# B.E.S.T. Method Pseudo Science?



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

sometimes science is twisted to support a position, correct or not. ie. evolution


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

*raises eyebrows at target1* I think thats been settled as having "not been twisted" already... 

Warbow, the other thing to question is- he might have the right idea, its just been lost in the intricacies of language. Subtle distinctions are hard even the best of us, especially if its not a field we're not totally immersed in. Yeah, 50 million modulus graphite is better than 40 million modulus graphite, but do you care to explain why? I'd get about as far as "Its probably finer grained, so like finely grained wood, its generally stronger"

-James


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> *raises eyebrows at target1* I think thats been settled as having "not been twisted" already...
> 
> -James


what's been settled? what's "not been twisted" ? please explain your comment.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> *raises eyebrows at target1* I think thats been settled as having "not been twisted" already...
> 
> Warbow, the other thing to question is- he might have the right idea, its just been lost in the intricacies of language. Subtle distinctions are hard even the best of us, especially if its not a field we're not totally immersed in. Yeah, 50 million modulus graphite is better than 40 million modulus graphite, but do you care to explain why? I'd get about as far as "Its probably finer grained, so like finely grained wood, its generally stronger"
> 
> -James


Speaking of pseudo science, brows similarly raised at target1...

Indeed, Lee may be right, or not. However, if he is or isn't it isn't really a terribly subtle distinction. Is it inertia or not? If we are talking physics we talking about objective facts, and in the case of Newtonian physics one can draw up the formula for the physics, though it is complicated by the interface of the bow to a human body. In the case of carbon graphite we have data sheets and tests to refer to which we can compare to our goals. If you say High Modulus graphite works better than Low Modulus and you know because you ran a instrumented quantifiable vibration absorption test that's one thing--it is just a statement of results. If you say High Modulus graphite works better than Low Modulus because it contains more anti-matter that is false because you are using physics terms and concepts to incorrectly explain the presumed mechanism. The truth is in the details.

BTW, inertia is a function of _mass_ whereas pulling back the the string of a bow is more a function of the force required compress and stretch the bow limbs than overcoming the inertia of the limbs, the arrow and the string--which is why Lee's invocation of the Law of Inertia seems so odd.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

why is everyone raising their brows at me? did I say the "E" word?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> what's been settled? what's "not been twisted" ? please explain your comment.


Please put that argument in a different thread, or perhaps a different forum as it isn't directly related to archery and definately not directly related to FITA shooting whereas the physics used to justify and to teach the NAA's BEST Method are. It is likely to result in an un-resolvable threadjack and I see no reason to go there a the moment. In a separate thread, maybe.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Please put that argument in a different thread, or perhaps a different forum as it isn't directly related to archery.


my statement directly relates to this thread. here it is again.

_sometimes science is twisted to support a position, correct or not._
the title of this thread is "B.E.S.T. Method Pseudo Science?"

what part of the word _psuedo_ and my comment isn't related?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*This whole thread is...*

"Argumentative...

Often, argumentative questions do not seek to establish additional facts or check the reliability of existing facts. Instead, they are meant only to cause a witness to argue..."


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> what part of the word _psuedo_ and my comment isn't related?


Argumentative and Non responsive. Move to strike.

What part of your posts are not threadjacking? (That's a rhetorical question, BTW, not a suggestion to continue jacking the thread with more bait.)


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Warbow,

I'm missing the point of your thread. Because a term may have been incorrectly used then what? Are you saying I should discount or question the process? For years we have always talked about using back tension when shooting. No one has questioned the fact this term is incorrectly used as well. The back muscle isn't under tension when the shot is executed. Are you saying now I should question the process of using my back because the "science" wasn't correctly described?

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> Warbow,
> 
> I'm missing the point of your thread. Because a term may have been incorrectly used then what? Are you saying I should discount or question the process? For years we have always talked about using back tension when shooting. No one has questioned the fact this term is incorrectly used as well. The back muscle isn't under tension when the shot is executed. Are you saying now I should question the process of using my back because the "science" wasn't correctly described?
> 
> Terry


I'm not making claims about back tension. But you bring up a good point, even if inadvertently. _Perhaps we should question_ the term "Back tension?" While it is true that your back muscles are under tension during a "back tension" release, the lower trapezius is fully relaxed under BEST and almost so under earlier OR form. The lower trapezius seems to be used solely for decorative follow through.

Now, on to something closer to my main point. I'm asking if we can trust the allegedly scientific foundation of BEST if its creator doesn't actually know the science he claims to base it on, and if it is indeed scientific or just another method that has been retroactively shored up with the appearance of science. This isn't just a matter of a slip of the tongue but a question of scientific credibility. If you ask me how a car works and I say they run on Dilithium Crystals then you have reason to question my scientific credibility, not just my use of a term. Now it could be that Lee is right, though it doesn't seem likely on this point, but if he's wrong then we have reason to question the science of the BEST Method.

Getting back to science. A process can work even if we don't understand why, but if we do learn the actual reasons why something works we can, perhaps, improve that process. If, on the other hand, we attribute success in archery to things that are not, in fact, the real reasons--say, lucky socks or other magic--then we will not be able to improve the process using science. Passing out lucky socks to people, for instance, is not likely to magically help their form.

So, if Lee has a mis-understanding of the physics involved in archery form he may have made presumptions that are unnecessary or even counter productive to archery form and be resistant to changing those presumptions. If they weren't based on an accurate understanding of science in the first place he might not be likely to change his mind based on science, either.

I'm not saying that BEST isn't a good method. What I am saying is that _if_ BEST isn't grounded in an accurate understanding of science and an efficient exploitation of those scientific principles then it may not, in fact, be "best."


----------



## mwarddoc (Aug 12, 2007)

*Science Arguments*

I've been reading up on this system in all the posts here and at the website (but not the book yet) and I'm puzzled by some of the language as a newbie and have questions below, and it seems that this may be the discussion line to ask the question.

First, I want to get the science out of the way, I don't want to argue about it....since, well, I'm always right....remarkably.....

However, the "process", is what I'm trying to understand, and from what I see written and argued about, is the following correct?

The principle is to draw smoothly, to a position where one can settle into "full draw" while aiming, then continue the draw through the clicker by back musculature contraction without moving the forearm or upper arm musculature as much, and then release while that draw/contraction is still taking place thus continuing the motion until the arrow has left the riser.

While doing this, the bow hand/forearm/shoulder are to be "locked down" to inhibit extraneous movement, hence the desire to internally rotate the shoulder joint to at least some degree, more or less depending upon the particular archers limits on internal rotation and elbow/forearm structure.

As far as the language, physics, and science, I can see how a lot of misunderstanding can come up when certain terms are used e.g. "inertia". I suppose that it would take a rather involved and probably painful study, with EMG needles in NUMEROUS muscle groups and subgroups (surface electrodes would not be accurate enough if I understand the sensitivity correctly) all having to be done more than once to validate results and on a number of archers who were trained in and used BEST correctly as well a those who don't for comparative purposes in order to validate any science commentary to a fine level...which interpretation would still be debated.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

mwarddoc said:


> As far as the language, physics, and science, I can see how a lot of misunderstanding can come up when certain terms are used e.g. "inertia". I suppose that it would take a rather involved and probably painful study, with EMG needles in NUMEROUS muscle groups and subgroups (surface electrodes would not be accurate enough if I understand the sensitivity correctly) all having to be done more than once to validate results and on a number of archers who were trained in and used BEST correctly as well a those who don't for comparative purposes in order to validate any science commentary to a fine level...which interpretation would still be debated.


They do have some EMG studies of large muscle groups but they don't give details on the data or the methodology in the book so it is hard to know how much credence to give them. I suspect they may not be the needle type.

BTW, the shot cycle on the website is the crux of the book, but I'm not sure how the KSL Shot Cycle II on the site is different from, presumably, the KSL I in the book. I'm still quite new to OR so I don't claim to understand BEST all that well.


----------



## tedzpony (May 15, 2007)

I'm still quite new to this as well, but I have the book, have read it thoroughly several times, and received some very helpful and productive instruction from another member on this forum, so here's my two cents. I think the idea behnd the initial question is valid: If the science that's being invoked to prove the credibility of the system is being cited in error, then we might have reason to question the whole system. That's an absolutely valid point.

However, that said, I don't think the science is the problem here. I firmly believe that the entire problem is a matter of writing style, language barrier and translation. And I really don't mean to criticize the author -- I think Coach Lee has all the credibility in the world as a coach and a shooter -- but I think the book was poorly put together from a grammatical standpoint. I've personally written a couple of novels, and with a degree in Computer Science, I've written my fair share of scholarly articles including my thesis.

Not trying to toot my own horn here, but just to defend the logic in the book. I really think the problem you're having is due to it being poorly transcribed/translated/dictated, or whatever, into the English language with the proper terminology. What I mean is, I think the science is sound, from a practical perspective, and your only real qualm should be with terminology. Sometimes things just don't translate well, especially when it comes to highly technical terms, just the same way slang and jargon don't really have good representations in other languages. I've been overseas and I can tell you that from experience as well.

Like I said, my views are from a practical perspective. You're looking at it from the scientific side, and that's fine -- go for it. But if you give it the time to actually implement it, I think you'll find it's sound and it works. Terminology aside.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

tedzpony said:


> Not trying to toot my own horn here, but just to defend the logic in the book. I really think the problem you're having is due to it being poorly transcribed/translated/dictated, or whatever, into the English language with the proper terminology. What I mean is, I think the science is sound, from a practical perspective, and your only real qualm should be with terminology. Sometimes things just don't translate well, especially when it comes to highly technical terms, just the same way slang and jargon don't really have good representations in other languages. I've been overseas and I can tell you that from experience as well.


Certainly possible. But, I should think, the fact that Lee invoked Newton's Laws of Motion specifically by name makes the idea of a translation error unlikely. That is a concept not a mere term and not one likely to be translated wrong. If the term "inertia" had appeared on its own without the invocation in the specific context of Newton, I could see an error happening. But "Newton's Laws of Motion?" And each by name? With a full quote and definition of inertia?* (p70) What could he possibly said that could be accidentally translated that way? 

BTW, I don't think that possible fallacious reasoning necessarily invalidates BEST but, if BEST is partially based on such then it removes any presumption of scientific validity. I still plan on learning BEST because it seems to be empirically proven to produce results--which is not the equivalent of being scientifically based. Anyway, I still want the best science available and I don't want the search to stop just because one person comes up with a presumptively named acronym that implies the science is complete.

*He neglects to mention that inertia is a function of mass.


----------



## inferno nexus (Oct 15, 2007)

one of the best ways to test science, is to perform experiments....
since you are talking about the inertia of the arrow which relates to the mass of the arrow, perhaps you could find a steel rod with similar dimensions to your arrow, try to nock it and draw that rod like an arrow. Then compare it to drawing your normal arrow and see if u can feel any difference...


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

To add to what tedzpony said,

When I attended one of Coach Lee's seminars, he told us about how much trouble he had with English and the terms used with archery. The back tension one was an example he gave. He said, in Korea, they didn't use that term. When he heard it for the first time and was told it describe how the back was being used, he was completely clueless as to how a back under tension would cause the scapula to move in the desired direction. When he finally realized the word tension was simply misapplied and they were trying to describe the same thing he understood, he simply said ok, now I understand. 

Warbow, if you want to question the science ok. However, I would recommend you actually try to learn what BEST is and the reasons behind what is being done if you want to give examples of parts of it (your description of how the lower traps is used is incorrect and the follow through isn't decorative). 

The basic underpinnings of the form is biomechanics. How the laws are used isn't relative if the mechanics of motion is still sound. In other words, I don't care if its inertia or momentum or constant acceleration or particle physics or what. I want to know how to move bone, what muscles to use to make that happen, and why, from a biomechanics point of view, that is the preferred approach. If Sir Issac Newton chooses to role over in his grave, so be it. I will simply wish him well and move on.


Terry


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*Who cares about the science of.*



Warbow said:


> In describing the BEST Method Kisik Lee says the system is firmly grounded in science. In the very first section of the Biomechanics section he describes Newton's Laws of Motion and says how they apply to archery form.
> 
> Lee says that one must never stop drawing or pulling the bow--even during the period of imperceptibly expanding through the clicker--because the Law of Inertia says it will take too much effort to get started again. This appears to be an instance in which Kisik Lee is wrong on fundamental science.
> 
> ...


 With all do respect to all archery coach's out there. He's coached more gold medal winner's then any other coach in history. Who are we to judge him or his best method. You know if is is not broke, why try to fix it.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

By the way, the name BEST wasn't Coach Lee's idea. Folks within the NAA created it and he simply accepted it.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> By the way, the name BEST wasn't Coach Lee's idea. Folks within the NAA created it and he simply accepted it.


Yeah, Better Enlist Seoul's Trainer.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

inferno nexus said:


> one of the best ways to test science, is to perform experiments....
> since you are talking about the inertia of the arrow which relates to the mass of the arrow, perhaps you could find a steel rod with similar dimensions to your arrow, try to nock it and draw that rod like an arrow. Then compare it to drawing your normal arrow and see if u can feel any difference...


Yes tests are good. I'm not sure what the right experiment is, though. When drawing an arrow many things are moving, even if slowly: your arm, shoulder and scapula; the arrow, the string, kisser and index nocks; and the limbs of the bow. Your arm weighs far more than the arrow or the limbs. But, at "expansion" this system is moving extremely slowly and momentum is a function of mass times velocity. The velocity is very slow.

I'm not a physicist so I can't say what the details would be but it does seem like there are multiple issues going on. The primary one is the tension of the bow and the force required to pull it back. That's easy to prove by unstringing the bow or putting a weak elastic on for a string. Now see how hard it is to overcome the supposedly oh so important inertia while expanding through the clicker. I'm just going to put out a WAG and say not so hard. It is an experiment that one can try, though it is a bit subjective. I'm sure one could create a more quantifiable way to demonstrate the same thing.


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*Honored*

I have had the Honor to meet coach Lee and shake his hand, and thank him for his work and accomplisments in the archery. I hope that when i shook his hand some of that golden toach rubed off.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> To add to what tedzpony said,
> 
> When I attended one of Coach Lee's seminars, he told us about how much trouble he had with English and the terms used with archery. The back tension one was an example he gave. He said, in Korea, they didn't use that term. When he heard it for the first time and was told it describe how the back was being used, he was completely clueless as to how a back under tension would cause the scapula to move in the desired direction. When he finally realized the word tension was simply misapplied and they were trying to describe the same thing he understood, he simply said ok, now I understand.
> 
> ...


I think I've been pretty clear. I'm not saying that BEST isn't a good system, nor do I question the success and talent of coach Lee. What I do question is whether the alleged scientific underpinnings are true, which is important if the system is touted on the bases of those underpinnings. Likewise, I don't claim that the mechanics are necessarily unsound even if the rationale behind them may be flawed. I do claim that a proper understanding would be better, though.

As to learning BEST to understand it better, I agree. Your comments and those of others also help me learn. As to the use Lower Trap being mischaracterized by me, that is entirely possible. But, if the EMGs show it to be completely relaxed during and expansion _and_ all the way through the release it gives the outward appearance that tension in the Lower Trap is ramped up only to pull back the shoulder for a decorative follow through, otherwise why not just leave it relaxed? You didn't need it for the release. But, I freely admit that these remarks are made about outward appearances and through, hopefully, temporary ignorance.

As to the term back tension, if it is so counter to the proper technique then we should use a better term. 

Thank you for the heads up on the NAA creating the BEST name. I did not know that.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

frydaddy40 said:


> With all do respect to all archery coach's out there. He's coached more gold medal winner's then any other coach in history. Who are we to judge him or his best method. You know if is is not broke, why try to fix it.


What can I say? Sometimes I'm a bit of a contrarian. But I also don't like it when we become so deferential to a person that we fail to analyze what they say critically. Science has to be objective to be successful. Great scientists do get some deference but ultimately their theories still have to be proven on the same basis as all others.

Please don't mistake my query for a lack of respect for coach Lee's many accomplishments, which are far out of my league and the league of most of the people in the forum.

And I may yet be proven wrong about the inertia thing, but I'll wait to see what comes up.


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

As a coach, I have just not been able to "drink the kool-aid" when it comes to the BEST method. Here are my thoughts:
1. We must respect body types and natural tendancies. One form does not fit all, regardless of the "science" involved. We all know good scores come from consistency in form. What is "natural" to an individual will be inherently more consistant. As one parent of a student of mine, who is a chiropractor, told me after reading Lee's book "The information is biomechanically correct, but a majority of people won't be able to acomplish this technique."
2. I don't care how you pull through the clicker, just as long as you have the kahones to do it when it counts. Being "biomechanically correct" doesn't change your character. It's not "how", but rather "do you have the guts" to make the shot with the wind swirling, the sight moving and you need a 10 to win your match.
3. Progress has NEVER been made by accepting a single way of doing anything. I have been to several of Coach Lee's seminars, and have learned alot. I have used some parts of the BEST system for some archers, with great success. Over this past year I watched one of our local JOAD clubs overhaul every student to the BEST system. Only 2 of their 20+ archers shot better at this years State Championship. All of the others shot worse after a year of the BEST method. I'm all for learning more to become a better archer and coach. I'm all for tweaking, but this mass overhaul isn't working.
4. The real reason U.S. RECURVE archers are behind the rest of the world? They have real jobs! An American compound shooter can make a buck or two winning tourney's like Vegas, getting fat bonus checks and annual sponsorship money. And 3-D? CHA-CHING!! There's a reason to shoot a compound. $$$$. An American recurve archer has nothing but pride to be won after years of training, scraping by, paying their own way to competitions. Unless you're single and independantly wealthy, you cannot take the time needed to train to reach the top as a recurve archer. The U.S. program would be better off taking Lee's money (and the "allegedly" recently embezeled money) and used it as a "bounty" for bringing home a medal. I know my wife would let me shoot more if it would bring home that kind of cash.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> As a coach, I have just not been able to "drink the kool-aid" when it comes to the BEST method. Here are my thoughts:
> 1. We must respect body types and natural tendancies. One form does not fit all, regardless of the "science" involved. We all know good scores come from consistency in form. What is "natural" to an individual will be inherently more consistant. As one parent of a student of mine, who is a chiropractor, told me after reading Lee's book "The information is biomechanically correct, but a majority of people won't be able to acomplish this technique."
> 2. I don't care how you pull through the clicker, just as long as you have the kahones to do it when it counts. Being "biomechanically correct" doesn't change your character. It's not "how", but rather "do you have the guts" to make the shot with the wind swirling, the sight moving and you need a 10 to win your match.
> 3. Progress has NEVER been made by accepting a single way of doing anything. I have been to several of Coach Lee's seminars, and have learned alot. I have used some parts of the BEST system for some archers, with great success. Over this past year I watched one of our local JOAD clubs overhaul every student to the BEST system. Only 2 of their 20+ archers shot better at this years State Championship. All of the others shot worse after a year of the BEST method. I'm all for learning more to become a better archer and coach. I'm all for tweaking, but this mass overhaul isn't working.
> 4. The real reason U.S. RECURVE archers are behind the rest of the world? They have real jobs! An American compound shooter can make a buck or two winning tourney's like Vegas, getting fat bonus checks and annual sponsorship money. And 3-D? CHA-CHING!! There's a reason to shoot a compound. $$$$. An American recurve archer has nothing but pride to be won after years of training, scraping by, paying their own way to competitions. Unless you're single and independantly wealthy, you cannot take the time needed to train to reach the top as a recurve archer. The U.S. program would be better off taking Lee's money (and the "allegedly" recently embezeled money) and used it as a "bounty" for bringing home a medal. I know my wife would let me shoot more if it would bring home that kind of cash.


:thumbs_up:thumbs_up


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*Football*

 Years ago i played football for my dad ( a successful coach for many years) in rec. ball in Cochran ga. in the 70's. Some of his records still stand today. In a game to win the league chapoinship of 75 his 6th in a row, in witch i was his Qb. I decided to go against a play called by him, and call my on play and scored another TD on to the way to winning the game. His play would have also worked after thinking about it. He pulled me to the side and said good call but if you ever unmine my coaching in front of the team again, you want play, i'll take you out of the game. I got mad but afterwards i understood why he said that. I got lucky on one play. And we where not in the 6th champoinship game because he was lucky. He was good coach, and so is Lee. We may not understand how or where he came up with his method's but they work very will and questions like that undermine and create dowt. We don't need that. Just let him do what he does best and let him coach. Ps, Dad won 9 in a row . Two with me it QB,I love those day!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

frydaddy40 said:


> He was good coach, and so is Lee. We may not understand how or where he came up with his method's but they work very will and questions like that undermine and create dowt. We don't need that. Just let him do what he does best and let him coach. Ps, Dad won 9 in a row . Two with me it QB,I love those day!


That theory only works as long as we have coach Lee. We need a sound system and not just reliance on one Savant--eggs and baskets and such...


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

frydaddy40 said:


> Years ago i played football for my dad ( a successful coach for many years) in rec. ball in Cochran ga. in the 70's. Some of his records still stand today. In a game to win the league chapoinship of 75 his 6th in a row, in witch i was his Qb. I decided to go against a play called by him, and call my on play and scored another TD on to the way to winning the game. His play would have also worked after thinking about it. He pulled me to the side and said good call but if you ever unmine my coaching in front of the team again, you want play, i'll take you out of the game. I got mad but afterwards i understood why he said that. I got lucky on one play. And we where not in the 6th champoinship game because he was lucky. He was good coach, and so is Lee. We may not understand how or where he came up with his method's but they work very will and questions like that undermine and create dowt. We don't need that. Just let him do what he does best and let him coach. Ps, Dad won 9 in a row . Two with me it QB,I love those day!


 That is a great story. however did you ever or anyone else on the team discuss the playbook or strategy outside of a game? I am betting yes, and that opinions if not solicited were in fact considered.

Sure in tournament, follow the plan. While learning only the best students ask questions and frequently question the answers themselves. Blind faith in anything is against human nature and in nearly all cases human interests. Other coaches and other methods have produced champions and that merits looking into. I purely do not believe there is one single method that works for everyone, humanity is simply to diverse for that and any method that does not in fact take that into account is immediately suspect in my book.

Thats purely my take on things and if off topic subject to deletion by mod (I hope). I would like to see this thread continue as more scrutiny into best is certainly warranted.


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

It doesn't matter what play the coach calls, if the players don't have the heart, motivation, and a certain amount of natural talent, to execute it.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

> ...overcoming the inertia of the limbs, the arrow and the string...


Warbow,

Your whole problem with BEST and Lee seems to be based on the above statement as it pertains to inertia. When I read Lee's book I took the reference to "inertia" to be regarding the shooter and the motion of pulling through the clicker. As I remember it, even during his "transfer" phase he said there was unperceived but continuing motion...so you wouldn't have to over come the inertia of coming to a dead stop. Sorry but I just don't get your big problem with the word inertia.

Dave


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Sure, many folks have been successful over the years using different methods. Coach Lee has a method that he has been very successful with. He, as any coach would do, is teaching his method. I wouldn't expect him or any coach to do other wise. In the end it is up to the archer to decide what he or she is willing to do. If they want to be taught by coach Lee they have to be willing to try and learn his method. If they don't want to they can go elsewhere and learn something from someone else.

Coach Lee respects the differences in body types and what they can and can't do. He won't know if they can or can't do it until he tries to teach them his baseline approach. From there he can determine if a change is needed. Look at the majority of the current RA's. You won't find two doing the exact same thing. They have all adapted what they can do to their shot. The fundamentals are there but most will get to the same end point by taking a slightly different path based upon what their body will allow them to do comfortably. 

I have found, watching lots of kids try to shoot with the BEST method, and seeing what the coaches teach, that a lot of the problems they are having is because they aren't doing the technique correctly and the coach didn't have enough information to teach it to them. Also, many of the coaches misunderstood what was being taught. I'm not saying this is the dominant reason for the kids shooting worse but it often is a big contributor.

I would agree a mass overhaul, and I will add, using incomplete or incorrect information isn't a good thing. It is a mistake for folks to think all they have to do is read the book or go to one or a few one or two day seminars and now they are experts on the method. It's going to take some time to get the folks, that are willing to stick with it, fully versed. I'm lucky enough to be able to go to the OTC to be with coach Lee for one or two weeks at a time and every time I go I learn more. And what I learn makes the process easier to understand and coach.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

target1 said:


> sometimes science is twisted to support a position, correct or not. ie. evolution


I don't think this has ever happened before, but I'm awarding the highly coveted RK's "Post of the Day Award" in the FITA section.

target1...that's one of the best posts I have EVER even seen on AT!

:thumb:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dave T said:


> Warbow,
> 
> Your whole problem with BEST and Lee seems to be based on the above statement as it pertains to inertia. When I read Lee's book I took the reference to "inertia" to be regarding the shooter and the motion of pulling through the clicker. As I remember it, even during his "transfer" phase he said there was unperceived but continuing motion...so you wouldn't have to over come the inertia of coming to a dead stop. Sorry but I just don't get your big problem with the word inertia.
> 
> Dave


I don't have a "big problem" but I just don't see Newton's First Law being a big thing you have to overcome compared to the force needed to pull back the bow. Try holding an arrow at anchor on an unstrung bow and pulling it through the clicker. _That's_ how much inertia you have to overcome. Inertia of an object is a function of its mass. The difficultly in pulling the bow back is the force required to deflect the bow limbs--a form of spring. The tendency of a spring to resist force is not inertia. Likewise, friction that must be overcome to move an object isn't inertia, either. 

"My" problem is that the theory of continuous draw is explained in detail with what seems to be incorrect information about basic physics. If so, then Lee's basic understanding of physics is called in to a question. Insomuch as BEST is supposed to be based on science that is a problem.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> I don't think this has ever happened before, but I'm awarding the highly coveted RK's "Post of the Day Award" in the FITA section.
> 
> target1...that's one of the best posts I have EVER even seen on AT!
> 
> :thumb:


Fine, I give. Care to detail why you think this is noteworthy? I saw it as just bait for a pointless evolution/creationism threadjack, target1 being a minister and all. You seem to think otherwise.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Fine, I give. Care to detail why you think this is noteworthy? I saw it as just bait for a pointless evolution/creationism threadjack, target1 being a minister and all. You seem to think otherwise.


Hey....I'm not here to debate you or anyone else. That was my only post in the thread...and I didn't even read many others.

The RK's Post of the Day Award is given daily for my favorite post that day. Usually it is given for edgy humor that keeps the mood light, but not always.

I gave it to target1 today because I thought his post was a really nice way to combine his beliefs with some pretty decent humor. It had nothing to do with you or the thread at all.

Carry on.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Warbow said:


> Fine, I give. Care to detail why you think this is noteworthy? I saw it as just bait for a pointless evolution/creationism threadjack, target1 being a minister and all. You seem to think otherwise.


I would have to concur, further elucidation seems warranted.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Since science was never used to justify or qualify all the other shooting techniques people currently use and since many current archers are more than willing to accept the method they use even if some if it isn't based upon good biomechanics, why don't we simply grab our Sharpies and redact the portions of Total Archery that refers to the use of science. That way we can end this and move on.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> Since science was never used to justify or qualify all the other shooting techniques people currently use and since many current archers are more than willing to accept the method they use even if some if it isn't based upon good biomechanics, why don't we simply grab our Sharpies and redact the portions of Total Archery that refers to the use of science. That way we can end this and move on.


That is fine as long as the goal is blind acceptance and stagnation. If the goal is continually seeking improvement and the best understanding possible then I'd say that is a pretty backwards suggestion. Of course, archery is sort of retro but I like the idea of combining old and new; tradition and science.

So far I don't see much evidence that I'm wrong but lots of calls that we should just ignore the inconvenient parts. Ignoring things isn't how you fix things that are changeable.

I don't see this discussion as a substitute for working on form and practice but I do see it as valid.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

This isn't about blind acceptance. Besides we accept things based upon "blind" acceptance (no first hand knowledge of the science behind it) all the time. I don't know why my microwave oven works. I just know that if I put a bag of popcorn in the machine and turn it on, I get what I want. I don't care how it works. Now, if I wanted to improve upon the design then yes knowing how and why it works would be important. 

For me, knowing it is bio-mechanically correct, and that is what is important, is enough for me. I simply find the need to know which of Newtons laws applies to which part of the shot to be a total waste of gray matter and I'm getting too old to worry about something I won't use or need. For those of you who believe it does matter, you could always submit a question on his web site or send him an e-mail.

I want to improve and I want the best "relevant" information possible so I can understand the why. I simply limit my knowledge quest to the biomechanics of the shot. I just find it hard to believe an archer is going to stand on the line, shoot a bad shot and say "damn, If only I had used the first law instead of the second law I would have gotten a 10". 

How far should we take the knowledge quest? Should we break the shot down to mathematical equations and do a worse-on-worse or statistical analysis of each part of the shot?

If the application of physics was incorrectly applied in the book, it still doesn't lessen the rest of the material, at least in my eyes.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> This isn't about blind acceptance. Besides we accept things based upon "blind" acceptance (no first hand knowledge of the science behind it) all the time. I don't know why my microwave oven works. I just know that if I put a bag of popcorn in the machine and turn it on, I get what I want. I don't care how it works. Now, if I wanted to improve upon the design then yes knowing how and why it works would be important.
> 
> For me, knowing it is bio-mechanically correct, and that is what is important, is enough for me. I simply find the need to know which of Newtons laws applies to which part of the shot to be a total waste of gray matter and I'm getting too old to worry about something I won't use or need. For those of you who believe it does matter, you could always submit a question on his web site or send him an e-mail.
> 
> ...


I think the point we are trying to get at here is that you do not in fact _*KNOW*_ that it is biomechanically correct. Any more than you know how the microwave works. There have in fact been many training "methods" throughout the history of sport which have been " en vogue" in there inception and upon further scrutiny found to have less than stellar merits. While I am not inferring that this is the case with best, I am suggesting that a deeper look into its prepositions is warranted and may in fact be beneficial to the further development of the system or its future derivatives.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> I want to improve and I want the best "relevant" information possible so I can understand the why. I simply limit my knowledge quest to the biomechanics of the shot. I just find it hard to believe an archer is going to stand on the line, shoot a bad shot and say "damn, If only I had used the first law instead of the second law I would have gotten a 10".


Well, after having my scores progressively get lower as a round goes on (i.e. arrows more spread out over the target), I have been known to mutter
"Damn the second law of thermodynamics!"
[/nerd]


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> I don't know why my microwave oven works. I just know that if I put a bag of popcorn in the machine and turn it on, I get what I want. I don't care how it works. Now, *if I wanted to improve* upon the design then yes knowing how and why it works would be important.


{emphasis mine}

Quite. And _improving_ is presumably your goal as an archer, so knowing the actual how and why of archery _is_ relevant. I'm sure that if you were into competative microwave popcorn popping you'd look into the relevant facts as well since they would be the key to winning.




> I want to improve and I want the best "relevant" information possible so I can understand the why. I simply limit my knowledge quest to the biomechanics of the shot. I just find it hard to believe an archer is going to stand on the line, shoot a bad shot and say "damn, If only I had used the first law instead of the second law I would have gotten a 10".


None of the information you get is "relevant" if it is wrong. Note that Lee _predicates_ his biomechanics on physics. Newton's Laws of Motion are the first part of the biomechanics section of the book! You can't simply limit your quest to biomechanics since the biomechanics are not some field that is independent of physics. If Lee gets the physics wrong it is quite possible for the biomechanics predicated on invalid premises to be likewise wrong. That's one reason this issue is worth looking into.

Are individual archers going to curse Newton? Yes, all the time but more generally as Newtonian mechanics are applied to ballistics. Plus, this isn't just about archers but coaching and the study of archery for purposes of coaching. Maybe you don't need to know about the facts relating to continuous draw, but at the top level researchers and coaches darn well ought to.



> How far should we take the knowledge quest? Should we break the shot down to mathematical equations and do a worse-on-worse or statistical analysis of each part of the shot?


If it will help, sure. But should we fill a book with mathematical equations that are factually in error? I think we can both agree that would be counterproductive and hard to defend rationally. The same goes for factually incorrect physics, if such is indeed the case.



> If the application of physics was incorrectly applied in the book, it still doesn't lessen the rest of the material, at least in my eyes.


It certainly doesn't automatically invalidate it. But, if the physics is wrong then the scientific credibility is called into question--and the fabulous thing about BEST is supposed to be that it is all scientific and stuff.

Again, I still look forward to learning BEST and it is clear that it is a top level system for many, I just don't plan on presuming that it is perfect or giving it undue deference.


----------



## mwarddoc (Aug 12, 2007)

*Proper thread for the question?*

I guess not...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

mwarddoc said:


> Proper thread for the question?
> I guess not...


Er, which question?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Brandeis_Archer said:


> Well, after having my scores progressively get lower as a round goes on (i.e. arrows more spread out over the target), I have been known to mutter
> "Damn the second law of thermodynamics!"
> [/nerd]


In my case I'd have to curse regression to the mean...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The BEST method works just fine for those who are willing to approach it with an open mind. However I've seen a rare few who have so far. 

I will say that the method of explaining the BEST method isn't nearly as refined as the method itself 

If you approach it more like a martial art than from a scientific standpoint, I think you will get a lot further...

John.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

I believe Lee is referring to an object's amount of resistance to change in velocity which is quantified by its mass, and sometimes its momentum. In other words it requires less energy to keep a mass moving once it is started; than it does to start that motion.


----------



## tedzpony (May 15, 2007)

I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with the comments about treating it like a martial art. Remember that this "method" was born with Lee in the Orient, where a different way of thinking, such as is found in the martial arts, dominates. That's how you will read much of "Total Archery," it's about complete control of the body. In the West we have very analytical conceptions of things that don't always mesh well with that style of training. I think LimbWalker may be on to something with his comments.

Furthermore, I just have to ask, Warbow, since you're on such a -- I would say "quest" but now it seems more of a "crusade" or "inquisition" -- to "improve" upon the BEST system, I'm curious what more you're doing about it than just stirring up a lot of discussion on this forum, much of which is inflamatory at that, i.e. the fact that the thread began, not as a question, but as a refutation.

So, really, honestly, have you spent time with a coach trying to learn the method the right way? Or have you just superficially skimmed the book once? I can't tell for sure from your comments one way or the other, but to be quite honest, you sound like a guy who's frustrated that he tried it and it didn't work the first time, so you're now trying to pick it apart and find the flaws. I may be completely wrong, but perhaps if you give some background on your experience with it, those on here who are much more knowledgeable than me could tell you where your understanding is failing.

If that's what you actually want. If you're just a "s*** disturber" (as my dad used to call such people), then, well, rant on I guess. But how pathetic is that.

One thing I've learned from years of competitive sports, though, is that they're about practical applicability, and the science is just there to back them up. There is far too much about the human mind, body and spirit that are misunderstood (or completely unknown) to factor them all into a purely theoretical discussion. It sounds to me like what you want is a purely theoretical scientific discussion of the BEST method.

But I submit to you that such things fail to account for how a guy like Lance Armstrong can do what he did -- the battle back from cancer, and then complete domination of the Tour de France for so long. Sure, in retrospect we know how he did it, and most of the cycling world now accepts that the training method he created works great. But at the time, scientifically, theoretically, no one could have factored into any theoretical equation the immense human willpower and spirit that kept him from giving up, and kept him fighting. I was a cyclist for many years, so he's the example I choose, but I know there are far more out there that would illustrate the point.

Theory is great, but I just don't think you can have an all inclusive scientific proof of everything like you seem to be demanding. Just go out and shoot, have fun, and try to improve. When you hit that upper barrier, and you just can't get any better after months and years of practice, then you might have cause to question if the method is incomplete, misexplained or wrong. Then it might be time to start trying to figure out where you can tweak the system you've chosen.


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*left something out of that.*



In the shadows said:


> It doesn't matter what play the coach calls, if the players don't have the heart, motivation, and a certain amount of natural talent, to execute it.


 Yes, and we have a lot of that in US team's, all we need is some faith in him and his method's to win. Once we understand and we will, it will not matter if he's our coach. We will have his method, that's all we need. Look at the Korean women, trained by Lee. He is not their coach anymore and still they are the best in the world. All because of faith in method's
learned from Lee. Let's try that before we call this (PSEUDO)( that means false for all ******** out there), maybe we the us archer's can have as much success as they do. So let's give a try.:teeth:


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*Good point John*



limbwalker said:


> The BEST method works just fine for those who are willing to approach it with an open mind. However I've seen a rare few who have so far.
> 
> I will say that the method of explaining the BEST method isn't nearly as refined as the method itself
> 
> ...


:smile: That is a very good point. Coach is not every good in explaining in english. But lets not forget the reason why he's here (it's golden) and he know's how to win them better then anyone else. :teeth:


----------



## Steven Cornell (Mar 22, 2003)

*Who are you?*



In the shadows said:


> As a coach, I have just not been able to "drink the kool-aid" when it comes to the BEST method. Here are my thoughts:
> 
> I have ben to several of Coach Lee's seminars, and have learned alot. I have used some parts of the BEST system for some archers, with great success. Over this past year I watched one of our local JOAD clubs overhaul every student to the BEST system. Only 2 of their 20+ archers shot better at this years State Championship.


You only have posted in this thread. Who are you?


You stated that you have been to Coach Lee's Seminar, which one?
Was it an hour long one or one of the longer several day seminars.

It sounds like you are resistant to change.
Well this is really not a change. If you study the way Darrell Pace shot you would see almost all of the best method in his shot cycle.

So are we suppose to just give up on recurves and start shooting compounds?


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

I can't seem to get the "Quote" feature to work, but I will address a few items here.
Let me start by saying that I am not in any way questioning that the BEST method has many merrits. It involves alot of scientific information which I have not been educated in, and I am interested in learning. I have not been to extensive BEST training, but have attended 3 short seminars. 
I am not resistant to change. Evolution is what has gotten Earth and society where it is today. (Off topic-God invented evolution, they are the same, not seperate.) I guess *my "problem" is not with the method itself, but rather the way the NAA has instituted it*. An experienced, successful coach such as myself (I'll give a brief bio at the end of this post) is now considered a "lesser being" to some schmo who has limited experience and knowledge and goes to a seminar and gets "certified" to be a "High Performance Coach". *Politics as usual at the NAA*. If you don't do it our way, you are nobody and get no support.
Secondly, from waht I have seen, the NAA is offering BEST training opportunities to cadet and junior JOAD archers who are already successful, bringing them to the OTC, telling them their current form is "wrong", stripping them down, rebuilding them then sending them home to work with their old coach or some HPS (High Performance Schmo) who cannot properly train them. It's idiotic and counterproductive. (Again, this is nothing new for the NAA. I have seen countless JOAD archers get ruined at NAA "Olympian" camps, being told they are doing everything wrong, changing them and sending them home all screwed up.)
And yes, the BEST method is eastern thinking. We are Americans. Don't show us how, tell us why and we will figure out how. In short, show us the money and we'll win. Should we all shoot compounds? I love the challenge and beauty of recurve archery, but it will always be a hobby because there is no money in it. You cannot win Olympic gold with a "hobby".
My name is William (Billy) Hall, past JOAD National Champion, 11 time eastern regional JOAD/NAA champion and record holder. I grew up shooting with Vic, Rod White and Denise Parker. I am the nephew of Butch Johnson, Tricia Hall (Johnson) and Eric Hall (the most dominant professional finger shooter for 10 years.) These were my coaches. I have been an archer for 23 years and an archery instructor for 15 years. I have coached 5 archers to top 3 finishes in nationals along with many regional and state champions.
My problem is not the BEST system, I look forward to learning more about it and incorperating it into my coaching. My problem is the way the NAA handles the program........................and basically everything else as well.


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

Oops! Didn't realize that font size was quite so big. I didn't mean to be THAT loud.:teeth:


----------



## djhohmann (Nov 4, 2005)

*Fundamental Science*

Lee says that one must never stop drawing or pulling the bow--even during the period of imperceptibly expanding through the clicker--because the Law of Inertia says it will take too much effort to get started again. This appears to be an instance in which Kisik Lee is wrong on fundamental science.

I just wanted to point out that the problem your proposing isn’t with the word, or science of, inertia, but with the “too much”. 

Changing any body in motion (even one as seemingly light as an arrow) requires additional force. This force, albeit small, is what Coach Lee is recommending avoiding. Is it “too much”? It may be so if you’re trying to shoot a perfect FITA. 

At least I don’t find anything wrong with Coach Lee’s statement or his understanding of fundamental science.


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

Newton’s First Law as stated TA is a not direct quote. In stating that inertia is often associated with a change in velocity, the intent is to raise the reader’s curiosity to perhaps research and understand a more rigorous statement of the first law. Learning then takes place. Hopefully followed by an understanding of how the consequences of the first law might be applied to accomplish the most efficient method of utilizing the mechanical systems of the human body to exchange one form of energy into another. 

Inertia as stated is often associated with a change in velocity which we intuitively then relate to mass. Perhaps a more accurate statement is that mass is a physical property that lends a body its inertia. The key thing to understand is that inertia which is not a physical quantity is a term used to understand that an instantaneous change form one energy state to another requires infinite power, which is never readily available.

It is easy when studying technical information to loose track of the discussion when given a statement without proof. Mr. Lee’s statement taken in the contents of the overall discussion does make logical sense and it is not hard to show that in the contents of the discussion no physical rules have been broken.


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Perhaps it's not the mass of the arrow (inconsequentially small) or the mass of the limbs and string being moved back (negligible), but instead the "inertia" (preventing static friction, I think) in your back/arm/shoulder rotation. That is the largest mass in the system (for real inertia, if he does mean that), and also the one with the largest relevant friction (joints, muscles, etc, if he means reducing friction).

Again, IANAS, so take it with a grain of crystalline sodium chloride.


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

Warbow's post #1 of this thread states


> It seems that Lee gets so much deference that nobody seems to have caught this error in editing or nor have I come across it being discussed on the net.


FWIW, I remember this topic being discussed on Sagittarius almost immediately after people started receiving their TA book. Mr. Barndoor was the first to raise the question on page #5 ("The book is packed to the brim with brilliant insights, but the references to inertial physics must be treated as a bad analogy.").....you'll find most of the discussion being on pages 6 - 8. No one on Sagittarius was as passionate about the bad analogy as Warbow seems to be, so it died off after 6 - 8 discussions. - John

http://sagittarius.student.utwente....ys=0&postorder=asc&highlight=inertia&start=60


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Also supporting the frictional bit would be Joe Tapley's statement [edit- page 1 of previously linked Sagi discussion]


> IIRC the basis for pulling to the neck and then rotating the tab up is to keep in motion and the muscles working while not actually pulling the arrow through the clicker (after the cicker has been visually located on the tip of the pile). All I think covered on Sagi board long time ago.


Real inertia, moving in the direction not required, wouldn't be of any help to the draw. However, motion, preventing static friction/freezing up of muscles would be, as that motion can easily be redirected to pull through the clicker.

@Warbow- My, what a popular thread you've started! It was all because of Where is everyone?, wasn't it?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

tedzpony said:


> Furthermore, I just have to ask, Warbow, since you're on such a -- I would say "quest" but now it seems more of a "crusade" or "inquisition" -- to "improve" upon the BEST system, I'm curious what more you're doing about it than just stirring up a lot of discussion on this forum, much of which is inflamatory at that, i.e. the fact that the thread began, not as a question, but as a refutation.
> 
> So, really, honestly, have you spent time with a coach trying to learn the method the right way? Or have you just superficially skimmed the book once? I can't tell for sure from your comments one way or the other, but to be quite honest, you sound like a guy who's frustrated that he tried it and it didn't work the first time, so you're now trying to pick it apart and find the flaws


Tedzpony, I'm surprised that you think I might be trolling. My asking about the science in Total Archery shouldn't be controversial on its face. If I'd found errors in "Target Archery" by Elmer people would be discussing the issue rationally and without the heat that seems to be exhibited here. But, because the apparent error is in a book by Kisik Lee people are bending over backwards to find rationalizations to explain it away. Perhaps if my question had some how "anonymized" the subject we could be discussing facts rather than being so defensive.

I've admitted all along that I have only a passing knowledge of BEST, that I'm looking forward to learning it, that I respect coach Lee and his impressive accomplishments and that science errors in the book do not necessarily invalidate anything in BEST. I'm frankly getting a little tired of having to repeat that just to have a discussion about science and archery form especially since it doesn't seem to be getting through. I haven't learned enough of BEST to be frustrated with it. I just happen to be a very analytical guy who likes to know how things work and likes explanations and science to be accurate.


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

Newton’s First Law as stated TA is a not direct quote. In stating that inertia is often associated with a change in velocity, the intent is to raise the reader’s curiosity to perhaps research and understand a more rigorous statement of the first law. Learning then takes place. Hopefully followed by an understanding of how the consequences of the first law might be applied to accomplish the most efficient method of utilizing the mechanical systems of the human body to exchange one form of energy into another. 

Inertia as stated is often associated with a change in velocity which we intuitively then relate to mass. Perhaps a more accurate statement is that mass is a physical property that lends a body its inertia. The key thing to understand is that inertia which is not a physical quantity is a term used to understand that an instantaneous change form one energy state to another requires infinite power, which is never readily available.

It is easy when studying technical information to loose track of the discussion when given a statement without proof. Mr. Lee’s statement taken in the contents of the overall discussion does make logical sense and it is not hard to show that in the contents of the discussion no physical rules have been broken.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I took the book's statements regarding Newton's laws as more metaphor than actual physics. I think Coach Lee was making some analogies for the purposes of conceptualization.

However, this is all based on first printing of the book, and it is my understanding that Coach Lee has continually improved on that material in his seminars and training sessions. 

There may also be some language barrier issues and some colloquialisms that may have not translated over completely into English.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

I wrote a long post to a number of comments but decided to delete it. I'll only say this. 

In the Shadows, we did not say the kids shot was wrong when they came to the OTC. We told them we believe we have a way to shoot the bow that will give them a better chance to be internationally competitive and we will teach it to them if they want to learn. Those that said yes continued. Those that said no, stayed home the next time. We also told them this is not a short term process. You aren't going to be great shooters in a few days or months. For some it may come faster than others but it may take a few years to become really proficient at using it. Since they ALL said their goal was to try to make the 2012 Olympic team they said they had the patience to work with it. I will agree sending them home to a coach that is well versed in the method is a hurdle and we are trying to fix that. Also, I am one of those schmo's that went to a seminar and came out an HPC. I also wasn't arrogant or vain enough to believe I had reached the mountain top. I knew this was a starting point and my task was to continue to learn as much as I could. That is why I go to the OTC as often as I can and I email coach Lee with questions any time I have them. My focus isn't to make an archer the best in the US. My goal is to make an archer internationally competitive. Doing that most often will also make them the best in the US.

I'm off to make finger spacers. See you folks later. Oh and warbow, your wrong and Hutnicks, I do know.

Terry


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> I can't seem to get the "Quote" feature to work, but I will address a few items here.
> Let me start by saying that I am not in any way questioning that the BEST method has many merrits. It involves alot of scientific information which I have not been educated in, and I am interested in learning. I have not been to extensive BEST training, but have attended 3 short seminars.
> I am not resistant to change. Evolution is what has gotten Earth and society where it is today. (Off topic-God invented evolution, they are the same, not seperate.) I guess *my "problem" is not with the method itself, but rather the way the NAA has instituted it*. An experienced, successful coach such as myself (I'll give a brief bio at the end of this post) is now considered a "lesser being" to some schmo who has limited experience and knowledge and goes to a seminar and gets "certified" to be a "High Performance Coach". *Politics as usual at the NAA*. If you don't do it our way, you are nobody and get no support.
> Secondly, from waht I have seen, the NAA is offering BEST training opportunities to cadet and junior JOAD archers who are already successful, bringing them to the OTC, telling them their current form is "wrong", stripping them down, rebuilding them then sending them home to work with their old coach or some HPS (High Performance Schmo) who cannot properly train them. It's idiotic and counterproductive. (Again, this is nothing new for the NAA. I have seen countless JOAD archers get ruined at NAA "Olympian" camps, being told they are doing everything wrong, changing them and sending them home all screwed up.)
> ...


I think that topic itself merits a thread of it's own.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> I think that topic itself merits a thread of it's own.


So do I. And I must say that it is really nice to see Billy Hall as an AT member. His first assignment as a new member is to recruit his two uncles to join us as well!


----------



## tedzpony (May 15, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Tedzpony, I'm surprised that you think I might be trolling. My asking about the science in Total Archery shouldn't be controversial on its face. If I'd found errors in "Target Archery" by Elmer people would be discussing the issue rationally and without the heat that seems to be exhibited here. But, because the apparent error is in a book by Kisik Lee people are bending over backwards to find rationalizations to explain it away. Perhaps if my question had some how "anonymized" the subject we could be discussing facts rather than being so defensive.


I know that you've said several times that you're a contrarian, but the fact is that you started this thread by suggesting this method is "pseudo-science," and accusing Coach Lee of being "wrong about fundamental science."

Whether he's right or you are, whether the method is sound or not, you need to recognize that your selection of words is inflamatory, antagonistic and basically disrespectful. This is not about blindly following Coach Lee's method without substantiation, and there is nothing inherently disrespectful about questioning methods or a person's knowledge base. It's the method in which you did it, that's all. Your word choice left much to be desired.

Something more along the lines of: "I've read such-and-such section of Total Archery, and I'm a little confused on one point. It seems to run contrary to what I know of physics. Can someone please explain this to me?"

Wow! I suspect you'd have gotten a lot more positive, less-defensive replies that way. We're all adults (well, maybe), but even so, the anonymity of the internet leads people to be a bit more harsh in their word choice than they would be face to face, which turns discussions into what you have here.

I wonder, would you have said to Coach Lee, face-to-face, or to another coworker even, "I think your understanding about this subject that you're purported to be an expert on is fundamentally flawed, and what you're passing off as science is really not at all." I suspect you would have been a bit less argumentative, a bit more polite, a bit less accusatory of the person's knowledge, and maybe given him/her a chance to explain what you didn't understand.

And yes, this is my rant, if you like. Call it my own little "crusade" against the erosion of manners that has propagated our society due to the proliferation of e-mail, internet forums and cell phone use in public. Take it for what you will. It's just a lot easier to be rude when you don't look someone in the eye.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> So do I. And I must say that it is really nice to see Billy Hall as an AT member. His first assignment as a new member is to recruit his two uncles to join us as well!


Does he at least get an AT hat for fulfilling the recruitment requirement?


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Does he at least get an AT hat for fulfilling the recruitment requirement?


You bet....and he can choose tan or black.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

tedzpony said:


> And yes, this is my rant, if you like. Call it my own little "crusade" against the erosion of manners that has propagated our society due to the proliferation of e-mail, internet forums and cell phone use in public. Take it for what you will. It's just a lot easier to be rude when you don't look someone in the eye.


:thumbs_up


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Recordkeeper said:


> I don't think this has ever happened before, but I'm awarding the highly coveted RK's "Post of the Day Award" in the FITA section.
> 
> target1...that's one of the best posts I have EVER even seen on AT!
> 
> :thumb:


Thank you RK, I'm humbled.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

*My $0.02*

Here's how I see things. And of course, this is opinion only...and only my opinion at that

I think the BEST method is valid. I think the biometric science behind it is valid as well. However, I do not think it is the only way to be successful shooting a bow, and was somewhat disappointed with the rigidity of the BEST method as it was presented in the seminars that I have attended. I would hope that in practice there is more of a willingness to refine the method to each individual based upon differences in body composition and structure. I believe Coach Lee did exactly that with Tim Cuddihy and his inability to rotate his bow arm as the BEST method dictates.

That notwithstanding, here is what I think generates some of the resistance to accepting the BEST method.....

It is presented as an either/or method. Either accept it, or OUR national coach isn't going to work with you. I think this comes accross as a very elitist way of thinking. Other than Brady, I don't see many of our present top archers adopting the BEST method and perhaps this is why.

This same thought process trickles down all the way to Internet forums and discussions among JOAD coaches. This is somewhat unfortunate in that it ends up creating two distinct camps...those that will defend the BEST method seemingly to the exclusion of all else...and those who aren't willing to fully adopt the method. Now this is where the dynamics become very interesting....because it takes on characteristics of other constant themes that we see right here on AT. Similar to the Elite fanboys and the BowTech fanboys with their constant pokes and jabs. Same with the fans of Mathews and Hoyt, only their constant battle of wits is on a more subdued and reasonable level.

I personally wish Coach Lee much success. But I also believe our chances for success in 2008 lie within the BEST method and outside it as well. 2012, on the other hand...is wide open and will be watched with great anticipation.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*Let's have some fun with this thread...*

An imaginary converstaion...:


"I think Lee's teachings regarding avoiding start/stop/start motions during the shot process are good, but when I read about how he applies the Law of Inertia to it I think I have a different view."

"But, you agree with his teachings?"

"Oh, yes, but if I extract certain principles from the Law of Inertia, I can convolute his analogies and discredit him!"

"But you have clearly stated that you are not a physicist or a physiologist. Why would anyone care what you think about Lee's application of Inertia?

"Doesn't matter, people are easily goaded into irrational arguments, and I will win with my experience!"

"But, you already made it abundantly clear that you know little about Lee's BEST system". 

"It doesn't matter! Don't you see? The great Sage, Gee Tee, once said: 'Never have so many said so much about something they know so little', and I just know he was talking to me!" I have been touched by Greatness!". 

"Right. Let's see if I understand this. You probably agree with something and at the same time you want to discredit it, and you want to use an argument based on an understanding of physics from which you have already disqualified yourself. I think you are arguing with yourself. How do you propose to win this, uh, argument?" 

"I might need your help".

"But, I am you"

"Who is?"

"I am. Have you read Jayne's 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind'?"

"No. Why?"

"Because you may be hearing sibilant voices."

"What? Who said that?".

"Oh, just get back to your BEST training".

"Right. Good idea. What did you say your name was?"

"(Sigh)."


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

tedzpony said:


> I know that you've said several times that you're a contrarian, but the fact is that you started this thread by suggesting this method is "pseudo-science," and accusing Coach Lee of being "wrong about fundamental science."
> 
> Whether he's right or you are, whether the method is sound or not, you need to recognize that your selection of words is inflamatory, antagonistic and basically disrespectful. This is not about blindly following Coach Lee's method without substantiation, and there is nothing inherently disrespectful about questioning methods or a person's knowledge base. It's the method in which you did it, that's all. Your word choice left much to be desired.
> 
> ...


You know, I was all set to say, "No, I've only called myself a contrarian once." But I went and checked my facts by doing a search on AT and came up with 3 instances. I was wrong. _I fact checked my draft post._ I don't think it is disrespectful to coach Lee to hold him to at least as high a standard. I think holding him to a lower standard would be disrespectful.

You claim my "selection of words is inflamatory, antagonistic and basically disrespectful." Why don't we check out my original post and look for those qualities:



> B.E.S.T. Method Pseudo Science?
> In describing the BEST Method Kisik Lee says the system is firmly grounded in science. In the very first section of the Biomechanics section he describes Newton's Laws of Motion and says how they apply to archery form.
> 
> Lee says that one must never stop drawing or pulling the bow--even during the period of imperceptibly expanding through the clicker--because the Law of Inertia says it will take too much effort to get started again. This appears to be an instance in which Kisik Lee is wrong on fundamental science.
> ...


This seems like pretty evenhanded examination. I try not to overstate my premises or my qualifications. The primary objection seems to be that I'm questioning authority because I think I actually did write something akin in tone to your proposal: "I've read such-and-such section of Total Archery, and I'm a little confused on one point. It seems to run contrary to what I know of physics. Can someone please explain this to me?"

You accuse me of skimming Total Archery yet you seem to have skimmed my posts to come to that conclusion.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> An imaginary converstaion...:
> 
> 
> "I think Lee's teachings regarding avoiding start/stop/start motions during the shot process are good, but when I read about how he applies the Law of Inertia to it I think I have a different view."
> ...


 Oh, I get it, questioning BEST is insane. Wonderful attempt at disproof in the negative.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

:darkbeer:
:happy1:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> An imaginary converstaion...:


Yes, much easier to argue with an imaginary person rather than the real one. I should point out the obvious and note that _I'm right here_. Instead of arguing with the imaginary person and his _imaginary_ arguments why not have a conversation with the actual person and his _actual_ arguments?

However, I'm happy to address the imaginary issues you have brought up.

Seattlepop's imaginary opponent writes:


> "Oh, yes, but if I extract certain principles from the Law of Inertia, I can convolute his analogies and discredit him!"


Go to pp70-71 in _Total Archery_ and find any evidence that Lee's detailed discussion of Newton's Laws and the section "How we can apply the Law of Inertia to archery" is presented as analogy and not as fact.

I'll wait here...

Seattlepop and Seattlepop's imaginary opponent write:


> "But you have clearly stated that you are not a physicist or a physiologist. Why would anyone care what you think about Lee's application of Inertia?
> 
> "Doesn't matter, people are easily goaded into irrational arguments, and I will win with my experience!"


The thing about science is that it is true whether or not you are an expert. It is possible I misunderstand the science so I've stated that possibility, though others seem quick to condemn me without admitting their lack of expertise means they, too, could be mistaken. And, of course, even experts can get it wrong. However, the way you refute a scientific argument is with science not by character assassination. I'm still waiting for someone to point to science that shows my argument is in error. I've yet to see it, though i have seen lots of tap dancing and hemming and hawing.

BTW, my arguments are about _rationality_. If people respond irrationally there isn't much I can do about it but stick to my rational argument and hope they can come around. *cough*cough*

Seattlepop writes:


> "But, you already made it abundantly clear that you know little about Lee's BEST system".


You don't have to be and expert in BEST or physics to spot what seems to be a basic misapplication of Newtonian Physics. Your seeming lack of expertise doesn't seem to stop you from criticizing my argument--though not on a scientific basis. I don't know why you'd hold me to different standards than you'd hold yourself.

Seattlepop writes:


> "Right. Let's see if I understand this. You probably agree with something and at the same time you want to discredit it, and you want to use an argument based on an understanding of physics from which you have already disqualified yourself. I think you are arguing with yourself. How do you propose to win this, uh, argument?


Having problems with subtlety? It is possible to question the alleged scientific foundation of something without presuming that thing is entirely without merit. And it is possible to question aspects of a thing while still wanting to learn more about it.


----------



## tedzpony (May 15, 2007)

Warbow said:


> You claim my "selection of words is inflamatory, antagonistic and basically disrespectful." Why don't we check out my original post and look for those qualities:


Then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, because the exact post that you quoted here is the exact one to which I was referring as well. I did not skim it, but read it through three times to see if I could read it a different way. I couldn't.

I feel that the use of the term "pseudo-science" to refer to the teachings of an acknowledged expert is disrespectful. You may disagree, and perhaps it's just how I was raised. He has spent 25 years of his life living, breathing, teaching and studying archery and the biomechanics thereof. His record speaks volumes to his application of what he's learned. So, the foundations of his "science" may not be as rigid as you suggest, but the following is a quoted definition of the prefix "pseudo:"

"1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham."

To say such a thing about the teachings of another person, especially after admitting a lacking knowledge of one's own, I feel, is disrepectful.

Further, you also highlight Coach Lee's statements that the method is firmly grounded in science, and then go on to question his knowledge of the science in progressively stronger terms throughout your post, at one point calling them "fundamentally wrong." That's about as strong a refutation as you can make. Yes, I acknowledge that you tried to tone it down with the use of the word "appears," but that doesn't really make the assertion any less argumentative or defamatory, because you later said his teachings are "the opposite of the physics involved."

All I'm saying is, you'll get a much better discussion of the actual topic if you write your posts such as you would speak them to someone's face. The only reason this thread is so contentious is because of how definitive you made your opening post. It basically drew the proverbial "line in the sand," and rather than humbly asking for an explanation, you subtly invited readers to take a side.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

tedzpony said:


> Then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, because the exact post that you quoted here is the exact one to which I was referring as well. I did not skim it, but read it through three times to see if I could read it a different way. I couldn't.


Yes, I think we will have to disagree. I take your point, though. I don't feel I've crossed the line you think I have but that line is a subjective one that is clearly different for each of us. While I'm not a physicist I do tend to take the scientific approach that facts should be viewed objectively and that challenging the science of something isn't necessarily a personal affront, just science. If you want to be in a field relating to science you have to have a thick skin for such things. Lee is in such a field by being a "scientific" coach by choice.

I did argue that Lee's invocation of physics seemed to be fundamentally wrong and I did so because Newtonian mechanics are _fundamental_ physics.

As to "pseudo science," that seemed to be the best thumbnail for expressing the confident but apparently fundamentally erroneous invocation of science to support a position, and I think it is consistent with your supplied definition "1. not actually but having the appearance of". But I'll grant you that the other connotations of "pseudo science" may make the term somewhat loaded and perhaps inflammatory. Perhaps I would not use the same term were I to go back in time and post the thread. Even so, I feel that my OP clearly and rationally explained my position and was not inherently disrespectful.

As for drawing a line in the sand, yes. I implied "here is what I think the science is, prove me wrong." Science is like that. I do take your point that perhaps there may be ways to better manage a conversation to be more productive. I suspect, however, that BEST engenders many strong opinions that it cannot be discussed without causing shoot from the hip responses.

Imagine a famous flight instructor giving fundamentally erroneous information on the physics and aerodynamics of flight in his much lauded book. Would it be reasonable to simply ignore the errors just because he is otherwise so respected? I'd say not, but there would be more of a safety issue with flight instruction than with archery form instruction. Even so, why let what seem like basic errors go unchallenged? Seems wrong to me...

Earlier you wrote:


> And yes, this is my rant, if you like. Call it my own little "crusade" against the erosion of manners that has propagated our society due to the proliferation of e-mail, internet forums and cell phone use in public. Take it for what you will. It's just a lot easier to be rude when you don't look someone in the eye.


Clearly that can be the case. I've tried to present my argument rationally and with supporting evidence. It is the same argument that I might make in person. And while I can on occasion be a little snippier on line than in person I don't think my posts in this thread represent such. If you don't think I'll stand by a rational position like this one in person then you haven't met me in person :smile:


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

Newton’s First Law as stated TA is a not direct quote. The text does state that inertia is often associated with a change in velocity. The intent is to raise the reader’s curiosity to perhaps research and understand a more rigorous statement of the first law. Learning then takes place. Hopefully followed by an understanding of how the consequences of the first law might be applied to accomplish the most efficient method of utilizing the mechanical systems of the human body to exchange one form of energy into another. 

Inertia as stated is often associated with a change in velocity which we intuitively then relate to mass. Perhaps a more accurate statement is that mass is a physical property that lends a body its inertia. The key thing to understand is that inertia which is not a physical quantity is a term used to understand that an instantaneous change from one energy state to another requires infinite power, which is never readily available.

It is easy when studying technical information to loose track of the discussion when given a statement without proof. Mr. Lee’s statement taken in the contents of the overall discussion does make logical sense and it is not hard to show that in the contents of the discussion, no physical rules have been broken.


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

Record Keeper, I agree completely, the attitude surrounding the BEST system does come across as eliteist. I personally do not feel that I have reached the top of the mountain, far from it. And I should have tempered my comment regarding the "schmos". Making blanket statements is wrong, and I apologize. I can only speak for two particular individuals from my area. One forced all his students to adapt the BEST method after he recieved his certification and it really messed up what was a solid club. The other (who has had zero experience or success as an archery coach) bad mouths my program and that of Hall's Arrow (two VERY successful clubs) to any parent who will listen that we are inferior because we are not "High Performance" coaches. I have heard other stories that are similar. Bad times. 
Not to tap into theology again, but I believe in "one God, many names". If the religions of the world would see that whatever He is refered to, the teaching is all the same. Be good to each other, be understanding and loving, be a good person. But what do we do? Kill each other over who's right. BEST method or another, they all work off many of the same basic principals, a different way of achieving the same goal. We would be better off bringing the top 30 coaches together for a week, twice a year to share ideas and form an open venue for communication. When we stop learning, we stop growing and no progress is made. We stop learning when we believe only one way is right. That's when the mind colses. I have said it so many times now. The BEST method is a great method, but don't tell me it is the only way, then exclude me if I don't agree. The best way to convert a non-believer is to bring them to church, not to lock them out. 
As for the Uncles, I'll try but no promises. (Can I get the hat anyway)


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Go to pp70-71 in _Total Archery_ and find any evidence that Lee's detailed discussion of Newton's Laws and the section "How we can apply the Law of Inertia to archery" is presented as analogy and not as fact.
> 
> I'll wait here...



Thank you for waiting. 

I just read over that section and there is no question that you are chasing an imaginary ghost. The evidence is clear that it is an analogy, and it starts because he doesn't say "HERE is HOW we apply the LOI to Archery", rather, Lee asks the question: "HOW can we apply...(it)" (emphasis added). The WAY he applies it is through just that, an analogy with those parts of LOM and LOI that address motion (change or constance). It may not be perfect, but most people get it.

I nominate this thread for "Worst Thread of 2007".


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Greg Bouras said:


> Newton’s First Law as stated TA is a not direct quote. The text does state that inertia is often associated with a change in velocity. The intent is to raise the reader’s curiosity to perhaps research and understand a more rigorous statement of the first law. Learning then takes place. Hopefully followed by an understanding of how the consequences of the first law might be applied to accomplish the most efficient method of utilizing the mechanical systems of the human body to exchange one form of energy into another.
> 
> Inertia as stated is often associated with a change in velocity which we intuitively then relate to mass. Perhaps a more accurate statement is that mass is a physical property that lends a body its inertia. The key thing to understand is that inertia which is not a physical quantity is a term used to understand that an instantaneous change from one energy state to another requires infinite power, which is never readily available.
> 
> It is easy when studying technical information to loose track of the discussion when given a statement without proof. Mr. Lee’s statement taken in the contents of the overall discussion does make logical sense and it is not hard to show that in the contents of the discussion, no physical rules have been broken.


Not a direct quote? From what? _The Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica_? But it was a quote:



> 2_Newton's Laws of Motion
> 1. First Law of Motion (Inertia)
> "Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it."


-_Total Archer_y, p70

Granted, it isn't in Latin but that very much is a quote.

I dont' think you have addressed the crux of the situation, though. Lee claims that it is _inertia_ that is the prime factor in why the draw should not be stopped, yet the inertia is only equivalent that of an arrow (and arm, shoulder, bowtring, limbs, etc) being pulled back from a zero pound bow (or, roughly, an _unstrung _bow), since inertia is a function of mass, not the spring tension of the bow. The force required to deflect the bow far, far exceeds any force needed to overcome inertia in the system in terms of drawing. I believe that Lee is mistakenly lumping the force needed to deflect the bow in with the force needed to overcome the inertia of drawing the mass of the system back, that is, I think he is lumping inertia together with what seems like inertia as though they are in fact the same thing. And he never describes it as analogy or with any other qualification.


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

This thread seems to have alot of inertia.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

In the shadows said:


> Record Keeper, I agree completely, the attitude surrounding the BEST system does come across as eliteist. I personally do not feel that I have reached the top of the mountain, far from it. And I should have tempered my comment regarding the "schmos". Making blanket statements is wrong, and I apologize. I can only speak for two particular individuals from my area. One forced all his students to adapt the BEST method after he recieved his certification and it really messed up what was a solid club. The other (who has had zero experience or success as an archery coach) bad mouths my program and that of Hall's Arrow (two VERY successful clubs) to any parent who will listen that we are inferior because we are not "High Performance" coaches. I have heard other stories that are similar. Bad times.
> Not to tap into theology again, but I believe in "one God, many names". If the religions of the world would see that whatever He is refered to, the teaching is all the same. Be good to each other, be understanding and loving, be a good person. But what do we do? Kill each other over who's right. BEST method or another, they all work off many of the same basic principals, a different way of achieving the same goal. We would be better off bringing the top 30 coaches together for a week, twice a year to share ideas and form an open venue for communication. When we stop learning, we stop growing and no progress is made. We stop learning when we believe only one way is right. That's when the mind colses. I have said it so many times now. The BEST method is a great method, but don't tell me it is the only way, then exclude me if I don't agree. The best way to convert a non-believer is to bring them to church, not to lock them out.
> As for the Uncles, I'll try but no promises. (Can I get the hat anyway)


The hat is yours...just send me a PM with your address.

I haven't seen Eric in a couple of years now, though I order lots of bows and sights from him.:shade: And I'll tell anyone who'll listen...when he was competing...he was in a league of his own. Only Butch was even close. A 300 in Vegas with fingers is a truly awesome feat.:star:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Thank you for waiting.
> 
> I just read over that section and there is no question that you are chasing an imaginary ghost. The evidence is clear that it is an analogy, and it starts because he doesn't say "HERE is HOW we apply the LOI to Archery", rather, Lee asks the question: "HOW can we apply...(it)" (emphasis added). The WAY he applies it is through just that, an analogy with those parts of LOM and LOI that address motion (change or constance). It may not be perfect, but most people get it.


You are welcome. I appreciate your effort but I'm really not seeing it. I would disagree that "...most people get it" if that is meant to claim that Lee's treatment of his application of the Law of Inertia as fact is should be taken to mean the opposite and that he means it only as analogy.



Seattlepop said:


> I nominate this thread for "Worst Thread of 2007".


I'd nominate the Juice Plus thread for that  But really, one shouldn't trash a thread just because one disagrees with a premise that one can't disprove with evidence or reason. {Ted, I might not have said that last bit in person...but then, I wouldn't have nominated a conversation I'm currently having as worst of 2007  }


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> This thread seems to have alot of inertia.


Finally! A clear example of inertia used as analogy


----------



## ksarcher (May 22, 2002)

Someone opened a thread asking "where is everyone?". 

Threads like this one and the "juice thread" are reasons enough to avoid this place. 

There are cowardly punks that have invaded this site and do not have the balls to fill in their profile. 

This is my last post on this site. 

Sb


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

ksarcher said:


> Someone opened a thread asking "where is everyone?".
> 
> Threads like this one and the "juice thread" are reasons enough to avoid this place.
> 
> ...


Now Stan, we've been corresponding for a few years now and I hope you don't really mean what you just wrote. Your imput here is valued, and no site is better than its members. We don't want to lose good members.

At the same time, you don't really want threads like this one to be censored and removed, do you?

I admit this particular thread is pretty pointless, but AT is here for the archery community to utilize as a tool for debate and communication. I firmly believe this should be the case too, as it empowers and gives a voice to all.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ksarcher said:


> Someone opened a thread asking "where is everyone?".
> 
> Threads like this one and the "juice thread" are reasons enough to avoid this place.
> 
> ...


Hmm...People who don't fill in their profiles...such as whom? And why did you feel a need to look up their names? Is the body of their postings insufficient to judge these people on the merits? If, say, you are referring to me, what exactly did you plan on doing with my name and profile info?

You speak of cowards and "invaders" yet you use vague accusations to make a very public exit rather than just not posting.

I admit that this thread is far from perfect but I do feel I asked a legitimate question and asked it sincerely. BEST seems to engender strong feelings but I am sincere in my query and in my interest in the science behind archery form and behind. Are you suggesting that is a bad thing?

The nice thing about threads is _you_ get to choose which ones you participate in or ignore. You don't have to abandon a whole site over two threads that aren't to your taste.

As to asking where is everyone? Well many of them seem to have shown up to participate in this thread in spite of how dead it has been recently. The controversial threads have two sides to them. They can be overly contentious and turn some people off but they can also increase participation and interest. It is a double edged sword.


----------



## mwarddoc (Aug 12, 2007)

ksarcher said:


> Someone opened a thread asking "where is everyone?".
> 
> Threads like this one and the "juice thread" are reasons enough to avoid this place.
> 
> ...


People can have a lot of reasons for not filling in their profiles, be it personal, professional, etc. Quite frankly, according to most intelligent people, only an incautious fool posts their information on the internet....which lumps you and I together on that one.

It doesn't mean they are cowardly, or "punks". They are just being more guarded than those of us who do post our information, and I think that is being wise.

I figure I've got nothing to lose by posting mine, since all of my personal and professional information and numbers was stolen from three government and insurance sites in the last year....as I've been so happily notified by these agencies.

Frankly, if it wasn't for this website I'd probably have had a much more difficult time figuring out what riser, arrows, limbs, sights, and etc to purchase. I figure that this website and the advice, from all parties, helped me avoid making around 500 dollars of mistake purchases recently, particularly large savings on the arrows, when I purchased my bow.

So, post or not, or profile or not, this site does have some valuable information.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

So all you amebas out there...grow up and be monkeys...I mean men and keep on posting. After all this is one big love fest. Take it all in stride and enjoy the benefits of belonging to the archery world. :smile:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> So all you amebas out there...grow up and be monkeys...I mean men and keep on posting.


I nominate this for highly coveted Warbow "Non Sequitur Post of the Day Award" in the FITA section--Evolution vs. Creationism Bait Division. But I'll second the "take it all in stride" and "keep on posting."


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

ksarcher said:


> Someone opened a thread asking "where is everyone?".
> 
> Threads like this one and the "juice thread" are reasons enough to avoid this place.
> 
> ...


Mentioning Lance Armstrong's training methods hardly constitutes a "juice thread" (HA!)

Invaded this sight huh? I didn't know this way a private club. Guess I'll go play somwhere else.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> Mentioning Lance Armstrong's training methods hardly constitutes a "juice thread" (HA!)


Although you are joking there was a somewhat contentious thread on a product called "Juice Plus" that was deleted. I did not start that thread but I did participate in it. That is the one I was referring to. To a certain degree it was a thread concerning contentious science claims. In that thread a poster posited BEST as a something that is accepted on faith, or something to that effect. This current thread demonstrates--though that isn't why I posted it--that I'll hold any scientific claim up to scrutiny, whether it is made by a marketing company or a much lauded coach. Science is science and nobody gets a free pass.

I'm not the arbiter of what is true or not, but I will examine claims as best as I can using what acumen and resources I have at my disposal. I often get a high degree of resistance to my position, some of it rational but often much of it is reflexive. I do try and incorporate what I learn in the threads into what I know and grow from the experience. Hopefully rational argument against rational argument can result in a better understanding of the issue at hand. Reflexive and emotional arguments, not so much.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> Mentioning Lance Armstrong's training methods hardly constitutes a "juice thread" (HA!)
> 
> Invaded this sight huh? I didn't know this way a private club. Guess I'll go play somwhere else.



Oh no you don't! You got the hat, your here to stay

RK I don't believe this thread is pointless. I think that contained herein are several offshoot topics which really should be opened up (perhaps in other threads of their own) and that makes this one worthy in it's own right.

Someday perhaps BEST training can be discussed without such fervent attitudes and defensive posturing. Apparently that is in the future.

I mean it's not like someone called Coach Lee the L.Ron Hubbard of archery here, fer gods sake.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Hutnicks, 

You might be right about the Hubbard thing, but if you take all the negative threads and comments that came down from this board, Sagi, and the Aussie thingy, one might easily conclude it adds up to be the equivalent.

]Terry


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> Oh no you don't! You got the hat, your here to stay
> ...


Now that is a good point you make Hutnicks. I must agree that there were several good offshoot topics indeed...and they do deserve their own threads.

Terry....this forum is what its members make it. Negative comments are part of it and part of life.

I would look at it this way...the ones that have no merit, just ignore. But there may be some that do have merit, and they should be carefully considered rather than brushed aside. But then, that is probably for another thread too.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jhinaz said:


> Warbow's post #1 of this thread states
> 
> FWIW, I remember this topic being discussed on Sagittarius almost immediately after people started receiving their TA book. Mr. Barndoor was the first to raise the question on page #5 ("The book is packed to the brim with brilliant insights, but the references to inertial physics must be treated as a bad analogy.").....you'll find most of the discussion being on pages 6 - 8. No one on Sagittarius was as passionate about the bad analogy as Warbow seems to be, so it died off after 6 - 8 discussions. - John
> 
> http://sagittarius.student.utwente....ys=0&postorder=asc&highlight=inertia&start=60


After looking at the discussion you mentioned I'd have to say you are right. Nobody made as "passionate" (read: strongly rational  ) a case about the the Newtonian mechanics in TA being wrong as I have had to make here to defend myself and my argument. I think that was because a number of people generally agreed that it was true that the use of the concept of inertia was, in fact, in error and there were no charges that questioning the legitimacy of the science in TA was disrespectful. So "passionate" argument in favor of rationalism wasn't needed because the thread was generally dispassionate and rational. This thread has different dynamics.

Now, as to the statement "the references to inertial physics must be treated as a bad analogy" that is not a claim that Lee meant the Newtonian mechanics to be an analogy but a clear statement that the poster thinks they are wrong and even if treated charitably as an analogy they are still "bad."

As to the off shoots, those seem like they could be interesting, though I'd have less, if anything, to say about them [cheering noises from some posters]. I have a hard time believing, though, that a frank and honest discussion about coaching policies won't have some contentious qualities given the investment people have. But, the perspective of a high level coach and shooter like In the Shadows and others would be enlightening. I hope it happens.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

RK,

I don't have a problem with negative comments in general and am old enough to know they happen (just like the last person that said I was fat and ugly - I thanked him for the compliment because I used to be fatter and uglier). I do have a problem with negative comments on any subject that are based on inaccurate or incomplete information, faulty assumptions, or sometimes plain old lies or should I call them planned falsehoods or purposeful mistakes.

The above is a general comment and not pointing at anyone in this thread.

Terry


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I nominate this for highly coveted Warbow "Non Sequitur Post of the Day Award" in the FITA section--Evolution vs. Creationism Bait Division. But I'll second the "take it all in stride" and "keep on posting."


Thank you for your nomination.

Has anyone noticed that the FITA forum is also, kind of the egghead forum?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> Hutnicks,
> 
> You might be right about the Hubbard thing, but if you take all the negative threads and comments that came down from this board, Sagi, and the Aussie thingy, one might easily conclude it adds up to be the equivalent.
> 
> ]Terry


 bownut, I haven't seen the "negative" side, but then again I probably have a different sense of positive and negative then most That is speaking to the BEST method itself, I have only seen questions and then rapid uprisings of defense of Coach Lee.

There is where I have the problem BEST or whatever it really is (god save archery from stooopid names, seems we love em, but thats another thread) I cannot get into a debate, conversation, what have you without BEST technique critiques inevitably being perceived as an attack on KSL. If I say BEST raises suspicions to me because we have no data on what it does to an archers physiology in the long term. I get, KSL knows more than you and how dare you attack him or his method. We really need to get past the personalities here and look at the die hard method itself, and look at it through dispassionate eye's.

To borrow logic from another poster. I don't really need to know who designed the 747 to know it works for me as transportation.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

target1 said:


> Thank you for your nomination.
> 
> Has anyone noticed that the FITA forum is also, kind of the egghead forum?


Yep "Geeks with Bows" - The Movie, everynight here on AT. Music by "They Might Be Giants"........


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Hutnicks said:


> b There is where I have the problem BEST or whatever it really is (god save archery from stooopid names, seems we love em, but thats another thread) I cannot get into a debate, conversation, what have you without BEST technique critiques inevitably being perceived as an attack on KSL. If I say BEST raises suspicions to me because we have no data on what it does to an archers physiology in the long term. I get, KSL knows more than you and how dare you attack him or his method. We really need to get past the personalities here and look at the die hard method itself, and look at it through dispassionate eye's.


While annoying the name BEST seems to be an effective tool for framing the debate, sort of the way the supposed Million Man March did. Nobody but march organizers placed the actual attendance at 1,000,000 yet the name and aggressive PR efforts were used to sell that claim.

I'm curious if the "questioning BEST is disrespectful" attitude would be as strong if Lee was no longer the US coach--and we know he is willing to work for different countries already, so it could happen, not that it necessarily will.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Warbow said:


> While annoying the name BEST seems to be an effective tool for framing the debate, sort of the way the supposed Million Man March did. Nobody but march organizers placed the actual attendance at 1,000,000 yet the name and aggressive PR efforts were used to sell that claim.
> 
> I'm curious if the "questioning BEST is disrespectful" attitude would be as strong if Lee was no longer the US coach--and we know he is willing to work for different countries already, so it could happen, not that it necessarily will.


Indeed, time will tell on that one I am sure. I think part of the attitude also stems from his chief benefactor wielding an awfully large stick within the archery community.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

I would agree many of the folks coming to Coach Lee's defense or the defense of the BEST method haven't helped. The problem that I have had is when much of what sounded like a question was phrased more like a statement of fact and when many of the posters were making claims that were simply wrong. When I pointed it out to them in PMs the response has usually been: "Oh, I didn't know that".

If Coach Lee were here or not or if it were someone else, my attitude would be the same. If someone wants to argue a point fine. Just do it based upon accurate and truthful information. I know I won't get it but that is all I'm asking for.

Terry


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> I would agree many of the folks coming to Coach Lee's defense or the defense of the BEST method haven't helped. The problem that I have had is when much of what sounded like a question was phrased more like a statement of fact and when many of the posters were making claims that were simply wrong. When I pointed it out to them in PMs the response has usually been: "Oh, I didn't know that".
> 
> If Coach Lee were here or not or if it were someone else, my attitude would be the same. If someone wants to argue a point fine. Just do it based upon accurate and truthful information. I know I won't get it but that is all I'm asking for.
> 
> Terry


Well you won't get it ALL the time but there is a lot of truthful info being bandied about. It's just like any other sport really, I do not think archery suffers from any more intentional untruths than any other, and hopefully it is getting better. A lot of people do not know how to pose a question and that is really not an intentional invite to duel it's more a case of not having had experience doing it in a given venue. Personally I'd rather see questions raised however phrased, than not, we can always deal with semantics afterward. One of the things I like about AT over say Sagi or ALC is there does not seem to be the intimidation factor here that prevents questions / opinions being thrown out for all to see.

Now that I am thoroughly rambling. I really hope there is a 1st revised edition of TA coming. I don't always buy the lost in translation line and there are some very large items in TA which require more explanation and clarification. That would go a long way to diffusing some of the debates going on, I think


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

What's with all this biomechanics and sceince talk anyway? I thought archery was a MENTAL game.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> What's with all this biomechanics and sceince talk anyway? I thought archery was a MENTAL game.


Not to worry. We've got that part covered. There is a mental ward doctor who posts here on occasion. :smile:


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Not to worry. We've got that part covered. There is a mental ward doctor who posts here on occasion. :smile:


Snicker, Snicker!!!! Now that right there is funny! And the leading candidate for today's post of the day award!


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> Snicker, Snicker!!!! Now that right there is funny! And the leading candidate for today's post of the day award!


Indeed, but can we be sure he's not a *pseudo* Doctor?


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

*Perception is everything*

This has been an interesting discussion (to a small degree). I love to coach as it is very rewarding when the light goes on for someone. The most difficult thing about coaching is taking the ideas you have in your own head about doing things correctly and putting them into words that others can understand and can make sense of. 
A person can have every piece of the knowledge necessary, but lack the skill to convey it. The ability to get a person to correlate to what you are saying is a separtate skill that is even more important than the knowledge itself when trying to teach. I know I make refferences to non archery related activities when trying to make a point in order to pull the sheer mechanics out of a task and move to mental images or pictures that are more comonly understood. I tell kids in JOAD for instance that you don't aim arrows into the middle, you shoot them there. When you throw a baseball, you don't aim it at the cathcher, but rather feel your body put it there. Archery is the same, but we have a sight on the bow drawing us into believing wherever it rests is where we will shoot. The use of baseball is to carry you away from the steps of shooting and imagine how you use your body. (end of example). 
My interpretation of what coach Lee is trying to get you to imagine is how the laws of motion effect an archer and to use terms that are strong (Newton) generally understood principles to make it easy on the student or reciever to picture his ideas. It may not be the science of inertia, but it is the science of good coaching! 
Questioning the issue? Is a great thing because we get belief when we question. Some just prefer to take it to the highest level. (also not a bad thing, thats how levels get raised and information gets perfected) Anyway, question away and seek like mad. Just don't forget to see the trees through the forrest.  
I think I see the sides of this argument, however I would not throw away a great deal of sound information because of the weakness of a single coaches corellation!! Credibility point taken though and is certainly arguable as demonstrated by this thread. Boy we sure get passionate about things don't we? Again one of my favorite things about this sport, nobody takes it lightly!!!:darkbeer:
Remember, shoot arrows, have fun, learn, drink beer! Repeat the process.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Jurasic Archer said:


> Remember, shoot arrows, have fun, learn, drink beer! Repeat the process.


Darn it Mike,

I never can get that whole sequence sorted out right...

BTW, love your string jig.

Larry


----------



## Jurasic Archer (May 23, 2002)

Thanks for the shameless plug, and glad you like it,

Happy Holidays all,
MG


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

Warbow said:


> Not a direct quote? From what? _The Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica_? But it was a quote:
> 
> 
> -_Total Archer_y, p70
> ...



The key thing to understand is that inertia which is not a physical quantity is a term used to understand that an instantaneous change from one energy state to another requires infinite power, which is never readily available.

It is easy when studying technical information to loose track of the discussion when given a statement without proof. Mr. Lee’s statement taken in the contents of the overall discussion does make logical sense and it is not hard to show that in the contents of the discussion, no physical rules have been broken.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Greg Bouras said:


> The key thing to understand is that inertia which is not a physical quantity is a term used to understand that an instantaneous change from one energy state to another requires infinite power, which is never readily available.


Yes, I read that when you wrote it the first time. However, unless I'm mistaken, this quality always related to mass and not to force used to overcome other things like spring tension or friction.

BTW, this is what you wrote earlier and posted three different times, verbatim in posts 57, 62 and 80:


> Newton’s First Law as stated TA is a not direct quote. In stating that inertia is often associated with a change in velocity, the intent is to raise the reader’s curiosity to perhaps research and understand a more rigorous statement of the first law. Learning then takes place. Hopefully followed by an understanding of how the consequences of the first law might be applied to accomplish the most efficient method of utilizing the mechanical systems of the human body to exchange one form of energy into another.
> 
> Inertia as stated is often associated with a change in velocity which we intuitively then relate to mass. Perhaps a more accurate statement is that mass is a physical property that lends a body its inertia. The key thing to understand is that inertia which is not a physical quantity is a term used to understand that an instantaneous change form one energy state to another requires infinite power, which is never readily available.
> 
> It is easy when studying technical information to loose track of the discussion when given a statement without proof. Mr. Lee’s statement taken in the contents of the overall discussion does make logical sense and it is not hard to show that in the contents of the discussion no physical rules have been broken.


Originally I thought these were accidental double posts. Now it is clear they are not. 

And this is from your last post, where you conveniently omit the first part about the reference to your claim that TA's use of Newton's First Law not being a quote, a claim that turned out to be false since Lee very much did quote the First Law. I note that you quietly remove the obviously flawed part but still cut and paste the rest verbatim:


> The key thing to understand is that inertia which is not a physical quantity is a term used to understand that an instantaneous change from one energy state to another requires infinite power, which is never readily available.
> 
> It is easy when studying technical information to loose track of the discussion when given a statement without proof. Mr. Lee’s statement taken in the contents of the overall discussion does make logical sense and it is not hard to show that in the contents of the discussion, no physical rules have been broken.


You seemed knowledgeable in this area at least you seemed so until it became clear that you are merely repeating yourself (or quoting someone else?) over and over in the exact same words. I don't think that merely cutting and pasting what you posted earlier in the thread, without even acknowledging that is what you are doing, helps explain your point further or proves your point. Perhaps this is some sort of "performance art?" It is certainly not a discussion or a way to advance your position.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

*BEST and religion*

Warbow,

I don't know if you read KSL's website.

The reason I ask is when I met KSL in Chula Vista I was at our L3 Coaches course. During our coaching and BEST portion of the course A lot of things came up about how we incorporate BEST into our teaching and shooting methods. Rick Mckinney was there to work with us as well as a student of KSL. We got a chance to sit in on the Jr Dream team BEST presentation and see how he teaches and works with the archers.

It gave us many chances to talk with and interact with KSL. I found him very open to talking and explaining things about his ideas. The feeling I came away with from the experience is that many of his followers have taken BEST to the level of Religion while KSL is constantly working on and adapting his ideas. He is continuing to learn and modify his thoughts.

I would love to hear what he might say to your initial question. On his website in response to a similar question (not the science specifically) but about the transfer/hold portion of the shot cycle, he responds.

"One of the more difficult points for a coach is to teach the archer the loading/transfer phase. Possibly the term holding, like anchor, is not the most perfect terminology as it can be interpreted that the draw is stopped, which it is not. Already at the set-up the draw scapula is set back and down and during the draw takes part of the load. However, you can’t just draw the bow by using the scapulae only, so a certain amount of hand and forearm is used in the drawing process to get to the anchor position. This tension in draw hand and forearm must be transferred, as much as possible, to the back muscles. This phase we call the loading/transfer phase or area of fine adjustment. The draw doesn’t stop, but the back muscles will take over the drawing process, rather than the continuous external draw where the tension in the draw hand and forearm never has a chance to get transferred to the back muscles and as such the release won’t be as clean and consistent as it could be. Basically we go from an external to an internal movement of the draw so fundamentally the draw is continuous, but executed by different muscles than what has been taught in the past. During the expansion of the chest the tension in the scapulae increases, producing the small amount of movement necessary to get the last few millimeters through the clicker."

Maybe you could simplify the wording of your question and post it to him. Maybe he would shed some insight to your question.

www.kslinternationalarchery.com


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

dchan said:


> I would love to hear what he might say to your initial question. On his website in response to a similar question (not the science specifically) but about the transfer/hold portion of the shot cycle, he responds.


Thanks David. I think you bring up a couple of good points. One is a point that I've seen others allude to, which is that Kisik Lee himself isn't as dogmatic about BEST as the book or some people might suggest.

Next, I don't think the possible fallacious physics in TA necessarily that big a deal but it is a pretty basic high school physics kind of issue that Lee should get right, especially if he wants science to be the basis of his system. I wanted to find out if Lee really did misstate the physics or not since I'm not a physics major and I don't want to go out too far on a limb  . So far it seems the physics were misstated, especially after reading the Sagi' thread someone linked to. Now, after having done some due diligence it might make sense to posit this to Lee's website.

And once again, my disclaimer. I'm very interested to learn BEST and have a great deal of respect for Lee. I don't think that flaws in the physics explanation of BEST necessarily invalidate any part of the BEST system, but I do think they should be addressed and corrected. Nor do I think it is contradictory to be interested in learning a system and to also critically analyze it at the same time.



> Maybe you could simplify the wording of your question and post it to him. Maybe he would shed some insight to your question.


I think you may be doing me a kindness here. Perhaps "make the wording more polite" as well as simplified for clarity would be appropriate? I will look into doing so.


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

re. FAQs section on KSL website, I don't know for certain but I suspect the responses presented there are written by Robert de Bondt rather than KSL. IIRC from reading Archery-Forum website during the time that the book was being written, I understood Robert's role was that of interpreting KSLs words into English (at least an Australians version of it :wink and making the book more "readable". Who knows, perhaps the statements under question here were suggested by Robert rather than KSL.  - John


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

I think coach Lee is right about inertia wording (no, he is not talking about inertia of an arrow but inertia of the system). The Occam's razor is fairly obvious here and someone with contrary claim should make the simple calculation to prove him wrong (there is really no need for discussion). If such calculation is not obvious, just take the physics 101 again...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> I think coach Lee is right about inertia wording (no, he is not talking about inertia of an arrow but inertia of the system). The Occam's razor is fairly obvious here and someone with contrary claim should make the simple calculation to prove him wrong (there is really no need for discussion). If such calculation is not obvious, just take the physics 101 again...


I think I've already done that, though not by measurement  But then, you haven't provided any measurements of your own, either...

If inertia is a function of _mass_ then the inertia of the system is independent of the draw weight of the bow. The inertia is only equivalent of drawing back an arrow using bow of zero pounds of draw force, and drawing it back extremely slowly since we are talking about the expansion phase. Imagine the effort needed in starting and stopping an expansion with an unstrung bow. The effort is extremely easy. Note that in all of my posts I've been careful to include the whole system drawing back as part of the inertia, not just the arrow--long before you attempted to "correct" me on this issue. You can check the posts, if you care to.

Now, add 40 pounds of spring tension. (Overcoming spring tension is not a function of inertia.) Which is harder to overcome, the inertia described above, or the 40 pounds of spring tension? My guess is that the spring tension is several orders of magnitude more significant, and, therefore, true inertia is not the key driver in why one should use continuous draw/expansion.

I'm open to refutation. Show me how this is wrong. Simply saying Occam's Razor isn't an argument in and of itself since you don't explain exactly how you think it applies. Many people mis-state the principle, as well. Occam's razor does not say the simplest explanation is best (and even if it did you'd have to explain why you thought one explanation was "simpler" rather than merely ignorant) but that all other things being equal the theory that makes the fewest _assumptions_ and still _has the same predictive value_ is generally best. However, your theory that inertia is, in fact, the key driver in why one should not stop during expansion does not make the same predictions as mine and would seem to be easily disproved by even the simplest experiment.

I'd request that you not be so quick to impugn my education or faculties ("_If such calculation is not obvious, just take the physics 101 again..._") unless you are prepared to back your argument with more than confident innuendo.


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*You know.*

I think we all should be glad coach Lee desided to share his archery secretes (The Best Methed) . He could have just keep kicking our buts.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

frydaddy40 said:


> I think we all should be glad coach Lee desided to share his archery secretes (The Best Methed) . He could have just keep kicking our buts.


Hmm...unless it is a secret Korean plot to undermine the US Olympic team with a seemingly effective method that is actually designed to subtly drain them of their vital essence. Of course, such a thought is completely preposterous.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

dchan said:


> Maybe you could simplify the wording of your question and post it to him. Maybe he would shed some insight to your question.


I did a Google search: "inertia site:http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com"

The word "inertia" does not seem to appear anywhere on the site (at least not where Google has indexed), nor does "Newton's Law." However, they did leave in the reference to the Law of Acceleration for drawing in the KSL II, so perhaps the are aware of this issue around "inertia" and have changed their explanation?


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> ...I'd request that you not be so quick to impugn my education or faculties ("_If such calculation is not obvious, just take the physics 101 again..._") unless you are prepared to back your argument with more than confident innuendo.


Lets start indeed with obvious: "extremely easy" amount needs to be quantified. You might be surprised how much this "extremely easy" amount is. 
Yes, I am ABSOLUTELY able to back it up once you are close enough so it matters. Unfortunately you are not close unless your body weights nothing...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> Yes, I am ABSOLUTELY able to back it up once you are close enough so it matters. Unfortunately you are not close unless your body weights nothing...


Really? You are saying the inertia that must be overcome to draw an arrow imperceptibly slowly is greater than the spring tension that must be overcome? The amount of force needed to overcome the inertia of a mass relates to how big a change in velocity you make. Thus, fact that the expansion is "imperceptibly slow" is rather relevant. Were we talking about a greater mass and/or higher velocity changes you might have a good point, but we aren't.



> Lets start indeed with obvious: "extremely easy" amount needs to be quantified. You might be surprised how much this "extremely easy" amount is.


Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine yourself drawing a zero pound draw weight bow at anchor, relaxed. How much force would it take for me to move your arm back a few milimeters? A few grams? Pullback on a friends relaxed arm or push gently from in front of them to rotate it back. How much force do you need to move it really slowly? Since we are not trying to move fast, it really depends more on the friction and tension you are fighting more than the inertia--even without the tension of a bow. In a friction free environment even a small amount of force can get a fairly large object moving. You often hear of giant vault doors with such smooth hinges that you can move them with a finger tip, or some such thing. Next have the friend pull back a 40# bow. Now try and move their arm back the same distance as in the previous experiment, without their help, by adding a few grams of force. Good luck with that.

I see that you have not renewed your insistence that Occam's razor is on your side...nor do you have any response to the fact that the word "inertia" does not appear in the KSL shot cycle II while the non controversial references to the Law of Acceleration have been retained.

Still, if you can "ABSOLUTELY" back up your contention please do so. I'm completely open to facts and proper reasoning. However, if you can't "ABSOLUTELY" back this up in your next post I'll have to assume that your argument is only so much bluster. All this insinuation gets you nowhere. Facts and reasoning, please.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Warbow said:


> Hmm...unless it is a secret Korean plot to undermine the US Olympic team with a seemingly effective method that is actually designed to subtly drain them of their vital essence. Of course, such a thought is completely preposterous.


Precious bodily fluids????


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Hutnicks said:


> Precious bodily fluids????


I supposed the corollary to my preposterous fictional conspiracy theory is that the Koreans themselves must practice the Purity Of Essence Method, to preserve their vital essence.

Hmm...in an Asian context it sounds sort of Chi-like rather than the mad ravings of a fictional general...


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> ...Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine yourself drawing a zero pound draw weight bow at anchor, relaxed. How much force would it take for me to move your arm back a few milimeters? A few grams? ...


A few grams to move your arm? Are you a hummingbird?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> A few grams to move your arm? Are you a hummingbird?


Just very relaxed  It takes very little force to slowly move a friction free object horizontally. While my arm isn't friction free, if I'm relaxed enough it takes very little force to move an arm back in a horizontal plane. While you may quibble over how many grams it would take you don't seem to be able to take reasonable issue over whether the inertia or spring force is a greater impediment to drawing back from a static anchor.

Since you haven't bothered to "ABSOLUTELY" back up your argument after promising you can and will once I could "back it up...close enough so it matters." I have more than done so. I'll take your most recent post as a concession that you no longer feel that you can "ABSOLUTELY" back up your contention (you never really made a formal "argument," rather, I think you made unsupported assertions).


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> ...I see that you have not renewed your insistence that Occam's razor is on your side...


To drive the point clear: Occam's razor is on my side due to the fact that most of archers are familiar with different styles of archery even if they practice only one or two. While I can shoot 90lbs instinctive longbow, I just barely graduated to 40lbs on the clicker after a year of training. Add to this countless compounders with 60lbs on cams who shake like a leaf with 30lbs oly recurve. This alone is enough to raise question about draw dynamics.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> ...While you may quibble over how many grams it would take...


Look, either you are fishing or you are just playing dum and I am too tired to educate. Depending on your size, your arm weighs say 20lbs (10kg) and not few grams. Get at least significant numbers right.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> To drive the point clear: Occam's razor is on my side due to the fact that most of archers are familiar with different styles of archery even if they practice only one or two. While I can shoot 90lbs instinctive longbow, I just barely graduated to 40lbs on the clicker after a year of training. Add to this countless compounders with 60lbs on cams who shake like a leaf with 30lbs oly recurve. This alone is enough to raise question about draw dynamics.


That is the least clear attempt to "drive the point clear" I've read in a long time, perhaps ever.

Your conclusions don't follow your premises (if any) and are nothing but a series of non sequiturs . Occam's razor has nothing to do with how many "different styles of archery" people are familiar with. and "rais[ing] _questions_ about draw dynamics" is entirely reasonable but has nothing to do with proving your contention that _inertia_ and not spring tension is the primary reason that a continuous draw should be practiced.

You "ABSOLUTELY" haven't done what you claimed you could and would, which is back up our contention that _inertia_ is the reason that a continuous draw should be practiced and that it is more significant than the spring tension of a bow at anchor.


----------



## Dave T (Mar 24, 2004)

Warbow,

I have tried to follow this bloody thing for four pages. Please don't take this as a put down but you seem to be hung up on one word and is sounds like you want to discredit a whole system on the basis that the originator didn't use that one word in the context/definition you like.

Get a life man! It just isn't worth beating this dead horse any more. It doesn't even look like a horse now, just a bloody spot on the ground.

Sorry but for the life of me I do not see what your big problem is so I'm out of here. I'm gong shooting in an archery league tonight, if I can over come my inertia to stay in front of this stupid computer.

Dave


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> Look, either you are fishing or you are just playing dum and I am too tired to educate. Depending on your size, your arm weighs say 20lbs (10kg) and not few grams. Get at least significant numbers right.


I think you may be projecting.

You seem to be confused on the amount of force required to move a low friction object horizontally with the amount of force required to move an object vertically. It does not take 20 pounds of force to push a twenty pound low friction object (say rolling 20 pound weight on high grade ball bearings, or rolling a hard, smooth sphere on a hard smooth level surface). It does take more than 20 pounds of force to lift it, however, and it does take 20 pounds of force to overcome 20 pounds of spring tension.

Your level of indignantly seems to exceed your level of acumen.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> ...You "ABSOLUTELY" haven't done what you claimed you could and would, which is back up our contention that _inertia_ is the reason that a continuous draw should be practiced and that it is more significant than the spring tension of a bow at anchor.


Let me break it down for you.
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." 
If I can pull 90lbs with continuous draw yet have trouble to hold 40lbs, isn't it the simplest solution to apply continuous draw/release technique and avoid hold?


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> I think you may be projecting.
> 
> You seem to be confused on the amount of force required to move a low friction object horizontally with the amount of force required to move an object vertically. It does not take 20 pounds of force to push a twenty pound low friction object (say rolling 20 pound weight on high grade ball bearings, or rolling a hard, smooth sphere on a hard smooth level surface). It does take more than 20 pounds of force to lift it, however, and it does take 20 pounds of force to overcome 20 pounds of spring tension.
> 
> Your level of indignantly seems to exceed your level of acumen.


And I though we were talking INERTIA...
For your education, the velocity vector doesn't care if it is pointed "down", "up", "vertical" or "horizontal". It is still the same vector while the mass is a constant. You multiply velocity vector by mass to get inertia.
So, try to be at least a good listener if you don't know Jack.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dave T said:


> Warbow,
> 
> I have tried to follow this bloody thing for four pages. Please don't take this as a put down but you seem to be hung up on one word and is sounds like you want to discredit a whole system on the basis that the originator didn't use that one word in the context/definition you like.
> 
> ...


Dave, I appreciate your input. I respect your views though I think you can be a little terse, though perhaps less so than myself.

This obsession cuts both ways, though, just as I may seem obsessed with the idea that explanations that invoke physics and are espoused as fact should be accurate others seem obsessed in the opposite direction and make many excuses for why explanations need not be accurate. And others try and explain the issue away through their own flawed understanding of physics--of which my understanding is less than perfect, but I do try and check my facts and explain my reasoning so that others may challenge it on a factual basis if I'm wrong in some way. I've been very upfront about that from the very beginning of this thread.

I think you may be right that the issue may not be significant now. It seems that Lee has dropped the seemingly fallacious explanation since it is not included in the KSL shot cycle II. However, _Total Archery _ is still in print and many people will read it and assume that the facts in it--especially those about established physics--are correct. I think it would be disservice to people to pretend that is true if it is in fact not.

I hate misinformation. I like facts to be genuine and explanations and science to be accurate and well reasoned. And I can sometimes be as obsessive about it as you are about Field Archery and about hitting the target accurately. I hope you can understand my obsession in light of your own. Outsiders can easily say that either is ultimately pointless and tell us to "get a life" as you have just told me and yet I would not ask that you give up Field Archery just because I do not have your level of passion! I would hope you would tender me the same courtesy.

That being said, have fun at the range.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> And I though we were talking INERTIA...
> For your education, the velocity vector doesn't care if it is pointed "down", "up", "vertical" or "horizontal". It is still the same vector while the mass is a constant. You multiply velocity vector by mass to get inertia.
> So, try to be at least a good listener if you don't know Jack.


Indeed, inertia is the primary issue in the discussion however your statement:



> Depending on your size, your arm weighs say 20lbs (10kg) and not few grams. Get at least significant numbers right.


Your equivocation of the mass of an arm with the force required to move it seemed to indicate that you were confusing the force needed to overcome inertia with the force needed to lift an object--otherwise you would never have posited that a few grams was insufficient to get a low friction object to move horizontally at a very slow speed. 

As to multiplying mass times velocity to get inertia, there you are talking about momentum. And while the inertia you must over come to accelerate a stopped mass in any direction is the same, the force required to do so is not. And that really is the crux of the issue that you seem to be dancing around. In the case of a bow and a slow draw, the the Force required to accelerate the inertial mass of the system is very small because the velocity of the "expansion" is so slow. However, there are other far more significant forces, like the up to 60 pounds of spring tension in a OR.

You are inadvertently arguing against yourself.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> Let me break it down for you.
> "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."
> If I can pull 90lbs with continuous draw yet have trouble to hold 40lbs, isn't it the simplest solution to apply continuous draw/release technique and avoid hold?


No. You are equivocating the term "solution." In terms of Occam's razor "solution" means "explanation of a phenomenon" or theory, not a technique.

While you may be able to make a good case that a continuous draw is the "simplest" way to draw, others disagree and say that a static draw is simplest because you aren't trying to move a lot of muscles and have them come to the perfect draw just as you are hovering over the perfect aim.

"Simple" isn't necisarily most efficacious. It is simpler to nail boards together but a far stronger joint is made using any number of more complicated joins like glued mitered biscuit joins or dovetail joins. Not that that has anything directly to do with archery, only that it is incorrect to presume that a simpler technique is automatically superior to a more complex one.

Your hypothetical assertions in the post I'm responding to are about _technique_ and Occam's razor says nothing about them. Nor do they say anything about whether _inertia_ is the key reason to practice a continuous draw.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> ...And while the inertia you must over come to accelerate a stopped mass in any direction is the same...


Read it again, SLOWLY: try to pay attention to OVERCOME and STOPPED MASS. Why again one would want to do it if there is no need? Just to be more "manly"?

Dynamics of my movement is sufficient to go from 40lbs oly to 90lbs longbow: while it might be different for you, I think that's plenty for significant numbers. I am also confident that even with identical shooting style, if I were just to remove clicker from my oly, I could easily put quite a few pounds extra. Now, if you would rather calculate what is the real dynamic model of a draw, be my guest, just don't place a premise that it is a gain of few grams only. 

And no, unless you do the modelling to show the numbers, that tell me the "real reason why" I can't put clicker on my longbow, I don't see reason to continue this.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> Read it again, SLOWLY: try to pay attention to OVERCOME and STOPPED MASS. Why again one would want to do it if there is no need? Just to be more "manly"?


In the rational world one may call the case you are derisively paraphrasing an illustrative example to demonstrate physics principles. No manly posturing required.

However, your weakly implied query seems to be "why overcome a stopped mass if you don't have to, i.e. why not use continuous draw." You seem to enjoy conflating issues to avoid accountability. This thread isn't about the applicability or efficacy of continuous draw but whether Lee's explanation and rationale in Total Archery using the Law of Inertia as the prime justification--indeed the only justification--for continuous draw was a correct characterization of the physics and forces involved. I contend that it is not because the draw moves very, very slowly and the inertial force that must be overcome is trivial compared to the spring tension of the bow.

Previously you claimed:


> I think coach Lee is right about inertia wording ... The Occam's razor is fairly obvious





> Yes, I am ABSOLUTELY able to back it up once you are close enough so it matters.


Yet you have "ABSOLUTELY" not backed it up. Occam's razor does not support your position and you have only brought up tangential issues in your efforts to avoid the central tenent of the thread and your lack of ability to rationally argue agianst my position with facts and reason.



> Dynamics of my movement is sufficient to go from 40lbs oly to 90lbs longbow: while it might be different for you, I think that's plenty for significant numbers.


You need to clarify what you mean here. Significant numbers of what? Dynamics of your movement?



> I am also confident that even with identical shooting style, if I were just to remove clicker from my oly, I could easily put quite a few pounds extra. Now, if you would rather calculate what is the real dynamic model of a draw, be my guest, just don't place a premise that it is a gain of few grams only.


Whether you have or don't have a clicker has nothing do do with the inertia. Your "arguments" are nonsensical, which by now shouldn't surprise me.



> And no, unless you do the modelling to show the numbers, that tell me the "real reason why" I can't put clicker on my longbow, I don't see reason to continue this.


What thread are you reading? This thread is about _whether Lee's explanation and rationale in Total Archery using the Law of Inertia as the prime justification for continuous draw was a correct characterization of the physics and forces involved_. Clickers have nothing to do with that nor have I ever given any opinion on whether you should use a clicker on your LB or not.

Your posts are non sequitur. I sense a trend and will not respond to any of your future posts on the subject unless they contain at least the semblance of reason and are not merely a collection of confused assertions.


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

What does this all matter when most archers will never pull through their clicker properly, no matter what METHOD they use, because they are too busy crapping their pants watching the sight move, completely freaked out that they're going to miss. Pulling is about confidence, not biomechanics. 

This thread must use the BEST method because in is *CONSTANTLY DRAWING *me into the discussion!!!


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> What does this all matter when most archers will never pull through their clicker properly, no matter what METHOD they use, because they are too busy crapping their pants watching the sight move, completely freaked out that they're going to miss. Pulling is about confidence, not biomechanics.
> 
> This thread must use the BEST method because in is *CONSTANTLY DRAWING *me into the discussion!!!


Well for god's sake please let me know when you find the _*release*_

I'm still confused that seemingly it's harder to overcome inertia than to make a 180 degree vector change in the same mass


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> What does this all matter when most archers will never pull through their clicker properly, no matter what METHOD they use, because they are too busy crapping their pants watching the sight move, completely freaked out that they're going to miss. Pulling is about confidence, not biomechanics.
> 
> This thread must use the BEST method because in is *CONSTANTLY DRAWING *me into the discussion!!!


I may not know physics all that well, but I _really_ don't know good technique  I'd better stick to arguing what I know (slightly...)

I find the confidence point interesting and I'll keep it mind. With real confidence there can be no target panic. Most successful people are very confident people, though perhaps they are confident because they have reason to be.

Of course, confidence is no guarantee of success. I've known many a confident idiot who failed, and yet also a few confident idiots who were too stupid to know they were to stupid to succeed and thus did so anyways--though I suppose they may have lost it all later day trading after having come to the conclusion that they were geniuses.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Warbow said:


> I may not know physics all that well, but I _really_ don't know good technique  I'd better stick to arguing what I know (slightly...)
> 
> I find the confidence point interesting and I'll keep it mind. With real confidence there can be no target panic. Most successful people are very confident people, though perhaps they are confident because they have reason to be.
> 
> Of course, confidence is no guarantee of success. I've known many a confident idiot who failed, and yet also a few confident idiots who were too stupid to know they were to stupid to succeed and thus did so anyways--though I suppose they may have lost it all later day trading after having come to the conclusion that they were geniuses.


Well that post gets Stuart's, Wile E Coyote supergenius award:thumbs_up


----------



## Paradoxical Cat (Apr 25, 2006)

Dave T said:


> Warbow,
> 
> I have tried to follow this bloody thing for four pages. Please don't take this as a put down but you seem to be hung up on one word and is sounds like you want to discredit a whole system on the basis that the originator didn't use that one word in the context/definition you like.


You have discovered the secret of the Warbow argument. He finds a malapropism, a poorly worded statement, or a word that isn't used properly and then tenaciously argues that that disproves the entire premise. The funny part is that I don't think he is even an archer. And most likely he and the infamous doctor share a keyboard.

PC-


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Paradoxical Cat said:


> You have discovered the secret of the Warbow argument. He finds a malapropism, a poorly worded statement, or a word that isn't used properly and then tenaciously argues that that disproves the entire premise. The funny part is that I don't think he is even an archer. And most likely he and the infamous doctor share a keyboard.
> 
> PC-


Well, I certainly admit to being tenacious 

Are you any less tenacious at the range? Why would you hold me to a lower standard that you would expect of your self at the range? Does spending lots of time and money to stand many yards from a target and try to get arrows to land in small groups really make more sense than intellectual pursuits like tenaciously arguing for accuracy in books claiming scientific credentials? I don't see how the former is inherently better than the latter.

However, this thread is about section in _Total Archery_ which carefully lays out an explanation of Newton's Laws with a detailed definition of the Law of Inertia and a section called "How we can apply the Law of Inertia to Archery" which seemingly erroneously claims that _inertia_ is the reason that one should use a continuous draw. Calling this deliberate explanation of the Newtonian physics allegedly invoked by archery form "a malapropism,[or] a poorly worded statement" is to mischaracterize the facts and trivialize _Total Archery_. If a detailed section laid out as fact is to be excused as merely a malapropism or as "poorly worded" as opposed to factually wrong, then what is the rest of _Total Archery_? If we just excuse away errors as opposed to dealing with them on a factual basis then we are not taking the book seriously but treating the whole book as the merest trivia. I don't think TA should be dismissed in such an offhanded fashion.

Now, while I'm happy to argue on the merits and laugh at the oh so clever attempts to turn my self-deprecating humor back against me I do draw the line at libelous disparagement. You are free to postulate whether or not I'm really an archer and as to whether I meet your rigorous standards of who you will allow to call themselves such but you you are not free to claim that my handle is an alter. Such a statement is false and defamatory and can only made without justification. You have no legitimate reason to think that my handle is an alter because it is not and there can be no such reason. Criticize the content of my posts as you see fit, as we are all entitled to, but please refrain from making false and defamatory accusations.


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

Warbow said:


> > Now, add 40 pounds of spring tension. (Overcoming spring tension is not a function of inertia.) Which is harder to overcome, the inertia described above, or the 40 pounds of spring tension? My guess is that the spring tension is several orders of magnitude more significant, and, therefore, true inertia is not the key driver in why one should use continuous draw/expansion.
> 
> 
> I'm just curious. What is the difference, if any, between 40 pounds of mass or weight and 40 pounds of spring tension (mass and weight are actually different I think). Which one are you using and why? I'm just reading all this and trying to understand. I've been cruising around the internet trying to brush up on my physics. They don't make reference to types of mass or weight i.e. 40 pounds of friction or spring tension or 40 pounds of drag in classical physics. Things just have mass or weight. Maybe you're just letting us know your referring to the bow's potential energy?
> ...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

R&B said:


> Warbow said:
> 
> 
> > They don't make reference to types of mass or weight i.e. 40 pounds of friction or spring tension or 40 pounds of drag in classical physics. Things just have mass or weight. Maybe you're just letting us know your referring to the bow's potential energy?
> ...


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Also, gravity can only accelerate something at 9.3 m s^-2, but a spring (bow) can make something speed up much more quickly.

Also, potential energy is not the same as the energy that's expressed/transferred. Some is always "wasted" heating things up and creating vibration. Thats why perpetual motion devices will never work.

Just a couple of quick thoughts...


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

The luxury of having an opinion is that one needs to know nothing about the subject matter to have one. 

As blind luck would have it Warbow may have provided himself with a working example of inertia.

The argument in this treads seems to show that inertia can be applied to ignorance as well as physical quantities.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Greg Bouras said:


> The luxury of having an opinion is that one needs to know nothing about the subject matter to have one.
> 
> As blind luck would have it Warbow may have provided himself with a working example of inertia.
> 
> The argument in this treads seems to show that inertia can be applied to ignorance as well as physical quantities.


So, I take it to mean that you are now admitting that I'm right--in spite of your previous strenuous exhortations to the contrary--but that rather than admit that I might have some critical thinking ability you qualify your admission with the caveat that I could have _only_ come to the right conclusion by accident.

Personally I don't see a thread arguing about science to be about "winning" or "loosing" but you seem to, and you seem to be a poor loser.

Me? I'm interested in what the facts are. And trying to talk about the facts in this case seems to be like pulling teeth. It seems to be that my contention was correct about the mis-statement of Newtonian physics in TA, yet even as some people are coming around to admit in the most backhanded of possible ways that my contention was, in fact, correct they are issuing parting shots based on spite. Seems rather petty not very "sportsman-like."


----------



## Lil Kahuna (Dec 5, 2007)

*What are you talking about*

Regarding the picky point of being accurate, Newton’s laws of motion is the SECOND section not the first of chapter 4. Secondly reading the appropriate section Coach Lee agrees with you that the Law of Inertia should not be used, except very narrowly regarding the motion of the *scapulae* during the transfer and expansion stages of the shot.

At no point does he apply the concept or Law of inertia to the entire process or to the entire system.

For simplicity and those reading that may not have access to the original text here it is in its entirety.

Total Archery, by Kisik Lee and Robert de Bondt P70 – 71 
“…
2 - Newton’s Law’s of Motion
1. First Law of Motion (Inertia)
“Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.”

Definition of Inertia – “Inertia is the resistance an object offers to changes in its state of motion. Things want to travel in a straight line at a constant velocity”

Note: inertia is only revealed when there is a change in velocity.

How can we apply the Law of Inertia to Archery?

One popular statement when teaching beginning archers to draw the bow has been, “Never stop drawing or pulling the bow because when you stop it will take too much effort to get started again, you will lose back tension and it will then not be possible to make a good shot.”

This means that the Law of Inertia has to be applied right from starting the draw. This type of thinking is flawed insofar as to say that the “Holding” position can never be achieved. When we draw the bow, we cannot use our back muscles alone, but we must use a certain amount of forearm and hand as well. However, if we would continue the draw uninterruptedly, we would pass the “Holding” position where we need to transfer as much tension as possible from the drawing forearm and hand to the back muscles. Therefore, if no “Holding” is achieved, no tension transfer can take place. During the transfer stage, the back muscles continue to move the scapulae towards the spine, while tension from the forearm and draw hand are being transferred. This movement of the scapulae, although very small, must continue through the expansion and therefore the Law of Inertia can only be applied from the “Holding” and not from the commencement of the draw.

…”​
N.G.A.


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

Warbow said:


> So, I take it to mean that you are now admitting that I'm right--in spite of your previous strenuous exhortations to the contrary--but that rather than admit that I might have some critical thinking ability you qualify your admission with the caveat that I could have _only_ come to the right conclusion by accident.
> 
> Personally I don't see a thread arguing about science to be about "winning" or "loosing" but you seem to, and you seem to be a poor loser.
> 
> Me? I'm interested in what the facts are. And trying to talk about the facts in this case seems to be like pulling teeth. It seems to be that my contention was correct about the mis-statement of Newtonian physics in TA, yet even as some people are coming around to admit in the most backhanded of possible ways that my contention was, in fact, correct they are issuing parting shots based on spite. Seems rather petty not very "sportsman-like."



You Win.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Lil Kahuna said:


> Regarding the picky point of being accurate, Newton’s laws of motion is the SECOND section not the first of chapter 4.


Indeed you are correct. However the first section is an overview of the sections to follow.


Lil Kahuna said:


> Secondly reading the appropriate section Coach Lee agrees with you that the Law of Inertia should not be used, except very narrowly regarding the motion of the *scapulae* during the transfer and expansion stages of the shot.


You are referring to the expansion phase, which does in fact also "expand" the draw in addition to moving the scapulae--the draw cannot be "expanded" without increasing the draw tension. Either way, inertia is not a large factor compared to the other forces involved. KSL does not repeat his orgininal error from TA re: inertia on his website in the KSL Shot Cycle _II_ but does retain the non-controversial reference to the Law of Acceleration in reference to the initial draw. This appears to be a deliberate omission.

KSL does not use the term "inertia" anywhere on the KSL website even in describing the KSL II Shot Cycle. I believe you trying to defend a point that not even KSL currently espouses.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Greg Bouras said:


> You Win.


Cute. But it isn't "winning" I'm looking for. I just want to separate what is true from what merely appears to be true. It is an ongoing process with no end.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

I don't know why I bother to reply to this logorhea that still doesn't include any calculations to support "physical" claims but here you go.



Warbow said:


> ...Clickers have nothing to do with that nor have I ever given any opinion on whether you should use a clicker on your LB or not.
> ...


If you've ever shot instinctive you would know that clickers force deceleration of movement. In effect, the loss of dynamic inertia is obvious if we compare instinctive type of archery and olympic type. It can be easily quantified in poundage difference that the same archer can shoot in both events. While this difference is not as obvious within same type of archery, the analogy applies: all other things being equal, dynamic inertia allows to shoot higher poundage. 



Warbow said:


> ...Your posts are non sequitur. I sense a trend and will not respond to any of your future posts on the subject unless they contain at least the semblance of reason and are not merely a collection of confused assertions.


For someone who wants to prove something in pure science, you deliver plenty of words, insults and no values or formulas: is it physics or supreme court? Or should we call it for what it really is: trolling...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> I don't know why I bother to reply to this logorhea that still doesn't include any calculations to support "physical" claims but here you go.


You do love to go on about providing numbers. Neither TA nor you provide any. I'm not sure why you are obsessed with demanding a higher standard of evidence than you care to hold yourself to. You have not lived up to your claim that you "ABSOLUTELY" will back up your argument all the while asking others to provide rigorous physics modeling.



scrounger said:


> If you've ever shot instinctive you would know that clickers force deceleration of movement.


This would appear to be another of your remarkable non sequiturs. It is not required to shoot "instinctive" to experience friction from a clicker--or additional spring tension if you mean the kind of clicker that attaches between the limb and bow string. In fact, I'd say that shooting "instinctive" with a clicker is rather an exception than a common practice, but I don't have a scientific survey to verify that--and, I'll guess, neither do you. If perhaps by "shoot instinctive" you mean shoot "without a clicker" then you should say that. Perhaps it sounded clearer in your head. Out here, not so much.

BTW, deceleration of movement is redundant--but that is just me being snippy and doesn't make the phrase incorrect.



scrounger said:


> In effect, the loss of dynamic inertia is obvious if we compare instinctive type of archery and olympic type.


Here I think you mean no-clicker vs. clicker. While it is true that the friction from a clicker means that you will have to use slightly more force to come to anchor, the friction pales in comparison to the force needed to deflect the bow. It should also be noted that many "instinctive" shooters use a much shorter draw and shorter hold time than olympic archers--again, factors that are not a function of "inertia" that may allow them to shoot a heavier bow (or just sounds heavier, but in fact may not be because they are short drawing...) You aren't even comparing apples to oranges now, more like apples to walnuts.

Now, since this thread is about whether inertia is the prime factor justifying a continuous expansion at anchor then talking about clicker friction is a point _against_ that theory. Overcoming the friction of the clicker from a stop is just that overcoming friction. It is _not_ overcoming inertia and is thus another point in favor that inertia is not the reason why a continuos expansion may be desirable.


scrounger said:


> It can be easily quantified in poundage difference that the same archer can shoot in both events.


Well then. By all means do so and enlighten us. But remember that you will be quantifying friction not the static inertia that Lee was claiming would be a problem with a static anchor.


scrounger said:


> While this difference is not as obvious within same type of archery, the analogy applies: all other things being equal, dynamic inertia allows to shoot higher poundage.


I can buy that drawing the bow back quickly to get to anchor can help you pull back more weight. In fact KSL suggests not pulling the bow back too slowly. People "cheat" their exercises all the time by accelerating the weight stack to use the momentum of the weights to help them through the harder part of the power curve. However, that sort of analogy doesn't hold up in the expansion phase of the KSL shot cycle, with its extremely slow, "imperceptible" movement.


scrounger said:


> For someone who wants to prove something in pure science, you deliver plenty of words, insults and no values or formulas: is it physics or supreme court? Or should we call it for what it really is: trolling...


I must say I find you puzzling. You seem to have a few phrases that sound sort of based in science but your conclusions consistently fail to follow your premises. With each new post by you I keep being fooled into thinking you might have a point but when one critically looks at what you are actually writing any illusion of a legitimate point vanishes like a chimera.

I think you mistake rationally-based disagreement with your faulty arguments to be "trolling." There must be a lot of people you would have to consider trolls on that basis.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

This is just getting ridiculous: FRICTION FROM THE CLICKER...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> This is just getting ridiculous: FRICTION FROM THE CLICKER...


...and you are apparently trying to avoid a real discussion on the merits by making a cute and condescending point. Unfortunately, for your argument friction from the clicker is an undeniable fact. The force may be so small as to be irrelevant, perhaps no more than the friction from the rest, but it is none the less _a fact_. Rolling your eyes isn't a valid argument. But then, so far neither are the other arguments you've made, so perhaps the eye-rolling smiley is a more honest summary of your argument.

So if your theory has nothing to do with clicker friction you need to explain how your theory works and by what means you think "instinctive" archery allows for greater draw weight based on "inertia." And, most importantly, explain how this theory specifically confirms the idea that inertia is the prime reason for a continuous and "imperceptible" expansion _*at* anchor_ as per the KSL Shot Cycle I. (Keep in mind that a continuous expansion is not the same as a fast draw to anchor and snap shooting.)

BTW, in anticipation of more clamoring for numbers from me, numbers aren't necessary to make basic conceptual arguments. If someone were to claim that inertia is the reason why hot air balloons float I don't have to provide complicated buoyancy calculations for a specific balloon with a given weight, displacement and altitude to show that they are wrong on the fundamental concept, nor should I because they would be completely irrelevant.


----------



## mwarddoc (Aug 12, 2007)

*Good News!*

The Good News is that the system has been renamed to W.O.R.S.T. system.

We Only Really Strenuously Tiff system in order to reflect the various opinions


----------



## R&B (Oct 4, 2006)

Warbow said:


> R&B said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm not a physicist so the more I write the more likely I am to make an error, but here goes. (Were I writing a book I'd have a physicist fact check it before publication  )
> ...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

R&B said:


> Warbow said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think I've ever seen them referred to as weight draw curve or mass draw curves.
> ...


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

Inertia has everything to do with making a smooth and consistant shot because your body exspansion is fueling the arrow, it's not just the bow that pushes the arrow your body mechanics and exspansion affect the force you put on that nock. If you compromise the speed, and, or tension of your release your muscle memory will change, the idea is to carry the load evenly though the shot- in other words -controlling the inertia of your muscle exspansion. The B.E.S.T system is all about stacking your body behind the bow with good body mechanics the same each time- then using a smooth consistant build of tension and release each time- that launches the arrow the same way each time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Someone who knows a lot about the way muscles work could really simplify this (now silly) argument.

I don't think it's Inertia that we are thinking of here, but rather the tendency for a muscle to function better with continuous motion as opposed to a start/stop/start again motion.

Not sure what that's called, but I'm pretty sure it's not inertia. Someone should know the proper terminology however...

All I know is that if someone asked me to bench press 200 lbs., they had better let me do it in one continuous motion - otherwise it will never happen. 

John.


----------



## Paul Williams (Jun 18, 2006)

*internal momentum*

i agree with you John. 

its really all about continuous motion. 

when you transfer, you can feel a small "stretch" inside that is inline with the shot line. you simply keep it going. nothing more than that. 

this is what is refered to as "internal momentum". it makes the shot really clean and helps to promote alot of other things that are important for the shot. 

a good example is the Korean guy that shoots for Australia. theres a you tube clip of him shooting in the Beijing test event in the finals. its very easy to see how he sets up and simply transfers all external movement to internal expansion, and he never stops, he simply keeps it going. a very clean shot.

cheers,
Paul


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Someone who knows a lot about the way muscles work could really simplify this (now silly) argument.
> 
> I don't think it's Inertia that we are thinking of here, but rather the tendency for a muscle to function better with continuous motion as opposed to a start/stop/start again motion.
> 
> ...


I think its about keeping the rate of compression and exspansion or inertia of the release consistant with a continous motion. The body is going to compress as the weight increases like a spring, if you stop the motion the tension will change and the rate of exspansion on release and the pressure created will be inconsistant.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Someone who knows a lot about the way muscles work could really simplify this (now silly) argument.
> 
> I don't think it's Inertia that we are thinking of here, but rather the tendency for a muscle to function better with continuous motion as opposed to a start/stop/start again motion.
> 
> ...


Sounds reasonable to me, although I would point out that with the weights example you have a considerable amount of actual momentum from the mass of the 200 pounds of weights and the speed of movement. If your goal is to lift as much as possible, taking advantage of the momentum may be a good idea. If the goal to is to strengthen your full range of motion in a more even fashion you might want to use a more even motion--and of course you can argue that the initial acceleration actually does make for a more even exercise by making the the force used match the power curve by taking advantage of the momentum. I can't say which view is most accurate, but there is a difference between the dynamics of weights (which have a very high amount of inertia) and other forms of resistance, such as friction or spring tension (which do not).

But, don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing about form or the value of a continuous draw! I'm just curious about how it all works and why. Your statement about an expert in physiology being useful is clearly spot on.

BTW, there used to be (perhaps still is) a computerized resistance system for high end athletes that tailored it's resistance to the weaknesses in the subject's power curve. Because muscle strength is range specific (you have to exercise the range of motion you want to strengthen, not just the muscle in general) it would continuously monitor the the force the athlete was using and would actually slow down or stop when an athlete was in a "weak spot" to force them to strengthen that part of the range more. But it don't know if the efficacy of that system was borne out by further testing.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Warbow said:


> ...and you are apparently trying to avoid a real discussion on the merits by making a cute and condescending point...


...it is because there is no real discussion. It is you hammering away while we don't have any reason to educate you: you simply don't say "please" often enough. I could take few minutes Sunday to close this just as a public service, if nobody else does it first. You might be surprised but some of us have some work to do and can't spend the week trolling the boards...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

scrounger said:


> ...it is because there is no real discussion. It is you hammering away while we don't have any reason to educate you: you simply don't say "please" often enough. I could take few minutes Sunday to close this just as a public service, if nobody else does it first. You might be surprised but some of us have some work to do and can't spend the week trolling the boards...


I'm all ears, Scrounger. You are obviously not a dumb person. But so far your posts haven't provided arguments that held up to scrutinization and your promises to "ABSOLUTELY" back your arguments up have been hollow. Based on past performance I can't say that yet another claim that brilliant reasoning will shortly be forthcoming if only we will wait for you to condescend to educate us seems especially promising. I'd be much more impressed by actual cogent arguments than promises that you could provide such if you only had the time and motivation to do so. It comes off as so much school yard boasting, especially given how poorly your previous posts seem to have held up to critical inquiry. I await your divesting destruction of my thesis with baited breath.

Although I may have let myself get slightly more snippy than strictly necessary I have none the the less given your claims a close and honest examination and open rebuttal, explaining my rationale so that you can offer reasoned counter arguments. So far your arguments have been vague and non sequitur and your conclusions have consistently failed to follow your premisses. I would love to know what your points are but so far you haven't explained any in a way that makes sense. Hopefully you can overcome these pre-dispositions in your allegedly forthcoming _Magnum Opus_.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

*Hey RK*

You don't have an "inane thread of the week" award do you?

"Daddy, Daddy...why are those men over there beating that horse? Can't they see it's already dead?"

"I don't know honey...some things just can't be explained..."


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

spangler said:


> You don't have an "inane thread of the week" award do you?
> 
> "Daddy, Daddy...why are those men over there beating that horse? Can't they see it's already dead?"
> 
> "I don't know honey...some things just can't be explained..."


The problem, I suppose, is whether you can get all parties to agree that the horse ("inertia is the reason why continuous expansion at anchor is efficacious") is, in fact dead. I think the horse has been proven so but many remain unconvinced and continue to argue it is still alive.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*Nominations please...*



spangler said:


> You don't have an "inane thread of the week" award do you?
> 
> "Daddy, Daddy...why are those men over there beating that horse? Can't they see it's already dead?"
> 
> "I don't know honey...some things just can't be explained..."




That's the second nomination...I already nominated this for the "Worst thread of 2007" on page three. =D


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> That's the second nomination...I already nominated this for the "Worst thread of 2007" on page three. =D


Well, to each their own. The nice thing about threads is that you don't have to read them or post comments to them if they are not to your liking. I think the OP was a question that merited further inquiry and feedback from people--otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. It was a sincere question and I've learned a few things about physics and archery by researching and arguing the case. How much you get out of a thread may depend, in part, on how much you put into it.


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

Does all this even matter for you to shoot possums with your homemade longbow?
Use limited sceintific knowledge wisely, or not at all.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> Does all this even matter for you to shoot possums with your homemade longbow?
> Use limited sceintific knowledge wisely, or not at all.


Why shoot possums when you can get em free off the roads--all you need is a spatula 

JK. I"m neither a hunter, nor a yokel. But I wouldn't dismiss the opinions of someone on that basis even if they were. Instead, I'd try to judge them based on the content of their posts and the quality of their facts and reasoning. And even if I found those lacking I wouldn't necessarily think poorly of them as people.

You are riffing of of my self-admitted limited knowledge but what you haven't said is that my argument is wrong or, if so, why. If my argument is, in fact, correct then what point are you making?

BTW, admitting that my knowledge is limited is my way of being open and inviting others to make corrections on a factual basis. I wouldn't, however, suggest making too much of it. We are all ignorant of the majority of knowledge. There will always be more to know than any one person can master. I can admit that and seek to learn what I can. If you wish to chastise me for that then so be it. I'm not sure what point it serves, though, and it doesn't seem an especially enlightened position to take.

On a related note the "you are an ELB shooter why should you care about technique" attitude is condescending and ignores the role of English Longbows as the origin of FITA target shooting as we know it today. The rounds we shoot to day in FITA and OR are the direct descendants of the English and American target shooting of the 1700 and 1800s which were shot with English Longbows. We still shoot a number of those same rounds today in the same form (even the same colors on the target) and we still use much the same technique in Olympic Recurve shooting, including the under the chin anchor. Elmer's Target Archery--about English longbow target archery--was a prime inspiration for IFAA Longbow Champion Larry Yien. Likewise, modern OR technique can be applied back to longbow form.

Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that anyone who shoots selfbows should not aspire to shoot Olympic Recurve but should instead contend themselves with varmint hunting. Not exactly a welcoming attitude for a sport that continuously needs new members. And it is especially disheartening to hear from a high end coach, who, I think, would wish to promote OR rather than seek to dissuade people from taking it up.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

I can't believe that this thread is still going.

Don't you guys have a life?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

target1 said:


> Don't you guys have a life?


What? No bait? I'm almost dissappointed... 

The "Get a life" retort has come up several times earlier in this thread. I'll ask you what I asked them: "Does spending lots of time and money to stand many yards from a target and try to get arrows to land in small groups really make more sense than intellectual pursuits like tenaciously arguing for accuracy in books claiming scientific credentials? I don't see how the former is inherently better than the latter."

Heck, I like archery but I can't necessarily justify it as being more "worthy" than any other hobby or athletic pursuit. Anyone can look at another person's pursuits and spout "get a life" but they probably should refrain from doing so unless they can also prove their own hobbies or pursuits are inocontrovertably not in a similar vein. What we enjoy and find worthy as individuals is subjective. I'm still waiting for others to explain their position in light of this.


----------



## ShakesTheClown (Jan 25, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Does spending lots of time and money to stand many yards from a target and try to get arrows to land in small groups really make more sense than intellectual pursuits like tenaciously arguing for accuracy in books claiming scientific credentials?


Yes.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

ShakesTheClown said:


> Yes.


Ok, show your work 

(My fault for assuming people would explain there reasoning...)


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

OK folks....who thinks this thread has run its course with respect to it's initial point and value?

Is it time to lock it up or should we leave the debate running?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Recordkeeper said:


> OK folks....who thinks this thread has run its course with respect to it's initial point and value?
> 
> Is it time to lock it up or should we leave the debate running?


Locking is fine by me. I learned what I hoped to learn from the thread, though it was more difficult than I thought it would be. I think the actual arguments about physics have concluded and what remains is merely personality conflicts. IMO.


----------



## RecordKeeper (May 9, 2003)

Warbow said:


> Locking is fine by me. I learned what I hoped to learn from the thread, though it was more difficult than I thought it would be. I think the actual arguments about physics have concluded and what remains is merely personality conflicts. IMO.


That's kinda what I'm thinking....but since you're the thread starter I value your imput. Thanks!


----------



## frydaddy40 (Oct 17, 2007)

*Thanks*

Thank you GOD. And you to RK.


----------



## tedzpony (May 15, 2007)

Warbow said:


> The "Get a life" retort has come up several times earlier in this thread. I'll ask you what I asked them: "Does spending lots of time and money to stand many yards from a target and try to get arrows to land in small groups really make more sense than intellectual pursuits like tenaciously arguing for accuracy in books claiming scientific credentials? I don't see how the former is inherently better than the latter."


No, it doesn't. Arguing deep intellectual points, has its inherent value, and no more or less so than shooting arrows at a target, riding a bicycle for sport or recreation, or studying the deep mysteries of chess. None are inherently better than the other, EXCEPT TO THE PERSON CHOOSING TO DO THEM. And that's all that matters.

However, to read the entire length of this thread, it seems that you've come to an Archery Forum to do that, against people who generally are admittedly much more interested in the practicality of the information, rather than its derivation. You've repeatedly asked questions to the basic tone of "But don't you want to know more?" which tends to insinuate that you think it's less worthwhile to just shoot than it is to ask the deep intellectual questions.

To be quite honest, what it really sounds like is that you're looking for a place to try and show off: 1) how smart you are, 2) that you have substantial logical reasoning ability, 3) and that you can use that reasoning to shred every ounce of argument offered by everyone else.

I'm not in any way suggesting that the rest of the people on this board are stupid, but instead we just prefer to apply our knowledge to shooting, whereas you choose to apply it to thinking. Whatever. So, fine, you're smart. Is that what you want to hear?

Earnest Hemingway could have entered himself in an elementary school spelling bee, but would that really have proven anything?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

tedzpony said:


> To be quite honest, what it really sounds like is that you're looking for a place to try and show off: 1) how smart you are, 2) that you have substantial logical reasoning ability, 3) and that you can use that reasoning to shred every ounce of argument offered by everyone else.


Ted, I accept that as the way you may see me. I hope you will not judge me merely on the basis of this thread but all of my posts.

Can I be a show off? Yes.

Am I also sometimes friendly, helpful, self-deprecating and humble? I'd like to think so.

Am I arguing just to argue? On occasion, perhaps, but on balance I don't think so. I try to argue rationally and to make sound and relevant points backed up by reasoning and facts. In this thread I really am interested in the physics and I really do want to get to the bottom of the issue. Many people disagreed with my thesis. Some would, perhaps, prefer I be meek and let the force of their convictions overawe me to accepting the status quo--or their opinions on their say so. While that might make some people happy I'm not sure it would be a good way to investigate the truth and to try and separate what is true from what merely appears to be true. Sometimes separating people from their pre-conceptions and getting them to analyze if what they believe is really justified by the facts can be a noisy and contentious process but I don't think that necessarily means it is one we should avoid just for the sake of preserving decorum. I don't think we should accept the status quo and stagnate just because it is easier to do so.

Could it be that my arguments are convincing because they are right and not because I'm trying to show off? They certainly aren't right all the time. I expect to be proven wrong once in a while, and soundly so. I learn new facts from that winning argument and add them to what I know. That is the process of Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis, where you learn something new by arguing the case.

I hope people will not reject information that may be true just because they may take issue with my personality and my zeal for rigorous discourse.

BTW, most of my arguments are _responses_ to people, some of whom are attacking me personally. Although I did say that people who argue a scientific point need to have a thick skin for attempts at scientific refutation of their arguments I never said they should leave personal attacks unanswered. While I don't necessarily consider your post a personal attack, none the less it seems to demand a responsive answer. I hope you will not hold it against me that I attempt to respond with reasoned discourse to it and to other posts that attempt to impugn my comments and personality. And I hope you don't see a rigorous and reasoned defense as being offensive.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

tedzpony said:


> You've repeatedly asked questions to the basic tone of "But don't you want to know more?" which tends to insinuate that you think it's less worthwhile to just shoot than it is to ask the deep intellectual questions.


I have asked questions to that effect. Usually in response to someone who says the status quo is good enough and everybody should just shut up and accept it since it is rude to question authority.

However, I've never advocated that any individual shooter shouldn't shoot however they like. Archery is fun and you should shoot how you like. Trad, OR, BEST, made up on your own. If you are enjoying and not endangering other people go for it.

But, when people tell other people the best way to shoot or pose questions like what are the best biomechanics methods of optimizing archery? Well then, there we a interesting questions that we can subject to scrutiny.

You seem to think I'm an elitist snob who tells people what kind of archery they are allowed to enjoy. Not so. People should shoot how they like. But when they start talking about the science of archery I expect them to live up to scientific standards. You, on the other hand, have no problem telling me what not to write in posts. I hope you will examine your own comments towards me with that in mind.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Below is a PM I sent to RC and Warbow who decided it is worth to reopen this thread to post it. Hope not to bore to death the readers...

Gents,
I actually wrote up a responce as promised, all explained in as reader friendly way as my ability allows, only to find the thread locked. It sort of bugs me that I wasted my time but I don't think it warrants new thread. If you have any comments you can keep it to PM. Here you go.

To get an idea of what we are looking at, first we need to decide what are the significant numbers for an archer. While some may argue that archery is all about precision and every percentage point counts, I suggest we go here with established industry standards. Considering that the “two pound” increments seem to work for most limb and arrow selection, why not go with that? Now, to be more specific, the same 2 lbs for 20lbs bow is 10% while for 40lbs is 5% and it drops to 3.3% for 60 lbs. Therefore, I could assume that most of archers don’t use draw style that varies 10% and would be seriously affected by 5%. To most of us 3% and less becomes an area of fine tuning. For me to be on the devil’s advocate side, if anything accounts for more than 5%, it is significant. For benefit of some, how about we bump this to 10% anyway. 

I think everyone has an intuitive notion about inertia existing during all stages of draw especially if something happened to obstruct the path of the elbow. Most of us and in particular those who shoot in confined space, experienced first hand the related energy transfer in form of the pain by slamming elbow to a tree, a doorframe or even a face of a spectator who got too close. Those who never done it don’t have to take my word for it: try it but you’ve been warned, so don’t send me your med bills... 

Well, let’s do some easy calculations and physics experts will have to forgive me some liberties I am taking here using a rigid body as the model of this motion. Indeed, kinetic energy is the one we are interested in as it has an inertia component and it can be broken down to translation (0.5*m*(V^2)) and rotation (0.5*I*(w^2)) where m=mass, V=linear velocity, I=centroidal moment of inertia and w=angular velocity. The first one is present as long as there is any relative linear movement. The second one is eliminated by drawing while aiming perfectly for the gold and we all know how much harder the work is without it. The mass and moment of inertia would be important to compare different archers and to give this energy some value but we can do without calculating these if all we want to do is to compare the same archer in different movements. 

So let’s assume that we do it the hard way and focus on linear motion through the last part of the draw. Of course, this “linear motion” for archer body is not quite linear as our muscles bulge in all directions and bones shift accordingly. Nevertheless, they combine into one velocity vector and we want to compare two cases: “steady motion” vs. “stop and draw through clicker motion”. For the simplicity of calculation I will grab some numbers out of the air. Considering that residual draw velocity is very slow, say V1=2 inches per second and it is even slower at release, say V2=1 inch per second, I plug these into kinetic formula to have a look at work in excess to that required to overcome resistance and examine only the energy required to change the velocity (0.5*m*(Va^2-Vb^2)). 
“Steady motion”: Ek1=0.5*m*(2*2-1*1)=1.5*m
“Stop motion”: Ek2=(0.5*m*(2*2-0*0)) to stop+(0.5*m*(1*1-0*0)) to get it going again=2.5*m
Mass is a constant, so the extra expanded energy for case as above is 66% greater in stop motion. Way over 10%, isn’t it? Furthermore notice that if V1=V2, Ek1=0 showing most efficient case where archer uses all energy to overcome spring resistance without fighting the system inertia he worked so hard to get at the start of draw cycle. 

Go ahead, plug any velocity numbers you want (say from 1/16 inch per second to 20 inches per second), you will not get these two models within 10% non-significant value we set at the start...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Scrounger,

As I responded to you when you sent me this as a PM, "Nice Post."

I think you have done a good job in laying out a clear argument. Your post makes a good case and you came through today as promised and I'm glad that RecordKeeper offered to add your post to the thread.

Cheers,
WB


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Excellant


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

By energy conservation, for rigid body analysis, the extra energy exerted must be transmitted to the initial velocity of the arrow.

Therefore a continuous draw produces a 66% smaller initial velocity than a stop a go?

For a non rigid body (deformable body= energy storage) 66% more energy is required to use a stop and go draw. Not very efficient!

You are on the right track though.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Greg Bouras said:


> By energy conservation, for rigid body analysis, the extra energy exerted must be transmitted to the initial velocity of the arrow.
> 
> Therefore a continuous draw produces a 66% smaller initial velocity than a stop a go?
> 
> ...


Please look again over the write-up. I am talking only about the energy used to affect system inertia and that has no impact of amount of stored energy in the bow. Let's put it this way: some ways of drawing the same bow are more energy efficient than others but they ALL still deliver the same energy to the arrow.


----------



## Greg Bouras (Nov 17, 2006)

scrounger said:


> Please look again over the write-up. I am talking only about the energy used to affect system inertia and that has no impact of amount of stored energy in the bow.
> 
> The hypothesis in your discussion is supported by theory. You have also devised a test which disproves the hypothesis. The first statement above has no physical validity.
> 
> ...


----------



## In the shadows (Nov 16, 2007)

My head just exploded!


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Dear Lord: 

The scientists are ruining archery for me. Therefor I promise to never, ever, ever again think of archery as anything but an art form. 

Amen.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

In the shadows said:


> My head just exploded!


Don't you just *HATE* it when that happens?











Long live Scientific Archery:thumbs_up


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Greg Bouras said:


> ...
> 
> Your statement that there are different ways to draw the bow “Let's put it this way: some ways of drawing the same bow are more energy efficient than others but they ALL still deliver the same energy to the arrow” requires that one method stores energy or dissipates the energy in the form kinetic, heat or metabolic process.
> 
> ...


That is exactly right.
If I accelerate the system too much at beginning stage of the draw, I will also have to expend more energy to slow the system down later (one could say "absorb energy" but unfortunately my body truly absorbs energy only via nutrition). The arrow doesn't care how fast you draw the bow: you could have drawn it yesterday...
To illustrate it, think about crossbow: you could draw it with hands, with a stirrup, with belt hooks, a crank, a goat-foot, etc. You could get hernia in 1 second or get blisters in 1 minute: your choice. Each of these draw systems have different energy efficiencies, force requirements and loading speed times but bolt will not know the difference.

I will not comment on the muscle work evaluation: while I appreciate someone looking into it, I specifically stayed with physics and avoided biometrics not to mix up the issues.


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Seattlepop said:


> Dear Lord:
> 
> The scientists are ruining archery for me. Therefor I promise to never, ever, ever again think of archery as anything but an art form.
> 
> Amen.


I am truly sorry about it Fred. 
From now on, I'll be all zen too, I promise!
Rob


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Dear Lord:

Please bless Scrounger.

Amen.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Dear Lord:
> 
> Please bless Scrounger.
> 
> Amen.


Dunno about that SP, I _think_ he had his fingers crossed


----------



## scrounger (Mar 13, 2007)

Hutnicks said:


> Dunno about that SP, I _think_ he had his fingers crossed



come on, on scout's honor, just listen to my chant:
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Hutnicks said:


> Dunno about that SP, I _think_ he had his fingers crossed



Nah, not this close to Christmas...Santa's watching too, ya know.


----------



## winst (Nov 21, 2002)

target1 said:


> sometimes science is twisted to support a position, correct or not. ie. evolution



Sometimes it is magic!!! ie. burning bush, virgin birth.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

winst said:


> Sometimes it is magic!!! ie. burning bush, virgin birth.


:doh: Why didn't somebody tell me...:violin:


----------

