# The 70m Thread



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

It's always best to shoot the highest weight you can still dominate in order to shoot a faster arrow. Shorter arrow times in the air means less time for wind to act upon it. This, I believe, is the chief reason archers shoot the heaviest bow they can.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

....all things being equal those who can handle the higher the poundage consistently and comfortably will have always have an advantage....in the long run.

once the wind becomes a factor--and it normally does-- their arrows will be less affected... 

..something like the old sports cliche.."a good big(strong) one will always be better than a good(strong) small man"------unless there are weight/height classes..


----------



## kid_cupid (Nov 12, 2012)

I agree with Stone Bridge, less "air" time, means less influence by the wind. But there is a point of diminishing returns here, I mean, obviously, draw the weight you can control best, never over bow yourself. That first bit of advise I'm sure you know very well but I though it should be said. The other bit of information that you might not know is that if you get up there in draw weight (about 38 or 40 lbs and above), you gotta keep at it almost every day. If you lay off the bow for a couple of days, you'll need to work back up to the weight again, maybe not from scratch but perhaps 6lbs or so to work back up to that higher draw weight. Don't mean to sound preachy, just some friendly advise from what I've been taught.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

kid_cupid said:


> I agree with Stone Bridge, less "air" time, means less influence by the wind. But there is a point of diminishing returns here, I mean, obviously, draw the weight you can control best, never over bow yourself. That first bit of advise I'm sure you know very well but I though it should be said. The other bit of information that you might not know is that if you get up there in draw weight (about 38 or 40 lbs and above), you gotta keep at it almost every day. If you lay off the bow for a couple of days, you'll need to work back up to the weight again, maybe not from scratch but perhaps 6lbs or so to work back up to that higher draw weight. Don't mean to sound preachy, just some friendly advise from what I've been taught.


...very good reminder!!

..once you start increasing your draw weight you better be prepared to CONTINUOUSLY and FAITHFULLY work on maintaining your shooting and strengthening routines or you can easily lose whatever you've achieved..


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stone Bridge said:


> It's always best to shoot the highest weight you can still dominate in order to shoot a faster arrow. Shorter arrow times in the air means less time for wind to act upon it. This, I believe, is the chief reason archers shoot the heaviest bow they can.


Yes, that's the theory, and it makes sense. But the theory doesn't explain the reality, in many cases besides the current Paris World Cup, that the women are shooting just as impressively with dramatically lower draw weights than the men (to the point where I start to wonder why there _are_ men and women divisions in archery, since both shoot 70meters in most tournaments). If you look at the scoring averages in the qualifying rounds of the quarterfinal women, I suspect they were individually and collectively the equal of (or just very nearly the equal of) those of their male counterparts.


----------



## kid_cupid (Nov 12, 2012)

lksseven said:


> Yes, that's the theory, and it makes sense. But the theory doesn't explain the reality, in many cases besides the current Paris World Cup, that the women are shooting just as impressively with dramatically lower draw weights than the men (to the point where I start to wonder why there _are_ men and women divisions in archery, since both shoot 70meters in most tournaments). If you look at the scoring averages in the qualifying rounds of the quarterfinal women, I suspect they were individually and collectively the equal of (or just very nearly the equal of) those of their male counterparts.


Larry, I wonder if the draw length of the women (generally shorter than the male counter parts) has something to do with it. I mean, if the draw length is shorter, so too are the arrows. Shorter arrows at lesser velocities in the wind could mean the same as longer arrows at higher velocities in the same wind in terms of accuracy....just a thought....who knows?

-Dean


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

kid_cupid said:


> Larry, I wonder if the draw length of the women (generally shorter than the male counter parts) has something to do with it. I mean, if the draw length is shorter, so too are the arrows. Shorter arrows at lesser velocities in the wind could mean the same as longer arrows at higher velocities in the same wind in terms of accuracy....just a thought....who knows?
> 
> -Dean


....this theory sounds plausible to me..


----------



## gster123 (Dec 17, 2012)

jmvargas said:


> ...very good reminder!!
> 
> ..once you start increasing your draw weight you better be prepared to CONTINUOUSLY and FAITHFULLY work on maintaining your shooting and strengthening routines or you can easily lose whatever you've achieved..


I generally cant put in the range time and only get to shoot 1 session per week and shoot 52OTF, but I do put in time at my home gym with pretty heavy weights (sessions only take 20 min) and I dont have a problem shooting this weight for a full FITA. 

If you cant shoot you do neet to put in some training.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

gster123 said:


> I generally cant put in the range time and only get to shoot 1 session per week and shoot 52OTF, but I do put in time at my home gym with pretty heavy weights (sessions only take 20 min) and I dont have a problem shooting this weight for a full FITA.
> 
> If you cant shoot you do neet to put in some training.


...when i was shooting regularly and entering as many events i could my normal weekly sessions would consist of shooting 50-100 arrows on at least 3 days on weekdays 

at my 25-yard backyard range and shoot 300-400 arrows at the outdoor range 3 hours away on weekends..

these would enable me to shoot my heaviest bow--37.5# on my fingers--at any event i entered including full fitas..

i also found out that whenever i did not do this faithfully i would have a slightly harder time pulling the weights i needed towards the end of an event...

but then i was already in my late 50s up to my early 60s by then(68 now) so i guess the older you become the more you have to keep up your routines..

..i have stopped my serious keeping for the past 3 years and now keep 26# and a 32# limbs just in case i decide to go back and have to build up my strength again..


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Stone Bridge said:


> It's always best to shoot the highest weight you can still dominate in order to shoot a faster arrow. Shorter arrow times in the air means less time for wind to act upon it. This, I believe, is the chief reason archers shoot the heaviest bow they can.


Remarkable how something that sounds so reasonable can be so wrong...


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

>--gt--> said:


> Remarkable how something that sounds so reasonable can be so wrong...


What's wrong with the statement gt?


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

It might be said; If you can walk off the ranger after shooting 60 arrows,with the same energy level as when you started, the bow weight is correct. 

These are elite athletes that train specific muscles for flexibility and strength (not necessarily with heavy weights), over many years and have worked up to these weights 2-3lbs at a time - not gone out and bought the same weight then tried to shoot it. 

It may also be said that most may just not be able to shoot to the performance required from the gear?


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Sitting on a train here in Tokyo after working w hundreds of shooters on this very subject has me shaking my head bemusedly- and disinclined to post the wall o' text needed to avoid a chain of questions on a phone. 

If you can't figure this out get yourself I strongly suggest getting to an accomplished coach posthaste. But no matter what you decide I recommend you don't take what was posted at face value, please.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

kid_cupid said:


> Larry, I wonder if the draw length of the women (generally shorter than the male counter parts) has something to do with it. I mean, if the draw length is shorter, so too are the arrows. Shorter arrows at lesser velocities in the wind could mean the same as longer arrows at higher velocities in the same wind in terms of accuracy....just a thought....who knows?
> 
> -Dean


Dean, out of a shooting machine, the longer, heavier, more speedily propelled arrows out of a 54lb bow, as opposed to the shorter, lighter, slower arrows matched to a 38lb bow, will definitely better defeat wind and score higher at distance (engineers will talk about kinetic energy and carried momentum downrange to support the theory of this). That's physics. 

But the men aren't shooting machines. An observation of the actual performances suggests to me that, to match the men's performances, the women have to have, with a 38-40lb draw weight, more fine/precise control over their shot than do the 54lb draw weight men. If an archer with a 52lb bow is being matched arrow for arrow by an archer - man or woman - with a 38lb bow, I would say the 52lb archer has less mastery over his/her shot than does the 38lb archer.

Of course, in the two videos that I watched of Paris competition, there was hardly any wind, so maybe higher wind does make the women's collective scores suffer more than the men's (not only the wind's action on the bows/arrows, but also maybe the bigger stronger male's ability to resist being buffeted and thrown off by the wind). 

By the way, the semi-final match between Oh and Brady was magnificent, wasn't it? Both archers dialed in and trading 10's (what, didn't they both shoot eight 10's and four 9's, with Brady's last 9 being a molecule off the 10ring?) under intense pressure - that was really something.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

gster123 said:


> I generally cant put in the range time and only get to shoot 1 session per week and shoot 52OTF, but I do put in time at my home gym with pretty heavy weights (sessions only take 20 min) and I dont have a problem shooting this weight for a full FITA.
> 
> If you cant shoot you do neet to put in some training.


Sometimes it isn't the big muscles that are the reason for being overbowed. Sometimes it's the string fingers - the draw weight doesn't overmatch the drawing muscles, but might overmatch the string fingers' fine precision of finger pressure/control.


----------



## gster123 (Dec 17, 2012)

Very true. Just saying shooting a bow isn't the only way to train. Not for me at least. But good core strength and the grip strength needed also exercises the small muscles.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

gster123 said:


> Very true. Just saying shooting a bow isn't the only way to train. Not for me at least. But good core strength and the grip strength needed also exercises the small muscles.


Agree about strength building in other arenas can be directly beneficial to archery benefit. With all due respect to traditional archery convention, the people who claim gym time won't help don't truly understand the tremendous pervasive strength inherent in all of the muscles in a body that can do 300lb bench presses and other commensurate lifting. If someone comes to archery after many years of heavy lifting and is very strong, that is a great advantage to him/her. But a young or veteran 'normal type person' archer who wishes to 'gain some strength in order to go up in draw weight' probably isn't going to commit to enough (time, intensity) of the demanding weight lifting regimen required to build 'real strength making differences' in the time frame they're contemplating. That's just conjecture on my part, but based upon a lifetime of gym observations.

Gave up heavy weightlifting at 53 (my joints and ligaments took a vote, and it was overwhelmingly 'STOP'), but I still do _some_ weight lifting for shoulders, and I can definitely feel the contributions of it in my shooting - more rock solid command of the draw and anchor and transfer. But, at 57, "strengthening" the ligaments/tendons in my fingers (and keeping them from stiffening as the day/tournament progresses) isn't an option. Physical realities have a seat at the table.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

>--gt--> said:


> Sitting on a train here in Tokyo after working w hundreds of shooters on this very subject has me shaking my head bemusedly- and disinclined to post the wall o' text needed to avoid a chain of questions on a phone.
> 
> If you can't figure this out get yourself I strongly suggest getting to an accomplished coach posthaste. But no matter what you decide I recommend you don't take what was posted at face value, please.


Spoken like a true snob.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

I find the higher the weight OTF the cleaner the release.


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

Seattlepop said:


> I find the higher the weight OTF the cleaner the release.


This. I just shoot whatever weight the 40-42 lbs limbs I have at the time gives me on the fingers and tune from there. Generally sufficient to get you to 90m with any reasonable arrow as your draw weight will scale with your draw length, which will scale the spine and speed accordingly ( within reason of course). Only thing I've noticed is that my border limbs with 47-48 OTF is slight overkill for target archery so if I got another set I'd probably get a set about 4 lbs lighter if not more.
Now, that said having your arrows leave smoketrails is great fun and isn't that why we shoot, for fun?


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

True that higher weight produces cleaner string movement (more force to push the fingers out of the way and a faster recovery). I like to pick up a 20# bow every now and then to really see how my release is (similar to shooting bareshafts).


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

I shoot indoor with 32# and outside with 39-40#. I honestly prefer the feel of the lighter 32# release. Feels like I can be "finer" with the release. This is why I use it indoors where arrow speed is unimportant. If I could reach my targets outside with good speed at 32# I'd shoot that. Never really noticed the release being cleaner. For me it's almost the opposite - lighter is better to a point.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

Quick thought: I think Justin Huish won '96 with low 40 poundage. Consistency, as always, plays a huge role.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

Stone Bridge said:


> It's always best to shoot the highest weight you can still dominate in order to shoot a faster arrow. Shorter arrow times in the air means less time for wind to act upon it. This, I believe, is the chief reason archers shoot the heaviest bow they can.


I have been working on a software program with ballistics simulation for a few months now and have learned a few things about arrow ballistics that initially surprised me.

For the same bow, a heavy arrow and a light arrow will experience almost the same wind drift -- just slightly less for the heavier arrow. The lighter, faster arrow spends more time in the air, and points straighter at the target in a cross wind, these benefits are out-weighed by the fact that wind drift increases as the square of the velocity and the fact that the cross-wind acceleration caused by the drag is less because the arrow mass is greater. As a slight additional benefits, the heavier arrow slows down less and accepts more energy from the bow, as less energy goes towards accelerating the bow limbs.

The best way to decrease wind drift is to use a small arrow diameter, or the equivalent barreled arrow shaft. For instance, an X10 arrow will drift only about two thirds as much as a Carbon One, or a Nano Pro about two thirds as much as a Medallion Pro.

I'm not sure why archers shoot such a heavy bow weight, other than the fact that small-diameter dense arrows tend to be heavy so they take a bit more energy to get to the target with a given launch angle. I think that heavy bow weight might be driven by ego.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

the women are better shooters. They dont need the higher poundage. I have seen Park Sung Hyun shoot a 117 out of 120 on a very windy beach ( on video, not in person) at 70 meters with tournament pressure. I have watched Yun Ok Hee shoot a 118 out of 120 on that same windy beach. 

I watched another korean recurve woman shoot a 120 out of 120 on a windy day when even the male compound shooters only managed a 116-118. One of our female compound shooters was a commentator and she said hats off to her, no one else was able to shoot a perfect 120. 

The women shoot better. They typically shoot 38-44 pounds. 

Which is why i mostly study the women recurve shooters, Park Sung Hyun, Yun Ok Hee, Choi En Young, Erdyniyeva, Ki Bo Bae, etc etc etc. 


Chris


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Chris, would you say that the sexes are separated in competition because the boys might not take too kindly to being beaten by a women? I'm serious. Normally the sexes are divided because the males are stronger and have that advantage. But maybe it's not a big deal in archery and the lighter bow is easier to shoot well. Women do not suffer the macho thing and happily shoot the lighter bow. Advantage ladies?

I think it's an interesting topic and would love to see mixed competition to see how things shake out.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

>--gt--> said:


> Sitting on a train here in Tokyo after working w hundreds of shooters on this very subject has me shaking my head bemusedly- and disinclined to post the wall o' text needed to avoid a chain of questions on a phone.
> 
> If you can't figure this out get yourself I strongly suggest getting to an accomplished coach posthaste. But no matter what you decide I recommend you don't take what was posted at face value, please.





Stone Bridge said:


> Spoken like a true snob.


+1 Stone Bridge

As is often the case, posting something that we could all learn from, or even nothing at all would have been better than that tripe.
And that is my $0.02


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I think they are just better. I have yet to see any of the males shoot a 118 or 120 on a windy tournament. They usually shoot 112-115. 

I dont know why, maybe they feel they have more to prove. Now i am talking about the top of the top archers. 

Even in the mixed team events, I watched Chang Hye Jin outshoot Oh Jin Hyek. She was consistently in the 10 while he shot 9s. And she is a foot shorter than him too. Lol. He was happy she was on his mixed team. You would think that Oh was the better shooter on that team, but she outshot him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxkw_gqGh_s

The women shoot better. 

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

George is just a lovable cactus. You cant get to huggy with him or you get stuck. But from afar, he's a teddy bear. 


Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

HikerDave said:


> I think that heavy bow weight might be driven by ego.


Could be. I remember Brady shooting about 48lbs here in the tournaments. Then for the Olympics he went up to 54 lbs, only shooter with higher poundage was Mauro Nespoli shooting 58 lbs. After the olympics, at tourneys, it was said he was back to 48 lbs. 

Last world cup the commentator was talking about Mauro Nespoli shooting 58 lbs, and he asked Brady who else shot that extreme weight. Brady responded that he too was shooting 58lbs. 


I find it interesting that Mauro Nespoli doesnt do as well in the majority of tourneys. He has placed well in some European events, but the world cups, he has not shot as well. Rene Serrano also shoot 52lbs, and doesnt seem to have consistency at that poundage in the world cups. 

Oh Jin Hyek shoots 46lbs. Lee Seungyun shoots 42lbs. Dai Xiaoxiang shoots 42lbs. 

Chris


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Might vs finesse? Seems very American. It's interesting to compare physiques of the top Americans (beefy and muscular) against other countries like the Koreans and the French. It makes me wonder if 'NTS' requires more strength or if its just guys being guys?


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

nifty said:


> Hi all,
> 
> 
> The Question...Is there a need to shoot with extra draw weight or more to the point, do the men need to shoot that extra draw weight and if so,why?


My thought is perhaps men do need a higher draw weight, but maybe not 10#s more than the women. Men have to overcome the extra weight of the arrows that are stiffer and longer. 

Is it general opinion at elite levels, 
Women shoot low 40s, 27-28" arrow, 600 spine, 300 gr arrows, 190+/- fps speeds?
Men shoot low 50s, 29-30", 400 spine, 350 gr arrows 200+/- fps?

If so then time in the air is nearly equal, is this true? 
Thinking 70m and shorter arrows and lower pounds might have a sweet spot in results for women. 

And Men to get to that sweet spot, because of a longer draw and longer arrow have a sweet spot 10 pounds higher. Yes? No?


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Just remember, "all the weight you can handle" is one thing in practice, and quite another under the spotlight of competition. Some great shooters have perhaps not always displayed great judgement on this point. 

Shooters using reasonable weights are absolutely dominating current podiums. Broadly speaking, shooters who were dominant and then chose to chase ever increasing weights are not achieving the same levels as before shifting. This may be because under the stress of a finals situation, the extra weight adversely affects timing and finesse. And I do fear the long term physical consequences on the shooters at those weights.

I would note that the top Korean shooters are just as strong physically as the strongest "beefy and muscular" top Americans. They just choose to dominate a lower peak weight that they can then totally control under the stress of finals matches.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> .....
> Oh Jin Hyek shoots 46lbs. Lee Seungyun shoots 42lbs. Dai Xiaoxiang shoots 42lbs....
> 
> Chris


I don't know about Dai Xiaoxiang, but Oh and Lee are at totally different level. Michele noted in Antalya that the entire Korean team was shooting 380 X10 .... and this should tell you something by itself. He asked to IM, and IM told they were all shooting >50# and up to 52/53#, as it was also logical to deduct from their arrows. Their limbs were marked 46 to 48# and arrow lenght was more than 29" for OH and IM for sure. Im and Oh (and Kim Bumbin) were over 100Kg in body weight in London, and this can also tell something ... 

Definitely, Koreans have now increased the average poundage they shoot at top level, and I will be surprised if Chinese archers are really at much lower poundage level. I think GT has some more precise infos than those I have, if he wants to share them ...

Anyhow, for all those trying the very high poundage,they should remember that power without control is useless, not in cars only, but in archery too...


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Hi Vittorio, i was just going off what the World cup videos list as their draw weights at the Paris finals. I do not have any first hand knowledge. 


Chris


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

>--gt--> said:


> Just remember, "all the weight you can handle" is one thing in practice, and quite another under the spotlight of competition. Some great shooters have perhaps not always displayed great judgement on this point.
> 
> Shooters using reasonable weights are absolutely dominating current podiums. Broadly speaking, shooters who were dominant and then chose to chase ever increasing weights are not achieving the same levels as before shifting. This may be because under the stress of a finals situation, the extra weight adversely affects timing and finesse. And I do fear the long term physical consequences on the shooters at those weights.
> 
> I would note that the top Korean shooters are just as strong physically as the strongest "beefy and muscular" top Americans. They just choose to dominate a lower peak weight that they can then totally control under the stress of finals matches.


In my first post I stated, "the most weight you can dominate". I clearly said Dominate. 

You dismissed me out of hand. Yet now you're back telling us a shooter must dominate his poundage. 

Little wonder so few are taking you seriously anymore. If it's your idea first it's okay, otherwise.........


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Makes it amazing what Denise could do with #28.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Most of you are missing the main point of a heavier draw weight - it gives a cleaner release. 

Wind drift isn't an issue - these people all know how much to aim off when they have to, and when the wind is heavy, the main problem is the bow being blown around, not the arrows drifting.

As for women vs men - you also have to remember that at Paris and in all the WC finals you are seeing the BEST women archers, and yes, they can and often do outshoot the men. But the depth of field isn't there with the women's division as it is in the men's, and if you put the men and women together, you'll lose a lot of the women in the "second tier" further down the list, and consequently the feeder system for women entering the sport will fall apart.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Stash, I agree about the smaller women's field of shooters. But I'm not convinced elite archers worry about a better release once they are much over 36-38#. I'm a 1200 FITA shooter with a PB of 1276 (not elite) and notice no improvement in release past the high thirties.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*Most of you are missing the main point of a heavier draw weight - it gives a cleaner release. 
*

I have no data to back this up but, don't they also commonly train with 10-15lbs to perfect their form and release? Perhaps for most of us the heavier weight only makes it 'appear' to be a cleaner release because the string is moving faster?

There are magic buttons in archery.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Stone Bridge said:


> Stash, I agree about the smaller women's field of shooters. But I'm not convinced elite archers worry about a better release once they are much over 36-38#. I'm a 1200 FITA shooter with a PB of 1276 (not elite) and notice no improvement in release past the high thirties.


I don't want to sound like >--gt--> here   , but if your PB was 1376 instead of 1276, you might be convinced that having a better release is worth doing *anything*.    (Enough smilies?) 

I'm sure the top guys would do *almost* as well with 36-38# as they do now, but there's a reason they shoot the weights they do, and a cleaner release is one of them. Won't do much for 95% of their shots that are perfect, but the occasional few bad shots certainly are a lot less bad without the fingers snagging on the string.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

bradd7 said:


> I have no data to back this up but, don't they also commonly train with 10-15lbs to perfect their form and release?


No.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Stash said:


> I don't want to sound like >--gt--> here   , but if your PB was 1376 instead of 1276, you might be convinced that a better release is worth doing *anything* you can do obtain.    (Enough smilies?)
> 
> I'm sure the top guys would do almost as well with 36-38" as they do now, but there's a reason they shoot the weights they do, and a cleaner release is one of them. Won't do much for 95% of their shots that are perfect, but the occasional few bad shots certainly could be a lot less bad without the fingers snagging on the string.


Stash,

Exactly. It has nothing to do with "arrow time in the air" .


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

What's better on a windy day? An arrow that takes 2 seconds to arrive on target or an arrow that takes 3 seconds?

I'll take the faster 2 second arrow assuming similar arrow weight and correct tune. 

Wrong again, GT. You're making a career of being wrong lately.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

At that level however, the elites should be reading the wind better. There are flags and now digital indicators all over the field..

Hmmm those flags are blowing straight out left to right.. Better aim left a bit..

Hmm that was a 9 at 9 oclock.. Too much. A little less this time.

and with the amount of practice and "time behind the string" (hmm funny how that keeps coming up even at this level) these athletes spend, the above read and thought process happens in an instant.

from a pure physics stand point, the higher poundage does mean less interaction with the air because of time but if they were not reading the wind well, they would not be at the top of their field.

DC


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

dchan, I live in the Lower Keys of Florida. On Stock Island I have a boat yard where I build wooden boats. I can shoot on this property out to the full 90 meters and so do every day.

Problem is my range runs north and south. By 10am the trade winds are blowing like stink from the east at 15-25 knots. This is perpendicular to my targets. On the windiest days down here I have to aim well off the color to even hit the 122 target. Maybe it's easy to play 6-10 mph but regular wind speeds nearing 30 mph (like I have nearly every day) is something else again. I agree the best way to defeat wind is to be an elite archer. . But the second best way is to shoot a heavy arrow as fast as you can without giving up control.

I once shot in wind conditions approaching hurricane level (nearly 70 mph). You can't believe how an arrow's course can bend in the air to such a radical degree when shot at even 70 meters. I'll bet I was holding 25 feet into the wind and hitting the butt most times. This was done for laughs only.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Stone Bridge said:


> Wrong again, GT. You're making a career of being wrong lately.


_I have a boat yard where I build wooden boats_


_George Tekmitchov is the Senior Recurve Engineer and International Staff Manager for Hoyt Archery Co. Previously a senior product development engineer for Easton, where he developed products such as the X10 arrow shaft, George began shooting competitively in 1983. He has been on USAT, U.S. World Field and U.S. World Games Teams, and has been FITA's Olympic venue commentator in every summer games since 1992._


Yeah, I'm gonna go with >--gt--> on this one...


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Stone Bridge said:


> What's better on a windy day? An arrow that takes 2 seconds to arrive on target or an arrow that takes 3 seconds?
> 
> I'll take the faster 2 second arrow assuming similar arrow weight and correct tune.
> 
> Wrong again, GT. You're making a career of being wrong lately.


Wow. A member for four months and with the insults already. People with fragile egos are sure quick to identify themselves.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

I will tell you that at 22-24 lbs you want more poundage in the wind but that's a different discussion. 130FPS IS affected adversely by wind.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

So let's say someone like Brady can shoot (honestly) 42lbs for the length of time and control, consistency and confidence needed. 

Honest questions: With the advent of the newest high tech limbs and risers, arrows, training and KSL programs, custom made for those elite archers, would it be possible that the higher weight would actually feel like 42lbs on the fingers and body?

And, would anyone besides and elite archer have the ability to shoot the gear to the performance needed to get the most of what it's designed to do?

If there would be a compromise, where would it lie?


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Seattlepop said:


> Wow. A member for four months and with the insults already. People with fragile egos are sure quick to identify themselves.


So GT gets to be a ******* to others because he's been here longer and more people know of his archery background? That's the criteria for being abusive? Sorry I don't measure up.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Stash said:


> _I have a boat yard where I build wooden boats_
> 
> 
> _George Tekmitchov is the Senior Recurve Engineer and International Staff Manager for Hoyt Archery Co. Previously a senior product development engineer for Easton, where he developed products such as the X10 arrow shaft, George began shooting competitively in 1983. He has been on USAT, U.S. World Field and U.S. World Games Teams, and has been FITA's Olympic venue commentator in every summer games since 1992._
> ...


Show me where I was wrong. I said a person must dominate his bow regardless of how much he pulls. I also said a heavy, fast arrow is best in the wind. How is this wrong? You can like GT all you want but all he's done is come in after the fact and said everything I said earlier but claimed these common sense facts as his own.

And he was a bully in the process. Some hero he you got there Seatlepop.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Stone Bridge said:


> It's always best to shoot the highest weight you can still dominate* in order to shoot a faster arrow*. Shorter arrow times in the air means less time for wind to act upon it. *This, I believe, is the chief reason archers shoot the heaviest bow they can*.


Granted, everyone knows its best to hold the most weight you can shoot effectively. You were off to a good start. However, you missed twice for the reason to do so. If you had been around long enough to benefit from the truly knowledgeable people who frequent this board you would have known that. 



Stone Bridge said:


> Show me where I was wrong. I said a person must dominate his bow regardless of how much he pulls. I also said a heavy, fast arrow is best in the wind. How is this wrong? You can like GT all you want but all he's done is come in after the fact and *said everything I said earlier *but claimed these common sense facts as his own.
> 
> And he was a bully in the process. Some hero he you got there Seatlepop.


As you can see you didn't really say that. You projected on others what you think works well for you. Around here that can be a mistake. Just ask me 

And yes I have some "heroes" on this board from whom I have learned immeasurably. I have heroes in my club as well. Hell some of them are only 13 y/o. I'm hardly the expert archer, but knowledge doesn't always translate into skill, sadly. 

Hide your ego under your keyboard and sit back and learn. Its a nice ride.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Stone Bridge said:


> So GT gets to be a ******* to others because he's been here longer and more people know of his archery background? That's the criteria for being abusive? Sorry I don't measure up.


No, GT gets to be respected as an authority on archery because of his credentials. He gets to be a ******* to others because he, like everyone else regardless of their background and time on the forum, has the right to free speech (within the rules of this forum). He is not known to have a fragile ego, by the way.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stash said:


> Most of you are missing the main point of a heavier draw weight - it gives a cleaner release.
> 
> Wind drift isn't an issue - these people all know how much to aim off when they have to, and when the wind is heavy, the main problem is the bow being blown around, not the arrows drifting.
> 
> As for women vs men - you also have to remember that at Paris and in all the WC finals you are seeing the BEST women archers, and yes, they can and often do outshoot the men. But the depth of field isn't there with the women's division as it is in the men's, and if you put the men and women together, you'll lose a lot of the women in the "second tier" further down the list, and consequently the feeder system for women entering the sport will fall apart.



"...you are seeing the BEST women archers, and yes, they can and often do outshoot the men." 

ummm, I thought this (outscoring the others) was the point.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stone Bridge said:


> What's better on a windy day? An arrow that takes 2 seconds to arrive on target or an arrow that takes 3 seconds?
> 
> I'll take the faster 2 second arrow assuming similar arrow weight and correct tune.
> 
> Wrong again, GT. You're making a career of being wrong lately.


At 70meters, a 190fps (feet per second) arrow arrives at 1.22 seconds. A 215fps arrives at 1.14 seconds. 8/100ths of a second difference. Is that 8/100ths of a second worth it? Much of the time, the results seem to indicate that it is not worth what's required to get that 8/100ths advantage.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

lksseven said:


> At 70meters, a 190fps (feet per second) arrow arrives at 1.22 seconds. A 215fps arrives at 1.14 seconds. 8/100ths of a second faster.


And that would be why I didn't bother with a reply to that specious "33%" argument. (well, that, and I didn't see it until it was quoted, as the ignore list is quite effective except for that loophole)

But thanks for clarifying this for those who might not have realized it.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Stash said:


> As for women vs men - you also have to remember that at Paris and in all the WC finals you are seeing the BEST women archers, and yes, they can and often do outshoot the men. But the depth of field isn't there with the women's division as it is in the men's, and if you put the men and women together, you'll lose a lot of the women in the "second tier" further down the list, and consequently the feeder system for women entering the sport will fall apart.



which is why i said 



chrstphr said:


> _*Now i am talking about the top of the top archers.*_
> Chris


I wasnt meaning all female archers, or that the men should compete against the women. I was stating that the top women archers at the world cups and olympics seem to routinely shoot higher scores than the men while shooting lower poundage. 

Chris


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

I often have a bit of fun pointing out how women tend to beat men in mixed team competitions, score wise. I know Jenny and Brady can relate to this on occasion.

The very best women may well be better than the very best men in some circumstances with all else being equal in terms of conditions or pressures. That is not to say that one group has more merit than the other, but it is fun to look out for.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

I think that to better understand the differencies between men and women in archery results, we should start to compare them as archers of different size and strenght rather than athlets of different sex.
Men tend to be bigger with longer arms and bigger hands, so they need longer arrows, that are heavier and need therefore higher poundages to fly at same distance. More poundage is also needed to get a clean release as of the bigger hand (gt is right, more poundage means better release under stress ...). Speed of the arrow by itself is not so important, but a cleaner release with arrow leaving the bow as straight as possible is the dominating factor in wind. 
So said, there is of course no difference in archers of different sex if they are of the same "size", but as an average, women have advantage overall on men because of their average smaller structure. 
The perfect archer? Well, closer in structure to Park Sung Hyun, surely not to Guillelme Duborpere (French archer, in the national team in the 90's, >2 mt tall..). 27" draw lenght + 44# can do miracles ....


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

lksseven said:


> At 70meters, a 190fps (feet per second) arrow arrives at 1.22 seconds. A 215fps arrives at 1.14 seconds. 8/100ths of a second difference. Is that 8/100ths of a second worth it? Much of the time, the results seem to indicate that it is not worth what's required to get that 8/100ths advantage.


Great facts. It proves accuracy with a bow weight that can be handled properly outweighs all else, as once the arrow leaves we have no control over the wind, and before it leaves all we can do is a best guess.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

I can see where it might be interesting to put the men and women together at the top levels, but at what point in their development do we start to combine them? Are you suggesting something on the order of separate male and female team selections, qualification rounds and preliminary eliminations until we have 8 men and 8 women left, than combine them into a single elimination, starting with the round of 16? Or 4 and 4 in a round of 8? Could work, I guess. I don't see the point though.

If anyone is seriously thinking about classes based on size or weight, yeah, I can see that  Not only just plain stupid, now we have to have 4 or 6 times as many archers. "Next up, the quarter finals in the Women's Compound 50 kilo class, followed by the 65 and 80 kilo classes".


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

I wouldn't mind seeing the elimination of sexes in archery. Make it like the equestrian events where men and women compete together.

I honestly think the men would complain the most in the end. Not many would stand for a woman beating them.


----------



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

world records: 699-682 (shot by super women  ) still quite a difference.......


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Problem with that is, you'd not see many women. Again, while the very few top women can keep up with the men, there's just not as much depth in the field. Few women would qualify for teams and finals, and it would discourage women from getting involved in the competition aspect of the sport.

Just a few numbers for you to consider: In the compound division in the 4 World Cup events this year, men shot 50 qualifier round scores of 700+. Women shot - guess how many? One.

I didn't compare the full 1440 round scores for the recurvers because the women shot a closer round than the men, but if you look at just the 70M scores during the 1440 round qualifiers, the men shot 56 scores of 330+, and the women shot 22 scores of 330+. Closer than for the compounders, but a clear edge for the men.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> world records: 699-682 (shot by super women  ) still quite a difference.......


Actually, the FITA highest official 70meter single round is still held by female extraordinaire Park Sung-Hyun - 351, nine years ago. Men's record for single round is 350 (although Oh shot a 354 on his way to the 699 world record 72arrow at 2012 Olympics - and I think his teammate shot a first half 353 in the same event)

http://www.worldarchery.org/en-us/results/records/worldolympic.aspx


----------



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

lksseven said:


> Actually, the FITA highest official 70meter single round is still held by female extraordinaire Park Sung-Hyun - 351, nine years ago. Men's record for single round is 350 (although Oh shot a 354 on his way to the 699 world record 72arrow at 2012 Olympics - and I think his teammate shot a first half 353 in the same event)
> 
> http://www.worldarchery.org/en-us/results/records/worldolympic.aspx


you surely meant Mr. Im no Oh .......still I would say whole fita70 round is better example....

also, people saying that women shoot at same level with men....but what they really mean is KOREAN women shoot at same/almost same level .....


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*but what they really mean is KOREAN women shoot at same/almost same level ..... *

Is this because they have a larger pool of archers to draw from and that they start learning exactly the same methods at a very early age, leaving the rest of the world at a disadvantage right now?


----------



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

bradd7 said:


> *but what they really mean is KOREAN women shoot at same/almost same level ..... *
> 
> Is this because they have a larger pool of archers to draw from and that they start learning exactly the same methods at a very early age, leaving the rest of the world at a disadvantage right now?


Yes and yes......but you forgot 1 important part.....their shooting arrows volumes, their working ethic....


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

Vittorio said:


> I think that to better understand the differencies between men and women in archery results, we should start to compare them as archers of different size and strenght rather than athlets of different sex.
> Men tend to be bigger with longer arms and bigger hands, so they need longer arrows, that are heavier and need therefore higher poundages to fly at same distance. More poundage is also needed to get a clean release as of the bigger hand (gt is right, more poundage means better release under stress ...). Speed of the arrow by itself is not so important, but a cleaner release with arrow leaving the bow as straight as possible is the dominating factor in wind.
> So said, there is of course no difference in archers of different sex if they are of the same "size", but as an average, women have advantage overall on men because of their average smaller structure.
> The perfect archer? Well, closer in structure to Park Sung Hyun, surely not to Guillelme Duborpere (French archer, in the national team in the 90's, >2 mt tall..). 27" draw lenght + 44# can do miracles ....


That makes sense -- longer arrow means more massive arrow which means higher poundage required. I hadn't really thought about that before.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

bradd7 said:


> *but what they really mean is KOREAN women shoot at same/almost same level ..... *
> 
> Is this because they have a larger pool of archers to draw from and that they start learning exactly the same methods at a very early age, leaving the rest of the world at a disadvantage right now?


Nobody on earth is at any disadvantage to the Korean's unless they need an excuse for failure. All archers have the same choices the Koreans have. Most simply choose not to dedicate themselves so early and often.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Stone Bridge. IMHO...I hear ya, but USA might not be where it is without coach Lee and the methods he brought. Canada for example is still running on old-style other than what they can copy from Coach Lee and KSL, do are other countries. So the Koreans, that have come together as coaches actually designed what coach Lee is teaching but the students start at a very early age. In Korea it seems that archery is not only a school functional exercise, but also a National sport (confirmation needed) and in this they have a tremendous pool from which to choose. It already been proven from recent podium swapping that Korea has an enormous amount of depth in the quality of their archers. In essence, they learn a Zen approach in life as well as in archery so they are accustomed with it, which is not included as much in other countries, and what some Oly archers pre 2006 refused to accept as they held onto the their old methods...and began to slide in the world standings.

Also IMHO, I would venture to say that most Korean women are better than most men in the world, and at a greater depth of archers. For every one really good world archers,men or women, there seems be 5 or 6 Koreans waiting in the wings that can beat them, but can't beat their own champions, to get the chance at the world. That's just my observation...


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

bradd7 said:


> In essence, they learn a Zen approach in life as well as in archery so they are accustomed with it, which is not included as much in other countries, and what some Oly archers pre 2006 refused to accept as they held onto the their old methods...and began to slide in the world standings..


I dont get your 2006 analogy and why you draw the line there. The Korean women have been winning since 1984. the Korean men since 1988. They basically went to school on how 70s shooters shot especially John Williams, Daryl Pace and Rick McKinney. You can see their form in the Korean shot sequence today. 

Rick Mckinney and Daryl Pace showed the world what could be done with form and how to shoot and the Koreans went to school on it. They did not start KSL method until later. Their winning streak started before KSL method and most of the Olympic winners from 1984-96 did not shoot the KSL NTS method. 


Chris 




Chris

They have won just as much pre 2006 than after.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*I dont get your 2006 analogy and why you draw the line there. The Korean women have been winning since 1984. the Korean men since 1988.*

That's what I mean...the Koreans have rarely left the podium since then because of the depth of the pool they have had since then. Other countries archers, that came before 2006, with great success should be applauded for doing so well without the Korean system or for taking what they needed from it to perform their best. However, here comes Brady Ellison and he's getting near what the Koreans are doing, because it seems as though he is dedicated to a Korean coach that grew up in 'their system of training the top archers in the world-proven to the world over years'. In most countries, including my own, it's only been fairly recently that we can accept others cultures ideas of spirituality and how it pertains to most parts of life, so we rejected it to various levels. It could just be that, along with biomechanics, that this spirituality part is equally important as the KSL site mentions the blending of archery with spirituality portions frequently. Some still take what they need based on the biomechanics and ignore the spirituality aspect, but according to the KSL website both are equally important. The Korean people already know this from birth and (I feel) that podium visits by other countries will be sporadic until they accept KSL for what it really is...like Brady. 

No one shot the KSL method, the KSL method was development of the old combined with the new - biomechanics is only a newly coined word for dedicated muscle control, used to explain the proper form to masses of people, using the latest word for attraction. IE: It's more attractive to masses using 'biomechniocs than it is to say, 'squeeze your shoulder blades together'

In archery, 2006 seemed to be the turning point where archers from all other countries said to themselves...we were wrong and it's being proven. Coach Lee had the guts and drive and confidence to prove it, USA had the media influence to tell the archery world to wake up.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Korean men - regarding their 'winning' ... I know their body of work is really impressive over the last 15 - 20 years. But am I wrong in thinking that 2012 was the first individual Olympic gold for the Korean men?


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

lksseven said:


> Korean men - regarding their 'winning' ... I know their body of work is really impressive over the last 15 - 20 years. But am I wrong in thinking that 2012 was the first individual Olympic gold for the Korean men?


No, you are quite correct. Oh Jin Hyek is the first Korean man to win individual gold at the Olympic Games.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

bradd7 said:


> *I dont get your 2006 analogy and why you draw the line there. The Korean women have been winning since 1984. the Korean men since 1988.*
> 
> That's what I mean...they have rarely left the podium since then because of the depth of the pool they have had since then. Those that came before 2006, with great success should be applauded for doing so well without the Korean system or for taking what they needed from it to perform their best. However, here comes Brady Ellison and he's getting near what the Koreans are doing, because it seems as though he is dedicated to a Korean coach that grew up in 'their system of training the top archers in the world-proven to the world over years'. In most countries, including my own, it's only been fairly recently that we can accept others cultures ideas of spirituality and how it pertains to most parts of life, so we rejected it. It could just be that, along with biomechanics, that this spirituality part is equally important as the KSL site mentions the blending of archery with it frequently.


Brad,

Your insinuation, if I glean it correctly, is that part of the reason that the Koreans do so well is because of Zen or Buddha or Hindu influences? And Brady is doing well, perhaps in part, because he's learned how to embrace the spirituality of other cultures since his coach KSL is Korean?

You do know, don't you, that KSL is a Christian and not afraid to talk about his faith to all those around him? And that some goodly number of Korean archers are Christians, too. 

I'm making zero contention about where religion plays into sports performance - just pointing out that if, as it seems, _you_ are doing so, the premise your position is based on is _off_ base.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...=d2GbIatQqbjPnwChZrB9fA&bvm=bv.53217764,d.dmg

Seven, yes I know this. Brady was baptisted? 

Zen isn't a religion as much as it is a feeling of peace and harmony within. Lee talks about 'zen' breathing all the time. Zen is a place in the mind, not an external happening. Nothing at all to do with any specific religious belief.

Has this stuff ever happened before in any archery world you can think of?

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...=d2GbIatQqbjPnwChZrB9fA&bvm=bv.53217764,d.dmg

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...=d2GbIatQqbjPnwChZrB9fA&bvm=bv.53217764,d.dmg


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

bradd7 said:


> *I dont get your 2006 analogy and why you draw the line there. The Korean women have been winning since 1984. the Korean men since 1988.*
> 
> That's what I mean...the Koreans have rarely left the podium since then because of the depth of the pool they have had since then. Other countries archers, that came before 2006, with great success should be applauded for doing so well without the Korean system or for taking what they needed from it to perform their best. However, here comes Brady Ellison and he's getting near what the Koreans are doing, because it seems as though he is dedicated to a Korean coach that grew up in 'their system of training the top archers in the world-proven to the world over years'. In most countries, including my own, it's only been fairly recently that we can accept others cultures ideas of spirituality and how it pertains to most parts of life, so we rejected it to various levels. It could just be that, along with biomechanics, that this spirituality part is equally important as the KSL site mentions the blending of archery with spirituality portions frequently. Some still take what they need based on the biomechanics and ignore the spirituality aspect, but according to the KSL website both are equally important. The Korean people already know this from birth and (I feel) that podium visits by other countries will be sporadic until they accept KSL for what it really is...like Brady.
> 
> ...


Its hardly new. Biomechanic theory in sports has been around for decades.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

_"Zen isn't a religion as much as it is a feeling of peace and harmony within. Lee talks about 'zen' breathing all the time. Zen is a place in the mind, not an external happening. Nothing at all to do with any specific religious belief."_

Mr. Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zen ) disagrees - Zen: a Japanese sect of Mahayana Buddhism that aims at enlightenment by direct intuition through meditation

In any case, the great thing about archery is that the target face is 'the truth', period. It doesn't care about your height, your weight, your color, your religion, your age, your nationality, your pocketbook, or anything else. There are no excuses, only cold hard round rings of fact.

What you can believe with confidence is that every successful archer knows how to find his/her focus - that some of them don't use the word Zen (which doesn't, by the way, have a monopoly or the copyright on "inner peace") to describe their process/technique doesn't make their technique any less effective.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Seattlepop said:


> Its hardly new. Biomechanic theory in sports has been around for decades.





lksseven said:


> _"Zen isn't a religion as much as it is a feeling of peace and harmony within. Lee talks about 'zen' breathing all the time. Zen is a place in the mind, not an external happening. Nothing at all to do with any specific religious belief."_
> 
> Mr. Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zen ) disagrees - Zen: a Japanese sect of Mahayana Buddhism that aims at enlightenment by direct intuition through meditation
> 
> ...


Webster has to write something that can't truly be described...lol To me, and I could be wrong, Zen is faith. Not in a higher power, but a faith in One's Self - that special place where there is nothing between you and your target and what you know(how to do). Focus without thinking, as knowing and believing in Self is all that is required. Having faith in that moment that what you have learned is pure and correct (for you) and that arrow is the most important thing. Some archers refuse to let go, or never find that place....but I could be wrong.

Yep, as I said Lee has used biomechanicsas an attractant and a better way to describe the form and it's behaviors.

No one has the monopoly, and yes there is a very special place that some seem to get too and others don't bother or perhaps fear trying. I only said that Coach Lee describes his breathing technique as Zen breathing (maybe other parts of the website too) and his method combines whatever spirituality you need to get you into this 'zen-peace, harmony and trust' mode. I didn't say that any one was any better than the other. All I said is that it seems as though he finds both technique and spirituality (choose yours here) equally important in every shot (to get to that 'zen-like' space each time). And I also said that some archers that work every detail might disagree with this method and there are others that work towards this subconsciousness with vigor. Combining the two completely 'seems' t be producing more podium visits these days.

In other words...Become one with the bow.... Grasshopper. :shade:


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

this is a fun thread, holy cow, keep it going


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

bradd7 said:


> Webster has to write something that can't truly be described...lol To me, and I could be wrong, Zen is faith. Not in a higher power, but a faith in One's Self - that special place where there is nothing between you and your target and what you know(how to do). Focus without thinking, as knowing and believing in Self is all that is required. Having faith in that moment that what you have learned is pure and correct (for you) and that arrow is the most important thing. Some archers refuse to let go, or never find that place....but I could be wrong.
> 
> Yep, as I said Lee has used biomechanicsas an attractant and a better way to describe the form and it's behaviors.
> 
> ...


Okay, these are just dinner party quibbles, but ...

_"Webster has to write something that can't truly be described"_ 
and yet _you_ then proceed to write 300 words trying to do just that. You're wearing me out here, dude.

_"a faith in One's Self..."_
well, I would prefer to substitute 'confidence in my preparation' instead of 'a faith in One's Self' (and I don't merit a capital O, anyway). 'Confidence' is what you Know based upon 75,000 or 200,000 or 1,000,000 repetitions of form grooved, arrows shot, feedback analyzed. 

_"- that special place where there is nothing between you and your target and what you know(how to do)."_
we agree. Yipppeeeeee - the new phone books are here! The new phone books are here!

_"Combining the two completely 'seems' t be producing more podium visits these days."_
It's the same number of podium visits in every tournament since forever - three. (that's just a quip I couldn't resist).
I have no idea on what tangible basis you can claim that more medals are being won as a result of more frequency of combined spirituality/technique (how does Archer A have more technique than Archer B, anyway? Each of them has a technique - there is no 'more').

_"some archers that work every detail might disagree with this method"_
Okay, first of all, any archer that wins on a big stage 'works every detail' - some of them just don't talk about it very much.
And, second of all, _"this method"_?? I can't find a method in there anywhere - maybe a doobie or two, though.

_"subconsciousness with vigor"_ 
Okay, ... never mind, just can't discuss this anymore ... someone else tag me. Please.


----------



## BenConnor (Feb 15, 2013)

For an exposition of Zen in the art of Archery... you really can't do better than reading "Zen in the art of Archery" . Or download the audio book from Audible for $10.

Written in 1936 by a German academic who learnt Japanese traditional archery while working in Japan. To my ears, a surprising amount of it is relevant to modern target archery, whether you take the religious perspective on Zen or not. 

If I recall correctly, the author 's motivation for the study of Zen was less religious _per se _and more 'mystical', mysticism being conscious, personal awareness of ultimate reality.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

BenConnor said:


> For an exposition of Zen in the art of Archery... you really can't do better than reading "Zen in the art of Archery" . Or download the audio book from Audible for $10.
> 
> Written in 1936 by a German academic who learnt Japanese traditional archery while working in Japan. To my ears, a surprising amount of it is relevant to modern target archery, whether you take the religious perspective on Zen or not.
> 
> If I recall correctly, the author 's motivation for the study of Zen was less religious _per se _and more 'mystical', mysticism being conscious, personal awareness of ultimate reality.


Have read it. Interesting book. Found Rick McKinney's The Simple Art of Winning to be much more useful to my archery progress, though.


----------



## BenConnor (Feb 15, 2013)

lksseven said:


> Have read it. Interesting book. Found Rick McKinney's The Simple Art of Winning to be much more useful to my archery progress, though.


For sure. I wouldn't argue it's the best guidebook for learning archery.

What I thought was interesting about ZITAOA was how neatly the mystical 'it' (the Buddha in you, or whatever ) coincided with what Lanny Bassham calls 'your subconscious mind' or Tim Gallway calls 'Self 2' (in The Inner Game of Golf). The common message: That's the part that shoots the shot. Your conscious self (ego, whatever) has no business getting excited or claiming credit if you shoot well, and no business telling the subconscious self how to do it.

There's also some good stuff in there about teaching and learning, to the effect that a teacher can't actually 'teach' you anything, they just provide the guidance / direction to allow you to learn it for yourself. The teacher's art is to tell you no more than you are ready to hear.

My very selective interpretation, of course


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

BenConnor said:


> For sure. I wouldn't argue it's the best guidebook for learning archery.
> 
> What I thought was interesting about ZITAOA was how neatly the mystical 'it' (the Buddha in you, or whatever ) coincided with what Lanny Bassham calls 'your subconscious mind' or Tim Gallway calls 'Self 2' (in The Inner Game of Golf). The common message: That's the part that shoots the shot. Your conscious self (ego, whatever) has no business getting excited or claiming credit if you shoot well, and no business telling the subconscious self how to do it.
> 
> ...


Ben,

_"The common message: That's the part that shoots the shot. Your conscious self (ego, whatever) has no business getting excited or claiming credit if you shoot well, and no business telling the subconscious self how to do it."_
In my view of the world, my subconscious works for me, not the other way around. There are many occasions when I'm well advised to relax and let my subconscious do its job, but its job is still 'to work for me'.

_There's also some good stuff in there about teaching and learning, to the effect that a teacher can't actually 'teach' you anything, they just provide the guidance / direction to allow you to learn it for yourself. The teacher's art is to tell you no more than you are ready to hear._
This I very much agree with.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

You guys got to where I was trying hard to do in too many words. Thanks.

In many things I have found that there are two main types of people, and its really evident in archery. Last night I was watching and Olympics vids with Williams, Pace, McKinney, and then some other newer videos to watch for the 'zen'. Some archers seem to have to work every detail, even in competitions, and you can see it in their faces, or even in their form back from in the day. They have to stay intent from beginning to end, to keep focus. They are focusing intently but don't seem to hit the 'zen' moment. Then there are archers that almost forget the details and just do it. They do what they do, then can turn around and have a laugh with their coach in between shots. To me, it may even be termed 'the zone' and 'then zen', differences. I found Williams, Pace and Brady shoot from a zen, while McKinney stays in the zone, and the differences are in the scores. (but this is just my observation) It seems to be the difference between mind-struggling from the intentness and just letting everything go to be fully in the moment, with no worries whatsoever. Kind of a 'no big-deal' mindset. You hit a bull, no big deal-happy, You win, no big deal-but happy and grateful. You lose, no big deal - but happy. Never any sense of panic or fear or anger because they don't have to think, they already 'know' and simply do. It might also be the difference on the line between a 'one more detail to think about to make an adjustment' and 'no need to think about details, just adjust'? - Allowing the subconscious to become greater than the conscious, within that moment.

Someone has on their signature 'Zen is the art of hearing one hand clapping.'


----------



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

bradd7 said:


> You guys got to where I was trying hard to do in too many words. Thanks.
> 
> In many things I have found that there are two main types of people, and its really evident in archery. Last night I was watching and Olympics vids with Williams, Pace, McKinney, and then some other newer videos to watch for the 'zen'. Some archers seem to have to work every detail, even in competitions, and you can see it in their faces, or even in their form back from in the day. They have to stay intent from beginning to end, to keep focus. They are focusing intently but don't seem to hit the 'zen' moment. Then there are archers that almost forget the details and just do it. They do what they do, then can turn around and have a laugh with their coach in between shots. To me, it may even be termed 'the zone' and 'then zen', differences. I found Williams, Pace and Brady shoot from a zen, while McKinney stays in the zone, and the differences are in the scores. (but this is just my observation) It seems to be the difference between mind-struggling from the intentness and just letting everything go to be fully in the moment, with no worries whatsoever. Kind of a 'no big-deal' mindset. You hit a bull, no big deal-happy, You win, no big deal-but happy and grateful. You lose, no big deal - but happy. Never any sense of panic or fear or anger because they don't have to think, they already 'know' and simply do. It might also be the difference on the line between a 'one more detail to think about to make an adjustment' and 'no need to think about details, just adjust'? - Allowing the subconscious to become greater than the conscious, within that moment.
> 
> Someone has on their signature 'Zen is the art of hearing one hand clapping.'


So you saying Mr. McKinney was "only" 3x world champion because he was "just in zone"?? are you kidding?? I don't get it......also don't understand this "the differences are in the scores"......


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> So you saying Mr. McKinney was "only" 3x world champion because he was "just in zone"?? are you kidding?? I don't get it......also don't understand this "the differences are in the scores"......


I see that you don't get it and maybe you are one of the details guys. But check out Pace versus Mckinney (teammates) and you'll see the difference.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

AR-PE-LO,

Agree.

Bradd7, every successful archer, when he/she is 'on', is fully 'in the moment'. That's what being 'on' means. 'It' comes and 'it' goes. Shooting well/winning when you're 'on' is easy. The real trick is figuring out how to hold your form together and win on those days when you're not 'on'. That's where thinking/analyzing, and attention to details comes into play.

Darrel Pace was at the forefront of many advances in archery form, working/experimenting tirelessly on minute aspects of form (he pioneered the quickening of the release by using a radar gun to measure his release time and worked to improve it; also advancements in alignment theory). All of that required conscious/systematic thinking and analysis. 

Rick McKinney was likely our most cerebral archer in terms of his methodical approach and examination/pursuit of details (have you read his book? If not, I think a lot of readers here - me, for sure - would love it if you didn't wax inaccurate in pontificating on what McKinney was 'all about'). He was a major contributor to the development of the X10 arrow, and the Beiter nock - working closely with the engineers of the major archery manufacturers in the world to develop world class products that have become the standards for 20 years - that doesn't happen by contemplating your navel and chanting. At one point, McKinney held the world records simultaneously for 50m, 70m, 90m, plus Full Fita and Single Elimination scores. Over a dozen years at the top, he won 3 individual world championships and 6 or 8 US Nationals plus a boatload of Olympic and team medals. It's too bad all that _thinking_ was holding him back, eh?

The archetypal archer you're continually describing over and over in your posts - the KungFu archer who 'becomes emptiness' with no conscious attention to his/her craft - doesn't exist, not the ones who make it to the podiums, anyway. You've got it exactly backwards: Each one of those archers you've mentioned - and all the other high level shooters - are processing truckloads of data like an IBM mainframe. They're completely aware of each aspect of their 'shot process' - but they see all the data 'complete, not as a checklist of line items; they're seeing the quilt, rather than 18 separate pieces of cloth. That's not subconscious - that's matching _this arrow/this sight picture/this wind flag picture_ with a past zillion arrows/zillion hours of ingrained muscle memory/zillion sight pictures.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

*'The archetypal archer you're continually describing over and over in your posts - the KungFu archer who 'becomes emptiness' with no conscious attention to his/her craft - doesn't exist, not the ones who make it to the podiums, anyway. You've got it exactly backwards: Each one of those archers you've mentioned - and all the other high level shooters - are processing truckloads of data like an IBM mainframe. They're completely aware of each aspect of their 'shot process' - but they see all the data 'complete, not as a checklist of line items; they're seeing the quilt, rather than 18 separate pieces of cloth. That's not subconscious - that's a zillion arrows and hours of ingrained muscle memory and sight pictures and concentration techniques. '*

No, I don't think I have it backwards as this is what we are talking about. The differences between the two types of archer's mindsets. The difference between the zone and the zen. All good archers get into the zone but many don't get into the zen and are successful at it, like Mr. Mckinney (And how could I not applaud his accomplishments and what he's brought to archery in all respects?)...but he's not Mr. Williams, Pace or Ellison, and in barebow we can talk about Mr Eagleton, I am feeling that the difference is the ability to get into this totally ingrained zen -, just do it mode. That's why Mr Lee, and other coaches around the world as using the method for balance of both zone+zen.


----------



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

bradd7 said:


> *'The archetypal archer you're continually describing over and over in your posts - the KungFu archer who 'becomes emptiness' with no conscious attention to his/her craft - doesn't exist, not the ones who make it to the podiums, anyway. You've got it exactly backwards: Each one of those archers you've mentioned - and all the other high level shooters - are processing truckloads of data like an IBM mainframe. They're completely aware of each aspect of their 'shot process' - but they see all the data 'complete, not as a checklist of line items; they're seeing the quilt, rather than 18 separate pieces of cloth. That's not subconscious - that's a zillion arrows and hours of ingrained muscle memory and sight pictures and concentration techniques. '*
> 
> No, I don't think I have it backwards as this is what we are talking about. The differences between the two types of archer's mindsets. The difference between the zone and the zen. All good archers get into the zone but many don't get into the zen and are successful at it, like Mr. Mckinney (And how could I not applaud his accomplishments and what he's brought to archery in all respects?)...but he's not Mr. Williams, Pace or Ellison, and in barebow we can talk about Mr Eagleton, I am feeling that the difference is the ability to get into this totally ingrained zen -, just do it mode. That's why Mr Lee, and other coaches around the world as using the method for balance of both zone+zen.


can I ask....do you know the said archers personally? or you get you "feeling" from videos?

I just wish Rick see the disscusion now


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Bradd7,

_"No, I don't think I have it backwards"_

Oh, I _get_ - facts/schmacts - that you don't believe you have it backwards. 

You're talking about stuff that you don't know anything about - literally making stuff up.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Ar-Pe-Lo said:


> can I ask....do you know the said archers personally? or you get you "feeling" from videos?
> 
> I just wish Rick see the disscusion now


No, need to know them personally. It's evident in their demeanor if you basically know what to look for. 

Here's a simple way to identify it. Have you never walked up to the line, brought the bow back and let er rip or maybe even whipped back the string of a trad bow and let it fly. All you had to do was to point the arrow and it hit center? Or you just raised the bow and had absolutely knew it was going to hit the center and with no further thought you release and it hit center? That's it. 

Go to the 84 Olympics video and watch all of the people on the line at once. You'll see some struggling with their mind, and then Pace doing what he simply learned to do. All that is left to do is putting the sight on the target, as if it's right in front of him 2' away. Williams in '74 seems to do the same, as does Brady...take the shot, joke around with the coach-The difference between knowing and trying.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I don't understand how the 70M thread got taken over by someone who does not shoot 70M. As for Rick McKinney, I think he is sitting back and chuckling at your conclusions about his mental state.


----------



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

bradd7 said:


> No, need to know them personally. It's evident in their demeanor if you basically know what to look for.
> 
> Here's a simple way to identify it. Have you never walked up to the line, brought the bow back and let er rip or maybe even whipped back the string of a trad bow and let it fly. All you had to do was to point the arrow and it hit center? Or you just raised the bow and had absolutely knew it was going to hit the center and with no further thought you release and it hit center? That's it.
> 
> Go to the 84 Olympics video and watch all of the people on the line at once. You'll see some struggling with their mind, and then Pace doing what he simply learned to do. All that is left to do is putting the sight on the target, as if it's right in front of him 2' away. Williams in '74 seems to do the same, as does Brady...take the shot, joke around with the coach-The difference between knowing and trying.


Ok so you don't know what's actually going on with these guys.....you just guessing by their external appearance..... ok I'm quiting this disscusion as there is no point now...


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

AS I said Mid, Just MY observations and discussing what I personally observed knowing only as much as I do about zen, and it doesn't matter what distance we shoot at it, the mental states are all the same. If you've never really just hauled back the string and put the arrow on the target with absolute confidence requiring no further details/thought, then you won't know what it is. Some don't, and personally I am searching for it and I don't have a Korean coach to teach me. 

I'm not arguing who is better of whom, I am searching for it but sharing what I observe and asking questions about what I don't.

I have zone, but not zen...but working on it.


----------



## nifty (Jun 21, 2009)

So back to the original question. Dai X X from China is runner up to Mr Oh in Paris with only 42lb OTF in no wind. How fast does the string have to leave the fingers in order for you to be accurate?


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Who knows? Maybe if he shot 50# he would have had a cleaner release and a few of those 9s might have been 10s and that 7 would have been an 8 and he would have won? Or maybe if he shot 50# he couldn't handle it and some of those 10s would have been 9s and that 7 would have been a 5, or maybe he wouldn't have even made it into the finals in the first place? Or maybe he was shooting 38# previously and the 42# made some of his 9s into 10s and some of his 8s into 9s, which is why he got to the finals?

No way of knowing, but every archer has to decide for himself. 

You can discuss it on the archery forum until your keyboard wears out, but the only way to arrive at the best setup is to shoot a range of weights until your figure out what setup gives you the highest scores.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

bradd7 said:


> No, need to know them personally. It's evident in their demeanor if you basically know what to look for.
> 
> Here's a simple way to identify it. _Have you never walked up to the line, brought the bow back and let er rip or maybe even whipped back the string of a trad bow and let it fly. All you had to do was to point the arrow and it hit center?_ Or you just raised the bow and had absolutely knew it was going to hit the center and with no further thought you release and it hit center? That's it.
> 
> Go to the 84 Olympics video and watch all of the people on the line at once. You'll see some struggling with their mind, and then _Pace doing what he simply learned to do. All that is left to do is putting the sight on the target, as if it's right in front of him 2' away._ Williams in '74 seems to do the same, as does Brady...take the shot, joke around with the coach-The difference between knowing and trying.


Actually, I've seen barebow shooters (a couple of them very very good barebow archers, one of them a former natl champ) do exactly that at my club while I'm shooting 70meters - they'll come back to visit with me, and then think "what the hell, I'll shoot a few from here". Invariably, the vast majority of the arrows will miss the target altogether, even once they kind of 'get their sight picture determined'. They have fun doing it. But no one's ever going to be competitive at FITA freestyle limitied recure shooting that way. 

Darrell has said that only in one tournament in his entire competition life (20+ years) did he shoot every arrow exactly the way he wanted to (the '84 Olympics). That's the culmination of a lifetime of discipline and training and thinking and analyzing and shooting, not a breezy "hey, look, I let'er rip 288 times and set an Olympic record". 


By the way, I've seen all those videos too - nobody just sauntered up to the line and "let'er rip". Every archer is matching their draw/anchor/sight picture/expansion/clicker composite on every arrow against all the other composite shots that they've ever shot. 
To claim otherwise is laughable.

ps - No rational person could have actually read Rick McKinney's book and then proclaimed that "here is a guy who doesn't know how to get his mind right". Period. No more, please.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Until you get there, if ever, you`ll never know what I am speaking of because you are the zone-detail guy. I get that, so am I...but keeping my mind open.


----------



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

lksseven said:


> Actually, I've seen barebow shooters (a couple of them very very good barebow archers, one of them a former natl champ) do exactly that at my club while I'm shooting 70meters - they'll come back to visit with me, and then think "what the hell, I'll shoot a few from here". Invariably, the vast majority of the arrows will miss the target altogether, even once they kind of 'get their sight picture determined'. They have fun doing it. But no one's ever going to be competitive at FITA freestyle limitied recure shooting that way.
> 
> Darrell has said that only in one tournament in his entire competition life (20+ years) did he shoot every arrow exactly the way he wanted to (the '84 Olympics). That's the culmination of a lifetime of discipline and training and thinking and analyzing and shooting, not a breezy "hey, look, I let'er rip 288 times and set an Olympic record".
> 
> ...


It's waste of time....."believers" have always their truth. Because they just know, they don't need any proofs or anything they just know....


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Mr. Dai is using limbs MARKED 42#, that means he was shooting around 47# in Paris. The mistake around comes form the fact that almost all Asian people asked about poundage they shoot, will answer with the nominal poundage of their limbs....


----------



## Joe Schnur (Mar 22, 2012)

​May I chime in.i am not a champion yet but aspiring. I have consumed all the materials available. I have found the space and setup the equipment to the point I can easily repeat 300 rounds out doors at 20 yards. There is a point when you can focus and execute with automatic zen like peaceful concentration on aiming and the rest takes care of its self it is when you start thinking that you throw a 9 


i was was working with a student early in her shooting career 12 inch groups at 20 yes recurve bare bow I had her recite the abc'so while shooting her group centered right up on the target and was 2 inches in diameter. Disconnect the conscious mind that is what the zen focus is about allowing the body to do what it knows. Just my I educated opinion


----------



## fluke (Aug 12, 2012)

I've not been into archery a lot, or even here. I do want to learn and I do understand GT has a lot knowledge but the recent posts do not encourage me to listen or learn from what he has to say.... Reminds me of the knowledgeable guys condescending on the beginners. This does not help archery grow....


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Brad, back "in the day" when you were dominating all those other kids as a 12-year-old Canadian Champion, where you in the Zone back then or first experiencing Zen?

(You really should delete that silly signature line. It's hard to take an old man seriously who still clings to his grade school victories.) LOL


----------



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

I think its good he have it there....its good for his credibility 

btw. Brad - at least first 2 lines your's last post (in closed thread so no one can prove you wrong) are not true - just read your posts on 1st page....


----------



## Joe Schnur (Mar 22, 2012)

The grade school victories are part of his credentials everyone seems to want since they are incapable of evaluating advice for themselves


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

No, he's the one who wants everyone to list their "credentials" since he assumes everyone else is incapable of evaluating advice. It turns out most of us who have been around a long while, and some newer members, are good at evaluating advice.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Well folks, bashing or trying to discredit just isnt good advice`, and disrespectful to the OP and everyone else watching. Your credibility is in your words. Out of a couple of thousand people that have visited this thread, only 110 have posted. 

Didn't someone say, "it's better to keep quiet and let people think you're a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

If you don't have something positive to offer, then why speak just so your ego can be heard?

And who`s the fool?


----------



## Joe Schnur (Mar 22, 2012)

I was not trying to discredit or insult anyone on the contrary simply pointing out his experience is still valid credentials for folks who seem to desire them in posts to decide wether to listen or not.


----------



## Joe Schnur (Mar 22, 2012)

Two weeks ago we were shooting 3d and walked across our Fita range we said what the heck lets give a shot we guessed yardage and the 4 of us each took a shot the two trad long bow shooters put them In the red at 90 meters I guessed wrong and hit low and the other guy hit 20 meters short. The point is they just drew back and let them rip. And nailed it for red hits at 90 pure instinct. Yes intune with the bow and not over thinking it . Zen practice or in the zone don't really care but there was less thought in their shots than mine and they nailed it


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Joe Schnur said:


> Two weeks ago we were shooting 3d and walked across our Fita range we said what the heck lets give a shot we guessed yardage and the 4 of us each took a shot the two trad long bow shooters put them In the red at 90 meters I guessed wrong and hit low and the other guy hit 20 meters short. The point is they just drew back and let them rip. And nailed it for red hits at 90 pure instinct. Yes intune with the bow and not over thinking it . Zen practice or in the zone don't really care but there was less thought in their shots than mine and they nailed it


Probably the good shots were pure luck and one reason I yawn at anecdotal accounts of great shooting. Let those boys shoot numerous arrows for group at 90 meters and keep them in the red. Now that would be worthy of admiration. Single lucky shots? I'm not interested. We all make lucky shots once in a while.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Stone Bridge said:


> Probably the good shots were pure luck and one reason I yawn at anecdotal accounts of great shooting. Let those boys shoot numerous arrows for group at 90 meters and keep them in the red. Now that would be worthy of admiration. Single lucky shots? I'm not interested. We all make lucky shots once in a while.


.....the very FIRST arrow i shot at 70M was a 10!!...the 2nd one missed the target butt!!!...he he he!!


----------



## Joe Schnur (Mar 22, 2012)

Nuffield said obviously only facts about the look in someone's eye years ago in an olympic competition are not anecdotal. So much for free thought. 
​


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Joe Schnur said:


> Nuffield said obviously only facts about the look in someone's eye years ago in an olympic competition are not anecdotal. So much for free thought.
> ​


Can you explain this seeming non-sequitur? Who's Nuffield? and were you even directing this comment to me? Very confusing post you made.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

jmvargas said:


> .....the very FIRST arrow i shot at 70M was a 10!!...the 2nd one missed the target butt!!!...he he he!!


I call the first arrow my walk away arrow. If I walk away now, I look like a hero. If I stay, well...


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Stone Bridge said:


> Can you explain this seeming non-sequitur? Who's Nuffield? and were you even directing this comment to me? Very confusing post you made.


Stone,

Apparently he's using Zen punctuation techniques.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

lksseven said:


> Stone,
> 
> Apparently he's using Zen punctuation techniques.


Or is it Zone techniques? I'm easily confused.


----------



## Joe Schnur (Mar 22, 2012)

Nuff said


----------

