# Bow roll over, men and women difference



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

I just can't figure this out, on the bow roll over, mine does just like the men but why / how do the women get their bow to roll over that much to where their looking at the back of the bow and stab pointing backwards? 

This video and most others demonstrate the same thing.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

You may have just discovered - pin pointed - the reason for the dominance of the Korean women's archery team.


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

And another thing, with the women, when the bow goes back vertical, how do they manage to have the bottom limb tip land exactly in the middle of the shoe first time every time?


----------



## wanemann (Oct 7, 2010)

ha, was just trying to make that happen today, sure didn't look like that, not even close.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

After the bow moves away and down, the Korean ladies point their hands down and push the bow to swing around.



Chris


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

I'm not exactly sure how/why the exaggerated bow roll is helping their scores...the arrow is long gone by the time its initiated. Just a method taught to keep from grabbing the bow? Fancy flourish? Magic?


----------



## Sosius (Feb 5, 2014)

Definitely magic.


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

chrstphr said:


> After the bow moves away and down, the Korean ladies point their hands down and push the bow to swing around.
> 
> Chris


Yeah, it has to be that Chris, I can't see how even with lots of weight the bow could move that fast around. I'll try it tomorrow at practice, I figure if I can't shoot, might as well look cool..:grin:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What Chris said. I teach my female students to do the same thing. "Make the dog sit" was a phrase we learned at the OTC, and it works like a charm for the ladies. The guys? Not so much. But then, usually they have so much weight on their side rods that the bow isn't going to roll forward as much. Men shoot in a much more static manner too. They are strong enough to overpower the bow, and aren't shooting with grace and fluid motion the way the women do. 

One thing I've learned is you have to take a different approach to coaching women than you do men. Period. It may seem as simple as a quickly rolling bow, but it's much deeper than that I assure you.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

There is no mystery. Some smaller guys do it just like the girls. Statistically speaking, those who do well survive the cut to stay on the shooting line doing just that, rolling the bow fast. It's got something to do with the weight distribution. Their coaches got it right, but they aren't bothered by the details of the mechanics behind why the aggressive bow swing produces the steady shots. 

Having said that, they haven't quite nailed the numbers yet....in fact I do not believe anyone has. That's because the numbers could only get you so far. Up to a certain degree it fails to compensate for the error introduced into the shot, no matter how close one is to the ideal number, which can be a little fuzzy. At the range where I volunteer my services, we have found a way to get it as close to the right number as possible on the very first try. Then after that it is just a difference of 3/4 oz being shifted around to produce the error correction mechanism required at the shooting distance. When we first tested this on a mid sized lady, it gave us the weight distribution we saw on many Korean women's bows, and a good indication of the range of poundages being employed on those bows. 

Based on the successful experimentation that was done, we were able to replicate the process through 5 different weight categories which we placed our archers in, producing tuned bows every 20 minutes, saving us months and months of trial and error, and subsequent uncertainty. When the same bows were brought to Korea and shot in front of a company team, there was no comment from their coach. One did comment on the excessive poundage employed by one archer, and that was it.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

theminoritydude said:


> There is no mystery. Some smaller guys do it just like the girls. Statistically speaking, those who do well survive the cut to stay on the shooting line doing just that, rolling the bow fast. It's got something to do with the weight distribution. Their coaches got it right, but they aren't bothered by the details of the mechanics behind why the aggressive bow swing produces the steady shots.
> 
> Having said that, they haven't quite nailed the numbers yet....in fact I do not believe anyone has. That's because the numbers could only get you so far. Up to a certain degree it fails to compensate for the error introduced into the shot, no matter how close one is to the ideal number, which can be a little fuzzy. At the range where I volunteer my services, we have found a way to get it as close to the right number as possible on the very first try. Then after that it is just a difference of 3/4 oz being shifted around to produce the error correction mechanism required at the shooting distance. When we first tested this on a mid sized lady, it gave us the weight distribution we saw on many Korean women's bows, and a good indication of the range of poundages being employed on those bows.
> 
> Based on the successful experimentation that was done, we were able to replicate the process through 5 different weight categories which we placed our archers in, producing tuned bows every 20 minutes, saving us months and months of trial and error, and subsequent uncertainty. When the same bows were brought to Korea and shot in front of a company team, there was no comment from their coach. One did comment on the excessive poundage employed by one archer, and that was it.


Would you like to actually share your results, methods, and conclusions on the topic?

or are you going to just state that you have it figured out with out actually telling people what you figured out.


----------



## Johndburk (Apr 29, 2011)

c365 said:


> And another thing, with the women, when the bow goes back vertical, how do they manage to have the bottom limb tip land exactly in the middle of the shoe first time every time?


It's simple, just shoot 100,000 or more quality arrows over 10 or 15 years. It'll become second nature at some point.

Hey, I didn't say easy, just simple...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dacer said:


> Would you like to actually share your results, methods, and conclusions on the topic?
> 
> or are you going to just state that you have it figured out with out actually telling people what you figured out.


I've noticed a pattern of this, which is why my ignore list just grew by one.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I've noticed a pattern of this, which is why my ignore list just grew by one.


I got tired of the self-satisfied lip smacking in the Spring.


----------



## MJAnderson68 (Nov 15, 2013)

Always been curious about this...sorry for the starter question --- I've noticed in the video that the wrist and arm collapses after shooting in order to get the bow to swing. I always thought the arm should stay relatively stable through and after the shot. After shooting my bow hangs off my wrist/hand but my wrist/hand/arm is in the same position as it was just before the shot --- only the bow moves. Is the "swing" to save your wrist from the strain of having to fight the momentum of the bow's backward swing after the shot?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Couple things going on there. The roll of the bow is first a product of how it's set up, second, a product of the sling length (and type of sling), and third, a product of the archer. I can set up my stabilization so that the bow does not roll at all, if I choose. Or, I can weight it so that it rolls forward very aggressively. The downward wrist snap happens after the bow reacts, not before. They are independent of one another until well after the arrow has left.

All the time, I hear folks new to the sport say that the archer makes the bow roll foward. "Look-their doing that bow roll thing" etc., etc.. If an archer does not grab their bow but rather lets it release fully until it hits the sling, and if that bow is set up with the center of balance ahead of the riser, it will roll forward.

Another way to affect this is the length of one's finger sling. The shorter the sling, the less aggressive the roll will be. I can get a bow to fly just by lengthening an archer's sling. This is surprisingly, a little-known thing -even among coaches. Not all slings are the same length, or should be the same length. It's another customization for the individual archer that a coach and archer should work out.

John


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

I'm going to try it out in practice today. In experimenting at home yesterday, found without the vbar yoke extended, the downward tilted hand gets in the way, with a 4" extension it clears nicely. Also, it seems without the roll down and backward swing, the bow wouldn't have the momentum to go forward again and vertical to place the limb tip on the shoe.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

So, if I'm reading this correctly-

The advantage gained isnt the bow roll itself, but the setup which happens to create that aggressive bow roll? What is gained or lost by using a longer or shorter sling?

I know these are both things that depend heavily on the archers style and preference, but just trying to make sense. I see many people at the range every night- some with the flowing full arc, some just fall until the lower limb tip bounces off their leg (and a few that grab the riser).

I have just been letting the riser fall against the sling (fairly short) and keep my bow hand more or less static, which results in the bow rotating till the long rod is pointed at the ground. (I am also just using a cartel long rod and havnt touched the weights at all)


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

I've never understood some people's obsession with bow roll. As long as the bow is at the same level before and immediately after the arrow clears, then what need is there for any specific motion of the bow afterward...other than aesthetics?


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

John, would you say a longer finger sling can actually cause the roll to be more aggressive or is the longer sling inhibiting the roll to a lesser degree than a shorter sling? Just guessing, I would say it inhibits less, but I could see where the more space the bow falls through, the more aggressive the fall could cause it to be.

Of course, that's just for finger slings. Compound style wrist slings and slings that attach to the wrist and a finger can really affect the direction of the rotation, so all bets are pretty much off for those two! :grin:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yes, a longer sling allows the bow to accelerate into it, and produces a more aggressive roll. Longer slings, particularly a shoelace sling with long tag ends that hang down, also grab the bow lower on the riser, which further exaggerates the forward roll.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

acco205 said:


> What is gained or lost by using a longer or shorter sling?


Outside of affecting the roll, there are a couple of things mostly related to comfort. I have large hands so the standard looped finger slings you'd get from Lancasters and see just about freakin' everywhere made my hands feel cramped. Cramped to the point where I couldn't open my palm up all the way when I draw, so that was a little uncomfortable for me. I went with the shoelace method and am able to make my finger sling as long or short as I'd like. At the other end of the spectrum, I've had a couple of my students ask me to make their slings shorter because the shelf of the riser was falling through and causing them to stress over it slipping down in their hand. At that point I praise them for not griping the bow which led them to this discovery and the go about cutting off a little bit at a time.

For anyone curious, making a sling shorter is fairly easy. It just a length of paracord that has had the ends melted together. So, take yon trusty pocket knife and cut out the section that was melted together along with however much you want to take out. Then take your handy dandy torch and hold the end on either side of the flame to get them melting. When you take them away from the heat, mash the ends together to form the new (and slightly shorter) loop. You can, in theory, use this same method to add to the loop, but just easier to get a new length of paracord and make a new loop.

REMEMBER: If you take out 1inch of material, your finished sling will be 1/2inch shorter in length.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Putting a sling on the index finger vs. the middle finger also will reduce the roll as it's hitting the riser higher up.

I agree on the obsession with the roll, but that's usually from misguided young and inexperienced archers who think it's something "experts" do, or some goal in itself to be obtained (much like "making" the JDT, etc.) rather than just a step in the progression toward good shooting.

One of the keys to becoming a great archer is knowing what to focus on, and what to ignore. Bow roll is somewhat like tiller. Set it and forget it. Sure, play with it some at first until you get it where you want it, but after that, think nothing of it and move on to more important things.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

The bow roll has a function aside from the balance. It gives another step in the sentence of the shot. Its hard to torque the bow or bobble it if after the shot you have a defined motion that is cenetered and toward target. Also gives archer something else to think about instead of trying to catch the bow or do other weird thing with the bow hand/ bow arm.


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Chris, this can be accomplished in other ways though. Not disagreeing with you, but what you're describing is a follow-through, and not specifically bow roll. As an example, look at Butch Johnson's follow-through. No bow roll. Why? Because he used a heavy backweight (ala compound setup) and a wrist sling. Same for Frangilli - another wrist sling. Even Brady doesn't have a lot of roll because of the extreme weighting on his side rods and his follow-through.

Quick bow roll is one form of follow-through. One that works well, but still just one form.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Dacer said:


> Would you like to actually share your results, methods, and conclusions on the topic?
> 
> or are you going to just state that you have it figured out with out actually telling people what you figured out.


You never asked. No one ever did. Well, ok someone did ask, maybe 2. And I told them.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Last_Bastion said:


> I've never understood some people's obsession with bow roll. As long as the bow is at the same level before and immediately after the arrow clears, then what need is there for any specific motion of the bow afterward...other than aesthetics?


To many people it's a sign of "correlation = causation". And you're right.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

Last_Bastion said:


> I've never understood some people's obsession with bow roll. As long as the bow is at the same level before and immediately after the arrow clears, then what need is there for any specific motion of the bow afterward...other than aesthetics?


Bow roll slightly reduces the weight held by the bow arm immediately after the shot. (When the bow is rolling forward the front stabilizer weight is effectively free-falling and doesn't need to be supported by the archer's shoulder muscles)

Part of the weight of the bow before the shot is supported by string tension. After the shot the archer experiences a sudden increase in weight but this jump in weight might seem less if the bow rolls.

I will speculate that the physical benefit of bow roll might is that the archer equipped with a weight-forward bow is less likely to anticipate the weight change and therefore keeps a steadier and more relaxed bow arm just before the shot.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

HikerDave said:


> Bow roll slightly reduces the weight held by the bow arm immediately after the shot. (When the bow is rolling forward the front stabilizer weight is effectively free-falling and doesn't need to be supported by the archer's shoulder muscles)
> 
> Part of the weight of the bow before the shot is supported by string tension. After the shot the archer experiences a sudden increase in weight but this jump in weight might seem less if the bow rolls.
> 
> I will speculate that the physical benefit of bow roll might is that the archer equipped with a weight-forward bow is *less likely to anticipate the weight change and therefore keeps a steadier and more relaxed bow arm* just before the shot.


Now even my simple mind can see the value in that line of thought. But I still like a neutral balance. My bow hardly roles. Once I can shoot worth a darn I will play with it some more.

Cheers


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

At the end of the day I think it comes down to personal preference and setup. But someone else hit the nail on the head, as it were- the bow roll is something to focus on doing at the end of your shot to stop you from doing whatever else you naturally want to do (grab the bow, drop your arm, text, anticipate the shot, slap the guy next to you, etc)


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

Well put HikerDave and acco205. Letting the bow roll is part of a smooth and complete execution, there is a axiom in archery that you should hold the follow through position until the arrow hits the target, the rolling over is a nice completion to that follow through while the arrow is flying. Otherwise you have to force the bow in a somewhat awkward motion back into the arrow loading position. But to each his own, archery is a highly personal thing.


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

c365 said:


> Well put HikerDave and acco205. Letting the bow roll is part of a smooth and complete execution, there is a axiom in archery that you should hold the follow through position until the arrow hits the target, the rolling over is a nice completion to that follow through while the arrow is flying. Otherwise you have to force the bow in a somewhat awkward motion back into the arrow loading position. But to each his own, archery is a highly personal thing.


I would say that it CAN BE part of a smooth and complete execution. I see a danger in seeing it as an entirely necessary thing, because it could lead to someone who has a perfectly balanced bow and great form trying to force a forward roll and messing up their shots. I've seen it happen...heck, I've been that guy before.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Letting the bow roll


That's the key. You LET the bow roll. You don't MAKE the bow roll. Big difference, and one that a lot of newbies don't understand.


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

Last_Bastion said:


> I would say that it CAN BE part of a smooth and complete execution. I see a danger in seeing it as an entirely necessary thing, because it could lead to someone who has a perfectly balanced bow and great form trying to force a forward roll and messing up their shots. I've seen it happen...heck, I've been that guy before.


One part I don't understand Last_Bastion, with a Oly rig how can you not let the bow roll over by itself? providing your not gripping the handle and with a finger sling on, my bow rolls right over stab pointing to the ground. I've never seen a Oly rig stay in position like many compounds unless the op was purposely grabbing the handle.


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

By putting a counter-weight on the bottom limb. Both myself and a friend I shoot with used to keep a 12oz weight on the bottom limb when moving to oly from FITA barebow, just because it felt more normal to have a heavy mass on the riser.

Also, I've seen it happen when people have really long and heavy side rods. It'll still pitch a little, but not with a huge roll.


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

Last_Bastion said:


> By putting a counter-weight on the bottom limb. Both myself and a friend I shoot with used to keep a 12oz weight on the bottom limb when moving to oly from FITA barebow, just because it felt more normal to have a heavy mass on the riser.
> 
> Also, I've seen it happen when people have really long and heavy side rods. It'll still pitch a little, but not with a huge roll.


Just to be clear, we're talking about a normal roll, stab pointing down, like the Korean men, NOT the roll the ladies do where the stab is pointing backward. Only thing I can say is perhaps you have or had too much weight making things counterproductive? another point is, if you look at a lot of Oly vids, many have limb counter weights complete with weighted Vbars and they ALL roll the normal way a Oly rig does, they all can't be wrong.


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

c365 said:


> Just to be clear, we're talking about a normal roll, stab pointing down, like the Korean men, NOT the roll the ladies do where the stab is pointing backward.


ah, gotcha. Now I'm on board.


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

Last_Bastion said:


> ah, gotcha. Now I'm on board.


Yeah Last_Bastion, I've been trying to do it like those Korean ladies do the past couple days at the range and no way! these old wrists just won't bend down the way 20 year old ladies do....haha!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

c365 said:


> Yeah Last_Bastion, I've been trying to do it like those Korean ladies do the past couple days at the range and no way! these old wrists just won't bend down the way 20 year old ladies do....haha!


Lengthen your sling, put all your weight level with the main stabilizer bushing, add some weight to the top bushing, and viola'! Your bow will roll just like theirs. No wrist injury necessary.


----------



## MJAnderson68 (Nov 15, 2013)

I'm waiting for someone to invent the roll-a-matic wrist sling so that I to can have that graceful roll without all the hassle of excellent form, follow through or practice...

Here's the prototype


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> Lengthen your sling, put all your weight level with the main stabilizer bushing, add some weight to the top bushing, and viola'! Your bow will roll just like theirs. No wrist injury necessary.


Thanks limbwalker, I'll try that tomorrow. One reason I look forward to going out every day is to try something new, whether something in form or mechanical.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

If you have downward angled side rods, level them out. I've yet to see a Korean woman with anything but level side rods, and with very little weight on them. The COG for their bows is a full inch ahead of the riser in most cases.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> That's the key. You LET the bow roll. You don't MAKE the bow roll. Big difference, and one that a lot of newbies don't understand.


But what about this:



> The downward wrist snap happens after the bow reacts, not before. They are independent of one another until well after the arrow has left.


Is not the downward snap active rather than passive? Making the bow rotate more than it would without the active bow sit down?


----------



## c365 (May 15, 2013)

limbwalker said:


> If you have downward angled side rods, level them out. I've yet to see a Korean woman with anything but level side rods, and with very little weight on them. The COG for their bows is a full inch ahead of the riser in most cases.


Yes I have level side rods and a 4" extension. Also have a downward vbar yoke but it seems to get in way of my arm.

Thanks!


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Warbow said:


> But what about this:
> 
> 
> 
> Is not the downward snap active rather than passive? Making the bow rotate more than it would without the active bow sit down?


Some like to push with the hand, some don't. Either way the still rolls forward with about the same delay, but pushing it complicates the matter. You're not really better off pushing the bow with your hand, it's like a prayer.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

theminoritydude said:


> Some like to push with the hand, some don't. Either way the still rolls forward with about the same delay, but pushing it complicates the matter. You're not really better off pushing the bow with your hand, it's like a prayer.


Well, as someone who generally defers to the idea that simpler is better, that I what I would tend to think. I don't get the need for bow sitdown - it is a contradiction to the way that we currently, in the US NTS, teach that the draw hand follow through should be the completely natural motion caused by the existing muscle tension, not an artificial flourish. Bow sit down seems like an artificial flourish. However, it is one done by highly successful Korean archers. It is really hard to separate out what works from what seems to work by watching what top archers do :dontknow:

What was the method you figured out for bow balance?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow said:


> But what about this:
> 
> 
> 
> Is not the downward snap active rather than passive? Making the bow rotate more than it would without the active bow sit down?


Good catch Warbow, and worth of an explanation. 

I was shown the "sit" bow hand motion, along with the other three original JDT coaches in 2006. It's what Lee was teaching at the time. I don't always use it, but I have found it a useful tool to teach archers to fully release the bow when they are wanting to grab it. It's replacing a reluctant, anxious activity with a positive motion. So there, it's useful. Some archers don't need to be taught this. They release the bow cleanly without it. But for women in particular (they seem to always be the most concerned about fully releasing their bow hand) the "make the dog SIT" motion is often a useful way to get them over that fear of releasing the bow. Once they have it, they usually have it. So I don't often re-visit it after that. 

For me at least, teaching or asking an archer to "make the dog SIT" is a training aid, much like shooting a formaster. It's not something you have to do all the time, but as an occasional reminder, to reinforce an action, it's helpful.

Does that make sense?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Incidentally, I nearly always combine the "make the dog SIT" instruction with them shooting the bow out of their hand, sans sling, into my waiting hands. For the reluctant, anxious archer, this takes a great deal of courage and faith. And in addition to teaching a full release of the bow, the exercise doubles in value by teaching an archer to shoot without fear. In fact, I'd say shooting the bow into my hands is as important for that reason, as it is for teaching bow hand release.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Good catch Warbow, and worth of an explanation.
> 
> I was shown the "sit" bow hand motion, along with the other three original JDT coaches in 2006. It's what Lee was teaching at the time. I don't always use it, but I have found it a useful tool to teach archers to fully release the bow when they are wanting to grab it. It's replacing a reluctant, anxious activity with a positive motion. So there, it's useful. Some archers don't need to be taught this. They release the bow cleanly without it. But for women in particular (they seem to always be the most concerned about fully releasing their bow hand) the "make the dog SIT" motion is often a useful way to get them over that fear of releasing the bow. Once they have it, they usually have it. So I don't often re-visit it after that.
> 
> ...





limbwalker said:


> Incidentally, I nearly always combine the "make the dog SIT" instruction with them shooting the bow out of their hand, sans sling, into my waiting hands. For the reluctant, anxious archer, this takes a great deal of courage and faith. And in addition to teaching a full release of the bow, the exercise doubles in value by teaching an archer to shoot without fear. In fact, I'd say shooting the bow into my hands is as important for that reason, as it is for teaching bow hand release.
> 
> John


Thanks. As with so many things, it sounds better when you explain it. Part of that is because you are pragmatic rather than dogmatic, so for you the sit down sounds like a problem solving tool - an option you only pull out of your tool kit as needed. When I read about NTS, the reverse often seems to be the case, dogma first :dontknow:


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Incidentally, I nearly always combine the "make the dog SIT" instruction with them shooting the bow out of their hand, sans sling, into my waiting hands. For the reluctant, anxious archer, this takes a great deal of courage and faith. And in addition to teaching a full release of the bow, the exercise doubles in value by teaching an archer to shoot without fear. In fact, I'd say shooting the bow into my hands is as important for that reason, as it is for teaching bow hand release.
> 
> John


that is a very good idea I will be borrowing, thank you. I have often struggled with the occasional student who can't quite make the leap of faith to stop grabbing.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

We even have instructors struggling with the idea of letting their bow be caught by someone else. Word of warning on the tec-bar equipped bows, possible additional bump from the hand makes for awkward catching.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Question: would 'high wrist' versus 'low wrist' (pressure point/angle being so different) - all other things being equal - have an impact on the ease with which a bow wants to roll forward versus just jump forward with less roll forward?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

caspian said:


> that is a very good idea I will be borrowing, thank you. I have often struggled with the occasional student who can't quite make the leap of faith to stop grabbing.


It's a terrifying experience for many of them at first. The ones with trust and courage get over that feeling very quickly, and move on. The ones who hold onto their fear will take a while. But it's important that all of them work through it. As I said, the exercise is as valuable to me as a tool to teach courage as it is anything else. When you get a young archer who will fearlessly shoot their bow into your waiting hands, shot after shot, you really have something right there. It's a breakthrough moment.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Warbow said:


> Well, as someone who generally defers to the idea that simpler is better, that I what I would tend to think. I don't get the need for bow sitdown - it is a contradiction to the way that we currently, in the US NTS, teach that the draw hand follow through should be the completely natural motion caused by the existing muscle tension, not an artificial flourish. Bow sit down seems like an artificial flourish. However, it is one done by highly successful Korean archers. It is really hard to separate out what works from what seems to work by watching what top archers do :dontknow:
> 
> What was the method you figured out for bow balance?


I have not read the BEST nor NTS in detail, but I have discussed this in some detail with an NTS trained coach, and participated in discussions with some archers who are actively involved in their respective national teams. There seems to be an emphasis on neutral balance, which is in direct conflict with most Korean setups, in particular I must point out, the ladies. I spent a few months pondering over this problem, seeking a way to resolve this conflict. I have always disagreed with the way the bow C.G. was positioned on female Korean recurve archers' bows, as I felt that they were "INVERSELY UNSTABLE" during the shot. But any visual evaluation of their shot would fail to demonstrate that instability, leading me to believe that I must have left out a crucial factor in he equation. Then I started to look at the string. Then is dawned upon me, that while the Koreans did the right thing, they probably had no idea how it happened. It wasn't sheer luck, it was a kind of evolutionary process by way of multiple combinations of weights and balance points, and the ideal ones survived the cut. 

The NTS method was the right way to go, it had the structured method to logically arrive at a desired result, but it left out one very important detail, apparently. And because of this detail, which is a very fundamental physical attribute, that will prevent NTS from systematically defeating every other method, something I believe Kisik Lee set out to do.

I know I sound haughty, but this is truly what I think. Recent experimentations are beginning to confirm my suspicions.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Warbow, if you would honour me by allowing me to share this method with you, please let me know with a PM. Thank you.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

theminoritydude said:


> Warbow, if you would honour me by allowing me to share this method with you, please let me know with a PM. Thank you.


Thanks. If you want to communicate off line, that is ok. However, I'm a big fan of making information public. I'd much prefer to see this info discussed openly in the forum so more people could learn from it and make comments on it. That isn't a perfect process, but it is one I've benefited from so I like to encourage it so that I, and others, can benefit from it in the future.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

theminoritydude said:


> I have not read the BEST nor NTS in detail, but I have discussed this in some detail with an NTS trained coach, and participated in discussions with some archers who are actively involved in their respective national teams. There seems to be an emphasis on neutral balance, which is in direct conflict with most Korean setups, in particular I must point out, the ladies. I spent a few months pondering over this problem, seeking a way to resolve this conflict. I have always disagreed with the way the bow C.G. was positioned on female Korean recurve archers' bows, as I felt that they were "INVERSELY UNSTABLE" during the shot. But any visual evaluation of their shot would fail to demonstrate that instability, leading me to believe that I must have left out a crucial factor in he equation. Then I started to look at the string. Then is dawned upon me, that while the Koreans did the right thing, they probably had no idea how it happened. It wasn't sheer luck, it was a kind of evolutionary process by way of multiple combinations of weights and balance points, and the ideal ones survived the cut.
> 
> The NTS method was the right way to go, it had the structured method to logically arrive at a desired result, but it left out one very important detail, apparently. And because of this detail, which is a very fundamental physical attribute, that will prevent NTS from systematically defeating every other method, something I believe Kisik Lee set out to do.
> 
> I know I sound haughty, but this is truly what I think. Recent experimentations are beginning to confirm my suspicions.


I'm sure you have details to share. The problem is when you post the above and similar it's like you are talking to someone who already knew all the details you seem to deliberately leave out. 

In the end you endup with a lot if words in a post but not really saying much. With the promise that you have some key discovery or evidence that explains the topic of discussion. 

Why don't you actually tell us what this fundamental physical attribute is that causes the KSL/NTS method to fall short. Or what it is you saw with the Korean ladies string....


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Warbow said:


> Thanks. If you want to communicate off line, that is ok. However, I'm a big fan of making information public. I'd much prefer to see this info discussed openly in the forum so more people could learn from it and make comments on it. That isn't a perfect process, but it is one I've benefited from so I like to encourage it so that I, and others, can benefit from it in the future.


I understand your motives, and I am very glad that another member of this community is in favour of sharing, so everyone stands to benefit. However, previous experiences within the forum suggests that not everyone appreciates findings that come from a nobody, and what I say is usually swiftly struck down, before it could be properly discussed. Also, I don't find comfort in having to release my findings to parties who seem to think that I am here to prove myself as sort of high and mighty, and aren't too slow in accusing me of that. Which is why I would rather spread information among folks whom I trust to use it in the right spirit, and if the information was any good, that it be given the chance at being adopted under the right conditions.


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

theminoritydude said:


> I understand your motives, and I am very glad that another member of this community is in favour of sharing, so everyone stands to benefit. However, previous experiences within the forum suggests that not everyone appreciates findings that come from a nobody, and what I say is usually swiftly struck down, before it could be properly discussed. Also, I don't find comfort in having to release my findings to parties who seem to think that I am here to prove myself as sort of high and mighty, and aren't too slow in accusing me of that. Which is why I would rather spread information among folks whom I trust to use it in the right spirit, and if the information was any good, that it be given the chance at being adopted under the right conditions.


Hi 

I'm sorry, but how you can "trust" someone who you never seen in person? 

And if you stand behind your findings (and willing to share them of course) then people who don't appreciates it should be no concern to you.....it have no logic saying publicly you find something major and then say you will not tell what - this is good way how to lose credit for sure.....


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

theminoritydude said:


> I understand your motives, and I am very glad that another member of this community is in favour of sharing, so everyone stands to benefit. However, previous experiences within the forum suggests that not everyone appreciates findings that come from a nobody, and what I say is usually swiftly struck down, before it could be properly discussed. Also, I don't find comfort in having to release my findings to parties who seem to think that I am here to prove myself as sort of high and mighty, and aren't too slow in accusing me of that. Which is why I would rather spread information among folks whom I trust to use it in the right spirit, and if the information was any good, that it be given the chance at being adopted under the right conditions.


I'd wish I could disagree with you on that, but someone has already publicly put you on "ignore," so there is some merit to what you say. Even so, I'd hope that good info stands on its own merit, and I'm wary of secrecy. For a while part of the problem with NTS/BEST was a virtual secrecy - not so much secrecy per se, but a profound lack of official, public communication about the systems current standards other than through coach cert courses (some of which are rationed and in very limited supply). The cooperation of USA Archery on the book "Archery" has alleviated some of that problem, though the system still lacks a change log or details on the USAA Website. Anyway, if you have found something that is proven to work I hope that you do the opposite of what USAA does, and, instead, make the info clearly public rather than transmitted to a few insiders.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

TMD,

Normally this forum has its ups and downs with respect to how it receives people and what they bring to the forum. Most of us don't know much about you, whether by intent or otherwise. Some of the "issues" may be cultural, though as I don't know much about you other than Singapore as your indicated location and your mention of a number of eastern connections, I am making a huge assumption. Often in the past on this forum, when you have dropped a "tidbit" and then been asked about it you have not followed up, as with the GMX Grip. That tends to lead people to perceiving those posts and, rightly or wrongly painting subsequent posts with the same brush, as superior or trite. If you have information that is relavent and interesting, the bulk of us would love to see it. But they way you post often just leads people to dismiss you because after alluding to some revelation you don't answer questions or expand on your "teasers". It is not that we need you to justify yourself, it is just that there have been other posters on here that have done the same and also never followed up. 

Anyhow that is my 2 cents, I would love to hear what you have to say about stabilization.

Cheers


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bobnikon said:


> TMD,
> 
> Normally this forum has its ups and downs with respect to how it receives people and what they bring to the forum. Most of us don't know much about you, whether by intent or otherwise. Some of the "issues" may be cultural, though as I don't know much about you other than Singapore as your indicated location and your mention of a number of eastern connections, I am making a huge assumption. Often in the past on this forum, when you have dropped a "tidbit" and then been asked about it you have not followed up, as with the GMX Grip. That tends to lead people to perceiving those posts and, rightly or wrongly painting subsequent posts with the same brush, as superior or trite. If you have information that is relavent and interesting, the bulk of us would love to see it. But they way you post often just leads people to dismiss you because after alluding to some revelation you don't answer questions or expand on your "teasers". It is not that we need you to justify yourself, it is just that there have been other posters on here that have done the same and also never followed up.
> 
> ...


I'll second that.

There is a phenomenon that is common here in Silicon Valley where some companies announce a great product that does terrific things for a great price, but don't have any working prototypes to show for it or the kind of details one would associate with a product that is close to completion. Often they'll announce that the project is almost done, just a little more to do and it will be great. They do that year after year, and the product never materializes. The term for such products is "Vaporware".

I think enough of us on the forum are familiar with vaporware or something similar to be naturally skeptical of claims that take on much of the same style, hinting and great findings while offering none of the details over and over. That doesn't mean there can't be any substance to the claim, but we'd all love to see it substantiated rather than hinted at.

I'd love to see the details on this system. It shouldn't matter who says it if it works.


----------



## Mormegil (Jan 26, 2012)

Warbow said:


> I'd wish I could disagree with you on that, but someone has already publicly put you on "ignore," so there is some merit to what you say. Even so, I'd hope that good info stands on its own merit, and I'm wary of secrecy.


He's on more than one ignore list. Let us know if he posts something interesting or if this is just more "I know more than you but I'll never tell how much" nonsense.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Mormegil said:


> He's on more than one ignore list. Let us know if he posts something interesting



Hahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Ar-Pe-Lo (Oct 16, 2011)

So "they" were correct........you really have nothing to say.....


----------



## Xrod (Dec 12, 2013)

TMD, I don't blame you one bit for being hesitant to share info here. I've had the same experience being shot down by others on AT. While there are many that are kind, polite, and genuinely want to assist new archers with useful information, many are not. By looking down their noses at others, they feel more important. Elitism and straight up snobbery abound. 

There are only a small number of pro's that post here. Many are self appointed "ambassadors" of the sport, yet they tend to eat their young. 

It's a shame that anyone needs to utilize an "ignore list" on this forum. The mods won't do anything to the repeat offenders, especially if they are supporting archers.

It's better to just lurk, picking up what useful information you can and weeding out the crap. If you offer to share a thought, idea, or anything else, you can bet that some douche will have something negative to say about it. This negates the spirit of having an open forum.

While I must express that this is just my opinion, and it doesn't hold true for the majority of the posters here, I would also add that virtually every accomplished archer at my club has nothing good to say about AT for the exact same reason. It's not just me.

Waiting for the ignores and flames.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Xrod, I'm sorry you and (it appears) so many others have arrived at that opinion of AT. And I can't say I blame you really. It's not the place it used to be. And frankly, it never was the equal of the old Sagittarius Archery Blackboard, back in the day. 

Places like this are always what you make of them. If differing opinions offends a person, internet discussion forums probably aren't the place for them. I know a lot of very qualified archers and coaches with a lot to contribue let a few members here turn them off. I find it much easier to just put those folks on my ignore list and move on to see what the more interesting and productive members have to say.

I must admit that I always find it ironic and a bit comical how many folks lurk on AT but if asked about it, will deny it to the death. LOL. Oh what a guilty pleasure it is for so many! A way to "spy" on folks without being seen. That's a behavior I neither understand, or have much respect for, honestly.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've been approached or confronted about some topic here by someone who "claims" they don't read AT. Always makes me ROTF... They always say something like "I heard you said...X,Y,Z..." LOL. "Heard?" Really? LOL. Then I usually ask them if they want to ask me a question while they're standing right there in front of me, and get it straight from the horse's mouth. In every case but one, they couldn't remember the question, but just wanted to be angry about something they say they "heard" from "someone else." When I ask them who they heard it from (wait for it...) they either have trouble remembering, or say "that's not important."  

I wish there were a rule here that folks had to fill out their profiles with a real name to post replies. That would clean up a lot of this nonsense straight away. The internet has granted a lack of accountability to millions who really have neither the discipline or manners to be saying things in public.

John


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Off topic but since xrod is advertising my snobbish, elitist attitude toward him: here are my replies to his threads. Also Iksseven - elite snob? really? 

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2163270

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2152632

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2152058

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2151475

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2161545


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

We were discussing bow roll, right?


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Yes, really. Now please get back on your high horse...:lol3:
don't feed the troll...


yes, bow roll...

I was able to take something here to the range the past couple outings...seems there is too much rear weight....got some more shooting to do to find out. But, based on bow movement (virtually no roll, just a forward movement), wider patern on the target...probably need to lighten the rear- I think adding more front weight would make the rig too heavy.


----------



## Xrod (Dec 12, 2013)

Limbwalker, you are one of the posters here that I have a great deal of respect for. Your posts are thoughtful, informative and based on experience. I have learned a great deal from you.

When I first started out, I wanted to absorb as much info as I could and relied heavily on AT. I don't think its a bad thing to lurk on a forum. It should be a give and take kind of thing. When you start out in archery, it's all take because you don't have the experience to really give back to the community. When you have something to offer new archers in the way of assistance, then you can give back.

I won't be doing that here because of a handful of people that want to ruin it. I give back to the community by volunteering and assisting at my club.

I utilize every resource I can find for my information; Books, video of the pro's, coaching, AT and other internet resources.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Hello Xrod!


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Xrod, maybe consider changing your mindset and forget the naysayers...it will help...if you have knowledge that can help others, no reason to keep it to yourself. Remeber there is PM here...make the comments private if you want to help.

As I get older I'm getting to where I simply don't care what others think or say unless I start out asking "what do you think". It's helped me to simply gloss over those that overly negative.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Xrod said:


> Limbwalker, you are one of the posters here that I have a great deal of respect for. Your posts are thoughtful, informative and based on experience. I have learned a great deal from you.
> 
> When I first started out, I wanted to absorb as much info as I could and relied heavily on AT. I don't think its a bad thing to lurk on a forum. It should be a give and take kind of thing. When you start out in archery, it's all take because you don't have the experience to really give back to the community. When you have something to offer new archers in the way of assistance, then you can give back.
> 
> ...


Glad to know you're giving back in a way you enjoy. We need more of that! 

I will always try to contribute on these archery forums for one main reason - when I was starting out, the help and encouragement I received on these forums was invaluable to me. I never would have made it as far as I did without it. Having said that, there were critics early on, and one famous one in particular seemed bent from the get-go to see me fail. So, there are always those who are just angry at the world and would love to see it burn. It takes a lot of dedication to the sport to ignore them and continue to contribute in a positive way. Some days, I just don't have the energy. ha, ha.



> As I get older I'm getting to where I simply don't care what others think or say unless I start out asking "what do you think". It's helped me to simply gloss over those that overly negative.


I agree 100%. I had the "benefit" (if you want to see it that way) of starting out in the sport of target archery at age 33, already well into my professional career, having been married 13 years and the father of 3 children. So, the critics on these boards were easy for me to ignore. But for some of the younger folks, I'm sure it's not that easy. But with age, you often mellow out and learn to not take things so personally. I like to think I have. I think you learn that there are a lot more important things than what some anonymous poster on an internet forum thinks. 

It's also a LOT easier to ignore certain things, and to freely speak one's mind when your living isn't dependent on archery. I think there are/were far too many biases on these forums from some who work in the industry or who shoot for a living, or who are trying to shoot for a living. Much to be protected there, and I think sometimes they resent not being able to speak their minds because of it.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> *Places like this are always what you make of them. *...
> 
> I must admit that I always find it ironic and a bit comical how many folks lurk on AT but if asked about it, will deny it to the death.


If people want AT to be better then they should contribute the kind of posts that would make it that way. I think that John is a good example of someone doing just that.

And for those who read AT like a tabloid they don't admit they read, that's ok, too. But if they think AT is so bad, name a better place with as much traffic and info about JOAD and US FITA Recurve.


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

ok. Back to the question at hand. 

Other than sling length and stabilizer configuration, would the amount of bow roll be indicative of any other aspect of an archer's form?

I have a pretty average amount of roll with my bow. I am fortunate, though, that one of my friends showed up to the range with his camera and got some shots of us capturing the moment of release and the arrow is nearly in the target before the bow even begins to pitch forward and is perfectly level up to that point.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

LB, to some degree, bow roll can be affected by how aggressively an archer snaps their wrist downward on their follow-through. All three will contribute. I'd put stabilization (forward of center balance) 1st on the list, then sling length, then wrist snap, although the second two could be interchangeable. 

When I started to use video to study my own shooting back in 2003, I was absolutely shocked to see how much my bow rolled on my follow through. I had no idea my lower limb was nearly hitting me in the face on every shot. I was so focused on the target that anything that happened with my bow, I never saw. It was actually kind of comical to me when I finally saw it on film. Like "how on earth did I not notice that !?! " Then one day my lower limb tip hit the brim of my cap, and that's when I put more weight on the back side of the bow. 

John


----------



## BobCo19-65 (Sep 4, 2009)

Another item that may also effect bow roll for myself is the type of grip and the pressure point of the grip. Personally, I get a more dramatic roll with a lower grip then an extremely high grip.


----------



## acco205 (Jun 13, 2014)

Warbow said:


> name a better place with as much traffic and info about JOAD and US FITA Recurve.


Not to derail (again) but this was been the #1 place for sound recurve advice short of my coach (who just threw a clicker on my bow and admitted there was nothing more she could teach me. Feels like a milestone!)

Back on topic- I was told to start playing with V-bars in my own free time once I'm a little more settled with the clicker.

Before I had found something that said a good place to start use the same weight you have on the long rod, split between the two side rods. For side rod and extension length, aim to have the line draw between the ends of the side rod intersect with the grip.

Based on what I'm reading here, that almost sounds like it could be too much weight on the side rods? Or is that really a try it and see sort of thing? Tuning stabs is a whole new world for me.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

It definitely can be a too much weight thing but in all reality, it's a add/remove weight, shoot a bunch and see how it works. I know that the balance for me is too much weight on the back-- but the "I know" is really just "I think"...got some more shooting to do first.

Now, keep in mind this is going to be a long drawn out process. There will be of course, weights that you put on, warm up then fire a few ends and say "NO" right away...but, maybe only to move back to it in a couple months.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Honestly, this question of bow roll is easy enough to experiment with. Just take the side rods off and put them one each in the top and bottom limb bushings pointing foward. Or, if you don't have side rods, add weight to your long rod and/or to the top stabilizer bushing - then see for yourself.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

Matt has been moving away from the USA NTS form for some time now, and this year he has changed to a more korean style of stabilizer setup as well. His bow in the past has been more balanced with very little swing. Recently he went to lighter win&win stabilizer and side rods allowing for less weights on the ends to accomplish the same hold. His bos mass is much lighter than before. Shorter side rods and a little more weight on the front stabilizer. No change in his grip or sling.

Here is what he looks like now. Very different from the past. These are six different shots. Some are in slow mo just before release.






Gary


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

his wrist is forcing the bow down...doesn't appear to be related to stab balance at all.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Honestly, this question of bow roll is easy enough to experiment with. Just take the side rods off and put them one each in the top and bottom limb bushings pointing foward. Or, if you don't have side rods, add weight to your long rod and/or to the top stabilizer bushing - then see for yourself.


That reminds me...I think I have a short rod I can put on the top bushing...though it's about 8oz- need to see what else I have laying around (may be time for a DIY project)


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

Fury90flier said:


> his wrist is forcing the bow down...doesn't appear to be related to stab balance at all.


I have been watching him shoot for 8 years now. He changed the length of the short rods from 15" to 12" and added weight to the front rod. it changed the entire balance of the bow which changed the way way the bow rolls. 

Gary


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

gairsz said:


> I have been watching him shoot for 8 years now. He changed the length of the short rods from 15" to 12" and added weight to the front rod. it changed the entire balance of the bow which changed the way way the bow rolls.
> 
> Gary


I believe that. It sometimes really is that simple.


----------

