# All the different ways to shoot



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Its always intrigued me on the different ways we try to get arrows into the middle of the target. 

I specifically remember standing between Terry Ragsdale and Frank Pearson at the OTC in Colorado Springs many many years ago. Over my left shoulder was Terry saying just put it in the middle and keep pulling, it'll go off sooner or later. On my right side was Frank Pearson in his gravelly voice saying "if you just put the damn pin in the middle and hit the trigger, where else could it go?"

Reading through you all's posts over the last year has pretty much reinforced the two camps, but its even more interesting to hear all the nuances you have within each discipline.

Its entertaining to say the least!


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Sounds like they both said the same thing differently.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Other than "put it in the middle" it'd be hard to imagine different execution styles.

Tim G is a Pearson student if that gives you any idea. Shot another field round with Frank last summer...he too switched to Lefty last year; but doesn't command the release as much as he used to.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Bobmuley said:


> Its always intrigued me on the different ways we try to get arrows into the middle of the target.
> 
> I specifically remember standing between Terry Ragsdale and Frank Pearson at the OTC in Colorado Springs many many years ago. Over my left shoulder was Terry saying just put it in the middle and keep pulling, it'll go off sooner or later. On my right side was Frank Pearson in his gravelly voice saying "if you just put the damn pin in the middle and hit the trigger, where else could it go?"
> 
> ...


 When did we ever have so many top shooters come forward to give of their techniques? The internet opened "doors" all over the place.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

SonnyThomas said:


> When did we ever have so many top shooters come forward to give of their techniques? The internet opened "doors" all over the place.


In the "old days" it was a matter of walking up and talking to them. I think that's more effective anyhow, since you can have your questions answered right then and there.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

In the past you had to be lucky to be buddies with a stud who would pass things on to you, there was no internet and the information was beyond limited. Hell, I showed up to a league night my first time back when I was a 300 49x type shooter and actually thought I would win easily because it was only 20 yards. That was my lucky night because a future pro shooter was there and I got to watch someone shoot a 60x round for the first time easily. He was the guy that offered up a little bit of knowledge to me over the next year or so. Even then it was very very very limited and I had to search out and learn most of the stuff by myself.

I have been fortunate enough to stand next to chance and levi and many of the top dogs on warm up lines in the last few years but terry ragsdale would be one that I would love to watch. I only have one video I can find on the internet of him shooting in a shoot down and it is a awesome one but only a few shots.


----------



## aread (Dec 25, 2009)

Good thread topic! One thing I've noticed is that there is almost an information overload. We have information available on how Levi, Reo, Danny, Chance, Tim, Jessie and a bunch of others shoot.  They may be saying much the same thing, but are saying it in a different way. Or they may be describing vastly different techniques, but using similar words. I'd probably be further along in my shooting if I didn't have so many things to try out. There is a lot to be said for picking one technique and sticking with it.

Allen


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

aread said:


> Good thread topic! One thing I've noticed is that there is almost an information overload. We have information available on how Levi, Reo, Danny, Chance, Tim, Jessie and a bunch of others shoot. They may be saying much the same thing, but are saying it in a different way. Or they may be describing vastly different techniques, but using similar words. I'd probably be further along in my shooting if I didn't have so many things to try out. There is a lot to be said for picking one technique and sticking with it.
> 
> Allen


From the Legend of Bagger Vance...


> Yep... Inside each and every one of us is one true authentic swing... Somethin' we was born with... Somethin' that's ours and ours alone... Somethin' that can't be taught to ya or learned... Somethin' that got to be remembered... Over time the world can, rob us of that swing... It get buried inside us under all our wouldas and couldas and shouldas... Some folk even forget what their swing was like...


I think there is an overload. It really shouldn't take much instruction on the mechanics of shooting a bow...more emphasis should be spent developing the psyche of the shooter.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Bobmuley said:


> Other than "put it in the middle" it'd be hard to imagine different execution styles.
> 
> Tim G is a Pearson student if that gives you any idea. Shot another field round with Frank last summer...he too switched to Lefty last year; but doesn't command the release as much as he used to.


Yes, Frank developed the same tremor shooting righty that I have. He switched just prior to the 2015 nationals in PA. I discussed it with him there. I don't "know" him but have talked with him and shot with him at the 2012 nationals. Fun guy.
Tim G is definitely a command shooter. Watching him practice during the 2015 nationals I was surprised to see how rattled he was before the actual shoot. He seemed to be all over the map with various uncertainties from peeps to clarifiers. I wondered how he would shoot at all. He managed second place so he must have an off switch somewhere.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Frank Pearson was arguably the best finger shooter in the country prior to changing to pro freestyle. When he started shooting pro freestyle, he was using a clicker and punching on the click. I saw him doing that at Outdoor Nats '78/Aurora. It was a VERY different way of shooting....and impressive to watch. Not sure how long he stayed with a clicker. Terry had problems and a bad (for him) shoot that year at Aurora....especially considering he had won almost everything else in his first full year of pro division at 18 years old. I don't know either one of them either, but was around some back then.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Point is...how hard is it to shoot a bow? It can be as simple as draw, aim, shoot. 

We can refine, overthink, perfect, or complicate any of the minimal steps needed. Find what works for best for you. For the sake of argument I'm going to list a few guys who I view to be the best shooters in the world:

Mike Schloesser
Stephan Hansen
Jesse Broadwater
Reo Wilde
Steve Anderson
Sergio Pagni
Martin Damsbo
Braden Gellentien 
Dave Cousins

You can't copy the form from ALL of these guys. They all shoot differently. Schloesser and Wilde lean back. Jesse and Sergio don't really do much on the back tension pulling through method. Dave's anchor has always been ugly. Bent arms, straight arms, hyperextended arms. SO WHAT. It works for them. We all can't look like Stephan Hansen or Martin Damsbo while shooting, but the good news is we don't have to.

What we can copy is their mental approach and practice ethics.


----------



## thawk (Mar 11, 2003)

TNMAN I know Frank shot with a clicker well into the 90's and Becky even longer, he started learning a hinge just to have a better understanding of it for his school in the late 90's.

BobMuley, I agree, it should be simple to shoot. Weather you use your back, rotate your hand, tighten your hand, relax or any other type of shot, simply do what is comfortable and repeatable for you and don't over think it.
EPLC come to my mind. Reading his post for years it seems he is always looking for something to change. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing but for those of us in our 50's we will never aim like we once could so anything that feels natural will most likely produce better results. Like blind bailing. You do that for a month till it becomes second nature, but if you keep changing things nothing will ever become second nature.


----------



## justok (Nov 25, 2016)

SonnyThomas said:


> When did we ever have so many top shooters come forward to give of their techniques? The internet opened "doors" all over the place.



Internet , hi speed film for the masses , this has helped raise the bar in every sport in the world in the past 10 years. 
However , Its the mental game that has been bought to light that has toppled the boundaries in the recent years . This is stuff that was rarely spoken of prior.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

justok said:


> Internet , hi speed film for the masses , this has helped raise the bar in every sport in the world in the past 10 years.
> However , Its the mental game that has been bought to light that has toppled the boundaries in the recent years . This is stuff that was rarely spoken of prior.


Heck, every aspect I think. It was just a year or two Levi dropped the bomb that most pros don't use their back to fire a hinge. You'd have thought the sky was falling around here. People were going crazy. Some were admitting to using thumb triggers, some were rotating hinges, others weren't using T shape form, and there were even a few aiming instead of just letting it float haphazardly around the bale.


----------



## Unk Bond (Aug 1, 2004)

Hello
Nice thread
Over the years I have also had the pleasure shooting with some fine archers.

My question in your view being ambidextrous. Play a part in shot execution and follow through. Thanks [ Later


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> Heck, every aspect I think. It was just a year or two Levi dropped the bomb that most pros don't use their back to fire a hinge. You'd have thought the sky was falling around here. People were going crazy. Some were admitting to using thumb triggers, some were rotating hinges, others weren't using T shape form, and there were even a few aiming instead of just letting it float haphazardly around the bale.


I believe Levi said he didn't use back tension to fire a hinge. He also threw a "curve" with French tuning using 20 and 40 (or 50) yards and "you're good to go" (or words to that effect).

Word was out way before Levi let it known right here on AT - http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1676924


----------



## kballer1 (Aug 31, 2010)

Shot a lot with Frank back in about 76 when he was shooting for Astro Bows in Onalaska,WI. & he was shooting a thumb release & a clicker then & did quite well with it. He had the clicker set up so well that if he happened to shoot through it by accident it still hit the spot. He attributed it to his bow arm, it looked like you could do chin ups on it while he was aiming. Had the opportunity to shoot with quite a few of the top shooters back then & just about all of them would help you if you were struggling while shooting with them. It is unfortunate that most archers don't even recognize there names or the accomplishments that they made in there day.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

I raced bicycles for 10 years and overall I rode a bunch for 17 years, it was one of my longest periods of doing a sport in my life. Archery is the only one that I have done longer. But in Cycling there is a book written by Greg Lemond that is simply do die for because over and over again he has been proven to be the greatest american cyclist ever. Armstrong tried to take that away from him but drugged himself to get there so he was eliminated. The greg lemond book is simply amazing with his explanations on how to eat and how to train and how to ride and set up a bike and everything. The book is about as awesome as his victories in the Tour De France.

Why haven't our top shooters such as Ragsdale or any of the other top ones written a book covering everything, to my knowledge they don't exist. There are books from Bernie and Larry Wise and Basham but finding one by a compound archer such as Ragsdale or Levi Morgan or Chance or any of the old guys to me is never mentioned. If they do exist they must not be very good or wouldn't we have heard from it? I think I remember seeing a book from Mckinney but it was olympic related.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

We'd have to pay $2,000 to cover publishing costs.


----------



## TNMAN (Oct 6, 2009)

Bobmuley said:


> We'd have to pay $2,000 to cover publishing costs.


https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Archery-Technique-Kirk-Ethridge/dp/0964631202

That's the truth. I don't know if Kirk ever sold enough to get his publishing costs back. And GRIV hasn't exactly gotten rich from the stuff he's selling either.


----------



## kballer1 (Aug 31, 2010)

Gee I think Larry W. used to shoot a compound about the same time that Ragg's was.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

I like the Why you suck at archery one, that is just a great title for a archery book.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Padgett said:


> I like the Why you suck at archery one, that is just a great title for a archery book.


I used a pen name because I thought "Bobmuley" was too obvious.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Really, the point of me starting this thread is that we seem largely guilty of seeking commonality in shooting and shooting form. 

I do believe that there is an optimum form (think Korean recurve archery training) but that doesn't mean it works for everyone. I think you weed out shooters that may otherwise do great if you try to fit them into the "perfect" mold. While I would agree that the optimum form is a great place to start someone I don't necessarily think its always the best destination. We all have different sized hands that don't fit one grip as good as others. We all have different ratios of arm-bones and chest widths. We all have *different mentalities and personality traits*. We all have different individual goals. 

We overcomplicate it. Simple seems easier to repeat to me. 

How do we get simple? I have my answers...whats yours?


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Bobmuley said:


> We overcomplicate it. Simple seems easier to repeat to me.
> 
> How do we get simple? I have my answers...whats yours?


Nobody wants to be told they are incapable of doing something that is simple, Bob. Best case for the simple argument is that it is simple, but mystical or magical, and only a select few gifted individuals are given the natural ability to unlock those mysteries, without being intelligent or putting in the hard work necessary to understand and develop the skill.

Like quoted from the other thread, “I know it isn’t possible, because I’ve always struggled with it.” The majority of people, at least here, tend to be of the mindset that they are the well-oiled machine that needs no adjustment, and the bow or release needs to be adjusted to work correctly for them. I might have believed this myself, had I not witnessed one of the sport’s greats, pick up my bow when I was a fresh newbie, and show me that a bow is a tool that functions with the input that is given to it. 

I’ve learned a lot since then, but the most important lesson was that doubt can cost you a lot of money, while motivation is free.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> Nobody wants to be told they are incapable of doing something that is simple, Bob. Best case for the simple argument is that it is simple, but mystical or magical, and only a select few gifted individuals are given the natural ability to unlock those mysteries, without being intelligent or putting in the hard work necessary to understand and develop the skill.
> 
> Like quoted from the other thread, “I know it isn’t possible, because I’ve always struggled with it.” The majority of people, at least here, tend to be of the mindset that they are the well-oiled machine that needs no adjustment, and the bow or release needs to be adjusted to work correctly for them. I might have believed this myself, had I not witnessed *one of the sport’s greats, pick up my bow when I was a fresh newbie, and show me that a bow is a tool that functions with the input that is given to it. *
> 
> I’ve learned a lot since then, but the most important lesson was that doubt can cost you a lot of money, while motivation is free.


Good point....


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

cbrunson said:


> ... Best case for the simple argument is that it is simple, but mystical or magical, and only a select few gifted individuals are given the natural ability to unlock those mysteries,...


And that's why our personalities drive a lot of our motivation. I always went under the assumption that everyone else was better than me. It motivated me to work harder and smarter. 

Other personalities may be self-defeated at that point. 

Reo is a good example of a couple out of the ordinary cookie cutter shooter's form with the lean and "the fist". Works dam good for him. 

Take the lean for example...I'm sure you know how he came upon it, but I also think that it works for him because it makes sense to him. Taking a form que from a different discipline is either genius, or self serving; but the only thing that matters is that it works for him. He believes, therefore it is.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

TNMAN said:


> Frank Pearson was arguably the best finger shooter in the country prior to changing to pro freestyle. When he started shooting pro freestyle, he was using a clicker and punching on the click. I saw him doing that at Outdoor Nats '78/Aurora. It was a VERY different way of shooting....and impressive to watch. Not sure how long he stayed with a clicker. Terry had problems and a bad (for him) shoot that year at Aurora....especially considering he had won almost everything else in his first full year of pro division at 18 years old. I don't know either one of them either, but was around some back then.


 yes Pearson was a great finger shooter, but don`t forget Jerry Podratz he won many Vegas and National titles in the pro division when fingers meant something in archery.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Bobmuley said:


> And that's why our personalities drive a lot of our motivation. I always went under the assumption that everyone else was better than me. It motivated me to work harder and smarter.
> 
> Other personalities may be self-defeated at that point.
> 
> ...


Perhaps I should have been a little more clear with my sarcasm. Most people, at least here, want to believe that since it is something they can not do, that it MUST be highly complex, or require some uncommon natural ability.

As far as personalities beyond that go, I couldn't say. I'd bet more often than not, the ones winning or close to winning, get there first, and then start looking at the finer details, whereas so many others try to get to the finer details long before they could ever possibly see the benefit of them.


----------



## Arrie (May 4, 2017)

I looked at most top shooters and their forms...and the closest one to my form or the form I feel most comfortable with is John Dudley. So I copy him and watch his channel and don't confuse myself with other peoples forms and advice. Works for me...as I am just as tall as him and his advice works for me. No information overload then.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I know it's been said many, many times here but I'll say it once more. Your form is not all that important, your equipment is not all that important either. What matters is it repeatable for the desired amount of ends. We've all put an arrow in the X. We just need to do the same exact thing each and every time.it is that simple. Problem is it's in our minds to avoid the discipline of success. We sabotage our own efforts.we worry about everything else, but what is truly important.


----------



## Unk Bond (Aug 1, 2004)

target1 said:


> I know it's been said many, many times here but I'll say it once more. Your form is not all that important, your equipment is not all that important either. What matters is it repeatable for the desired amount of ends. We've all put an arrow in the X. We just need to do the same exact thing each and every time.it is that simple. Problem is it's in our minds to avoid the discipline of success. We sabotage our own efforts.we worry about everything else, but what is truly important.


==============

Hello and X2 [ Later


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

target1 said:


> I know it's been said many, many times here but I'll say it once more. Your form is not all that important, your equipment is not all that important either. What matters is it repeatable for the desired amount of ends. We've all put an arrow in the X. We just need to do the same exact thing each and every time.it is that simple. Problem is it's in our minds to avoid the discipline of success. We sabotage our own efforts.we worry about everything else, but what is truly important.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

If you can be consistent over long periods of time, you likely have pretty good form. A lot of athletes are very good but experience changes in their form because it was not ideal and they compensate with strength, but over time as muscles develop, things change. The fundamental principle that is consistent for all sports is to find the form that requires least effort to maintain consistency. Exploit the system and find the most that you can get from it for free. 

If it works, and you are happy with the results, it does not matter, but my money over the long term is on the shooter with the most biomechanically sound form. How you get there can vary greatly, but there is an eventual cost for inefficiency.


----------



## midi (Jan 30, 2016)

it has to be said that if mike schlosser posted a "critique my form and DL" post the forum would be all over him.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

midi said:


> it has to be said that if mike schlosser posted a "critique my form and DL" post the forum would be all over him.


True that


----------



## MQ5BPilot (May 12, 2017)

Unless your body is the same as Jesse Broadwater, Steve Anderson, or any other pro, you can't model your form on theirs. Everyone is different, and what people need to do is figure out what works best for them, and is something they can repeat shot after shot after shot. I relate it to a golf swing.. Arnold Palmer's swing was HIDEOUS from a 'perfect form' standpoint, but he could repeat it time and time again, and it worked for him. Nicklaus on the other hand has a gorgeous swing, and he makes it work for himself. I guess what I'm saying is being able to reproduce Jesse Broadwater's form some of the time isn't as useful as repeating YOUR form all of the time.


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

tagged. Best thread in this forum so far...

lee.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

MQ5BPilot said:


> Unless your body is the same as Jesse Broadwater, Steve Anderson, or any other pro, you can't model your form on theirs. Everyone is different, and what people need to do is figure out what works best for them, and is something they can repeat shot after shot after shot. I relate it to a golf swing.. Arnold Palmer's swing was HIDEOUS from a 'perfect form' standpoint, but he could repeat it time and time again, and it worked for him. Nicklaus on the other hand has a gorgeous swing, and he makes it work for himself. I guess what I'm saying is being able to reproduce Jesse Broadwater's form some of the time isn't as useful as repeating YOUR form all of the time.


So what should "your form" look like for any individual. The reality is that it looks like whatever develops based on what was learned in the path to where you are. That comes from those you watch, those who teach and coach you, and what you gather from lots of sources. While not everyone can achieve some ideal form, there are some basic principles that apply to everyone. Basic biomechanics applied to the individual can improve efficiency, and eventually probably consistency. The problem with applying biomechanics to archery is that anyone with an idea of how people should accomplish the best shot wants to justify their ideas with it instead of the other way around. Most great coaches and great athletes already have an intuitive understanding of the biomechanics of archery, but often get it mixed up with their ideas about the shot. When the coach and the athlete can separate the assumptions from the physics and physiology and go about discovering what works best in the context of the individual, you get the highest probability of improved performance. But it takes time, and lots of hard work. In many cases no matter what the system used, the hard work trumps everything else and that is what we see so often in archery. The top shooters get the results they do by dedicating themselves to some idea and process that might not be ideal for others, but it works for them.


----------



## adventurejack (Oct 30, 2006)

tagged


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

lcaillo said:


> ... The top shooters get the results they do by dedicating themselves to some idea and process that might not be ideal for others, but it works for them.


I think this is key for an individual. Have a plan on what it is you want to do, and how you're going to carry it out. 

For select few people, that means following the "perfect form" recipe. For others it's what works for them. For some it could only be slight deviations from perfect form. You never know unless you try it out (and I mean an honest tryout, not a 10 arrow session and scrap it). 

Lets be honest, shooting a compound is pretty easy; especially compared to FITA recurve shooting. I do think the biomechanics and form play a much larger part in their shooting. Easy as it is, It often surprises me that there are 20+ steps for me to get an arrow off.


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

For a national training program, you need a system that people will buy into as a starting point. USAA has adopted one that has a reasonably sound foundation in biomechanics and a detailed process for getting to a high performance form. That is a good thing if it is applied with respect for individual differences and not a religious adherence to the semantics. I have not been around the coaching programs since the NAA CDC was trying to put together a program so I don't know how far people are taking it. I do know than since returning to the sport and getting some coaching from someone trained in NTS, it has been helpful in rebuilding my form to be better than it was 30 years ago. He has been very wiling to work with me where I am and not change too much too fast, and has been able to articulate the system to make it make sense to me. That is not an easy task for a young coach, considering I bring a great deal of biomechanical and anatomical understanding, as I have a masters degree in motor learning with emphasis in biomechanics, and was very involved with athletes and coaches at the highest levels in the 1980s and 1990s. Frankly, I find some of the KSL shot cycle somewhat awkward in terms of the description, and perhaps making some assumptions that might not be applicable to everyone, but as I said, you have to have a starting point.

Just my experience...


----------



## lees (Feb 10, 2017)

midi said:


> it has to be said that if mike schlosser posted a "critique my form and DL" post the forum would be all over him.


That's why Friends Don't Let Friends read "how's my form" threads on AT. It's kind of like getting weight loss advice from folks who weigh 400lbs. Just Say No to "how's my form threads"!

lee.


----------

