even did it in front of a bunch of people at our clubs halloween shoot - the compound guys could not even try it because they could not see their sights - but - I was once challenged to go into a totally dark room with a laser pointer aimed at the target and then shoot at it - and in a pitch black room where all that could be seen was the red dot - I could not hit it or even come close - and I am certain that no one can - if the room is totally dark - not able to see your and in front of your face dark - there is nothing for the brain to go off of - and it cannot be done - in a dark room with a candle - it can be done - but not iin a pitch black room.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

Ever notice that Sharp will engage in a lengthy debate of pros and cons and then as the debate begins to intensify and facts or sensible theories are offered that contradicts or destroys his arguments and the "corner" begins to come into sight, suddenly Sharp now offers up that he has performed the very act that is in discussion many times and therefore he know the truth?

Then he opens his fact book that no one else in the world has and contains every fact known to Man and selects the fact that best fits his belief; i.e., "it can't be done... compound bow shooters can't do it because they use sights..." That is a subtle message regarding instinctive vs. sights.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> oxnam - I can say in all honestly as God is my witness I have no idea - I focus on the spot and nothing else.


oxnam,

Here is a picture of sharp shooting his bow and it clearly shows how he places the arrow tip on the target or very close to it like a sight .

When an archer places their arrow tip, pin sight or any other aiming reference directly on the target within their direct line of vision...it is impossible to NOT consciously know where the archer is placing it. They may not know the exact millimeter placement in relationship to the target if it's not directly on it...but they do know consciously it's real close to being on target.

Rick Welch and sharp set up their bows and shoot 3 Under for a reason. One of those reasons is to make the aiming processor easier by getting the archer's Point On within the distance they more commonly will shoot from.

A picture can speak a 1000 words.

Ray :shade:


----------



## deepsprayj (Nov 4, 2011)

I think that instictive is like throwing a ball. It is not really instictive. You have to shoot a ton until you develop the muscle memory and have a good idea of your bows trajectory to hit the target consistently. I shoot a little traditional and some olympic rigs too. I am by no means very good with either, but I xan tell you this much. I took years to be able to hit paper past 40 with a bare bow. It took me a month to hit paper at 80 with a sight on an olympic style rig. My vote goes to the sight in terms of quickest route to an accurate shot. It is all repative though because there are plenty of guys that can out shoot me with a barebow when i have an olympic rig. Then there is speed. Which would you rather have? A rifle that hits close enough to kill the intended target very quickly, or one that can do a 6" group at 1000 yards but takes 30 seconds to get a good shot off. I think trad bows, olympic rigs, and even compounds kind of follow that analogy as well.

I am blessed with a wife that shares my addictions


----------



## oxnam (Jan 3, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> oxnam - that is simply not true - to say that an instinctive shooter should be able to shoot the same in the light or dark is not accurate at all.


I was only referring to the extreme situations when archers claim they have no influence or benefit from there peripheral vision, "If someone claims that they shoot instinctive _with no influence from the arrow tip or riser_, to me they are claiming to shoot purely instinctively...Anyone making that instinctive claim should be able to shoot the same, light or dark". I am not claiming that my thoughts or terms are necessarily accurate, just sharing how I have understood the broadly used terminology of this fantastic sport. 

Like BLACK WOLF was saying, it would be very rare to find someone that could effectively shoot a lazer dot in a dark room. That is why I mentioned my difficulties in shooting through a tossed glowing loop in the dark. It never even crossed my mind that it would be an extremely difficult shot without that peripheral information. 

I would put an archer that can shoot that laser dot on one end of a spectrum. On the other end, I would place a purely mechanical gap shooter. I bet that would also be very rare archer that could prevent any level of subconcious aiming or slight tweaks from slipping in. The rest of us will fall somewhere along the middle. It's funny how we reach back centuries with our equpment and try to figure out how to stack arrows. I bet you never thought reinventing the wheel could be fun, but it sure is.

Here is something I have day dreamed about. Wouldn't it be sweet if there was a big international archery competition that had no archery classes. All trad guys and compounders in a single competition with a balanced course that would compliment both styles of shooting. Long shots, close shots, timed shots, pop up targets, moving targets, flying targets, etc. A tournament where the well rounded archer would win regardless of preferred equipment. Am I crazy on this?

That is one of reasons that I love and am really promoting aerial archery. It is a awesome challenge that really brings every archer onto an equal playing field. What bow your holding or arrow your shooting will make little difference in bringing down a flushing quail. Even age and experience become less of an indicator of success.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

OH MY - Fred Asbell must not really shoot instindtive - the arrow is under his eye and the arrow are lined up with the target - - what brilliant people we have in these forums...So I am a liar, Rick Welch is a liar, Fred Asbell is a liar - nobody shoots instinctive becuse some really smart guy thinks if the arrow, your eye, and the target are lined up - you can't be shooting instinctive


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

oxnam - I just ordered your video - can't wait to get it - it looks awesome


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

WindWalker said:


> Amen! Makes absolute sense. If a shooter swears that he or she has no conscious awareness or visual sight of any degree of anything but the "spot," then the person should be able to hit the spot, or close to it, regardless of distance, if the spot is all that is visible.


How close does it need to be to prove that the archer is aiming totally instinctively?

What many of you are missing are the connections between the mind, our eyes make and how our bodies respond to what it sees to execute an accurate shot Instinctively.

There's a balance of conscious and subconscious/unconscious thought that triggers muscle/motor memory into action to execute a shot.

For most instinctive archers to be as accurate as they can be....requires that they see their aiming references within their sight picture so their proprioceptive abilites and motor response can respond without the archer being consciously aware of all the minor adjustments needed to be made to hit their target.

Shooting in total darkness does NOT prove that an archer aims Instinctively when the lights are on....but...it is a good indicator of howwell an archer can tap into their proprioceptive abilities.

It really just proves how important an archer's sight picture is...even for Instinctive shooters.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

oxnam said:


> Here is something I have day dreamed about. Wouldn't it be sweet if there was a big international archery competition that had no archery classes. All trad guys and compounders in a single competition with a balanced course that would compliment both styles of shooting. Long shots, close shots, timed shots, pop up targets, moving targets, flying targets, etc. A tournament where the well rounded archer would win regardless of preferred equipment. Am I crazy on this?


Dude!!! That's almost identical to the dream I've had...and I thought I was one of the only one's that had a vision like that :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## oxnam (Jan 3, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> oxnam - I just ordered your video - can't wait to get it - it looks awesome


Thanks a lot. Shooting birds with a bow and flying targets takes archery to a whole new level of fun and can add several months to a hunting season. You better send pictures of your progress and successes. Thanks


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Just look at how horribly un-instinctive I shoot compared to the instinctive master - yea - the three under style is definitely not instinctive because it puts the arrow right under your eye - way more than say - the instinctive master Fred has the arrow under his eye - and of course - since we both do this really weird and strange thing of lining up our eyes and the arrow with the target - there is no way that can be instinctive - this is really quite funny - I am enjoying this.


----------



## oxnam (Jan 3, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Dude!!! That's almost identical to the dream I've had...and I thought I was one of the only one's that had a vision like that :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Awesome, you are not alone, anyone else? Do you think something like that would ever catch on?



sharpbroadhead said:


> this is really quite funny - I am enjoying this.


It has been entertaining and a good intellectual exercise. I really don't care what someone shoots or how they shoot it. I've shot trad with a lot of compounders and always had a great time. I like what I shoot and how I shoot it, and I would guess that's true of everyone here.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> the three under style is definitely not instinctive because it puts the arrow right under your eye - way more than say - the instinctive master Fred has the arrow under his eye - and of course - since we both do this really weird and strange thing of lining up our eyes and the arrow with the target - there is no way that can be instinctive - this is really quite funny - I am enjoying this.



It's not placing the arrow under the eye where there's a problem....because almost every archer who shoots a bow in the most common style has the bow held out in front of them with an arrow somewhere below their eye.

It's the placement of the arrow's tip on the target or very near it like a pin sight for a specific distance....where the issue exists.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I posted a thread about your video - hopefully other guys will check it out too - I will do the "ttt" thing - it looks really good and I have always wanted to try pheasant hunting with my bow


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

oxnam said:


> Awesome, you are not alone, anyone else? Do you think something like that would ever catch on?


The only difference I had with your dream...was my dream consisted of an all trad competition...but it still would be fun competing against compound shooters too, which I have had alot of fun doing in the past.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LMAO - this gets better and better - I am glad I peaked at ole Blackies posts in this thread - sometimes the temptation gets the best of me - but it gave me a good laugh before bed - goodnight all - - I will be dreaming of shooting pheasants with my bow now that I saw the preview of that video!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I'm pretty sure I dont see the arrow when I shoot instinctively :wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> View attachment 1303724
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I dont see the arrow when I shoot instinctively :wink:


Hey Steve...are you looking in a mirror? :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> OH MY - Fred Asbell must not really shoot instindtive - the arrow is under his eye and the arrow are lined up with the target - - what brilliant people we have in these forums...So I am a liar, Rick Welch is a liar, Fred Asbell is a liar - nobody shoots instinctive becuse some really smart guy thinks if the arrow, your eye, and the target are lined up - you can't be shooting instinctive
> 
> View attachment 1303715


Well here you go again Ken...trying to make this thread out as someone calling you or anyone a liar again...You have been shown time after time you are wrong...and yet you still continue this kind of nonsense everytime folks prove you wrong...or just disagree with you enough...Why aren't you getting it...NO ONE REALLY SHOOTS INSTINCTIVE...it is only a clever catch phrase someone came up with.......WE ALL SHOOT AS A LEARNED BEHAVIOUR....Why is it you can't really accept this fact..? Where you born with the knowledge of shooting a bow ? If you were...then by all means you are doing something instinctually...but...if you are like the rest of us mear mortals...you aren't...It's that simple...The word instinctual as used in shooting a bow with out sights...is a misnomer...because it is a learned behaviour...and totally unlike any innate instinct we inherit from our biological parents...

Sooner or later you will stop these silly word games of yours...it gets so old...and not called for...

Mac


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MAC 11700 said:


> NO ONE REALLY SHOOTS INSTINCTIVE...WE ALL SHOOT AS A LEARNED BEHAVIOUR.


If a person's definiton as it applies to an aiming technique means it's an innate behavior...than I agree with you and everyone else that focuses on just that aspect....BUT...that is NOT how the majority of people understand and use that word to describe how they shoot. If that's the route an arguement takes...than it's basically just semantics and the arguement will never end.

When an archer uses the word Instinctive to describe their aiming technique...the word Instinctive often means 'Instinctive like' in the sense that the archer isn't consciously controling the fine adjustments to their aim. They are basically allowing the portion of our brain that controls hand and eye coordination to take over from what the archer has learned during practice. What an Instinctive archer is NOT doing is consciously analyzing what they need to do to aim accurately. They are basically just focusing on the target and consciously choosing what their target is and when to draw their bow.

It takes both parties to be open to another person's point of view if there is ever going to be any mutual understanding.

Even though the use of the word 'Instinctive' may not have been the most accurate...it is what it is...because it deserves it's own name to describe an aiming technique that is different...even though there are some similarities with the other barebow aiming techniques.

Ray :shade:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> Well here you go again Ken...trying to make this thread out as someone calling you or anyone a liar again...You have been shown time after time you are wrong...and yet you still continue this kind of nonsense everytime folks prove you wrong...or just disagree with you enough...Why aren't you getting it...NO ONE REALLY SHOOTS INSTINCTIVE...it is only a clever catch phrase someone came up with.......WE ALL SHOOT AS A LEARNED BEHAVIOUR....Why is it you can't really accept this fact..? Where you born with the knowledge of shooting a bow ? If you were...then by all means you are doing something instinctually...but...if you are like the rest of us mear mortals...you aren't...It's that simple...The word instinctual as used in shooting a bow with out sights...is a misnomer...because it is a learned behaviour...and totally unlike any innate instinct we inherit from our biological parents...
> 
> Sooner or later you will stop these silly word games of yours...it gets so old...and not called for...
> 
> Mac


Mac, Mac, please be careful... this is a guy can shoot the lights out.... What do you know... What do we know.... He's sucked up all the knowledge, SUCKED UP all the credit... none for no one left on the Site

Ahhhhhh.... my missuse just nailed it.... why he must suffer from the PETER principle and really be insecure!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

this will be an eternal argument.

I see valid points from both sides (even sharps, omgukey I have my own opinions from my own experiences of shooting Instinctive, the real problems start when nobody wants to listen or even try and respect the other persons opinion.......and it is most part just an opinion.

Most of my conflicts with Ken are when he gives an opinion dressed up as a fact, it's missinformation to newer shooters or when he starts to trash other shooting methods, not just on aiming methods but pretty much anything that's not IBO/Bowhunting shot Instinctively. I know it sometimes comes from both sides but statements like Instinct kicks butt is going to stir up a hornets nest and he is VERY aware of what he's doing when he says these things.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

MAC 11700 said:


> Well here you go again Ken...trying to make this thread out as someone calling you or anyone a liar again...You have been shown time after time you are wrong...and yet you still continue this kind of nonsense everytime folks prove you wrong...or just disagree with you enough...Why aren't you getting it...NO ONE REALLY SHOOTS INSTINCTIVE...it is only a clever catch phrase someone came up with.......WE ALL SHOOT AS A LEARNED BEHAVIOUR....Why is it you can't really accept this fact..? Where you born with the knowledge of shooting a bow ? If you were...then by all means you are doing something instinctually...but...if you are like the rest of us mear mortals...you aren't...It's that simple...The word instinctual as used in shooting a bow with out sights...is a misnomer...because it is a learned behaviour...and totally unlike any innate instinct we inherit from our biological parents...
> 
> Sooner or later you will stop these silly word games of yours...it gets so old...and not called for...
> 
> Mac





BLACK WOLF said:


> If a person's definiton as it applies to an aiming technique means it's an innate behavior...than I agree with you and everyone else that focuses on just that aspect....BUT...that is NOT how the majority of people understand and use that word to describe how they shoot. If that's the route an arguement takes...than it's basically just semantics and the arguement will never end.
> 
> When an archer uses the word Instinctive to describe their aiming technique...the word Instinctive often means 'Instinctive like' in the sense that the archer isn't consciously controling the fine adjustments to their aim. They are basically allowing the portion of our brain that controls hand and eye coordination to take over from what the archer has learned during practice. What an Instinctive archer is NOT doing is consciously analyzing what they need to do to aim accurately. They are basically just focusing on the target and consciously choosing what their target is and when to draw their bow.
> 
> ...


I'm probably going to regret getting into this but this is an interesting discussion. These two posts really seem to nail the issue and I think both are correct. A lot of it _is_ semantics and the problem really seems to come from the use and meaning of the phrase "instinctive shooting". I've always assumed that what most people mean when they say they shoot instinctively is that they shoot without a sight, and also not using a formal gap system. That's what I mean when I say I shoot instinctively even though it is ultimately incorrect. Somehow, someway, that arrow is being directed in a specified direction.

The problem is that the _word_ instinctive cannot possibly be accurate unless you were born with the same shooting skills you posses now. From Wikipedia:

_Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience, that is, in the absence of learning and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors_.

It's really a picky point, but reading through this thread and others in the past seems like a lot of people are saying the same thing and the stumbling block is the _word_ instinctive. Comparisons are often made, and I've made them myself, to throwing a baseball or hitting a free throw, the more the person thinks about it often the worse the performance. That does not mean the performance is instinctive though, whether you are shooting an arrow or throwing a ball, it's a _learned_ behavior. Over time it may be learned so well that it can become _ingrained_. Anything we do that is truly instinctive would not deteriorate over time. I doubt many could not shoot their bow for a year without getting a little rusty. If you were really shooting instinctively there would be no drop off in performance. You would also shoot as well the first time you picked up a bow as you do now.

Bottom line is the phrase "instinctive shooting" is an archery colloquialism. Nothing more than jargon specific to our activity. And ultimately inaccurate. How about the phrase "aim instinctively", there's an oxymoron I've seen way too many times. Ultimately words do have specific definitions. I'm guilty of claiming to be an instinctive shooter too even though I know I need to be aware of the arrow in my peripheral vision to shoot consistently. 

To be an effective "insitinctive" shooter, there has to have been enough shooting along the way to program the brain and eye-hand coordination to a high level. Whether you memorized gaps or just shot thousands of arrows, somehow you have _learned_ how to shoot.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

steve morley said:


> this will be an eternal argument.
> 
> I see valid points from both sides (even sharps, omgukey I have my own opinions from my own experiences of shooting Instinctive, the real problems start when nobody wants to listen or even try and respect the other persons opinion.......and it is most part just an opinion.
> 
> Most of my conflicts with Ken are when he gives an opinion dressed up as a fact, it's missinformation to newer shooters or when he starts to trash other shooting methods, not just on aiming methods but pretty much anything that's not IBO/Bowhunting shot Instinctively. I know it sometimes comes from both sides but statements like Instinct kicks butt is going to stir up a hornets nest and he is VERY aware of what he's doing when he says these things.


My wife nailed it... he's irrelevant when he's not in the limelight, but a lot of his stuff, like you *aptly illustrated* are not facts at all... except as they apply to him. One thing about shooting... guns or bows, is that it is an INDIVIDUAL SPORT! What goes on with you, goes on with you, not me.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

i was wondering what all the hoopla was about as i cant even believe the title of this thread...rediculous...apples and oranges...big time as...

you wouldn't shoot a six gun from the hip at a 1,000yd target anymore than you would take your scoped benchrest rifle to a bar room shootout..yet both have their place.

so break it up gents! :laugh:

I want all you starched white ILF shooters report to the 80meter mark and i want all you floppy hat flannel shirt wearing older than dirt trad hunters to the stumpin woods!...NOW! :laugh:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> i was wondering what all the hoopla was about as i cant even believe the title of this thread...rediculous...apples and oranges...big time as...
> 
> you wouldn't shoot a six gun from the hip at a 1,000yd target anymore than you would take your scoped benchrest rifle *or nifty shotgun *to a bar room shootout..yet both have their place.
> 
> ...


Doc Holliday did..... :59: :grin:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> Doc Holliday did..... :59: :grin:


and now you know why truely skilled marksmen always feared pi$$ed off sons and drunks with shotguns! :laugh:


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

My people have always call a small valley or even a big draw a "holler." Everyone knows what it is and will argue to their grave that it's a holler, but that does not make it a holler. We can be okay with it, which I am, but that doesn't make it true.

This proved very troubling for me when I got to basic training and we began land navigation and map reading. I came home and began speaking in proper terminology and was ostracized. They acted like I was crazy.


----------



## Coulter (Feb 28, 2012)

MAC 11700 said:


> Well here you go again Ken...trying to make this thread out as someone calling you or anyone a liar again...You have been shown time after time you are wrong...and yet you still continue this kind of nonsense everytime folks prove you wrong...or just disagree with you enough...Why aren't you getting it...NO ONE REALLY SHOOTS INSTINCTIVE...it is only a clever catch phrase someone came up with.......WE ALL SHOOT AS A LEARNED BEHAVIOUR....Why is it you can't really accept this fact..? Where you born with the knowledge of shooting a bow ? If you were...then by all means you are doing something instinctually...but...if you are like the rest of us mear mortals...you aren't...It's that simple...The word instinctual as used in shooting a bow with out sights...is a misnomer...because it is a learned behaviour...and totally unlike any innate instinct we inherit from our biological parents...
> 
> Sooner or later you will stop these silly word games of yours...it gets so old...and not called for...
> 
> Mac


I beg to differ, Mac.....games are games, and they all help us stay sharp....be it a case of 'cat and mouse' with yourself, or mind games with others, it all depends on your attitude. Of course, some of us have more attitude than others...lol


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Ranger B said:


> My people have always call a small valley or even a big draw a "holler." Everyone knows what it is and will argue to their grave that it's a holler, but that does not make it a holler. We can be okay with it, which I am, but that doesn't make it true.
> 
> This proved very troubling for me when I got to basic training and we began land navigation and map reading. I came home and began speaking in proper terminology and was ostracized. They acted like I was crazy.


Well Jimmy?..like Burt Reynolds said to Sally Fields in the original "Smokey & The Bandit"?...

*"Often times..how smart a man is depends on what part of the country he's standing in."*

and fer sum reason?...i clung onto that line the moment i heard it. :laugh:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Coulter said:


> I beg to differ, Mac.....games are games, and they all help us stay sharp....be it a case of 'cat and mouse' with yourself, or mind games with others, it all depends on your attitude. Of course, some of us have more attitude than others...lol


only 10 posts annnnd?..WELL PLAYED! :laugh:


----------



## Coulter (Feb 28, 2012)

Easykeeper said:


> I'm probably going to regret getting into this but this is an interesting discussion. These two posts really seem to nail the issue and I think both are correct. A lot of it _is_ semantics and the problem really seems to come from the use and meaning of the phrase "instinctive shooting". I've always assumed that what most people mean when they say they shoot instinctively is that they shoot without a sight, and also not using a formal gap system. That's what I mean when I say I shoot instinctively even though it is ultimately incorrect. Somehow, someway, that arrow is being directed in a specified direction.
> 
> The problem is that the _word_ instinctive cannot possibly be accurate unless you were born with the same shooting skills you posses now. From Wikipedia:
> 
> ...


Agreed....You breath instinctively, but you shoot through practice...


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Coulter said:


> Agreed....You breath instinctively, but you shoot through practice...


you breath instinctively?...what happens when you miss? :laugh:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> and now you know why truely skilled marksmen always feared pi$$ed off sons and drunks with shotguns! :laugh:


Yeah... any turkey round here has a thing or 30 comin his way... :grin:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

It is just as word used to describe something nothing more nothing less - I have my theory on how it works others have different theories - that is all it is a word and some theories.

But we all know what is being described by the word - what is the point in arguing theories?? 

If you like beating your head against the wall my mother in-law thinks the fossil record was put there by the devil and I can give you her e-mail - I am done arguing that one as well.

Matt

Matt


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> If a person's definiton as it applies to an aiming technique means it's an innate behavior...than I agree with you and everyone else that focuses on just that aspect....BUT...that is NOT how the majority of people understand and use that word to describe how they shoot. If that's the route an arguement takes...than it's basically just semantics and the arguement will never end.
> 
> When an archer uses the word Instinctive to describe their aiming technique...the word Instinctive often means 'Instinctive like' in the sense that the archer isn't consciously controling the fine adjustments to their aim. They are basically allowing the portion of our brain that controls hand and eye coordination to take over from what the archer has learned during practice. What an Instinctive archer is NOT doing is consciously analyzing what they need to do to aim accurately. They are basically just focusing on the target and consciously choosing what their target is and when to draw their bow.
> 
> ...


I understand what folks have been actually likening it to big guy...heck...I have done the same for basically every...and it does not change the fact...that the usage of the word as we all have been using it is wrong...I know full well it is ingrained for our everyday speech for the usage of the word..and what most mean when they use it....however...the reality of the matter as it pertains to it..and the correct definition of the word..has nothing to do with _if it is like a instinct_...but..._if it is a actual part of a instinct_..and since no instinct is developed from a learned behavior..no one really shoots instinctively..unless they are born with the ability to do so..

I do understand where you are coming from...which is why I said...the usage of the word as we use it is a misnomer...so in reality...no one including but not limited to G.Fred...Rick Welch..Sharp..or myself really shoot instinctively...

I don't think "Instinctively" is actually the best word to describe how we shoot...because it really is not a accurate description..and allows others to opportunity to somehow imply they are not in control of the shot..that they have no awareness of it..from start to finish..In a healthy non mentally impaired human it is not physically possible to be awake and not be aware of it and be able to remember what you do..it just doesn't happen and hasn't been proven yet to my understanding......Not unless you are blind/deaf/and have zero feeling in your extremities...or in some kind of hypnotic state...and the problem is...unless you me or anyone has been hooked up to a EEG machine..and have had our brain waves measured and analyzed...and have it shown that we aren't using the actual conscious part of or brains...to say otherwise..is not factual.....We can suspect this is happening...but...we don't really know...Some here insist otherwise...when they shouldn't...

I will always ask myself...Is it possible...sure it's possible...the human mind is filled with possibilities...but...... until it is really proven...I won't agree and go along when say some folks are actually doing it this way...Why...because this is something I want to see the proof of....I can tell you this though...if they are..and if they ever get this measured and analyzed to prove it....they could really rock the medical world ....but until such time...My preference would just be to say...I shoot traditional...without sights...and then if asked...just say which method I use to pull the string with...but..what is odd to me about saying even this way....will be a problem here...since many have a issue with even anyone mentioning they are aiming the bow..It's like it's a personal affront to doing that...and somehow there is a stigma or something bad attached to it.....funny how we all have a different outlook on doing the same damn thing....

Mac


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

This all comes down to certain people refusing to accept that the word instinct has more than one definition.

I am going to go at this one more time.

Here is the medical definition of "INSTINCT"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/Instinct

1: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason 

2: behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level

Note the 2nd definition - does it say anything about the behavior having to be an unlearned or inborn behavior?

There is not a better definition on the planet that I can think of that describes how I aim my bow - I aim my bow below the conscious level - I pay no conscious attention to distance, the arrow, the bow, etc.... - I look at my spot and all my conscious attention is there - everything else is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.

Some of those reactions or actions were learned - I learned proper form at a conscious level - or at least some of it - and practiced it until it was able to be done below the conscious level. I never consciously learned to aim. From the very beginning of shooting my bow I just looked at my spot and shot - and over time I got better and better - ever hear of the phrase "honing ones instincts"?

I know how I shoot - I am pretty sure Rick Welch knows how he shoots, as does Asbell - we know what we pay conscious attention to - we do not need someone or some machine to tell us what we know we do.

I know when I throw a ball I do not think to myself how many yards it is to the target, how hard to throw it, at what point to let go, etc... - I just pick up a ball and throw it - it is done below the conscious level - nobody consciously thinks about any of that stuff when they throw a ball - they just do it. 

God gave us all an inborn ability to cooridinate our hands with our eyes and also to extend that coordination to another object such as a ball or an arrow - obviously this has limits and obviously the more we do it the better we get at it - but it is still done below the conscious level and is therefore instincdtive - read that definition again:

2: behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

Ken, 
Serious question. Do you know what your point on distance is? Not trying to stir anything up. Just curious.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Ken,
> Serious question. Do you know what your point on distance is? Not trying to stir anything up. Just curious.


Based on the picture of him shooting....I would say it's around 25 - 30yrds.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Str8 no clue whatsoever


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Ken,
> Serious question. Do you know what your point on distance is? Not trying to stir anything up. Just curious.


He doesn't shoot that far.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MAC 11700 said:


> that the usage of the word as we all have been using it is wrong.


Mac,

Do some words have multiple meanings and definitions?
Do the definitions of some words evolve over time and develop new meanings and definitions to add to the original definiton and meaning?

If you answered...yes...to either one of those...than my friend...it's really time to move on in regards to semantics.

What we should be discussing are the differences that make Instinctive aiming unique from the other aiming techniques.

All to often these debates get hung up semantics...which is really sad because this forum is really about teaching others how to shoot bows and arrows...not necessarily a full blown vocabulary class.



MAC 11700 said:


> and allows others to opportunity to somehow imply they are not in control of the shot..that they have no awareness of it..from start to finish..


I think for the majority of people that aim Instinctively...that may be a stretch in what they are thinking. I really think there may be only a few that believe they are not in control of their bodies when they are aiming Instinctively.



MAC 11700 said:


> In a healthy non mentally impaired human it is not physically possible to be awake and not be aware of it and be able to remember what you do


There are soooo many situations in sports where an athlete executes a movement and sometimes does not remember all the minor details about it or exactly what happened.

We all have heard about if not experienced it for ourselves...when shooting our bows....especially at moving targets or while hunting...where an archer doesn't remember letting go of the string or exactly when they let go of the string? 



MAC 11700 said:


> we aren't using the actual conscious part of or brains...to say otherwise..is not factual.


I definitely believe the conscious mind is involved with aiming....but I don't believe it controls every aspect of movement....especially once the movement is learned. I believe part of our mind feeds off of what the conscious mind is focusing on...and will execute a movement based on what the archer sees.

Based on the research I've made on the brain...the left portion of the cerebrum is where our analytical mind basically resides and the cerebellum is where proprioception or the mechanics of movement resides or is stored. If the part of our brain that controls proprioception and motor control is seperate from the part of our brain where we analyze information...than it would reason that an archer that relys on their hand and eye coordination more to aim their arrow are not analyzing their sight picture. 

Once a skill, such as the appropriate movements of shooting a bow or the movements a baby must make to walk, have been mastered the person no longer needs to think about it as much. The proprioception and motor systems basically take over, utilizing a feedback system to accomplish a job that the brain has learned. That is why many of us do so many learned things best if not over analyzed. For example, the harder a person focuses on executing a perfect golf swing, the choppier and slower the swing will be. This also basically applies to many of us shooting a bow.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> He doesn't shoot that far.


Based on his picture...he does shoot that far.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> This all comes down to certain people refusing to accept that the word instinct has more than one definition.
> 
> I am going to go at this one more time.
> 
> ...


If you are going to use a actual medical description of the word Ken...then have at least enough common decency to get it from a source that uses it from one...not one like Merriam's that derives it's terminology and phrasings from "popular usage" or current theories...as what Merriam does..If you do elect to continue to quote from them..do it as they mean it to be used as a resource..not a definitive originating source....Try going to the first part of their home page..and actually see how it is presented...I say this because you have used them before to try to prove your point... stop purposely taking the order of the phrasing and relative meaning out of context (hierarchy) ...as you always do..http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct...*you will plainly see that your quote*...is a subset from it's 2nd best meaning...a subset Ken...they are ranked in the most accurate and used meaning..to their least.....Call them and ask them what this fact actually denotes...



> *I know how I shoot - I am pretty sure Rick Welch knows how he shoots, as does Asbell - we know what we pay conscious attention to - we do not need someone or some machine to tell us what we know we do.
> *


Ken...you may indeed "know" how you shoot...but...you have no clue as to what and where your brain waves are emanating from...and this machine I have spoken about works perfectly fine on normal healthy people...not on brain dead people from injury or chemical imbalance..or even from birth defects...or especially from people who have died..except to prove they are dead...It's usage is the only easy way to actually know what is really going on as far as brain activity...regardless of what any of us think we know..including you...me...or anyone else...It's not a perfect solution...but...short of being fully iside a PET scan...certainly the easiest...You think you know Ken...and you say you know..but...you...me...anyone else really don't know everything...we only assume we do because we perceive it at the time as such......because we are the ones doing it.....but... because of the speed our brains are capable of recognizing and storing them as actual memories and at the speed at which these thoughts are utilized and processed in the analytical reasoning sections of the brain..it just seems to us that we aren't doing something...when in fact we really are...The brain is a very fast complex organ...that is capable of doing quite a bit more than 1 thing at a time..and I believe you know this..It is just how you are describing the process and what you are attributing how you can do to these various places in the brain and what is actually controlling it.. That is what the machine can measure...and can show...if one is wanting to know exactly what our brain is really doing..and how it is processing all of the input it is receiving..If you are doing something entirely different...that is awesome...but...please check it out a little more before completely discounting it ...

..............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Ray..

It is just not about semantics... Do words have multiple meanings...sure they do...but...isn't this now also about what is the best definition we can give to what we are actually doing...? In trying to do that..we need and have to look at the whole picture..or what is said and how it is presented _in it's entirety_ not just take small bits and pieces of it as you like to break things down...like with my post...and expect to have any real meaningful dialog..otherwise...it is no more useful than getting a 10 second sound bit on a subject like some of the news channels do...

As I said before..Is it possible for a person to not be fully aware of what they are doing when awake shooting a bow....Sure...it's possible not probable..and it is still not proven yet..If we are doing a task any task..be it pitching a ball..throwing a rock..driving a car...any thing that we have done and learned previously..if we weren't really aware of what we are doing...how is it we can recall any action we did when doing it ? It would be like sleep walking if this was the case..In it's very rudimentary form...our brains are awake...or asleep...they are either active...or inactive...we are either conscious...or unconscious...How do we in this sport or any other sport...actually get better at it performing...? Recall....by recalling our actions..then making corrections..We can see mistakes in our shots...but...is the unconscious mind doing the analyzing necessary to make these corrects...absolutely not....We can recall if our release was bad or not..we can recall our sight picture if we try..we can recall if something was under one of our feet and throwing us off balance a little...If we we know what to look for..what to feel for..what to listen for..If can recall it.....it is a *new stored memory..*..If we can't..then there is something else going on here..and where being hooked up to a EEG machine will show this..There are things we can zone out on..noise for one..but..even then we will know that noise was there and we had to do something to zone it out...This is not the subconscious at work here...this is the conscious...This is why there are different amounts of awareness we can have...but each are present and being processed.....each are still there and each can be measured when they happen....it is not being regulated at a different level per se...but when level is being substituted for amount...it needs to be described as such...not as something with a entirely different meaning as what Sharp is actually presenting here by how he is describing it....

It's not all semantics...not in the least..but how and why we do what we do...and utilizing the best resources available to describe what we are doing...not just from those that are "most popular"...or the current fad...

If we believe as Sharp does...in being able to regulate something like shooting a bow to the subconscious at will as he describes he does..and taking his meaning of the wording by utilizing different ..."levels" as he has been adamant in describing it.....then this is assigning hierarchy to the various daily brains functions..If he is doing this...why is it..he doesn't do this in or ways...like something as simple as utilizing how a description by the very same source he loves to quote from... does the same...simple...by twisting it around and not using their levels of hierarchy because they don't fit his views and opinions to the subject matter...

Sorry...this is not just about semantics with me Ray..I am trying to show in a adult civil manner where not only him..but others are wrong in their approach..and what can be used to to either prove or disprove their statements.I like to be as factual as I can..on certain subjects...this just happens to be 1 of them and showing others all sides of a disagreement including using proper context is a teaching tool...it gets people to think outside the box..and be aware of what and how other people think and perhaps...just perhaps... learn a different and possible a more meaningful and complete way of communicating..if they want to..Maybe that is just wishful thinking...but wouldn't that be great if it accomplished this..

Mac


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Ranger B said:


> My people have always call a small valley or even a big draw a "holler." Everyone knows what it is and will argue to their grave that it's a holler, but that does not make it a holler. We can be okay with it, which I am, but that doesn't make it true.
> 
> This proved very troubling for me when I got to basic training and we began land navigation and map reading. I came home and began speaking in proper terminology and was ostracized. They acted like I was crazy.



Hey, that's funny right there, don't matter which side of the holler yer from!!!:lol3:


Fact is, we have have some around here who just like typing. 
BTW, there is an old sayin down in the holler. Better to keep yore mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and expose yourself. Some should pay attention.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - this is hysterical


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MAC 11700 said:


> If you are going to use a actual medical description of the word Ken...then have at least enough common decency to get it from a source that uses it from one...not one like Merriam's that derives it's terminology and phrasings from "popular usage" or current theories...as what Merriam does..If you do elect to continue to quote from them..do it as they mean it to be used as a resource..not a definitive originating source....Try going to the first part of their home page..and actually see how it is presented...I say this because you have used them before to try to prove your point... stop purposely taking the order of the phrasing and relative meaning out of context (hierarchy) ...as you always do..http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct...*you will plainly see that your quote*...is a subset from it's 2nd best meaning...a subset Ken...they are ranked in the most accurate and used meaning..to their least.....Call them and ask them what this fact actually denotes...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Mac,I only quoted your post so you get another look at how long and drawn out it is. See,sometimes I try to be nice and not use words like pointless,silly,argumentative,repititous and downright bullheaded. Even when I believe those things to be true.

We got ya buddy,all of us know what the dictionary meaning of the word instinctive is. We just don't care because in the real world of arrow flingin it has no importance. What I have found in the past (based on numerous similar discussions) is that those who fight so hard to prove that it just aint so, just don't "get it". They usually try to cover up with a whole bunch of words and bs in general trying to find a way explain something away which they just don't understand.

Mac,it would be a ton easier to just fess up. Just say "look guys,I just can't imagine how this process could possibly work. Would some of you good ole boys please help me to learn it?"

I feel sure someone would show you how and then,when you do "get it",you will be amazed at how easy it is when you stop fighting it and just do it.
Not me,but maybe someone will.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

> Mac,it would be a ton easier to just fess up. Just say "look guys,I just can't imagine how this process could possibly work. Would some of you good ole boys please help me to learn it?"


Seriously...? I don't get it I need to learn it...What a frigging riot..that is sooo rich...Thanks for lightening this all up for me...Your right...yup...you are right...for some people here at least...I can see now that long post are as you describe and difficult to comprehend...especially when there are no pictures or cartoons to use their crayons on...
Mac


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MAC 11700 said:


> Seriously...? I don't get it I need to learn it...What a frigging riot..that is sooo rich...Thanks for lightening this all up for me...Your right...yup...you are right...for some people here at least...I can see now that long post are as you describe and difficult to comprehend...especially when there are no pictures or cartoons to use their crayons on...
> Mac[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Maybe not as difficult to comprehend as just plain boring. And tired,worn out,used up. It's like a damn broken record. Do we really need to come up with another name for a simple act just to pacify a few individuals who want to arm wrestle continusly over a word? Why? When everyone else knows and fully understands the terminology as it pertains to archery. Come on man,lets move on.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

Accuracy might be debatable but I would say that with a sight you are definitely more consistent.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Destroyer said:


> Accuracy might be debatable but I would say that with a sight you are definitely more consistent.


 to some, consistency might equate to accuracy. To others, accuracy is the first shot only.

I have a question... why does this matter how you get there as long as you do? I have to admit, I don't even know what you'd call my method of shooting... but in my OPINION, I'm relying on imprinted sight picture and a look down the arrow for alignment. I know that for me, "burning a hole" usually loses arrows for me.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

me thinks that mac just called anyone who disagrees with him dum - thats right - D U M dumb! don't ya hate it when people resort to personal attacks against those who disagree with them? It is sad when it comes to that. 

Yippie - I just found my crayons - I must have lost them while watching my favorite episode of spongebob - btw - Patrick is my favorite starfish on the planet.....well - back to coloring


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> me thinks that mac just called anyone who disagrees with him dum - thats right - D U M dumb! don't ya hate it when people resort to personal attacks against those who disagree with them? It is sad when it comes to that.
> 
> Yippie - I just found my crayons - I must have lost them while watching my favorite episode of spongebob - btw - Patrick is my favorite starfish on the planet.....well - back to coloring


You think wrong Ken...not everyone..and not dumb...just a few...and childish is what I was alluding too...without being rude to anyone in paticular and making a real personal attack on directly on them... and again as usual...here you go trying to twist things out of context purposely to prove some point your trying to make..and act like I am making a personal attack on everyone...and since I can suppose some view everything I say as childish...myself included...Why is it you are always the one on this forum cry foul first...?

Mac


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> to some, consistency might equate to accuracy. To others, accuracy is the first shot only.


Yep. I define accuracy as hitting where you want to hit, where as consistency is hitting in the same or similar spot but not necessarily where you want to hit.



rattus58 said:


> why does this matter how you get there as long as you do?


I think it matters to a point, if you trying to explain a method it helps to understand how your own style works so you can explain to others. I think it also helps you to understand what you are doing and sometimes how to change it for the better (hopefully).


----------



## Coulter (Feb 28, 2012)

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I find this thread....uhhh....shall I say, Intresting....in a "What The Heck?" kind of way, that is. So far I have learned that words change over time...and most people believe in the meaning that most makes their point (in their own mind, at least).....and that crayons are fun, though, obviously not intellectually correct....and that some folk still use the word 'holler' for something other than yelling.....but, I think, Most Importantly, I learned that you should occasionally scroll to the begining of the thread to find out what it was SUPPOSED to be talking about! lol.....

Anyway, back to the subject of the thread......Be it sights or instinctive, I am a lousy shot! I shoot because it is fun and relaxing. I cannot describe my 'style' of aiming...I have sights on my compound and can miss just as well as I can with my self-bow and recurve that have no sights. I believe I'll leave the philisophical debate for those that REALLY care, and go miss some targets and look fer some arrows.....:wink:


----------



## Coulter (Feb 28, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> you breath instinctively?...what happens when you miss? :laugh:


You turn blue and fall down....heh, heh, heh....:darkbeer:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Coulter said:


> I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I find this thread....uhhh....shall I say, Intresting....in a "What The Heck?" kind of way, that is. So far I have learned that words change over time...and most people believe in the meaning that most makes their point (in their own mind, at least).....and that crayons are fun, though, obviously not intellectually correct....and that some folk still use the word 'holler' for something other than yelling.....but, I think, Most Importantly, I learned that you should occasionally scroll to the begining of the thread to find out what it was SUPPOSED to be talking about! lol.....
> 
> Anyway, back to the subject of the thread......Be it sights or instinctive, I am a lousy shot! I shoot because it is fun and relaxing. I cannot describe my 'style' of aiming...I have sights on my compound and can miss just as well as I can with my self-bow and recurve that have no sights. I believe I'll leave the philisophical debate for those that REALLY care, and go miss some targets and look fer some arrows.....:wink:


Don't ferget to Holler if ya find some...:wink::wink:

Mac


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

You guys really should get in touch with my mother in-law.

Matt


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> You guys really should get in touch with my mother in-law.
> 
> Matt


Sorry, but you owe me a new keyboard... just spit coffee everywhere.


----------



## spinsheet (Oct 30, 2011)

Wow, I see that there are three things that you do not want to strike up a conversation about in a bar: religion, politics, and archery! So much for simple answers 

I was originally a compound site shooter (about 20 years ago) and got out of the sport. I broke out my old compound and started shooting again but was just not feeling it. It was just feeling too mechanical for me, adjusting sights, adjusting the arrow rest, placing the pin on the target. I then found my daughter's 25# recurve in a closet and tried that. I felt like I rediscovered archery, I was really having fun just pulling back and shooting, and yes, losing arrows. I've since tried to research instinctive archery trying to get the technique down. While I have a long way to go I am definitely improving and enjoying it in a way that I simply was not enjoying the compound. Please understand, I am in no way criticizing sight shooting, I just drifted away from that style and am really getting into instinctive. My wife and 16 year old daughter have decided that shooting a recurve instinctively is what we want while my 10 year old daughter has decided that she likes her compound with sights. To each his/her own.

I really appreciate all of the comments, some where quite instructive, and some where quite humorous.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

spin the best advise I can give you is get your form down - consistent form is essential - the aiming will take care of itself - when you reach your anchor remind your self to keep looking at the spot until after the arrow impacts and do not take your eyes off that spot until the arrow hits.

to develop good form a formaster is a great tool - here is a little video I made explaining it - but if you want one for your whole family - you will have to order more than one as they are sized to your elbow:






good luck and have fun - that is the most important part of it all


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Ya'll still arguing 'bout instinctive ? Sheesh .......

I am gonna get on the keyborad to Matt's Mother In law ... it'll be more entertaining than this ...


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Sharp good video 

Just curious how did the Widow compare to your current set up ?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I like my Tradtech much better - the Widow is a great bow - but I shoot the Tradtech much better - it feels better in my hand, it is a little faster, it can handle lighter arrows, and it is quieter - even with the lighter arrows.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Thx 

I also have a widow I like my ILF rig better also


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I don't know anyone who has tried an ILF bow and not liked it - I am sure there are some out there - but I haven't met them. And for the price you can get a Tradtech Pinnacle II Riser and a set of top of the line Olympic Limbs - the BF Extreme's for less than a Black Widow - and much less than an X model - and they perform better - the only think you don't get is the eye candy.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

And for a bit more than that you could get a Border Black Douglas TCS ILF with some Hex limbs and have the performance AND eye candy.

Now back to the topic: Rsarns and I just finished out state Blueface tournament, I'm fairly sure we both just set new records (Senior 1 and 2 day for him, Adult 1 day for me). We're both gap shooters for indoors.

-Grant


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

what does gap shooting and you guys breaking records have to do with the topic - the topic was about instinctive and sights - nothing at all about gap - but as usually that always gets dragged into any topic that has anything to do with instinctive. In fact the author of the thread went out of his way to say that this is not about gap shooting - yet it keeps getting dragged into the conversation.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Okay then: neither of our records would have us even place in any of the sighted classes.

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> In fact the author of the thread went out of his way to say that this is not about gap shooting - yet it keeps getting dragged into the conversation.


Can you please quote the OP where he said that?

As far as I can see he only posted on this thread 4 times and in some of those posts he was discussing Gap aiming and claimed to not be very satisfied with it and how it shares similarities with Instinctive aiming.

So where did he go out of his way to say this thread isn't about Gap aiming when he chose to discuss Gap aiming?

Oh wait...this makes sense....you choose to ignore evidence if it doesn't support your agendas.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> And for a bit more than that you could get a Border Black Douglas TCS ILF with some Hex limbs and have the performance AND eye candy.


Absolutely beautiful bows!!!



grantmac said:


> Now back to the topic: Rsarns and I just finished out state Blueface tournament, I'm fairly sure we both just set new records (Senior 1 and 2 day for him, Adult 1 day for me). We're both gap shooters for indoors.


Congrats!! :thumbs_up

Can't wait to hear about the scores.

Don't let sharp bully ya :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

spinsheet said:


> I am curious though, how does instinctive shooting compare to site shooting accuracy-wise?
> 
> I have been told that they are both just as accurate up to 30 or 40 yards,
> 
> What are your thoughts about this?


Last serious tourney (i.e. not local, 6 countries took part) I did was 2 x 100 3D's max 60yards, around half at that 30-40 yard distance, I won my Bowhuter Rec div by 350 points, I beat sighted Recurves by 100 points, so I had a pretty good day. I still didn't get within a 100 points of the wheelie guys.

My view any of the unsighted systems (Instinct as well) can be as accurate as a compound but the balance, letoff and speed advantage of a Compound allows for a level of control and consistency we trad guys will find impossible to match, at local tourney level I have seen compounds being outshot but at international level the best trad shooters dont even come close to the top compounds. Dave Cousins the one of best Compound shooters in the world shot 04 world Fields and dropped 4 points in 5 days, 476 arrows he missed the spot 4 times (80y max).


----------

