# in·stinc·tive



## KennyO (Feb 5, 2003)

in·stinc·tive 
/inˈstiNG(k)tiv/
Adjective
Doing a specified thing apparently naturally or automatically.

So if i naturally and automatically put my sight pin on the target and release my arrow am i shooting instinctively?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Yes.

I'm now off to naturally move my fingers 45mm down the serving and place my arrow point below the intended point of impact.

-Grant


----------



## Bowmania (Jan 3, 2003)

If you hit the target you aren't. If you missed you are. LOL!!

Bowmania


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

I am at work right now, working instinctively. Does that count? 

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

1. Relating to or prompted by instinct; apparently unconscious or automatic.

So if I unconsciously miss the target because I plucked the string, wouldn't that be instinctive?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

"apparently" naturally v. naturally is a pretty decent descriptive marker, as what looks to be isn't the same as what is.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

I will continue to shoot until hitting that pesky little x becomes second nature. I may be shooting for a long time, as first nature does not seem to be working!


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

I just got up and am drinking my coffee instinctively according to the definition. Later today I will go out and shoot but that will be gap style. Seems I can drink coffee instinctively better then I can shoot instinctively.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Around here we do a lot of "sweaping the house" and "redding up". Apparently these aren't the propper terms for vacuuming or picking up around the house, but in the Pittsburgh area we all know what you're talking about.

It comes instinctively


----------



## Xero (Apr 20, 2013)

Since we're nit-picking connotation / denotation, let's first note that it's spelled "sweeping" and "readying" . . . :shade:

I suppose we could deconstruct this discursion by drawing analogies between "instinctive" and "knee-jerk" -- or jerks in general. If you're using a "pin," you're aiming. A pin is a sight (not a "site"). And so you're "sighting" or "aiming." 

I suppose that when I focus on the target and loose the arrow, it's "instinctive" -- but I'm "aiming" at the target, without using a sight, nor "gapping" -- or whatever. And yeah, it works for me, in some instances better than others.

(And when I get into town, and access to WiFi instead of Dial-Up -- on my way to the archery trailer right now -- I'll post a photo of the 20 yd. groups I get "instinctively.")


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

A Labrador retriever will retrieve at 6 weeks. A Brittany Spaniel will point at 6 weeks. A beagle will trail a rabbit at 6 weeks. These are truely instinctive behaviors and are in their genes at birth. Instinctive shooting is a misnomer but it's the one we use to describe one type of archery shooting.


----------



## Xero (Apr 20, 2013)

At 20 yds. -- 7" pie plate, 5" inside circle. Circles outside the plate are 11" and 16" -- 16" being approx. 40 cm, the diameter of the WA / FITA bare bow target. 









Both eyes open. I don't "aim" at anything, don't gap or whatever. I focus on the target, on the X, and put the arrow where I'm looking. If I don't group, it's because I didn't focus.

You wanna settle for "intuitive" ??? :mg:


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

When this instinctive discussion comes up I am always reminded of the Honda commercial. It went something like "What somebody means when they say 'It cannot be done' is that they cannot do it". 

It is widely known that people have a pointing instinct. I don't know if it can be seen at 6 weeks, but human babies will point at things. And it has been shown that older people point. More importantly, they point exactly where they are looking. Old west gun fighters used this technique to draw and shoot. The bullet goes where they are looking and pointing. Of course some of them were better at this than others and all of them were better than me, but it doesn't mean that it could not be done. I have been pretty successful with a shotgun and clay pigeons. 

So, if we take a natural instinct, like pointing, and figure out how to adapt that to shooting, you could call it instinctive shooting. Or maybe psychic shooting. Or maybe even "mental magic aiming". What it is called doesn't bother me much, it is what I am doing. Poorly perhaps, but with trifocals it is easier than aiming.


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

Xero said:


> At 20 yds. -- 7" pie plate, 5" inside circle. Circles outside the plate are 11" and 16" -- 16" being approx. 40 cm, the diameter of the WA / FITA bare bow target.
> 
> View attachment 1717496
> 
> ...


I, personally, am pretty impressed. I will take "intuitive", thank you.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Nekekal: Thing is, it's not instinctive unless it requires no instruction or previous experience. I've never seen someone who has never touched a bow or paid attention to how one is shot pick one up and use it effectively. If it truly was instinctive, most people should be able to shoot that way effectively, since it would pertain, in varying degrees, to the human race in general.

The truth of the matter is that "instinctive" shooting is "sight picture shooting". Your brain will automatically adjust to the correct sight picture based on visual references - that's why it takes practice jumping from different distances. Otherwise you should be able to hit what you're shooting at from any distance at any time, known or not, with little experience, provided your form is right. All aiming is is paying closer attention to a specific aspect of the sight picture, like the relation of the pin to the target, or the tip of the arrow relative to the target. It is a habit formed by the cerebellum and basal ganglia - it is not "instinctive" the way a wild dog chasing down a rabbit is. "Instinct" refers to an inheritable, unalterable trait not given any thought.
I don't really care if people call it instinctive as long as they're aware there's nothing more lofty or "special" about it - that fallacy comes up way too often in this world.


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

CFGuy said:


> Nekekal: Thing is, it's not instinctive unless it requires no instruction or previous experience. I've never seen someone who has never touched a bow or paid attention to how one is shot pick one up and use it effectively. If it truly was instinctive, most people should be able to shoot that way effectively, since it would pertain, in varying degrees, to the human race in general.
> .


To use the dog example, I have owned coonhounds, they instinctively can smell things and follow tracks, but the cannot instinctively hunt. For that they need to be taught how to use their instinctive ability.

I maintain that shooting is the same thing. We instinctively know how to point, and use it as an eye tracking device, and with some effort can use that to throw an object to what we are looking at.

But of course, not everyone can do it, that was Honda's point.

And for what it is worth, in my case you are right. I recently cut some arrows off and it screwed up my sight picture and I couldn't hit anything. But just because I cannot do it, doesn't mean that no one can. I have always had pretty bad hand to eye coordination anyway, and I am going to keep trying.


----------



## MrSinister (Jan 23, 2003)

Nekekal said:


> To use the dog example, I have owned coonhounds, they instinctively can smell things and follow tracks, but the cannot instinctively hunt. For that they need to be taught how to use their instinctive ability.
> 
> I maintain that shooting is the same thing. We instinctively know how to point, and use it as an eye tracking device, and with some effort can use that to throw an object to what we are looking at.
> 
> ...


You got it. That is why you run the young hounds with the older one's. that young one may be the better hound in a year but he still needs some training to get those skills developed.


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

MrSinister said:


> You got it. That is why you run the young hounds with the older one's. that young one may be the better hound in a year but he still needs some training to get those skills developed.


LOL. So true. My older redbone taught my Irish Setter to track.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

ATTN All: "Instinctive Shooters"

Please have your subconscious inform your conscious that you are subconsciously gapping.

There...that should resolve a lot of the confusion as an informed archer is a gapping archer. :laugh:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

MrSinister said:


> You got it. That is why you run the young hounds with the older one's. that young one may be the better hound in a year but he still needs some training to get those skills developed.


Yep getting back into hounds after a long break - boy I miss having a old dog. My girls will figure it out but I'll be walking out a bunch of tracks with the this winter


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Xero said:


> At 20 yds. -- 7" pie plate, 5" inside circle. Circles outside the plate are 11" and 16" -- 16" being approx. 40 cm, the diameter of the WA / FITA bare bow target.
> 
> View attachment 1717496
> 
> ...


Yep, That's definitely a 20 yard instinctive cluster.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Nekekal said:


> To use the dog example, I have owned coonhounds, they instinctively can smell things and follow tracks, but the cannot instinctively hunt. For that they need to be taught how to use their instinctive ability.
> 
> I maintain that shooting is the same thing. We instinctively know how to point, and use it as an eye tracking device, and with some effort can use that to throw an object to what we are looking at.
> 
> ...


I think the issue with the whole debate is that it's so subject to interpretation. I think when people say "purely instinctively", that should imply you haven't had any experience sight picture wise how to shoot a bow and should be able to do so without any references. I would say in the dog case the sniffing and following tracks is instinctive, the hunting is taught - pointing a finger is instinctive, and perhaps holding the bow "just there" to shoot is instinctive, but whether or not that instinct is helpful and how much that instinct needs to be cultivated and developed and assisted by visual reference is another story. You made a good case for the use of the word, but when people talk about shooting "purely instinctively" and claim they don't use any visual references/purely do it proprioceptively, it's not true.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I instinctively avoid all threads dealing with instinctive shooting...I think my instincts are fading...:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Nekekal said:


> "What somebody means when they say 'It cannot be done' is that they cannot do it".
> 
> It is widely known that people have a pointing instinct. I don't know if it can be seen at 6 weeks, but human babies will point at things. And it has been shown that older people point. More importantly, they point exactly where they are looking. Old west gun fighters used this technique to draw and shoot. The bullet goes where they are looking and pointing. Of course some of them were better at this than others and all of them were better than me, but it doesn't mean that it could not be done. I have been pretty successful with a shotgun and clay pigeons.
> 
> So, if we take a natural instinct, like pointing, and figure out how to adapt that to shooting, you could call it instinctive shooting.


Oh yeah...another brother in arms :thumbs_up

Ya NAILED it!!!

Most of us already know that most of the archers, who don't get Instinctive Aiming or say it doesn't exist are those 'elite' target archers shooting those girly weight metal target bows using one of those other sight picture aiming techniques because they lack the athletic ability to effectively use Instinctive Aiming to hit their targets....LOL :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

The method some call instinctive can be very effective with a single arrow at close range. Shooting groups at longer ranges, well, not so good. That's why having a checkable and repeatable aiming system has to be better.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Jeez Ray I just weighed my bow it weighs 7.5 lbs don't think that's a girly weight at all. 

Matt


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Oh yeah...another brother in arms :thumbs_up
> 
> Ya NAILED it!!!
> 
> ...


Ray-Ray-Ray- Ray- Ray - rya, yar, ary. Damn it, I gapped the first five, then did the next three instinctively, but then y'all already had that figured out.:shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Oh yeah...another brother in arms :thumbs_up
> 
> Ya NAILED it!!!
> 
> ...


Ray-Ray-Ray- Ray- Ray - rya, yar, ary. Damn it, I gapped the first five, then did the next three instinctively, but then y'all already had that figured out.:shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Fact is, a pointing instinct would't require one to anchor their finger under their eyeball to make the finger point true, that is, unless one was severly deficient in his ability to point.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

A valid aiming system for sure, just plenty of misnomers like the name and things like athletic ability.


----------



## gradyk (Mar 3, 2013)

I think Ill try an experiment. When I was learning to point shoot a pistol, we would focus on a target then close our eyes and raise the gun to the target, (empty of course). Then we would open our eyes and see how close our sights were to the target. After awhile you get better and better until you can do this with ammo and hit the target. Now your eyes are open but you dont focus on the sights. Its surpising how good you can get by practiceing this. I think Ill try it with the bow. I have a huge rifle backstop behind my house without anyone behind it for 5 miles. I think with the bow you would close your eyes after focusing on target ,then raise your bow arm and release. Might be interesting.
And is it instinctive to beat a dead horse. LOL


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

If it was instinctive then you would shoot the exact same all the time.

So unless you guys can go to an unfamiliar 3D range and shoot 10s all day long with no warm-up then it just isn't instinct. It's your brain using past sight pictures to determine the correct sight picture for a given shot.
Once you've made enough hits with a certain sight picture it will be filed away as correct and used again for that shot. Why do you think the "instinctive" shots shoot at the same type of target over a fairly small range of distances? It's mental filing and there isn't anything instinctive about it.

If you think you can aim 100% instinctively then try it in the pitch black sometime. Spoiler alert: you're gonna need a big target.

-Grant


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> The method some call instinctive can be very effective with a single arrow at close range. Shooting groups at longer ranges, well, not so good. That's why having a checkable and repeatable aiming system has to be better.


Of course sights are better. That is why rifles have them. Even some revolvers have them. Especially since not everyone can hit anything without them. Of course some people can. I saw a guy shoot quarters out of the air with a M14 without sights.

On the other hand, a single arrow at close range is frequently enough. If you have to shoot a group at a bear, I hope your aiming style allows you to do it while running. I just want to be consistent with my single arrow at close range.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Grant wins by virtue of neurological understanding over mysticism and pseudo science.

Grady - Great feeling when you have that down eh? Still learned proprioception though. I would say that if beating a dead horse feels instinctive you might want to get checked out .


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

grantmac said:


> If it was instinctive then you would shoot the exact same all the time.
> 
> If you think you can aim 100% instinctively then try it in the pitch black sometime. Spoiler alert: you're gonna need a big target.
> 
> -Grant


I have actually done this. When I was in the US Army, drafted for Vietnam, we had to learn and practice a thing called "quick kill". The sights were taped over, and you just threw the rifle to your shoulder and pulled the trigger. No aiming was possible but I suppose a sight picture of some type was present. To qualify you went to the range in the middle of the night, man sized targets at 50 yards. Some moonlight was present. The targets were rotated around to face you, you had to shoot them in less than ten seconds. Snap shooting at its finest.

Ok, they were big targets, and any hit counted, but most people were able to do this. I suspect that it could be done with a bow just as easily, only I think I would use closer targets. But shooting at night, without sights is possible.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Nekekal: That sounds proprioceptive - another thing confused with instinct. Fascinating how the mind works, but it's still learned rather than genetically inhereted.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Now don't get serious and scientific on us - this is supposed to be fun. 

I'm one of those girly target shooters but I shoot instinctive - I instinctively want to shoot the top score so I aim like heck - there that should get us back on track.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I knew I couldn't spell:lol:

Just getting at the point, we don't need a dictionary when we all know what you're talking about.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

To be honest I have been deeply saddened that we haven't seen many 'instinctive ... real or bogus" threads recently ... 

When life gets me down , or work is just to much , or I see the news ... the poverty , the cynicism ... well AT's trad section 'instinctive' threads are such a blessing ...

In an ever changing world , they remain a constant .

And that constant refuses to die , dismisses change , and throws ice cubes down the back of progressive thinking ... regardless of what our goals or physical abilities are nor how much pixie dust we sprinkle :mg::mg::mg:

but sheesh ... Ken ... Ken ... where art thou ???


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

OK, back to the dogs. Yes a retriever will retrieve at 6 weeks but it takes years to instill obedience, marking and handling skills, hunting savy which makes a finished hunting retriever (Oh, how well I know), but the retrieving instinct if there at birth. Same with a pointer. Both of these types of hunting dogs need humans to train them to use their natural born instinctive traits. Hounds are a little different and do well by being run and trained by experienced dogs but they still possess instinctive skills.

BTW this thread has had the best descriptions of instinctive shooting I think I've read in a very long time. I liked the part about being able to point as a small baby. True. Congratulations to the contributors.


----------



## gradyk (Mar 3, 2013)

I agree its learned,thats why we have to practice. The dead horse comment was a joke. I know it wasnt that funny, but Ive been working on a hot roof for nearly a week.


CFGuy said:


> Grant wins by virtue of neurological understanding over mysticism and pseudo science.
> 
> Grady - Great feeling when you have that down eh? Still learned proprioception though. I would say that if beating a dead horse feels instinctive you might want to get checked out .


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sheeeesh....you would think anyone with an athletic history of playing sports or studing kinesiology would have a better clue on what Instinctive Aiming is and what's involved that makes it different to all the other 'sight picture' aiming techniques. A person has to wonder...if these people were picked on in school for being geeky or unathletic. We already know most of the people who are making the biggest stink about Instinctive Aiming not existing or how it's no different than any other aiming technique are the so called 'elite' target archers, who are still butt hurt over being called a cheater for winning a tournament by playing by the rules. I think it's time for some people to lick their wounds and slap a My Pretty Pony bandaid on their wounds and finally understand what makes Instinctive Aiming different.

Clues: it does involve proprioception, the subconscious/unconscious mind, the conscious mind to name a few.

For example: Deliberate movement, such as walking, requires the precise coordination of many different muscles, a challenge that we would not able to master if we only relied on the conscious mind. If we had to consciously think of how we used every muscle to perform a task...we would never get much done.

Study this video of how this archer is using proprioception, hand and eye coordinatio and the subconscious/unconscious mind differently than an archer who analytically adjusts their aiming references and their gaps to hit a target.

If you still think that there is nothing different in how an archer aims Totally/Purely Instinctively as the word applies to an aiming technique and not what you were taught in elemantary school...than you're in denial for some reason or another.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Ray,

You may in fact be totally right within the context of your own definitions. However the aiming technique which you are trying to describe and what the people who post on this forum are claiming to be instinctive are two totally different items.
I can, have and will shoot exactly as you show. I even hit things on occasion, but as with everyone who uses that technique I understand the limitations.

I've never seen anyone who can shoot your "true instinctive" who can actually hit anything past 20yds, but I've seen some people who claim to shoot "instinctive" that certainly can. Appearly their instincts just need a close point-on and a while to process the image is all.

So why muddy the water with an aiming technique that isn't being discussed?


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> Now don't get serious and scientific on us - this is supposed to be fun.
> 
> I'm one of those girly target shooters but I shoot instinctive - I instinctively want to shoot the top score so I aim like heck - there that should get us back on track.


No wonder you knocked me out of the money during the shootdown. You're one of those aimers. I shoot instinctively.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> Ray,
> 
> You may in fact be totally right within the context of your own definitions. However the aiming technique which you are trying to describe and what the people who post on this forum are claiming to be instinctive are two totally different items.


I COMPLETELY agree....which is why I'm trying to add clarification and evidence to the aiming technique that is Truly unique and different.



grantmac said:


> but as with everyone who uses that technique I understand the limitations.


I also COMPLETELY agree. Everything has limitations and comprimises are often made in order to fulfill an archer's goals, abilities and personality :wink:



grantmac said:


> I've never seen anyone who can shoot your "true instinctive" who can actually hit anything past 20yds,


Hit anywhere near to the consistecy of a competitive target archer??? No way...which is why Instinctive Aiming is better suited for many close quaters hunting circumstances and NOT competitive target archery...but I do think there's a part in that video showing that archer putting 3 arrows into a target at 60yrds. within 1 1/2 sec. 



grantmac said:


> So why muddy the water with an aiming technique that isn't being discussed?


It's NOT mudding the water. I'm trying to add clarity to what is already a confusing and contraversial subject.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Xero (Apr 20, 2013)

Sanford said:


> Fact is, a pointing instinct wouldn't require one to anchor their finger under their eyeball to make the finger point true, that is, unless one was severely deficient in his ability to point.


I should some day get you out on the trap apron with a shotgun and some pigeons . . . And I corrected your spelling errors too. :mg:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Ray, the irony of this post made me chuckle - "the so called 'elite' target archers...I wonder if they were picked on for being unathletic".

But ouch Ray you have me pegged! You take intro psych back in college ?

I'm sorry but your explanation is far more elementary and less scientific than some have mentioned here. The bottom line is that whether proprioception or sight picture, the "conscious" or "unconscious" mind, it's a learned behaviour - few if any can pick up a bow and effectively shoot it that way without practice. No one is disputing the aiming system itself, simply what it's called - generally the term "instinctive" refers to an inherited, unconscious impulse driving an _organism_ toward a specific behaviour (implying everyone has it). If this bothers you to the point of being unreasonably condescending then so be it.

Matt: Sorry, didn't mean to scare you with that silly sciency stuff. I guess compared to your bow, mine's even more girly - only weighs like 2lbs. You have any "My Pretty Pony" band-aids like Ray was talking about?

Good call red, and Grady I was joking too . Heat does things to people so I actually thought it funnier than it probably should have been .


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Ray

Pitched baseball in high school at a fairly high level. Wasn't picked on at all. But, the same false argument could be made about guys that devote a bunch of time lifting weights in front of a mirror. Are you compensating for something???

Shot instinctive for the first 10 years or so I shot a recurve and did it pretty well - winning both Montana and Idaho state 3D buckles with it and killed a pant load of deer and several elk. 

I don't think anyone here is saying it doesn't exist.

CF - I prefer hello kitty 

Matt


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Howard Hill said it best....."I've seen ALOT of instinctive shooters...but I've never seen a good one."


When I'm at a large shooting event and someone tells me they shoot instinctive the first thing goes thru my head is good I don't have to worry about beating you.




Dewayne Martin


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd when folks contend that instinctive shooting isn’t accurate enough for target archery, yet it’s the greatest thing ever for bowhunting? Personally, I’m a lot more concerned about accuracy when I’m shooting a live animal than a rubber one. If I make a bad shot on a 3D deer I lose a few points on a score card, get teased by friends…maybe punch a tree or something. A bad shot on a real deer has more serious results. If I didn't think my aiming method was good enough for fake animals there’s no way in heck I’d turn it loose on the real thing.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Oh heck what do you two know about accuracy. 

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

This is the only post in this thread that I am going to make.

1. Congrats to Dewayne, Jason, Matt, and all the others who shot well at the Worlds.

2. Since this post is about definitions - the word "instinct" has two defnitions - and those who deny that instinctive shooting exists love to ignore the 2nd definition:

in·stinct
Pronunciation: in-sti(k)t
Function: noun
1 : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
2 :* behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level *

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmedsamp

To some degree - all archers - even sight shooters are instinctive - because there is no way to consciously do everything involved in the shot or even the aim.

Personally - I think the debate comes into the "rough aim" for lack of a better phrase - I think that gap shooters, sight shooters, stringwalkers, etc... consciously line things up but at the instant of the shot - the fine adjustments are made subconsciously - the difference between an 11 and a ten on a small target - even at a close distance is far to minute to consciously hold the tip of a big ole fat arrow spot on - and believe me - guys do it - I saw Matt nail the 11 ring more than he missed it on the shoot off. 

That is just my opinion - obviously I don't know - I cannot get into anyone elses head - nor can anyone get into my head. I know that when I shoot I look at the target, pick a spot on it - visualize the shot and then draw and anchor - at anchor I remind myself to keep looking at the spot until after the arrow hits and then bam - the shot goes off - I never think about distance, the arrow tip - the bow - nothing - just what I want to hit - I call this "instinctive" and it fits the 2nd definition perfectly for how I aim my bow.

Regarding it being accurate enough for hunting - it is plently accurate enough for hunting and target. I consider myself a pretty good shot - not a world champion - but good - and I shoot the same bow for both hunting and target. Are guys out there with 25 inch metal risers, stabalizers, clickers, etc... more accurate - heck yea - but they are not hunting with those bows either. Are there guys with regular hunting bows that aim differently than me that shoot better than me - certainly - but I can shoot better than a lot of guys that aim differently and shoot different bows to - so it is sort of a non-point or issue.

After talking with Dewayne about why he stopped shooting his Black Widow - I actually considered purchasing a 25" metal riser - but then I got to thinking that I just don't want that cold piece of steel in my hand when I am hunting in below zero weather and also that it will add 6 more inches in length to my bow - a bow which I can barely shoot out of my blind as it is (though I don't use the blind that often). And I am not going to go with that "target bow" and "hunting bow" - the only reason I shoot a bow is to bowhunt - the target shooting is to make me a better bowhunter - though I really enjoy meeting and watching great shots regardless of how they aim or what type of bow they shoot. 

I actually got a great tip from an old timer at the IBO Worlds that appears to have improved my shooting (time will tell - anytime you try something new it seems to be the cats fanny at first) - but it had to do with not allowing your hand to fly back on release when shooting a bow that does not have a stabalizer - and so far it seems to have made a significant difference in my shooting - but again - it is something new - and I think we have all be there done that before.

Anyhow - great meeting you guys at the Worlds - I had a great time - albeit a wet time.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> I'm sorry but your explanation is far more elementary and less scientific than some have mentioned here.


It needs to be explained in a simplistic format for some people....while others need a more detailed explanation.
I would think you would understand that by now. If you understand it why point it out?



CFGuy said:


> The bottom line is that whether proprioception or sight picture, the "conscious" or "unconscious" mind, it's a learned behaviour


Ummmm....really...LOL. Please tell us something we don't know. Very few people who actually know what Instinctive Aiming is knows its a behavior that is learned and improved through practice.

The people who are STUCK on what they learned in elementary school are the ones constantly arguing that it doesn't exist or how it's no different than any other barebow or sight picture aiming technique. 

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

Man these threads are dumb.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd when folks contend that instinctive shooting isn’t accurate enough for target archery, yet it’s the greatest thing ever for bowhunting?


If you or anyone else wants to understand those comments...they will have to take them within context.

A bow hunter basically just needs to put 1 arrow into the kill zone of a deer which is much larger than a NFAA 5 ring or the 10/12 ring on completion targets that are needed to hit more frequently to win.

There's a reason why some archers aiming Instinctively can hold their own in 3D tournaments where the targets range from 30yrds. or closer.

It has been proven time and time again...that there are more precise aiming techniques better suited for winning archery tournaments.

If a tournament would start involving aerial targets, other moving targets and shots that basically require a quick shot at close distances....we would see how Instinctive Aiming would have an advantage for those archers who could use it effectively.

There are allot of archers who claim to be aiming Instinctively who would benefit from a different more analytical aiming technique.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Welll , I am just glad Ken is back ........

and good shooting at the IBO's too ... I see from the results that you were still in the ix .


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It needs to be explained in a simplistic format for some people....while others need a more detailed explanation.
> I would think you would understand that by now. If you understand it why point it out?


Because you rather insulting and condescendingly approach the topic as if you're going to make the explanation of all explanations as to what it *REALLY REALLY* is, and then it turns out to be the same thing that's been said multiple times. In regards to the prior rather misinformed comment about "elite" being picked on in school, a) that's terrible inductive reasoning and b) it's outright fallacious; an equally outlandish assumption can be made for insecure body builders who have borderline body dysmorphic disorder (basically anorexia for guys).

It may have been said already, but I believe as Grant already mentioned, what was being debated was the use of the word "instinctive", not whether or not the aiming technique exists. Making rather condescending, somewhat juvenile accusations about a perceived elitist group (ironically while sounding elitist) which has little to do with what was being discussed as far as I understand, seems unnecessary and confusing, especially on the internet. And many of the "elite" shooters you refer to in a round-about manner have often admitted to using "instinctive" or "sight picture" shooting at closer ranges.

As per Ken's definition, hard to argue with that though I don't always buy modern interpretations of words since culturally and scientifically most people don't use "instinct" to refer to a learned, previously conscious behaviour - just personal semantics at this point.

Jake: This is the heart of AT! They're not dumb they're...well, yes. Dumb.


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

CFGuy said:


> .... just personal semantics at this point.


You could have left it right there CFGuy, that describes to a T this incessant bickering over how someone chooses or thinks they choose to shoot a bow. Nothing more than words on a screen and how an individual chooses to interpret them.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Long Rifle said:


> You could have left it right there CFGuy, that describes to a T this incessant bickering over how someone chooses or thinks they choose to shoot a bow. Nothing more than words on a screen and how an individual chooses to interpret them.


Probably should have . Basically sums up what I think at this point but some people seem bent on defining it clearly (myself included apparently ).


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

My sarcasm on threads concerning Instinctive Aiming is based on the constant petty semantics debate that often leads to ridicule regarding the aiming technique or accusations claiming it doesn't exist.

If someone doesn't like my sarcastic comments than they should consider not dishing them out it in the first place.

Some people need to get over the use of the word and how it applies to a specific aiming technique. The technique and its name has been around allot longer than most here have been shooting a bow.

Ray :shade:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Unless I read incorrectly there were few if any maliciously sarcastic comments in this thread.


----------



## MrSinister (Jan 23, 2003)

Oh come on the entire thread is a slam at the instinctive aiming method then when someone speaks up all the target archers act like who us?


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

CFGuy said:


> Probably should have . Basically sums up what I think at this point but some people seem bent on defining it clearly (myself included apparently ).


Some people could argue with a fence post. That's what the ignore feature is for.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MrSinister said:


> Oh come on the entire thread is a slam at the instinctive aiming method then when someone speaks up all the target archers act like who us?


LOL...Exactly! :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

After reading, and participating in, this discussion, I have come to understand why this is debated. 

It all comes down to belief and faith. It is like religion. It is like debating the existence of a god. People either believe or they don't and no amount of reason or logic will change the other. Neither side can prove the existence of instinct nor disprove it. Like god, instinct may exist, but then so might the force. 

Everyone should read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance". There is a pretty good discussion about believing in technology as compared to understanding something simpler and perhaps more satisfying.

Anyway, for the record, I am a believer. With practice I can use the force to guide my arrow to where it needs to go. When I become a Master and am at one with my bow and arrow, the arrow will always strike my intended target. Be it guided by instinct, god, will power or the force I don't know, but it will go there.

If it doesn't work out, I will just return to the rifle with the telephoto optics and be done with it.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I think "WE ALL USE BOTH" to varying degrees...then when backed in a corner?...make a conscious claim of "which"...ever..."We Think"....we use..."The Most". :laugh:

I see conversations such as this topic here as nothing more than light hearted banter with some info sharing mixed in for good measure...you know...like what "good friends" might do?...and I believe it's only when someone begins to take themselves to serious and then take comments personal and internalize them that things take a turn for the worst.

And we've been doing swell for quite some time now...hope it doesn't change!


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Ken, welcome back....it's been a long time.....good to see you at the Trad Worlds with your son....you shot well also...and yes it was a soggy Saturday for sure.


I won't argue about the way I shoot a bow anymore as we all can see it works for me.....maybe only me but nevertheless,me.


Glad to see you back and hope to keep you around.

Hope your family is well.



Dewayne Martin


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> I think "WE ALL USE BOTH" to varying degrees...then when backed in a corner?...make a conscious claim of "which"...ever..."We Think"....we use..."The Most". :laugh:
> 
> I see conversations such as this topic here as nothing more than light hearted banter with some info sharing mixed in for good measure...you know...like what "good friends" might do?...and I believe it's only when someone begins to take themselves to serious and then take comments personal and internalize them that things take a turn for the worst.
> 
> And we've been doing swell for quite some time now...hope it doesn't change!


Touche Jinks! I hope no one's taking this seriously. (Just kidding, I wake up at night in a cold sweat muttering "not instinctive, not instinctive").


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Hey Dewayne - thanks - it was nice seeing you as well - I was a bit disappointed in my shooting this time - not in where I placed - but in how I personally shot - the last day I kept pulling the bow to the left and got a bunch of freakin' fives - more than I have shot on 20 targets in years - probably didn't help that I stayed up till 2:00am drinking beer with some construction workers staying at the hotel - that will not happen again. (oops - I know - I said that I was not going to post in this thread again - but I meant about the subject matter)


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

oh - Dewayne - if you didn't try that Mexican place up the road from the hotel - make sure you go there next year - the food was freakin' awesome - at least to a guy coming from a small town in the middle of the woods it was!


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Ken,

Congrats to you as well on making top five in REC. You were in good company, and don't worry about Potter knocking you out of the Bowhunter Shootdown. He sent me to the bench too. We went to the Mexican place Friday night with a bunch of RU and REC guys. You must have been there Saturday night.

Bottom line about this aiming stuff: everyone should find whatever works best for them. If that's instinctive, great. If it's something else, that's good too. My grandfather won far too many field rounds and filled too many freezers in his day for me to ever believe instinctive aiming should be someone's crutch for poor shooting (not you, but others). Me? It doesn't matter how I aim. I just rub Dewayne's belly for good luck and hope for the best.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

I think I may have to start charging for the belly rubs....


Didn't get to try the Mexican but I heard several people say it was good....the truck stop wasn't bad but the waitress was crazy....screaming,cussing,vulgarity,sassy....way more than I was comfortable with.....but the food wasn't bad.

Dewayne


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

really - what was she screaming about?

Jason - we were there Friday and Saturday, but late both nights - my crazy son who grew up in the Northwoods says on Saturday Night - "do we have to have Mexican food again - can't we go to Taco Bell" - LOL - my brother and I got quite the laugh at that one!


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Hey Ken!!! Quick question refering to the hand movement, are you refering to a more dead release over a dynamic release, or just a smaller movement of the hand?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

reddogge said:


> A Labrador retriever will retrieve at 6 weeks. A Brittany Spaniel will point at 6 weeks. A beagle will trail a rabbit at 6 weeks.


And I can't do any of that very well


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Jeez Ray I just weighed my bow it weighs 7.5 lbs don't think that's a girly weight at all.
> 
> Matt


Dude, and people tell me my 4.5 pound bow is heavy.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I think it's time for some people to lick their wounds and slap a My Pretty Pony bandaid on their wounds and finally understand what makes Instinctive Aiming different.


Got a link to where I can get those My Prety Pony bandages? I think they'd make me pretty popular!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

vabowdog said:


> When I'm at a large shooting event and someone tells me they shoot instinctive the first thing goes thru my head is good I don't have to worry about beating you.
> Dewayne Martin


That might have sounded a little mean, but it made me laugh


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Congrats Ken! You certainly represent "instinctive" well in terms of performance.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

welcome back Ken!


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Welcome back Ken! Congrats on your shooting. Speck


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd when folks contend that instinctive shooting isn’t accurate enough for target archery, yet it’s the greatest thing ever for bowhunting? Personally, I’m a lot more concerned about accuracy when I’m shooting a live animal than a rubber one. If I make a bad shot on a 3D deer I lose a few points on a score card, get teased by friends…maybe punch a tree or something. A bad shot on a real deer has more serious results. If I didn't think my aiming method was good enough for fake animals there’s no way in heck I’d turn it loose on the real thing.


Thank you Jason, I've been saying this for ages. My first trip to Compton was an eye opener for me, I have never seen such crap shooting in all my life. Not everyone of course but way too many.


----------



## dahdav (Jul 13, 2013)

The only way to prove instinctive ability is to remove anything that generates a sight picture from view. If someone can hit the target by only seeing the target, that would qualify. I suspect the interest centers on some perceived notion that instinctive ability implies superiority. What matters is where the pointy end of the arrow ends up. You get to eat or you don't. How it got there is irrelevant.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

.... the signature says it all ..


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Yewselfbow wins!

Do you have a background in neuro or psych? I've always wondered with that signature line.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Yewselfbow is I suspect a gent who not only knows his stuff ... but dispenses torture to Colonials via cricket updates .......

well read obviously but with little mercy .......


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

benofthehood said:


> Yewselfbow is I suspect a gent who not only knows his stuff ... but dispenses torture to Colonials via cricket updates .......
> 
> well read obviously but with little mercy .......


... you know me too well Ben .... soon be time for Old Trafford


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 9, 2008)

Hey Sharp, welcome back. Glad to see you posting again, and congrats on your fine showing at the Worlds. I'm sorry I didn't get to attend due to a torn rotator cuff but seems everyone had a great time. Happy you are back to add some dialogue to the forum. We will probably never agree on everything but that's ok, we agree on a lot of issues and I for one enjoy your passion for archery.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Thanks guys,

Kegan - more of a dead release - there will always be some movement if you are using proper back tension - but it is VERY little


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Thanks guys,
> 
> Kegan - more of a dead release - there will always be some movement if you are using proper back tension - but it is VERY little


Thanks for the clarification! I'm starting to wonder if my own exagerated follow through is leading to more bow arm movement than normal. Hmm. Something to play with!


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Am I the only one who finds it a bit odd when folks contend that instinctive shooting isn’t accurate enough for target archery, yet it’s the greatest thing ever for bowhunting? Personally, I’m a lot more concerned about accuracy when I’m shooting a live animal than a rubber one. If I make a bad shot on a 3D deer I lose a few points on a score card, get teased by friends…maybe punch a tree or something. A bad shot on a real deer has more serious results. If I didn't think my aiming method was good enough for fake animals there’s no way in heck I’d turn it loose on the real thing.


I sort of agree with you Jason but in reality we (I) shoot live animals a LOT closer to me than rubber animals. Some of the rubber shots I take I'd pass on a real animal. So I'm a little odd in that I shoot live animals _instinctively_ and gap on rubber ones. Or maybe I just don't concentrate on the gap when a real live animal is in front of me. In fact I have trouble remembering how I shot it after the shot.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

kegan said:


> Thanks for the clarification! I'm starting to wonder if my own exagerated follow through is leading to more bow arm movement than normal. Hmm. Something to play with!


So far my left to right issues are gone - and it was always pulling to the left that gave me fives - if this is not just a fluke because I am trying something new - man - my scores are going to go WAY UP!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

kegan said:


> Thanks for the clarification! I'm starting to wonder if my own exagerated follow through is leading to more bow arm movement than normal. Hmm. Something to play with!


If it's smooth, relaxed, and in line with lines of force and executed properly, it's a non-issue to the bow side or any other part of the body. If it's exaggerated (influenced), out of line, and controlled more with tension in the arm and shoulder, it could have negative influences. A clean follow-through is an indicator of "after the fact", not during. The bow movement will react accordingly to the forces applied to it. 

In a new shooter, doing it exaggerated helps them learn the movement and does not work naturally, but later, as they learn to align properly, set their bow arm and shouler, control the lines of forces, relax draw fingers, and transfer to use of proper back tension, the follow through just becomes a natural post-shot reaction no matter how far the hand moves back. Then, how much hand travel is irrelevant. 

If one is using the amount of string hand travel to control bow arm movement, one probably is not using a clean release to begin with.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Ken, another query , are you now using a deliberate new follow through , or just letting the bowhand tell you ?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> Thanks for the clarification! I'm starting to wonder if my own exagerated follow through is leading to more bow arm movement than normal. Hmm. Something to play with!


Kegan,

IMO...no archer needs to do an exagerated follow through unless they are trying to learn and understand what back tension feels like.

Watch the video of me shooting. I'm by no means the greatest archer in the world...not even trying to claim to be by sharing this video of me...but I can do pullups with a 45lbs. plate strapped around my waist which is a total of 300lbs. and there is just no need for an exagerated follow through with my 70lbs. recurve.

Just do what comes naturally and not force or exagerate anything.

By the way...don't use shot #2 as an example...that's TP getting the better of me :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Just do what comes naturally and not force or exagerate anything.


The key is "naturally". If we view the post-release follow as a "reaction" v. an "action", naturally, a reaction means we took no "action" to make it look a certain way. IOW, either we allowed inertia to dictate our reaction or we allowed our muscles to create an action. Stopping the hand movement is an action, but when that action happens after the arrow is gone, that makes it kinda a moot issue in that instance, that is, unless we are doing such during the release.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Sanford said:


> If it's smooth, relaxed, and in line with lines of force and executed properly, it's a non-issue to the bow side or any other part of the body. If it's exaggerated (influenced), out of line, and controlled more with tension in the arm and shoulder, it could have negative influences. A clean follow-through is an indicator of "after the fact", not during. The bow movement will react accordingly to the forces applied to it.
> 
> In a new shooter, doing it exaggerated helps them learn the movement and does not work naturally, but later, as they learn to align properly, set their bow arm and shouler, control the lines of forces, relax draw fingers, and transfer to use of proper back tension, the follow through just becomes a natural post-shot reaction no matter how far the hand moves back. Then, how much hand travel is irrelevant.
> 
> If one is using the amount of string hand travel to control bow arm movement, one probably is not using a clean release to begin with.


What I've been having issue with is getting tired and even though I might lose back tension (collapse) I would still be pulling to the shoulder with my arm and shoulder muscles. The focus would be to touch my shoulder, but the lack of back tension would lead to a flinch with my bow hand. 

My best shooting has been with a relaxed focus on back tension, at which point the natural conclusion was only to the back of my jaw line, rather than all the way to my shoulder (about 5"). I think by practicing the overly exagerated follow through rather than the natural conclusion that I've been letting myself get sloppy with my bow arm. My scores certainly reflect sloppiness.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Sanford said:


> The key is "naturally". If we view the post-release follow as a "reaction" v. an "action", naturally, a reaction means we took no "action" to make it look a certain way. IOW, either we allowed inertia to dictate our reaction or we allowed our muscles to create an action. Stopping the hand movement is an action, but when that action happens after the arrow is gone, that makes it kinda a moot issue in that instance, that is, unless we are doing such during the release.


Nailed it!


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I posted when you guys did... guess I was on the right track thinking I should just go with what's natural:lol:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

kegan said:


> My best shooting has been with a relaxed focus on back tension, at which point the natural conclusion was only to the back of my jaw line, rather than all the way to my shoulder (about 5"). I think by practicing the overly exagerated follow through rather than the natural conclusion that I've been letting myself get sloppy with my bow arm. My scores certainly reflect sloppiness.


It might not work this way for all folks, but for me and how I was taught, doing something exaggerated at first just ingrains the action you are looking for even though it's not near the optimal, or the even "right" way it's done. For me, I now put my focus on the back tension maintenance aspect - not the draw arm or string hand or what they do. If the former is done properly, the latter takes care of itself. I think we all have been through periods of trying mimic or create certain "textbook" looks or actions and not finding the forest because of the trees. 

I've done similar with my bow arm set up (many frustrating hours) but keep finding myself best when I set it up to work in harmony with everything else. Seems everything we do with one aspect has a direct effect on others. I'm always of the mind that if we will just get out of the way of the bow, it will do amazing things for us and "form" is just about learning to do the same with our bodies.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

What I did before was just let my hand go back - now I am deliberately trying to keep my hand at my face - it took a while to get used to it - but now I don't even think about it.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> What I did before was just let my hand go back - now I am deliberately trying to keep my hand at my face - it took a while to get used to it - but now I don't even think about it.


Have you tried that release against your FormMaster to see what different reaction you might get?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

no - not yet - I want it to become natural and then try it


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> no - not yet - I want it to become natural and then try it


Seems that's going to be the issue to test - can you maintain back tension through the release and control hand/arm movement at the same time?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

apparently I am - cause I am shooting accurately


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Welcome back Ken, important thing is you turned up at the IBO worlds and put you shooting on the line, easy to sit behind a keyboard and trash peoples performance without actually being their, respect to all the other shooters that turned up, regardless of where they finished. :thumbs_up

I'm preparing for the WA3D worlds in Sardinia, blending both Instinct and Gap -20y Instinctive and 25y gap bottom of 10ring, 30y top of ten ring and 33y max just inside the 8 ring. 

End of the day its about putting the arrow where you intended, do whatever it takes to get you in the 10 ring.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> After talking with Dewayne about why he stopped shooting his Black Widow - I actually considered purchasing a 25" metal riser - but then I got to thinking that I just don't want that cold piece of steel in my hand when I am hunting in below zero weather



Ken,

Talk to Bob Morrison about a 21-23" phenolic or phenolic/wood riser. It's like a cross breed between a 25" target bow and a shorter hunting riser. I know you've talked about wanting to use a longer riser a few times in the past but never liked the idea of something cold in your hands (although tennis racket wrap cures that).


-Grant


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I use the analogy of a golf swing for this. Some guys can become great champions by having an unorthodox swing. On their day they can best anyone (Bubba Watson). Trouble is, when its not their day they normally suck. Most golf coaches teach their own version of the same thing, correct positioning and solid fundamentals. Archery is the same, some guys can shoot the lights out doing it their way, for most, relying on solid form and a learned aiming system will make them more consistent.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I did talk to Bob - but I just am not sure that I want to spend the money or to have a bow that long for hunting - Bob suggested a target riser and a hunting riser - but I don't want to go that route I am a one bow guy


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I did talk to Bob - but I just am not sure that I want to spend the money or to have a bow that long for hunting - Bob suggested a target riser and a hunting riser - but I don't want to go that route I am a one bow guy


Maybe get a cheap metal 23" riser just to try then.
I've got a Pinnacle and it's really not in the same league compared with my 25" risers.

Maybe it's just because I have shot longbows for a long time before going to longer recurves but I don't notice the length.

-Grant


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

We shall see - I am going to dedicate myself a little more this year - heck at the worlds my brother and I were staying up late drinking beer and just having a good time and I managed to come in 5th - who knows what might happen if I took it a bit more seriously - I don't know - I might get a riser from Bob Morrison - he is moving now and will not be making risers for a few months anyhow - I told him I would think about it and get in touch with him around Christmas.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

This thread became productive! Excellent!

Ken, why did Dewayne mention he stopped shooting his Black Widow (in short)?


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

steve morley said:


> Welcome back Ken, important thing is you turned up at the IBO worlds and put you shooting on the line, easy to sit behind a keyboard and trash peoples performance without actually being their, respect to all the other shooters that turned up, regardless of where they finished. :thumbs_up
> 
> I'm preparing for the WA3D worlds in Sardinia, blending both Instinct and Gap -20y Instinctive and 25y gap bottom of 10ring, 30y top of ten ring and 33y max just inside the 8 ring.
> 
> End of the day its about putting the arrow where you intended, do whatever it takes to get you in the 10 ring.


Great post and 100% true. Speck


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

something to the effect of being sick of being beat by guys with 25" riser Olympic bows all the time


----------



## MrSinister (Jan 23, 2003)

sharpbroadhead said:


> something to the effect of being sick of being beat by guys with 25" riser Olympic bows all the time


That is kind of funny. Now much like the general section you gotta have your 3D rig and your hunting rig.:mg:


----------



## Brainflex (Oct 21, 2006)

I love how things go, this started as another instinctive aiming thread and ended with some awesome info on releaseing. Keep the flow of info going guys, I really appreciate it as a newbie.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> something to the effect of being sick of being beat by guys with 25" riser Olympic bows all the time


Ah gotcha. That would get annoying. I guess if you're gonna go the more "natural 'trad' bow" route you'd have to stick to longbow?


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

I also find I have a better shot without exaggerating the release. Now a nice crisp clean consistent release for me would be awesome. It sounds so simple in just relaxing the forearm muscle and the string just slides away. But alas not so simple for me at times.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I don't think it is the bow - Dewayne is a great shot - personally - I bet the bow gave him the extra little boost of confidence or mojo that he needed to get the job done - I think he would have shot the same regardless of what bow he had in his hand


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I don't think it is the bow - Dewayne is a great shot - personally - I bet the bow gave him the extra little boost of confidence or mojo that he needed to get the job done - I think he would have shot the same regardless of what bow he had in his hand


I think that's exactly right. All the bows in that class were recurves, all shot off the shelf, none had any bolt on goodies. End result, equal playing field, best men won, that's how it should be. After that it just goes down to how you shoot and Dewayne and John shoot that class better than anyone else at the moment.


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't know if anyone else does this but on close targets I tend to have a little more static release or at least the release is contained. On long targets like in a NFAA field round or just messing around I have a pronounced dynamic release. I'm sure this is psycological.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

The reason I switched from my Black Widows to Hoyts:

Wood core limb versus foam core more consistent at all temps....foam that is...
Much more adjustability like tiller,poundage,centershot,
70" versus 64". 70 is much more stable at the max distances.
Being able to switch grips...

The number 1 reason....I wanted to shoot a bow for dots with a rest,plunger stabilizer and shoot the same bow or at least the same make for 3-D....I'm NOT a 1 bow man...I shoot Hoyt IONX for 3-D,Hoyt IONX for dots,and several different hunting bows.

The verstatility of ILF is endless...even the Formula series.


Black Widow makes a great wood bow and those boys treated me like gold.


Dewayne


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Dewayne have you been reading that most Olympic shooters - or at least a good percentage do not like the foam and prefer the maple cores. I have the foam cores in my Extreme BF's - I love them - they are quiet, fast and smooth - I don't know if the foam has anything to do with all that or not - but I sure like them.

BTW - Dewayne you must be rich to have all those high end bows -


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Sanford said:


> The key is "naturally". If we view the post-release follow as a "reaction" v. an "action", naturally, a reaction means we took no "action" to make it look a certain way. IOW, either we allowed inertia to dictate our reaction or we allowed our muscles to create an action. Stopping the hand movement is an action, but when that action happens after the arrow is gone, that makes it kinda a moot issue in that instance, that is, unless we are doing such during the release.



GREAT post and exactly how I feel.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Steve, even for slo-motion, watch how fast those fingers close back in a completely relaxed fashion. The string just flew right past them so fast, it looks like it flew through them.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Ken, I will take foam over wood any day....maybe the wood will outperform foam but for me it's one thing less I have to worry about....kinda like feathers...I wish I could get away from feathers.....I tried vanes but they won't clear my rest without terrible arrow flight and always impacting right.....vanes would give me just one less thing to have to worry about...just like foam.


Dewayne


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

What I read is that the Olympians don't like the feel of the foam - I guess I am not a good enough shot to notice a difference - I think some of this is splitting hairs - but if it makes a guy more confident in his set-up - that is as good as gold.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

vabowdog said:


> Ken, I will take foam over wood any day....maybe the wood will outperform foam but for me it's one thing less I have to worry about....kinda like feathers...I wish I could get away from feathers.....I tried vanes but they won't clear my rest without terrible arrow flight and always impacting right.....vanes would give me just one less thing to have to worry about...just like foam.
> 
> 
> Dewayne


Which rest and vanes?

I'm with you on synthetic cores for limbs.

-Grant


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Feel for Olympic shooters is critical, that moment when they're going through the clicker, it's a feel most of us wont appreciate or care about.

I've been shooting foam core for last 2 years and when I went to the Hex6 I went with wood core (purely because of budget) I really like the feel and when I shot Europeans in Hungary the other week I had no performance change with the warmer than normal temps, two years ago at previous Europeans in Portugal all my Gaps had changed using the Foam core, it sucked the confidence right out of me. I think the high temps likely affected my shooting Form more than the actual limb core, wood core is supposed to give a softer feel at the end of the draw, it's hard to compare the Hex6 wood against W&W foam core as the feel of the Hex limb is so different anyway.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

It is not even a cost thing on the high end limbs - for a while - at least in the Lancaster catalog - the high end limbs were only offered with foam cores - now the high end limbs are offered in either foam or wood cores and the price is the same.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Grant, I have to shoot off the shelf on my Hoyt IONX for IBO TRD so I built up the shelf with wood and covered it with Velcro....the vanes were the Bohning Impulse vanes....Randy the Bohning representative and good friend agreed that they won't shoot off of a shelf.

I'm shooting feathers now.


Dewayne


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Dewayne 

You ever try those rain vanes with the slits in them??

Matt


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

No...ive never heard of them.....I'd love to try a plastic super soft vane that would clear my rest.


Dewayne


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

3 Rivers a while ago sold a vane that they said could be shot off the shelf - it had a very strange shape - I didn't see it on their web-site - but you might be able to contact them and ask them who made it.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

vabowdog said:


> Grant, I have to shoot off the shelf on my Hoyt IONX for IBO TRD so I built up the shelf with wood and covered it with Velcro....the vanes were the Bohning Impulse vanes....Randy the Bohning representative and good friend agreed that they won't shoot off of a shelf.
> 
> I'm shooting feathers now.
> 
> ...


Was it the top or bottom vanes which was getting wrecked? Do you run your NP really high or in tune?

I love those Impulse, good engineering and extremely durable provided you don't shoot them through a target.

-Grant


----------



## KennyO (Feb 5, 2003)

benofthehood said:


> To be honest I have been deeply saddened that we haven't seen many 'instinctive ... real or bogus" threads recently ...
> 
> When life gets me down , or work is just to much , or I see the news ... the poverty , the cynicism ... well AT's trad section 'instinctive' threads are such a blessing ...
> 
> ...


This was exactly the spirit in which i started this thread... Rough week at work, traveling from chicago to dallas, needed something fun and uplifting... Got busy and couldnt follow along, but you guys never fail to make this place a refuge from lifes b.s.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks for the info Dewayne.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Wow...has this thread turned around for the better or what :wink:

All this 'elite' target archery talk has made me want to go out and buy a 25" aluminum or carbon fiber riser with foam limbs, a clicker, an elevated rest and cushion plunger, a tab and a stabilizer. Did I forget anything? :wink:

I've also started String Walking now and shoot my bow without any cant :wink:

Instinctive what? I can finally understand why some believe it doesn't exist :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Full on 'target' bows, in the sense of long and light, are tempting, and very sensible, I think, given the purpose. However, for me, as merely a matter of preference, it seems that a 60" bow, shooting off the shelf, just fits me better. It may merely be a matter of getting used to it, but whenever I try longer bows, I feel like I can't get out of my own way. maybe later I'll feel different, but for the target (and minimal hunting I get to do), first in line for a wish list is a 17" ilf riser with some borders medium hex 6, about 45# .


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Barney: I'm with you there. If I was going to shoot serious target I'd probably get on that, but the simplicity (or perceived simplicity) and pseudo-"natural" feeling of shooting a longbow (carbons or not) is what's drawing me right now. I know I'd shoot better with a target rig but I'm having fun with this for the time being.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Wow...has this thread turned around for the better or what :wink:
> 
> All this 'elite' target archery talk has made me want to go out and buy a 25" aluminum or carbon fiber riser with foam limbs, a clicker, an elevated rest and cushion plunger, a tab and a stabilizer. Did I forget anything? :wink:
> 
> ...


Well Ray?...if it cheers ya up any?...I'm shooting a 25" oly riser with mag rest/plunger, real light wood/glass limbs making a 28#/68" bow and decked out with a real nice 12" stab but...

I still think using my arrow point like a sight blows! :laugh:

Oh I can do it...and as much as I loath it?...I actually have to if I want untainted bareshaft results...cause guess what happens if I try to bareshaft tune instinctively?...the first bareshaft might be off a little but then I subconsciously correct and the 2nd one winds up right in with the freaking fletched tuned or not! LOL!...and if I had to guess?...I think this might be why OSB prefers and swears by paper tuning! :laugh:

Been wanting to try a clicker but...ain't got the nads to...for fear it might breath new life into an old dead nervous condition of mine.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I don't prefer paper tuning - I do both. If I am shooting a new bow or new arrows - I start with bareshafts and tune by the flight of the arrow - not the impact point - so there is no issue with compensating for impact point. Once I get a bareshaft flying as close to perfect as I can at say 20 - 25 yards - then I fletch my arrows and paper tune - this is how I fine tune my fletched set up - usually it only requires a slight nock locator adjustment or a slight adjustment to the position of the silencers. This method allows me to get near perfect arrow flight - I never have fletching wear out unevenly, my velcro shelf and strike plate never wear out or get grooved, etc... in fact the only time I replace my shelf and strike plate velcro is when the glue gets so brittle from the self adhesive back that it starts coming off - that is usually after a few years. Before I prefected my method of tuning I was replacing both every month or so and I always had one feather wear out before the rest.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Wow...has this thread turned around for the better or what :wink:
> 
> All this 'elite' target archery talk has made me want to go out and buy a 25" aluminum or carbon fiber riser with foam limbs, a clicker, an elevated rest and cushion plunger, a tab and a stabilizer. Did I forget anything? :wink:
> 
> ...





:bartstush: Maybe that will help.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Grant, it was the vane that was down at 5oclock position...I tried to tune it ever way possible but couldn't get it to clear.....IBO won't let you leave a gap for the feather or vane to slide thru.


Dewayne


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> Well Ray?...if it cheers ya up any?


I always feel cheerful...even when I'm dishing out the sarcasm :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> :bartstush: Maybe that will help.


Absolutely! :bartstush: :bartstush:

Ray :shade:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I always feel cheerful...even when I'm dishing out the sarcasm :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


How awful is this eh? A redundant topic turned around into asking and answering legitimate questions. I hope we don't get too productive here.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> How awful is this eh? A redundant topic turned around into asking and answering legitimate questions. I hope we don't get too productive here.


There's NOTHING legitimate about 'elite' target archery. It's ALL cheating...LOL :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> There's NOTHING legitimate about 'elite' target archery. It's ALL cheating...LOL :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Amen to that ! Screw instinctive, I'm taking up psychic archery. Eyes closed from now on, the only legit way to shoot.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Come to my Jedi Archery School, we teach all the dark arts of the force, we even throw in a little Voodoo for good measure. :wink:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Steve, thanks for the offer ... but I know whats good for me 

I once had a night out on a bottle of Voodoo, then a guy we knew scored us some Pixie Dust .....

Crazy times ...

Ended up that night acting in a 'film' ... I was young , naive ... 

They said it was going to be artistic ....... 

As such ...

Well ...

Since then I have stayed away from Voodoo and Pixi Dust


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Come to my Jedi Archery School, we teach all the dark arts of the force, we even throw in a little Voodoo for good measure. :wink:


Do you also teach the light arts such as Instinctive...if you do...count me in! :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

Oh. grasshopper it is said a instinctive shooter can walk through walls, When you can shoot the length of rice paper and leave no trace you are ready to go out Into the world.  Hope I am not dating myself to much.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

vabowdog said:


> Grant, it was the vane that was down at 5oclock position...I tried to tune it ever way possible but couldn't get it to clear.....IBO won't let you leave a gap for the feather or vane to slide thru.
> 
> 
> Dewayne


Hmm, tried a crazy high nock point?

Those vanes are tough. I shoot them through my clicker all the time without damage.

-Grant


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

steve morley said:


> Come to my Jedi Archery School, we teach all the dark arts of the force, we even throw in a little Voodoo for good measure. :wink:


I'm so there!


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Yep, That's definitely a 20 yard instinctive cluster.


Now that was a mean comment.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Nekekal said:


> Now that was a mean comment.


I don't know if he made that remark with any cruel intensions or not but try to understand that many of the target archers, who get accused of cheating for using a different aiming technique are jaded and lash out at any topic or archer that is associated with Instinctive Aiming.

Also keep it in perspective that even though it may have appeared to be a mean comment...there is some truth to what he said regarding the average group size for many Instinctive shooters.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Ray: I'd say categorizing target archers the way you do is just as divisive and prejudiced, makes the argument somewhat ironic.

While there are obviously examples of solid "instinctive" shooters out there the unfortunate fact is that popular understanding/opinion is inherently incorrect and often fallacious - a new shooter thinks they're using "instinctive" aiming because they're snap shooting, not anchoring and think that whatever they decide to do will work best for them because there's no real basics to work off in archery (even though this isn't true for about 100% of other physical activities). They're often fallacious because again, someone who knows how to shoot will show up to a 3D shoot to genuinely have a good time and after winning or at least placing well, there follows a chorus of the ignorant local aces who determine that that person was cheating. It's absurdly childish but it seems to happen often enough in certain locations that it actually becomes a stereotype.

So, when you pair a large group of people all operating under the same label of "instinctive", when many of them shoot well but the most vocal majority seem to be the ones who are brand new and aren't able to shoot well yet/are severely misinformed, or are old timers stuck in their ways making ridiculous excuses for their own poor shooting, it's fairly natural that a negative stereotype will ensue. In my own experience at least, trying to find footing without slapping a label on myself, there has been far more snobbery (locally at least, the people on this board are fantastic and helpful) from the "instinctive"/old hunter/local ace group than from any target shooter I've ever asked questions of - they seem to be quite friendly as long as you don't make excuses for poor shooting or parade around as being somehow more special or macho than them for shooting a "hunting" bow.

As far as itbeso's comment, I doubt he meant it maliciously.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

CF, most of the guys you are describing couldn't hit jack with a decked out cbow. Why??? You need to actually know how to shoot a bow to begin with. And by shoot, I don't mean aiming method. I don't argue over the meaning of Instinctive anymore. I know the process I went through to learn my method and it's different than the other methods, so I am good with that. Speck


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

CF - the problem is that you have guys who will say that if you pause at anchor - you are not "truly instinctive" - as if you are half instinctive or something - so then people believe that to aim instinctively you MUST snap shoot - and that is bunk. Instinctive is a method of aiming - and you can use this method of aiming with solid form - I do it and so do many others - and we do it accurately - but then the minute you actually shoot well - you have the same guys saying: "they are not really instinctive" or "truly instinctive" - unless they do this or that in the way that they believe one must. To me it is a very simple thing - if an archer does not pay any conscious attention to the distance, the arrow, the bow, etc... - they are shooting instinctive - and whether or not they pause at anchor, shoot split fingers, three under, cant their bow or not - is all irrelevant. It is a method of aiming - if a guy uses sights - does anyone care or dispute how he aims based on how long he pauses at anchor or how he grabs the string? Does it matter? It is irrelevant to how he is aiming.

What is created is a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation - if you shoot well - then you are not instinctive - if you shoot poorly - then you are instinctive - it is really amazing. Sure they will throw out a video or two of a guy on horseback shooting really fast at moving targets and say that he is truly instinctive and if you don't shoot like him - then you are not truly instinctive - I suspect that that man would not score very well at an IBO world championship with his style and method of shooting - nothing to do with how he aims though - and lets be real - how many of us want to use our bows off the back of a horse at a moving target? That is wartime archery - not hunting archery.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I have two archers in my head...ones a gapper and the other is purely instinctive...but when I shoot?...I tell them both to...

Feel free to help themselves to an extra large bowl of Shut The HECK UP!

and "then"...I'm in the ZONE! :laugh:










or?...lost in the woods!










or?...taking a smoke break! :laugh:










but when I do get them both to shut up?...the only word I hear from either of them is "WOW!"...and they only speak after the shot! :laugh:

L8R, Bill.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I always figured you had way more than two archers in your head - :tongue:

Nice pics - but without knowing the distance - they don't tell us much


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Ray: I'd say categorizing target archers the way you do is just as divisive and prejudiced, makes the argument somewhat ironic.


LOL...there's really no irony unless I don't realize what I'm doing :wink:

I didnt start making fun of some of these target archers until recently and it's ONLY because I've gotten tired of the constant jaded or misguided comments towards Instinctive Aiming or those who use it...so I've decided to dish out a little of what they've been throwing out.

The fact is...there's a difference between what many believe is Instinctive Aiming and what actually separates True Instinctive Aiming from Gap Aiming.

There are different levels of conscious awareness that in fact exist. 

Just because an archer ONLY focuses on the target does NOT mean they are not consciously aware of their aiming reference and therefore are NOT aiming Totally Instinctively. The archers that disagree with that also believe an archer can use a sight Totally Instinctively...which is no where near the same aiming technique I discuss.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Speck: Definitely true - therein lies the issue of association. If it was really just about "instinctive" that kind of thing wouldn't come up, but some shooters believe that if they do everything poorly because they want to be unique and special, slapping the label of "instinctive" onto their shooting makes them beyond criticism.

Sharp: I agree. Semantics aside, if "instinctive" was simply about aiming technique I doubt people would run into half the BS they do. It's when silly rules and elitism/in-group fallacies occur that "instinctive" gets a bad rap (like you mentioned - "truly" instinctive, etc). Heck I consider myself a gapper but at the range I shoot in my back yard I don't look at the gap anymore, it's just become automatic.

Ray: If you know what you're doing then it's simply abrasive and divisive. I think the majority of people that make fun of instinctive shooters aren't making fun of the ones who shoot properly, they're making fun of the ones who seem to believe they're telekinetically bound to the arrow and will it where they want it.

I agree that it seems misunderstood but again, few people seem to be able to clearly define it (aside from on this board). I do believe it exists; again, it's simply a matter of sight picture recognition. I think arguing purity of the method is somewhat misguided since it's hard to prove that ever happens. I'm fine with everyone using exactly what they want to make the arrow go where they want, and I'll happily learn from it - the issue comes with fallacious arguments about being more "traditional" or other methods being a way to "cheat". I agree aiming "totally instinctively" would mean relying 100% on proprioception and sight picture recognition (you need some seriously strong form for that to be consistent), nothing to argue there. As to who does this, hard to say 'cause it's all happening upstairs.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

For anyone who believes that you can be consciously aware of more than one thing at a time - I suggest that you open a book that you have never read and begin reading a paragraph at the same time that your wife is telling you about her day - see if you can comprehend both. 

Ever been really into a program on TV and your wife has called out your name numerous times and you did not hear her? Were you deaf at the moment? Did your ears stop functioning? Nope - your conscious attention was so focused on what you were doing that you blocked out everything else - that is instinctive shooting - it is tunnel vision - everything else is blocked out but the target.

Some people think that you can consciously focus on more than one thing at a time - or that you can be "partially" conscious - and that is not really the case - for example in the reading example above - you may have retained some of what you read and some of what your wife said - that does not mean that you are partially conscious of each - it simply means that you switched the focus of your conscious attention between the two.

Same thing with the TV - eventually your wife will get your attention - this works when your subconscious stops filtering it and snaps you out of it. Have you ever bought a new car - suddenly everytime you drive somewhere you see that same make, model, and even color driving next to you or in the parking lot, or whatever. Those cars were there before - but your subconscious filtered them out - but because you just bought that same car - it is on your conscious mind and your subconscious therefore brings them to your attention because your conscious mind is sort of pre-occupied with it.

If anyone really wants to get a grasp of how amazing the subconscious mind is in relation to archery - I highly recommend the book - The Mental Mechanics of Archery


----------



## iscariot (Jun 4, 2013)

A baby instinctively cries when it needs something. Doesn't have to be taught. And it has never witnessed it before it occurs.

If you picked up a bow and instantly, and continuously robin hood arrows, in the exact place where you intend them to go, all without practice or having seen it done before, you could argue that you are shooting "instinctively".

If you have to practice, or have seen it done before, or are not hooding every arrow in the exact place you intended, it is learned behavior, not instinct.

There are many examples of instinct in the world, salmon migration, baby turtles hatching and swimming to the ocean, baby snakes hunting, etc etc etc...shooting a bow is not one of those examples.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

iscariot said:


> A baby instinctively cries when it needs something. Doesn't have to be taught. And it has never witnessed it before it occurs.
> 
> If you picked up a bow and instantly, and continuously robin hood arrows, in the exact place where you intend them to go, all without practice or having seen it done before, you could argue that you are shooting "instinctively".
> 
> ...


And a a beautiful sexy woman can't possibly be described as being 'hot' either LOL! :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Iscariot - you are only discussing one possible definition of "instinct" - there are two definitions of it:

Main Entry: in·stinct
Pronunciation: primarystressin-secondarystressstieng(k)t
Function: noun
1 : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
2 :* behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level *


http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmedsamp
the 2nd definition is what applies to instinctive archery

To only use one possible definition of a word and ignore the other would be like saying that the following words have only one meaning: Play, ring, train, can, flat, kind, mean, book, watch, gay, etc...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

EVERYONE can be consciously aware of more than one thing at a time...BUT...there will be different levels of conscious awareness on specific things that are not the center of focus!

Generally speaking in regards to aiming...there will be at least one object of primary focus and awareness...while aiming references can be secondary or with some archers...the primary focus.

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Let's drop the whole instinctive Is or is not....before it gets ugly....this has been debated 10,000,000 ways from Sunday.

We all aim,we all hit the target,we ALL love archery.


That's good enough for me...


Dewayne Martin


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

vabowdog said:


> We all aim,*we all hit the target*,we ALL love archery.
> 
> Dewayne Martin


Speak for yourself ...... :teeth::shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> If you know what you're doing then it's simply abrasive and divisive.


I agree...but it's also a slap of reality to those constantly being abrasive and divisive in regards to Instinctive Aiming. If they don't like having the tables turned...they should consider not starting it in the first place :wink:



CFGuy said:


> I do believe it exists; again, it's simply a matter of sight picture recognition.


Do you believe a pitcher throwing a strike is a simple matter of just sight picture recognition? 

If you do...you have more to learn about what the difference is between True Instinctive Aiming and what others believe to be Instinctive Aiming.



CFGuy said:


> the issue comes with fallacious arguments about being more "traditional" or other methods being a way to "cheat".


I 100% agree. Those arguments are nothing but bogus! If an archer chooses to take advantage of a different aiming technique that is allowed within his class to gain a competitive edge...not only is he following the rules....he's being smart if his primary goal is to win.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bopo2 (Dec 7, 2008)

vabowdog said:


> Let's drop the whole instinctive Is or is not....before it gets ugly....this has been debated 10,000,000 ways from Sunday.
> 
> We all aim,we all hit the target,we ALL love archery.
> 
> ...


The gap vs instinctive is alot like the old bhfs vs new bhfs it goes on and on. Shoot what you want how you want imo.Congrats on the win dewayne! I'm trying to get back into the gap shooting thing.maybe I'll run into you one day and get a few pointers


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> If anyone really wants to get a grasp of how amazing the subconscious mind is in relation to archery - I highly recommend the book - The Mental Mechanics of Archery


Thanks for the recommendation Ken. I think you were the one that suggested "Instinctive Archery Insights" by Jay Kidwell; I've learned a lot from that little book.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

a pitcher throwing a ball cannot throw a ball anywhere near as accurate as one can shoot a bow instinctively - if one has a consistent form. This is why guys like Lajos Kassai who have no anchor point only shoot at very close range and are nowhere near as accurate as a good 3D shooter - the difference is in the form being consistent

Take the most accurate pro pitcher and at the same distance - I can guarantee that I can shoot my arrow much more accurately - it is not due to a difference in the aiming method - rather it is due to the fact that I have less variables to account for than the pitcher. The pitcher has to account for how hard or soft he throws the ball - an archer with consistent form does not have to account for this variable - the pitcher has to account for where in the movement of his arm he lets go of the ball and the spin he puts on the ball upon releasing it - this is not a variable for the archer, etc...

I once had a guy challenge me to shoot my bow in the dark and see how accurate I could shoot - and I shot the same as always - then he suggested that I try it in a room with no ambient light at all - to shoot at a dot produced by a laser pointer in a room that was pitch black. I did this and missed the target completely - put a hole in my wall - it was a disaster - and he had me convinced that I must be using the sight picture to aim at a level that I was not aware of - that is until - I decided to try throwing free throws in a room that was pitch black with a laser pointer on the backboard - I could not even hit the back board - and there is no sight picture when I hold a basket ball over my head and throw it at the hoop.

the point being that this is much more complex than we think it is


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

yep - I always recommend Instinctive Archery Insights - I don't agree with everything in it - but over all - it is a great book if you want to shoot instinctively.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

I just reread the book and I'm curious about what parts you don't like in it?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I don't remember right now - it was only a few things about form and if I remember right he said it does not matter what eye dominant you are - I have helped a lot of kids with archery and found that if they shoot according to their dominant eye they always shoot better


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

OK. I thought that eye dominance not mattering sounded strange but I don't have that problem.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Ray, you should give it a rest. I see you as the biggest problem on this board. You love yourself and your voice too much.

If you want to shoot instinctively, just do it and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Awww Jeeese!....EEEEEEDITH!!!










*THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT....."IT"......AGAIN!!!*


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

you do realize that a good percentage of the members of this forum are to young to even know who Archie and Edith are


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Or Meathead.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Meathead - he was a classic


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Blast from the past for ya Ray

----------------------------------------------------------

Instinctive Boy Can Survive



Trad Cop says it’s the end of time
And the Mississippi River she’s a goin’ dry
Gapping is up and instinctive’s down
And you only shoot 12’s
If you see yer arrow

I live back in the woods, you see 
My wife, a PAWBOW, and the kids and me
I got aluminum shafts tipped with 125
Instinctive boy can survive!
Instinctive folks can survive. . .

I can find lost shafts all day long
Pluckum from the grass from dusk till dawn
We don’t see the arrow and we don’t aim too
An we’re quicker on the release than you!
We talk a good hunt and sometimes whine
Instinctive boy can survive!
Instinctive folks can survive. . .

Because you can’t teach us nuthin
And you cant makes us hit
Cause old dogs jest won’t learn new tricks!
And we shoot fast and we make the rules
And if you ain’t into that you might be a fool

We came from the West Virginia coalmines
And the Rocky Mountains and the western skies
And we can draw her back; we can let her fly
Instinctive boy can survive!
Instinctive folks can survive. . .

I had a good friend in New York City
He never called me by my name, just hillbilly
My grandpa taught me how to release quick 
And his taught him to win the tourna-men
He used to send me pictures of a 3 inch group
And I’d fix him a little meatless soup

But he was beat by a man who walked his face
On 43 targets my friend was disgraced
Id love to rub some string wax in that dude’s eyes
And make him look for my arrows all night
Instinctive boy can survive!
Instinctive folks can survive. . .

Cause you can’t teach us nuthin and we shore won’t hit
Cause old dogs jest won’t learn new tricks!
And we shoot fast and we make the rules
And if you ain’t into that you might be a fool

We’re from North California and south Alabam 
And little towns all around this land
And we can jerk her back; and we can let her fly
Instinctive boy can survive!
Instinctive folks can survive. . .


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Stone Bridge said:


> Ray, you should give it a rest. I see you as the biggest problem on this board. You love yourself and your voice too much.
> 
> If you want to shoot instinctively, just do it and leave the rest of us alone.


Give what a rest? You don't like my opinion? Than ignore it! :wink:

And by the way...I do shoot whatever way I like and my primary aiming technique I use is NOT Instinctive Aiming :wink:

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt,

LOL...that was a blast from the past!

Who was the author?

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> you do realize that a good percentage of the members of this forum are to young to even know who Archie and Edith are


I'm not that old but even I know it was a weak rip off a British classic Till Death Do us Part.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Matt,
> 
> LOL...that was a blast from the past!
> 
> ...


Esquire (Mike)


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Esquire (Mike)


That's exactly who I thought it was if I had to guess. He was a word smith for sure :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

iscariot said:


> If you picked up a bow and instantly, and continuously robin hood arrows, in the exact place where you intend them to go, all without practice or having seen it done before, you could argue that you are shooting "instinctively".
> 
> If you have to practice, or have seen it done before, or are not hooding every arrow in the exact place you intended, it is learned behavior, not instinct.



100% Correct


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Okay, I just spent way too many minutes skimming for something entertaining. Matt won, but it's kind of a consolation prize. Time to brush my teeth and go sleepy pants


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Here's another statement that is 100% correct if a person limits themselves to only one definition or meaning for a word :wink:

Anyone who believes there is no such thing as Instinctive Aiming or believes it can not be learned is obviously *BRIGHTER* than everyone else....NOT! LOL :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Who says a person can't possibly throw a ball as accurate as an archer :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Ray, I'll be honest, that video proves pretty much nothing, and seems more like a bunch of football fans playing with fancy toys to make their sport sound more impressive and demanding. The fellow throwing is obviously a world class athlete, but how far was he throwing? He threw only ten times? It's all well and good to put all those fancy gadgets in the ball to track spin and angle, but that doesn't prove anything that common sense couldn't: he's just darn good!

That video is a perfect example of using selective details to prove a particular point, though.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Who says a person can't possibly throw a ball as accurate as an archer :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


I would say a person can easily, at short distance, learn to accurately throw a ball or javelin just practicing at a set trajectory. It's not the same analogy, though. Just watch some 10-year old Little League players who have mastered keeping it over the plate or getting a ball from outfield to infield and close to the glove of another player. 

It seems odd that as easy as it is to learn to throw something at 10-15 yards pretty accurate for us, we at first, struggle real hard to line a projectile under our eye and have it go even close to where we want - like with a bow and arrow. The reason? We are not throwing it. The bow is. 

We are learning to match our aim and alignment to the "throw" of the bow. With a ball, the aim is all us and our eye hand coordination. We eventually find some coordination in the process with a bow, but still, once we let go of the string and relinquish control, there's a whole lot of other things going into the guide of the arrow before it's gone.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> Ray, I'll be honest, that video proves pretty much nothing, and seems more like a bunch of football fans playing with fancy toys to make their sport sound more impressive and demanding. The fellow throwing is obviously a world class athlete, but how far was he throwing? He threw only ten times? It's all well and good to put all those fancy gadgets in the ball to track spin and angle, but that doesn't prove anything that common sense couldn't: he's just darn good!
> 
> That video is a perfect example of using selective details to prove a particular point, though.


Exactly....and sooner or later...some of you will start to put the pieces to the puzzle on what truly defines and distinguishes Instinctive Aiming from the other aiming techniques.

There's a reason why people are so confused about what True Instinctive Aiming is and isn't. It's because most of the time they're talking about the same technique. One archer calls it Gap and the other calls it Instinctive.

There's more to Instinctive Aiming than just looking only at the target...if someone wants to actually research it. It DOES exist and there is a difference...just as there is a difference between String Walking and Face Walking.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I say that - I guarantee you that any of the top 5 shooters at the IBO Worlds would get EVERY arrow in the strike zone at a pro-ball players pitching distance - yet even the best pitchers in Major League Baseball cannot get EVERY ball in the strike zone.

Think about it - the strike zone is 17" wide from the batters knees to his arm pits and the distance is 20 yards! The Top five guys at this years IBO Worlds I am certain could score at least in the 260's in a 300 Round - which means that EVERY arrow of the 60 was definitely in the strike zone. Do you think anyone could throw a ball and score as well in a 300 round as an archer?

BTW - that video is not accurate - Olympic shooters shoot at 90 meters - this guys was throwing 20 yards


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

LOL...some of you are obviously missing the point to that video.

There's a reason why Instinctive Aiming is often compared to throwing a ball! 

It's because it's relying on the same mechanisms to aim. There is MORE involved to Instinctive Aiming than JUST looking at the target. Almost all archers look at their target...so there's got to be more to it than just focusing on the target.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yea we are all missing your point - we are not "true" instinctive - guess that means we are "false" instinctive - LOL - whatever - I am out a here


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Yea we are all missing your point - we are not "true" instinctive - guess that means we are "false" instinctive - LOL - whatever - I am out a here


No...it just means that some of you should be more open to learning something other than what you're dead set on believing. It's not like I'm asking anyone to believe in a different god.

There's NOTHING wrong with Gap Aiming, String Walking, Face Walking, Point of Aim, Split Vision, Pick A Point or Instinctive. Shoot however you want! I know I do.I really don't care how anyone shoots! I personally use about 3 different aiming techniques depending on the shot and circumstances.

These discussions should ONLY be used for educational purposes for teaching and communication...and some people should stop taking these discussions sooo personal. Get thicker skin or just stay out of them...if it upsets anyone that much when someone disagrees with you.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> ...if someone wants to actually research it.


 .... very tempting Ray


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> .... very tempting Ray


I double dog dare ya! :wink:

When you do come back...please tell us what the differences are between Gap Aiming while focusing on just the target and Instinctive Aiming that relies on hand and eye coordination in a similar way someone throws a ball.

Just don't come back saying they're exactly the same :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I double dog dare ya! :wink:



.... You're a bad man Ray .....:smile:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Sharp:
Good example before but unfortunately attempting to attend to two different audible stimuli that need interpretation isn't the same as attending to two different visual stimuli. Studies have been done regarding this and it's a different level of processing. I would agree though that attending entirely to something consciously is singular - you can't do this with two things at once. Hard to determine what someone's doing unless they have a good deal of self awareness in regards to this.

And while I don't like the use of the term "instinctive", nor do I like how words change in the English language because people simply seem to use them so, your second definition of "instinctive" would mean it's an acceptable term.



BLACK WOLF said:


> There's more to Instinctive Aiming than just looking only at the target...if someone wants to actually research it. It DOES exist and there is a difference...


My turn to LOL! I've already done this and provided relatively basic neurological reasoning for this. You keep talking as if there's something deep and mysterious about this and yet you provide poor examples, zero referencing and no scientific explanation, and argue about something you haven't researched yourself. The *fact* of the matter is that it is *not* the exact same as throwing a ball - you are generating force with your own body and it requires far greater proprioceptive/motor pattern perceptual accuracy. You need to know how much force to use, when to release the ball and how to release the ball, as well as positioning your body appropriately. It is *not* the same as using the same draw pattern, anchor point and proprioceptive cues like shooting a bow is - instinctive or otherwise this remains the same. Why do you think gappers/stringwalker/sight shooters all have a shot sequence and do things like an alignment check?
What changes is what you visually and consciously attend to and how much weight you put into the proprioception. Trick shooting/hip drawing and such will be more heavily reliant on "feel" than sight picture.

At this point you're simply alienating yourself and restating your circular argument. Don't really see the point anymore? You're certainly not educating anyone.

I think this has essentially been done to death. In summary:
1. I agree that it does exist
2. The use of the term "instinctive" is debatable due to its meaning
3. It is misunderstood by many
4. It is not a mysterious, "athletic" art like some make it out to be. Difficult, yes, and different, but it doesn't require the "elite of the elite" in terms of athleticism to accomplish. When it comes to aiming, figure out what you want to do and pick your poison.

I would love to hear Yewselfbow's take on this because I'm sure he could kick my butt regarding neurological understanding (though he still won't tell me what his background is in it  ).


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Now this is just my opinion however?...I personally feel that if?....

You are dissecting and analyzing the neurological-mechanics that lay beneath or above the human minds subconscious level with regards to the many varying processes which an infinite amount of archers may or may not claim as their naturally selected aiming system which can and often times does involve a last minute decision making process given situational circumstances at hand whereby ultimately?...said archer may in fact employ a multitude of aiming options condensing them into one extremely accurate and effective shot?...then attempt to decipher which of these several mental processes actually acted as "The Primary" in the execution of the mental aspects of just the aiming segment of the entire shot process?...well then...might I suggest you stay in the library reading your favorite google searched write-up regarding said topic cause...

I'll be out back shooting and practicing! :laugh:

L8R, Bill.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JINKSTER said:


> ...
> 
> I'll be out back shooting and practicing! :laugh:
> 
> L8R, Bill.


But then Ray would have no one to play with.

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

CF - what you said about conscious attention being singular was my point - when an instinctive shooter - or at least when I shoot - my conscious attention is focused soley on one thing - the spot I want to hit - nothing else - I am zoned into the spot I want to hit and keeping my eye focused on it totally - nothing else - heck when I am hunting - I am sooooo zoned in that I usually don't even remember drawing the bow - unless it is a situation where my draw is interupted by the animal looking my way. I do not need a degree in neuroscience to know what I am focused on when I shoot.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> You keep talking as if there's something deep and mysterious about this and yet you provide poor examples, zero referencing and no scientific explanation, and argue about something you haven't researched yourself.


Grasshoper...it's quite apparent you have not been here that long and no very little about me...otherwize you would know what you claim is untrue :wink:



CFGuy said:


> The *fact* of the matter is that it is *not* the exact same as throwing a ball -


Daaah...you win...for stating something I've never claimed :wink: I've NEVER said it was EXACTLY like throwing a ball...if it was you would see more archers shooting like a picture BarneySlayer posted not long ago that had me choking on my Cheerios :wink:

Where did I say they were exact? Here's my last statement regarding it - "Instinctive Aiming that relies on hand and eye coordination in a *similar* way someone throws a ball.


It amazes me what people will refuse to see or understand because they're sooo focused on proving their own point.

I know what the differences are between Gap Aiming and Instinctive Aiming are...and EVERYTHING I've shared should lead a person to begin to understand it...but you can only lead a horse to water...you can't force it to drink.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> But then Ray would have no one to play with.
> 
> Matt


LOL...I've got plenty to play with :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> CF - what you said about conscious attention being singular was my point - when an instinctive shooter - or at least when I shoot - my conscious attention is focused soley on one thing - the spot I want to hit - nothing else - I am zoned into the spot I want to hit and keeping my eye focused on it totally - nothing else - heck when I am hunting - I am sooooo zoned in that I usually don't even remember drawing the bow - unless it is a situation where my draw is interupted by the animal looking my way. I do not need a degree in neuroscience to know what I am focused on when I shoot.


I agree Ken...of course...with a twist....the twist being this...cause get this...while I hear some folks can't?...I can actually walk and chew bubble gum...AT THE SAME TIME! :laugh:

But wait...it gets better!....cause...I can do Both Of Those Things (at the same time) and get this...NOT...being thinking about either one! :laugh:

And I'm not certain if I'm just a gifted individual or what but while I'm walking?...and chewing bubble gum?...I can actually place full and total concentration on a third thing! :laugh:

I'm guessing it's just because I've walked so far in life and chewed so much gum that I just don't hafta think about it anymore...as though both have become "ingrained"?...and maybe even a dash of muscle memory throw in for good measure?...and I bet I could even fart, pee my pants and blow bubbles without becoming distracted from focusing on where it is I'm walking too! :laugh:

Now that's like (5) Things...

1. Walking
2. Chewing gum
3. Pee'ing my pants
4. Farting
5. Blowing bubbles!

and I still haven't lost track of the fact that my primary mission is walking a straight line to my front door as I...

6. Pull my keys from my pocket.
7. Sort and select the front door key on the ring of keys...whilst still pee'ing, farting, chewing gum, walking and blowing bubbles! :laugh:

Now that's (7) Things at the same time!...while drunk as a skunk! :laugh:

but none of those things are "instinctive"...they were all learned skills that ingrained themselves...even a baby needs to be told to "chew" it's first solid food...as the parent makes the motion...and they catch on...the only instinctive thing that occurred was my compulsion to tell a lie when I got on the other side of the door! :laugh:


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

CFGuy said:


> I would love to hear Yewselfbow's take on this because I'm sure he could kick my butt regarding neurological understanding (though he still won't tell me what his background is in it  ).


Sorry CFGuy, I didn't mean to ignore your post. I'm Director of Research for a medical company specialising in the neural control of human movement


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Well said Jinks!  And that's some impressive multi-tasking (in principle, certainly not a pretty visual picture).

Sharp: You certainly don't . I was specifically referring to your example but I believe you for the record. Nothing to argue with there.

Ray: If you've researched it then why not provide some more specific references supporting your point instead of arguing circularly? You're certainly not convincing me with repeating yourself but I'll be the first to admit when I'm wrong if proven so by a stronger point or hard data.


> It's because it's relying on the same mechanisms to aim.


Perhaps not entirely fair to assume "exactly" but "the same" doesn't imply "similar".

Again, provide some references instead of ranting about how no one understands and maybe we'll understand, if there's anything complex beyond what's been mentioned.

Yewselfbow: Don't worry I figured you just missed it . Thanks! And feel free to correct me in whatever way you see fit with my verrry elementary understanding of neurological processes . I'll be the first to say I don't know anything in light of your own knowledge.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> I'm Director of Research for a medical company specialising in the neural control of human movement


Awesome! Now, I'm all for learning something new so please tell us what the differences are with Gap Aiming and Instinctive Aiming that you've researched...and let's please put the semantic argument to rest. We should all be bright enough to understand it really is a petty argument.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Jinx - do you not even see it - once again - ad nauseam - read the definition of Instinct:


Main Entry: in·stinct
Pronunciation: primarystressin-secondarystressstieng(k)t
Function: noun
1 : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
2 :* behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level *

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmedsamp

Jinx you said, and I quote: _"But wait...it gets better!....cause...I can do Both Of Those Things (at the same time) and get this*...NOT...being thinking about either one*"_

Um... what you just said is by the 2nd definition of the word instinct - INSTINCTIVE - it was a behavior that was mediated by reactions below the conscious level (not thinking of either one)

You have made my point and do not even realize it.

I am glad you can walk and chew gum at the same time and fart and all that - now lets get you out at some archery shoots where you can shoot farther than 10 yards and get some real practice in - maybe the next IBO Worlds


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

BLACK WOLF said:


> No...it just means that some of you should be more open to learning something other than what you're dead set on believing. It's not like I'm asking anyone to believe in a different god.
> 
> There's NOTHING wrong with Gap Aiming, String Walking, Face Walking, Point of Aim, Split Vision, Pick A Point or Instinctive. Shoot however you want! I know I do.I really don't care how anyone shoots! I personally use about 3 different aiming techniques depending on the shot and circumstances.
> 
> ...


You seem to be the only one getting upset. The rest of us don't much give a @#(%.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Jinx - do you not even see it - once again - ad nauseam - read the definition of Instinct:
> 
> 
> Main Entry: in·stinct
> ...


I actually was just trying to support your points Ken...in a comical tongue/cheek way...sorry to read your last comments...I'll pass...don't wanna strain my bow. :laugh:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Stone Bridge said:


> You seem to be the only one getting upset. The rest of us don't much give a @#(%.


Are you trying to be psychic... because you're failing miserably! :wink:

If you and anyone else you're trying to speak for don't much give a "@#(%" than why bother telling me...LOL

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

more importantly , before we continue I think we need to define "traditional" ..........


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

And please excuse us while we take this short commercial break :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

benofthehood said:


> more importantly , before we continue I think we need to define "traditional" ..........


Wool brother, all you need is wool!! Speck


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Speck1 said:


> Wool brother, all you need is wool!! Speck


Gold I tells ya !!!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> Wool brother, all you need is wool!! Speck


And a fedora :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Lol and true. Speck


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> Wool brother, all you need is wool!! Speck


As in the type of shirt you wear lol


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Wow...7 pages and no one has even posted the correct definition in the correct context of how we shoot...that would be as a adverb. ..? You all are talking about shooting _instinctually_ is that not correct ?

Hmm...just saying.....lol

Mac


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

I'm thinking we need another ditty - written by a far more eloquent man than I 

Hello darkness, my old friend,
I’ve come to shoot with you again,
Because the arrow that I be,
In the light, I cannot help but see,
And the arrow, unacknowledged in my brain
makes me aim
Within the realm of arch’ry.

In restless dreams I aimed alone
at FITA targets all in rows,
’neath the halo of a cold, cold light,
I refused to see the arrows flight . . . 
Then my eyes - caught sight of a field tipped shaft
my spirit laughed
to see the shaft
And know the truth of arch’ry.

And at the tournament I saw
Ten thousand archers, maybe more.
People drawing without looking,
People anchoring without seeing,
People launching shafts that eyeballs never saw
And no one dared
Disturb the mantra of arch’ry.

Fools said I, you do not know
”Instinct” like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you.
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed
In the wells of silence

And the people bowed and prayed
To the Trad God they made.
Inaccuracy flashed out it’s warning,
In the misses it was forming.
And the signs said, the words of the Papa
Are written on the stickbow walls
And tradgang halls.
Whispering the truth of arch’ry.


This whole thread is silly - who cares how we aim. 

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Here's one for ya, Matt...LOL :wink:

Sing it to Blue Oyster Cult

"(Don't Fear) The Gaper"

All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
Deer don't fear the Gaper
Nor do the elk, the bear or the squirrels... they can’t be like we are
Come on archer... don't fear the Gaper
Please take my advice... don't fear the Gaper
We'll be able to shoot... don't fear the Gaper
Because I'm your archer...

La la la la la
La la la la la

Bow season is done
Here but now they're gone
Howard and Fred
Are together in eternity... Howard and Fred
40, 000 arrows and targets everyday... Like Howard and Fred
40, 000 arrows and targets everyday... Redefine instinct
Another 40, 000 coming everyday... those Gapers can’t be like we are
Come on archer... don't fear the Gaper
Please take my advice... don't fear the Gaper
We'll be able to shoot... don't fear the Gaper
Because I'm your archer.

La la la la la
La la la la la

Love of gaps were his
Here but now they're gone
Came the last night of sadness
And it was clear he couldn't shoot on
Then the mind was open and the gaps disappeared
The candles blew…by arrows so near
The arrows flew then and reappeared... to shoot another flame
Come on archer... and he had no fear
And he believed in him... then they started to shoot again
They looked backward and said goodbye... he had become like they are
He had taken his advice... he had become like they are
Come on baby... don't fear the Gaper


Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Well done Ray

Matt


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

You forgot the read bit at the end of the song!

"Thus, the gapper discovered a mystical stringwalker, and was taught by him for a brief period. He immediately went out and began winning tournaments."


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> You forgot the read bit at the end of the song!
> 
> "Thus, the gapper discovered a mystical stringwalker, and was taught by him for a brief period. He immediately went out and began winning tournaments."


You forgot the very very last part..."...but could no longer bring home the meat!" :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> You forgot the very very last part..."...but could no longer bring home the meat!" :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Right I forgot ! You missed a line referring to using the force somewhere near the end.


----------



## iscariot (Jun 4, 2013)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Iscariot - you are only discussing one possible definition of "instinct" - there are two definitions of it:
> 
> Main Entry: in·stinct
> Pronunciation: primarystressin-secondarystressstieng(k)t
> ...


Choosing to pick up a bow is a conscious behavior. A turtle swimming to the ocean, or a baby crying to get something are not conscious behaviors, ie. they don't have conscious control over it. Pulling your finger away from a hot stove, even before you feel the pain, is a sub-conscious behavior, it is due to a biochemical reaction that bypasses the brain in order to avoid damage to the body. It is sub-conscious and you are not aware of the action because it occurs without brain process. This IS a process or* behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level*. 

You have conscious control over aim by picking up and holding a bow. It is a skill learned by trial and error, and repetitive action. This is not instinct or below consciousness by any definition. You are not considering the question through biologic, chemical, and neural science; you are using inaccurate words to describe how you FEEL about a process.


The fact that it is a learned skill (that we can hit things or kill remotely and accurately at great distances, with a stick, another stick, and a string) makes it MORE impressive, not less impressive.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

iscariot said:


> You have conscious control over aim by picking up and holding a bow. It is a skill learned by trial and error, and repetitive action. This is not instinct or below consciousness by any definition. You are not considering the question through biologic, chemical, and neural science; you are using inaccurate words to describe how you FEEL about a process.
> 
> 
> The fact that it is a learned skill (that we can hit things or kill remotely and accurately at great distances, with a stick, another stick, and a string) makes it MORE impressive, not less impressive.


Thank goodness that this is still being debated. I was wondering where I was


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Iscariot,

You and a few others have to be the 'brightest' posters on this website for reminding us Instinctive aiming can't possibly exist because it doesn't fit the one definition taught to us in elementary school.

Ooooooh wait....I guess since only one definition can exist for a particular word....you can't possibly be very 'bright'. How can a person be bright if they're not producing any light? Wait a minute...why am I discussing this with you...you probably don't even exist because you're not very 'bright'. :wink:

Get it? See how petty these debates can get when the focus is on semantics rather than what makes Instinctive Aiming unique and different from the other aiming techniques.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## iscariot (Jun 4, 2013)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Iscariot,
> 
> You and a few others have to be the 'brightest' posters on this website for reminding us Instinctive aiming can't possibly exist because it doesn't fit the one definition taught to us in elementary school.
> 
> ...


Words have specific meaning so that we can effectively and accurately communicate.

You and your brethren should learn to use words in order to effectively and accurately communicate.

Creating definitions for words that already have specific meaning is only the equivalent of "moving the goal posts" in order to make your inaccurate argument work for you, which is then a false argument. This creates miscommunication and leads to unnecessary conflict, and serves to distract from what could, and perhaps should, be a simple discussion about the "Instinctive Aiming/Shooting Process" which is a misnomer. I am clarifying the terms necessary to the discussion; I am not arguing semantics. If you want to adopt a scientific lexicon in an attempt to prove your false argument, at least be smart enough to use it properly.

*dullbroadhead* is attempting to use a scientific argument, terminology, and reasoning to describe his apparent ability to shoot an arrow without thinking or choosing to do so, by bypassing his brain functions. 
what he should be doing is using subjective descriptors to explain how he feels while shooting.

Either that or he's simply looking to argue, in which case mission purple monkey dishwasher.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Iscariot - you need to learn the difference between a subconscious action or behavior and a reflex.

Obviously picking up the bow is a conscious action - the actual aim is done at a subconscious level.

If I do not consciously determine yardage - which I don't - then I must do it subconsciously - unless of course you believe in magic. 

Consider these images - if a Compound bowhunter shooting a bow that is at or near 300 fps using a peep sight needs all those tiny little dots for various distances out to say 40 yards - how can you possibly believe that anyone can consciously use a big fat ole arrow and an imaginary gap to accurately shoot a bow going 100 fps slower? There is no way - the final adjustments are subconscious - without question.

How does a baseball player aim his ball - subconsciously - how does a football player or basketball player - subconsciously - and if it subconscious - it is by definition - BELOW THE CONSCIOUS level - and hence fits the 2nd medical definition of instinct.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

oh - now I see he is resorting to childish name calling - well - this debate is won in my book - when you have to resort to childish name calling - it means your arguments hold no water whatsoever!


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

I feel another ditty coming on.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Why do things have to always deteriorate around here 

I think that it should be mandatory that everyone on a forum should have to meet once a year 

I think folks manors would be better


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

It gets that way when people resort to name calling and sarcasm - or when someone gets sick of saying the same thing over and over and over - how many times can a definition be sited and sourced - and yet it is still ignored?

Whatever - I know how I shoot and I know what works for me and what I enjoy - and I can read and understand a dictionary - so I am good -


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

oh - and by the phrase "imaginary gap" I did not mean that the gap itself is imaginary - but rather one has to imagine or guess the gap - because there is no gauge to measure it - and if there was -you would be measuring it in 1/16 of an inch to shoot as accurately as some of the top "gap shooters" do - which illustrates that they are subconsciously making the final adjustments to the aim.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

It also doesn't help when people try to discuss a concept they don't understand and haven't even tried aiming instinctively. I, for one, have been learning to shoot this way and would like to be able to discuss the method with others that do, like Ken. Problem is every thread about instinctive aiming gets sidetracked with these stupid arguments over semantics.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

AMEN CAPTJJ

if you would ever like to discuss it - send me a private message - I can give you my phone number - I would be happy to talk archery with ya


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

CAPTJJ

A great book to understand how it works is:

The Mental Mechanics of Archery

Though this book is not specifically about Instinctive shooting - it really explains how the subconscious works in relation to archery


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

It's funny that the last 6 months several topics on Instinctive aiming came up and it all stayed very civil. It takes at least two people with differing views to start an argument, I think blaming others on how the thread has dragged on just because they wont bend to your will is just petty.

No party is willing to give any ground, best solution is just to respect the other persons differing point of view and leave it at that. This topic could continue for another 20 pages and nothing would have changed.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

exactly - it degraded when one side had to resort to name calling


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Well said Steve. The redundant thing is that the science is straight forward, the semantics are what end up going round and round (as well as personal agendas. It really could go for 20 pages.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

KennyO said:


> in·stinc·tive
> /inˈstiNG(k)tiv/
> Adjective
> Doing a specified thing apparently naturally or automatically.
> ...


Well you are dealing with a known sight picture are you not? That would be something you learned to do through practice. This is rote... rote is a "learned" response to a known condition/action or activity. Is it instinctive.... to me instinct is finding your way without a compass. As kids you learn how to throw a baseball, rock, or football. You throw it without calculation... but that calculation is being done all the same in that we recognize 3 dimensions in our learning. For me, the bottom line of "instinctive" is that you are applying known conditions to new shots/opportunities/targets because of known responses to previously learned cause and effects.. actions and performance.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

iscariot said:


> Words have specific meaning so that we can effectively and accurately communicate.


Do words have singular meanings or can and do they have multiple meanings?

Can definitions and meanings over time evolve to mean different things?

Words used within the correct context can and are being used accurately and effectively...EVEN if a word has multiple meanings and definitions!

So how do you explain the multiple meanings for words such as 'bright, hot and can' which are well known to have multiple meanings.

How long has the term Instinctive Aiming been around?

Why would there be a separate name given to an aiming technique if it was exactly the same as some other barebow aiming technique?

Instinctive Aiming does involve conscious thought. Picking the target, choosing to focus on the target and choosing to shoot all are conscious decisions but the muscle memory and proprioception that are being mediated are NOT being mediated and completely controlled at a conscious level. We are no more aware are exactly where are feet are when we walk or run. The same goes for a pitcher throwing a ball or an archer aiming Instinctively.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Instinct to me is focusing on where I want my arrow to end up in the target, I visually see the arrow, riser and target but choose to ignore the Arrow/Riser on a conscious level. Mainly because if I used a Gap it's so big it's not really effective.

When I Gap it's very similar, just that I have some awareness of the Arrow/Riser in relation to the target, I can use both aiming methods depending on the type of shot presented, under 20y Instinctive and past 20y I Gap.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Ironically enough, in almost 30 years of archery I've never seen anyone argue about this in person.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Oh you should have heard me and Matt going at it - but he is so darn big and scary - that I just had to back down and agree with him on whatever he said!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

meeting in person would definitely improve things. Making that happen, though, might not be financially feasible.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Oh you should have heard me and Matt going at it - but he is so darn big and scary - that I just had to back down and agree with him on whatever he said!


When I met Matt, I got more of a cute and cuddley impression, but then I didn't get into that debate either. I'm sure he can turn on the Scary Bear switch anytime he wants


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Oh you should have heard me and Matt going at it - but he is so darn big and scary - that I just had to back down and agree with him on whatever he said!


You should have heard him after we went 10-10 on the first three targets during the shootout. I didn't want to shoot an 8 on the fourth target, but he scared the heck out of me. I wanted to sleep in my motel room that night, not wherever the "fishes" are at.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Look up Jentacular in Merriam -Webster ... how does the font of all human knowledge define the word.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

For those that attend the different shoots its a small world 

Like someone said earlier, you never see people in person arguing about this topic 

I shoot with guys that shoot both ways and no one cares 

I know both the positive and the negative attributes of both styles 

anyone that's been doing this long enough knows it to

For the type of hunting I do, crude as it is my style has worked for me 

I have shot with enough fantastic gap shooters to learn to really admire and respect this type of shooting 

To argue about the word instinctive is just semantics and just silly


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Do words have singular meanings or can and do they have multiple meanings?
> 
> Can definitions and meanings over time evolve to mean different things?
> 
> ...


Words.... Hot for example... :grin:


View attachment 1727651



As opposed to 

View attachment 1727652


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JParanee said:


> For those that attend the different shoots its a small world
> 
> Like someone said earlier, you never see people in person arguing about this topic
> 
> ...


Bingo - personally couldn't care less how someone shoots

This is for you other jokers










Loved shooting with each and everyone one of you - Jason you really should give this instinctive thing a shot.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Congrats again Matt 

Blacky said your a hell of a good shot and fellow


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Rattus thanks for the lovely image


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> Words.... Hot for example... :grin:
> 
> 
> View attachment 1727651
> ...


You got it!!! LOL

Thanks for the added visuals! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Blacky is a truly good guy but, honestly I haven't met but 1 or 2 guys I didn't like while shooting trad 3D. 

Matt


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> Jason you really should give this instinctive thing a shot.



Will I have to give back my belt buckle?


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

J: Well said that sums it up beautifully. I haven't done this long and I see the value in and use both. Especially shooting split longbow like Steve, gaps are sometimes unrealistic (more like "spans" or "leagues" at close range  ).

And Rattus I think you're getting "plastic" confused with "hot". Maybe she was "hot" while in the mold at the Barbie factory but God didn't create any women with skin that orange or hair that blond .


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Blacky is a truly good guy but, honestly I haven't met but 1 or 2 guys I didn't like while shooting trad 3D.
> 
> Matt


Yeah, and I still have the scar in my back to prove it.:smile:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

The only reason Matt won that $500.00 is because he scared the hell out of everyone - it had nothing to do with his archery skills at all - take a look at the pic Jason posted - in that pick Jason is standing on a 5 foot platform! Jared is on the same level as Matt - I am surprised that Jason did not just let Matt win - it must have been that Matt didn't look so scary that day wearing the pink shirt and all. BTW - Jared is 6'2" tall!


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

How tall is Matt exactly? Sounds like he could be just shy of 8 feet.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I think he is like 8' 9"


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

and he is mean too


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Sure sounds like it!


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

itbeso said:


> Yeah, and I still have the scar in my back to prove it.:smile:


Ben - you just better bring your quarters to Oristimba in April. 

As to that 500 let's not forget an instinctive long bow shooter got me on the last 10 targets and took the second 500. 

Feel the force Jason 

By the way that pink shirt is my "Montana Shoot For The Cure" shirt. It's a great benefit and shoothttp://www.shootforthecuremontana.com/ 

Matt


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I think he is like 8' 9"


Then you have to add the heels that go with the shirt.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

We were worried about the podium collapsing.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Trials of a true instinctive shooter. You are about to loose an arrow...and there is a sharp noise to your left...you end up missing a bit to the left. Some time later there is a noise to your right...just prior to loose...you end up missing to your right. Ten minutes later, one of the dogs comes over to say hello just before you release...you miss a little low and towards the dog. Oh well!!!


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

You might find this interesting ...


*Stronger activation and deactivation in archery experts for differential cognitive strategy in visuospatial working memory processing.*
Behavioural Brain Research, Volume 229, Issue 1, 1 April 2012, Pages 185-193
Jeehye Seo, Yang-Tae Kim, Hui-Jin Song, Hui Joong Lee, Jongmin Lee, Tae-Du Jung, Gunyoung Lee, Eunjin Kwon, Jin Gu Kim, Yongmin Chang

*Abstract*
It is well known that elite athletes have higher performance in perception, planning, and execution in sports activities relative to novices. It remains controversial, however, whether any differences in basic cognitive functions between experts and novices exist. Furthermore, few studies have directly used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to investigate neural activation and deactivation differences between experts and novices while performing visuospatial working memory (WM) tasks. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine possible differences in neural activation and deactivation associated with working memory components in processing visuospatial information between archery experts and novices. To this end, we employed a judgment of line orientation (JLO) task, which has a strong WM component. With regard to brain activation, archery experts displayed higher activation in cortical areas associated with visuospatial attention and working memory, including the middle frontal cortex, supplemental motor area, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex than that of the novices during the performance of the JLO task. With regard to brain deactivation, archery experts exhibited stronger task-related deactivation in cortical areas, such as the paracentral cortex/precuneus and the anterior and posterior cingulate cortex related to the default network, than that of the novices. These results suggest that the archery experts have a strategy that demands greater use of neural correlates associated with visuospatial working memory and attention in addition to greater use of DMN in visuospatial working memory task not directly tied to their domain of expertise.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - - and this addresses nothing to whether or not it is done at a conscious or subconscious level - it addresses some of the physical things going on in the brain, but does not address whether the archer is consciously doing these things or not - only the archer himself can address that. 

But hey yewselfbow - you go start an archery class and teach the students to aim with all that - see how it works for you

oh - and btw - instinctive archers like myself aim - we just aim at a subconscious level - which in reality - is how every good archer aims when push comes to shove - even those who use a sight


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Yewselfbow, interesting stuff, thanks for taking the time to post, I've only seen this type of research done on Olympic gun shooters.





sharpbroadhead said:


> But hey yewselfbow - you go start an archery class and teach the students to aim with all that - see how it works for you


Sharp how do you teach people when you say stuff like "I dont remember anything about the shot"  You can twist and pick holes in just about anything people say


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Yewselfbow: Thanks for that, sounds like an interesting paper! Link to the full paper by chance?

Sharp: That's actually what the paper is saying. I think relatively few people here believe that aiming at a subconscious level is impossible or nonexistant - aside from the redundant agendas of some, the main argument now seems to be more about semantics than people understanding it. I think there's a knee-jerk level of defensiveness when it comes to this topic for many people, one that remains unproductive.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Thanks for that Yewselfbow ...

you should go ahead and study it at Uni ...study hard, eat your wheatbix you'll end up with a grasp of such that , aside from Sharpbroadhead , few here have ... may even be a career in it for you ... :teeth::teeth::teeth:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Steve - the same way that a person teaches someone to throw a basketball into the hoop - you teach them proper form and to keep looking at what you want to hit and let your brain do the rest


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Sharp I was just twisting your words around as an example of you using other peoples words against them, when most people understood their intent/meaning.

I teach the same way, except I also explain Gap as well and let them choose for themselves which aiming method they want.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

But Steve I was not twisting anyone's words around - Yewselfbow has debated that there is no such thing as the subconscious many times in the past - and has used that quote from that paper to try and make the claim that aiming at a subconscious level does not exist.


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

I know that when I am shooting, I am thinking about every single part of the shot from draw until the arrow hits the target.
I guess I use my conscious mind 100% of the time during my shot.
Don.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Zesty - you may think that is what you are doing - but that is impossible - there are thousands of aspects to the shot - and there is no way that you could possibly conscious of all of them. 

In fact, a human being can only be conscious of one thing at a time - at times it seems to us that we are conscious of several things at a time - but we are not - we are just rapidly changing our conscious awareness from one thing to the next.

If you would like to test this out - get out a book you have never read before - randomly open to a page and start reading a paragraph - and then at the same time - have your wife tell you about her day - and then at the end see if you retained both what you read and what she said.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> In fact, a human being can only be conscious of one thing at a time - at times it seems to us that we are conscious of several things at a time - but we are not - we are just rapidly changing our conscious awareness from one thing to the next.


I totally disagree. 

We can be conscious of multiple things at one time but there will be one object that is our primary focus while other objects will be secondary and have a lower level of conscious awareness regarding it.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Sharp: Please tell me how "With regard to brain activation, archery experts displayed higher activation in cortical areas associated with visuospatial attention and working memory, including the middle frontal cortex, supplemental motor area, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex than that of the novices during the performance of the JLO task. With regard to brain deactivation, archery experts exhibited stronger task-related deactivation in cortical areas, such as the paracentral cortex/precuneus and the anterior and posterior cingulate cortex related to the default network, than that of the novices. These results suggest that the archery experts have a strategy that demands greater use of neural correlates associated with visuospatial working memory and attention in addition to greater use of DMN in visuospatial working memory task not directly tied to their domain of expertise."

Equates to "subconscious does not exist".


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

disagree - try thinking of two things at the same time - you cannot - you can quickly switch from one thought to the other - but you can only think of one thing at a time - same thing with conscious attention - which really is thought.

You can be in a room and aware of many things going on around you because your conscious attention is switching from one thing to the next many times over - but when your conscious attention is fixed on one thing - all other awareness is subconscious.

For example - say your drive everyday to work the same route at the same time for several years. Now you buy a new car - a dark blue chevy nova or whatever - suddenly on your way to work and your way home from work you notice several of the exact same car that you just bought - you see them passing you, you see them as you pass them, you see them in the on coming lane, etc...

Those cars were there before - and you were aware of them before - but just not at a conscious level.

You can only be aware of one thing at a time at a conscious level - but you can be aware of millions at a subconscious level - just like you can only think about one thing at a time.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Sharp, I'm sorry but neurologically speaking _thinking_ about something or attending to one thing specifically is very different from being consciously aware of something you can see (visuospatial awareness). I think your examples are true but not necessarily relevant to things attended to in archery. I won't say that you can't aim by consciously focusing on only one thing, but I can say that you can be visually conscious of a number of things at a time. For instance, here: http://cognitivefun.net/test/23.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

The subconsious exists - to deny that is absurd - 

Gee - lets take this logic - a neurosurgeon does all sorts of scans, tests, and surgical procedures - but has never seen any evidence of an idea - therefore ideas to not exist! Sometimes people have more education than intelligence - just because someone is highly educated and can write a great paper - does not mean that they are always right - sometimes they cannot see the forest becuase of the trees.

BTW CF - i can't get the link to work for your game - I would like to play but it says click RIGHT to begin - dont' know what they mean


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

The subconsious exists - to deny that is absurd - 

Gee - lets take this logic - a neurosurgeon does all sorts of scans, tests, and surgical procedures - but has never seen any evidence of an idea - therefore ideas to not exist! Sometimes people have more education than intelligence - just because someone is highly educated and can write a great paper - does not mean that they are always right - sometimes they cannot see the forest becuase of the trees.

BTW CF - i can't get the link to work for your game - I would like to play but it says click RIGHT to begin - dont' know what they mean


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I'm sorry but I don't know what you're referring to.

Press the "right" directional key.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

In the broad scheme of things WHO CARES we are a bunch of middle aged guys poking things with sharp sticks - you poke them how you want I'll poke them how I want.

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Lol


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

In regards to conscious awareness and aiming... just ask yourself can a shooter be consciously aware of their aiming reference such as a sight pin, cross hairs of a scope or an arrow as they place it on the target while focusing on the target?

Just because an object is not the shooter's primary focus does NOT mean the shooter is not or no longer consciously aware of it (the aiming reference) and its relationship to the target.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

+1 to what Ray said.

Matt it's because it's hot here and I'm a winter guy so I get cranky when I can't roam the forest. And it might be easy too see everything clearly up there at 8'9" but it isn't as clear for us down here at a measly 6'2".


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> In regards to conscious awareness and aiming... just ask yourself can a shooter be consciously aware of their aiming reference such as a sight pin, cross hairs of a scope or an arrow as they place it on the target while focusing on the target?
> 
> Just because an object is not the shooter's primary focus does NOT mean the shooter is not or no longer consciously aware of it (the aiming reference) and its relationship to the target.
> 
> ...


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

When I shoot I focus on the spot and arrow tip at the same time, I am aware of both, I know what I m looking at.
Reading a book and having the wife talk to you and shooting are two differnt things all togeather, besides who listens to their wifes anyway...LOL
Don.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sharpie, I think you're talking about an entirely different thing.

When you say Subconscious, you're talking about processes that happen outside of our focus of attention, but could pay attention to if you chose. When you say conscious, you're talking about things that are in the focus of our awareness.

The abstract that Yewselfbow posted addressed the study of brain functions. It simply shows that expert archers train their brains to process visual information differently. I am assuming that the deactivation mentioned means that their brains learn to release certain areas (possibly involved with more focused awareness) from that processing to allow other areas (possibly involved in less focused awareness).

I think, from prior posts I've seen, that Yewselfbow is pointing out that there is no 'subconscious' physical area of the brain. We can call it the subconscious brain, but we're talking about it as an abstracted concept. What we're really talking about are a collection of processes that the brain learns to operate outside of our immediate focus of attention, so that our very limited capacity for explicit thought will not be overwhelmed. It is similar to a programmer writing a subroutine for common functions, and accessing that process instead of spelling out a new set of instructions in every possible instance that process is needed, though I don't know how useful that comparison is to you unless you have any programming experience.

That isn't the same as saying that the processes that we're calling subconscious don't exist, just that there isn't a dedicated, physical, part of the brain that handles that.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Barney takes the cake! Great post.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Barney - I would bet that if you did the same scans of the brain of a child before they learned how to ride a bike and after they learned how to ride a bike - that there would be changed to their brain on some level - does that mean that the child consciously learned how to balance the bike and trained their brain to control all the muscles necessary for proper balance on the bike? Of course not - that was all done at a subconscious level.

I have no doubt in the possibility that there can be detectible differences in parts of the brain of a dedicated archer - or of someone dedicated to any sport - but that does not address what one is doing at a conscious level or what one is doing at a subconscious level.

You can pay conscious attention to anything that you want - but only one thing at a time - yet at a subconscious level - you can do multiple things - when you drive a car - you are doing most of it at a subconscious level - you can have your full conscious attention to a conversation you are having with a passenger or focused on a talk show on the radio - in fact - it is not an uncommon occurrence for people to drive for an hour and get to their location and not remember anything about the drive - but they remember nearly everything that was on the radio or the conversation.

When we drive a car we are not consciously thinking about how hard or soft to press the gas pedal or brake - we are not consciously lining up the hood with the center line - we are not consciously paying attention to every car that is around us - the only time our conscious attention is brought to these things is if something is wrong or out of the ordinary - then the subconscious immediately brings it to our conscious attention.

I don't understand for the life of me why this is so hard for some to grasp.

How do we aim a baseball or basketball that is held over our head when we throw it? There is nothing to be used as an aiming reference - yet we do it with a pretty good degree of accuracy considering all the variables involved - yet when it comes to archery suddenly many deny what they KNOW can be done in other aspects of life - it just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> AMEN CAPTJJ
> 
> if you would ever like to discuss it - send me a private message - I can give you my phone number - I would be happy to talk archery with ya


Thanks Ken, hopefully when I get some free time before hunting season, I am in my busy tourist season now.

I just ordered The Mental Mechanics of Archery, looks like a good read.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

It is excellent and helped me to understand the mental game of archery more than anything else I have read.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

One of the reasons I decided to switch to traditional archery and instinctive aiming was that I wanted to learn a new activity that requires mental processing. Our brains work better the more we use them. Looking forward to reading this book.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

If anyone views Instinctive Aiming as sharp does...no wonder why there's soooo much confusion regarding a simple aiming technique that is uniquely DIFFERENT from the other aiming techniques.

If a person believes that the only aspect to aiming Instinctively is to just focus on the target...than an archer using a sight can be aiming Totally Instinctively...and if that's the case....than every archer who is focusing on just the target is aiming 'instinctively'.

The truth is...there are different levels of conscious awareness.

Just focus on an object and point at it and than move your finger all over the place.

You will see...even though you are totally focusing and totally consciously aware of the target...you are also consciously aware of your finger moving around within your sight picture even though it isn't in focus.

There's more to True Instinctive Aiming than just focusing on the target.

For those wanting to research what makes it unique...study proprioception and what part of the brain controls it.

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I am tired of this same old same old - I can tell you this - when I shoot I look at the spot I want to hit - I do not think about distance, a gap, lining anything up - other than squaring myself to the target before I draw, and I shoot. I never look for a gap - I never reference anything to the target - at least at a conscious level - at ANY conscious level - and I can say that I know this because IF when I am at full draw I suddenly notice the arrow in my peripheral vision - and I don't let down and draw again - it is a guaranteed bad shot - same thing if I look at a target and think to myself that the target is far or close - if I do that I will make a bad shot. When I first started shooting indoors I had a heck of a time with it - I think it was because I knew that this target was farther or closer than the last - it took a long time for me to learn to shoot one target at a time and not think about the distance relationship of the last target to the one I was on.

I know what I do - I know it works for me.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Sharp the thing is that seeing which part of the brain does what in various people, including archers, _does_ tell you whether or not it's being handled subconsciously. There is no such physical thing as a "conscious brain" or a "subconscious brain". Period. There are different areas of the brain that work on different levels - i.e. prefrontal cortex would be an example of "conscious" brain, whereas cerebellum and basal ganglia would be an example of "unconscious" brain (Yew please feel free to correct where necessary). We can *consciously*, visually, attend to multiple things at a time. Giving examples of one's wife talking while watching TV is not a relevant comparison.

*There is no physical subconscious brain - this is a conceptualization to aid our understanding*

But indeed, there are many factors related to "instinctive" aiming, and it's a complex neurological process that takes a large degree of practice in order to establish repeatable motor patterns via proprioception and sight picture. Ok summary?

I want to get back to how tall and scary Matt is (and how he wears high heels?).


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> BLACK WOLF said:
> 
> 
> > In regards to conscious awareness and aiming... just ask yourself can a shooter be consciously aware of their aiming reference such as a sight pin, cross hairs of a scope or an arrow as they place it on the target while focusing on the target?
> ...


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Outstanding post Grant.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I repeat again - I KNOW what I am consciously aware of - I do not know what I am not consciously aware of - and just like I have no clue how I aim a baseball or a basketball - I have no clue how I am my bow - I look at what I want to hit and go through the motions - just like throwing a ball - all the rest of this stuff does not change this simple fact.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Oh and the reason that an archer can shoot a bow more accurately than one can throw a ball is because throwing a ball has more variables for the subconscious to account for than shooting a bow.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Ken, read and consider what Grant and others are saying. For the record, they're 100% on the ball and they aren't disagreeing with you.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Good posts guys but you are :deadhorse trying to change Kens views


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> We can also do this without any visual alignment (that’s for you Ray), but it's limited in accuracy because we have no visual feedback of whether the alignment is correct. This is your free-throw/pitcher situation.


This is for you Grant :wink: and anyone else seriously trying to understand what the difference is. I think Grant gets it :wink:

That is also your archer aiming Totally Instinctively as the term applies to a different, unique and specific way to aim and shoot an arrow.

The archer in this video is the perfect example demonstrating what True Instinctive Aiming looks like and involves.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to recognize that this archer is NOT aiming or relying on the same aiming technique as what many here refer to as 'instinctive aiming' and what a few others like myself call Gapstinctive :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Ray: If this is what you refer to as "true instinctive" I agree with you. Science is still the same as "gapstinctive" or "instinctive" with a raised bow but much more reliance on proprioception. Less like shooting a slingshot and more like throwing a ball.

Speaking of Lars Anderson, I want one of those huge foam blocks he shoots at in the field.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Here's a good read on how proprioception/kinesthesia works and how it can specifically work with atheletes and movement.

http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/337/

Think of the consciousness as a Captain or the person in charge.

Every archer aims consciously but not all aspects of the aim are COMPLETELY controlled consciously.

For an archer aiming Totally Instinctively as the archer in the above video demonstrates...the archer consciously picks and focuses on only the target and decides when to begin the shooting process...but there are other aspects to our brain that help mediate the movement of our bodies below a conscious level as we try to hit our target. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Ray: If this is what you refer to as "true instinctive" I agree with you.


IF ANYONE has been paying attention...this has been my arguement for years...but very few people get it or pay attention enough to understand what I'm talking about. 

I definitely appreciate you acknowledging that! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

There's a reason why an archer aiming Totally Instinctively can be very effective bowhunting but not win any target archery tournaments...and there's a reason why Howard Hill and guys like myself NEVER suggest an archer try to learn Instinctive Aiming if they want to be competitive in archery tournaments.

Everything has it's place and has it's advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.

It's always wise to research techniques that best fit a person's goals which should explain why some archers use different techniques and look different while shooting :wink:

It's ALL good! All an archer needs to do is find what works best for them.

There's no cheating using an aiming technique that has a clear advantage over another. It's smart to do so...unless it goes against the particular rules of a class in competition.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Ray:

I'm agreeing with you. I have a bit more realistic view of the disadvantages of the techique, but I acknowledge it exists. It just doesn't exist if the anchor is fixed and the bow is visible infront of the archer.

The real problem is when people try to acheive the accuracy of a visually-based aiming technique while maintaining the form for a proprioceptive aiming technique and placing their focus in the wrong places.

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> Ray:
> 
> I'm agreeing with you.


Cool! :thumbs_up

I thought so...but I wasn't a 100% sure because I'm sooo use to quite a few here constantly arguing with me when I've been saying this very same thing forever :wink:

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Ray: Honestly I was never arguing that point, I was arguing the fact that it came off like you were saying no one understands it, when I do understand it, if at only a basic level. The joys of internet miscommunication . And no problem, nothing personal or in it for me to disagree .

Well said Grant. Different techniques for different purposes. I'm certainly not going to be shooting nearly that fast or while jumping off things/riding a horse, but then those guys likely aren't going to shoot as accurately at small targets at long range while standing still (at least while using that technique).


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

These threads have got to be about the stupidest threads of any archery forum I visit. In fact it only seems to be a huge deal on this particular forum. Who cares how you aim. Why do you guys have to go around and around with this stupid issue? Aim instinctively if you want. Aim with a sight and call it instinctive or Gap, or string walk or whatever. Get over it. Why does it bother people so much if somebody says they aim instinctively. Good grief.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

jake: Why else would you come here if not for the drama ?


----------



## airwolf (Jul 28, 2005)

jakeemt said:


> These threads have got to be about the stupidest threads of any archery forum I visit. In fact it only seems to be a huge deal on this particular forum. Who cares how you aim. Why do you guys have to go around and around with this stupid issue? Aim instinctively if you want. Aim with a sight and call it instinctive or Gap, or string walk or whatever. Get over it. Why does it bother people so much if somebody says they aim instinctively. Good grief.


Because they are most likely unsuccessfull at it unlike certain archers like Sharp so they turn a simple thing into a huge debate, this has been going on for years in here and has become a very technical issue to a few. I know for myself I shoot exactly like Sharp does the only difference being he's on a much higher level then I am, but the shooting style is the same.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Wow ... still going ...

At the end of the day ... who gives a toss ?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

airwolf said:


> Because they are most likely unsuccessfull at it unlike certain archers like Sharp so they turn a simple thing into a huge debate, this has been going on for years in here and has become a very technical issue to a few. I know for myself I shoot exactly like Sharp does the only difference being he's on a much higher level then I am, but the shooting style is the same.



I frequently think many posters don't know who they are talking to online. You have State, National and World champions in this thread, who all shoot the same way as Sharp describes. So I'm not sure which unsuccessful archers you are speaking of?

-Grant


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

You also have state, national and world champions who use other forms of aiming too. Way too much internet assumption. I think some newer posters would be a lot less impatient if they knew who they were talking to.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

jakeemt said:


> These threads have got to be about the stupidest threads of any archery forum I visit. In fact it only seems to be a huge deal on this particular forum. Who cares how you aim. Why do you guys have to go around and around with this stupid issue? Aim instinctively if you want. Aim with a sight and call it instinctive or Gap, or string walk or whatever. Get over it. Why does it bother people so much if somebody says they aim instinctively. Good grief.


On Leatherwall you have an Instinctive thread going, nearly 600 posts, it's just a sensitive topic for the Instinctive shooters, one problem is that Sharp thinks he's the best Instinctive shot here and everybody else has no clue what they're talking about (said as much on other threads), the whole thing just goes round in circles where nobody is going to budge on their point of view, which is the main issue.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> it's just a sensitive topic for the Instinctive shooters,


I wouldn't say it's 'just' a sensitive topic for the Instinctive shooters. Its also a sensitive topic for those archers who don't believe it exists or those that have been ridiculed or called cheaters for using a different aiming technique after winning an archery competition.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I wouldn't say it's 'just' a sensitive topic for the Instinctive shooters. Its also a sensitive topic for those archers who don't believe it exists or those that have been ridiculed or called cheaters for using a different aiming technique after winning an archery competition.
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Ray you know I've been through that cheater BS, my conscious was always clear as no tourney rule has, or ever will ban Gap shooting, so I just ignored the whole thing.

For me Instinct is more than just ignoring the arrow, holding still for 2-3 secs on a 3D, it may be considered Instinct in some peoples book but not mine, the visual focus side is one part and obviously important but to me it's more about how the body also reacts to the target i.e. not just visual but aiming spatially with the body as well.


----------



## longbowguy (Nov 14, 2004)

Kegan, I think longbow men tend to be a bit tighter. We tend to draw a bit more weight than targeteers and the bows are harder to master. I hope they will excuse me if I have this wrong but I believe that multiple world longbow champs Larry Yien and Steve Morley used to have fairly 'dead' or at least tight releases but now are much longer. On the other hand many who touch the shoulder seem to me to be faking it. There is a lot of individual variation. Weight lifter Arnold type guys are often tight. Willowy supple guys may be startlingly long. A buff Aussie get set an Olympic style world record ending up with his string arm pointing straight up. The Korean archers are the best and they seem to end up behind the jaw but short of the shoulder. I like your sense of natural, and relaxed. I like to see the hand and fingers relaxed and hanging down, wherever they are. - lbg







kegan said:


> What I've been having issue with is getting tired and even though I might lose back tension (collapse) I would still be pulling to the shoulder with my arm and shoulder muscles. The focus would be to touch my shoulder, but the lack of back tension would lead to a flinch with my bow hand.
> 
> My best shooting has been with a relaxed focus on back tension, at which point the natural conclusion was only to the back of my jaw line, rather than all the way to my shoulder (about 5"). I think by practicing the overly exagerated follow through rather than the natural conclusion that I've been letting myself get sloppy with my bow arm. My scores certainly reflect sloppiness.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Steve,

My comment wasn't directed at you other than to point out these arguments aren't just passionate to the Instinctive shooters.

I already know you know what True Instinctive Aiming involves.

You're most likely like me when it comes to just wanting to add clarity to an already confusing and controversial topic.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Ray,

If that was directed at either me or Grant, it's again simply more internet miscommunication. Between you and I, I kept hearing "no one understands it but me/those who do it" (not necessarily what you said but what came off) where my point was "actually some do, and it's not that complicated". "Totally instinctively" and "instinctively" have two different meanings by most, hence the confusion - it would have been helpful if you posted a similar link as a demonstration in the beginning - if you did, I missed it.

I have no vendetta against "instinctive" aiming. I think the people that associate themselves with it are often somewhat delusional, thinking it's some sort of higher form of aiming and that they're superior for using it, as well as tacking all kinds of ridiculous notions and rules to it. Actual proprioceptive/sight picture aiming is a tool in my books, and no issues with it, but there are some that believe "instinctive" aiming means simply willing the arrow (in a way) toward the target, and condemn others who don't share their absurd view, hence the accusations about cheating at tournaments. Has absolutely nothing to do with "instinctive" shooters or those who aim that way, simply the silly trad police who live by it as if it's the American form of Bushido. My only thoughts are calling BS on those that think it's a) superior, b) has nothing to do with a learned process, c) in some cases, has nothing to do with sight picture or visual feedback (b and c are obviously situationally dependent as discussed).


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Is Instinct and sub-conscious one and the same thing .... The Mental Mechanics of Archery seems to suggest they are ?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yewselfbow - just read the definition of instinct and you can figure that out yourself:

Main Entry: in·stinct
Pronunciation: primarystressin-secondarystressstieng(k)t
Function: noun
1 : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
2 :* behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level *

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmedsamp

I think your question has been answered

if you need further classification - sub means below - root - Latin


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Ya got that Yewselfbow !

Learn something dude ... there is actual science behind this stuff !!! Even dictionary defintions ...

[ps ... we''ll lose the 4th Ashes test to you ... then win the 5th ... cheers


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I'm not one to trust people purely based on credentials but pulling up an ever changing contextual definition against a guy who does this kind of analysis for a living and likely has a far deeper understanding of this stuff than we do...?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

He does not have a deeper understanding of what goes through my mind when I shoot than I do - and that definition has been the same ever since I can remember and it makes perfect sense. Just as no matter how many degrees, how many surgical procedures, how high his IQ is, etc... he will never be able to quantifiably test or show an idea in someone's brain - he will never be able to demonstrate the workings of the subconscious.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Ok - maybe Blackwolf might have a point about being able to focus on two things at once - someone posted this on facebook and made me have to give credit to Blackwolf - he may have a point that I never considered:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Ok - maybe Blackwolf might have a point about being able to focus on two things at once - someone posted this on facebook and made me have to give credit to Blackwolf - he may have a point that I never considered:
> 
> 
> View attachment 1729019


Oooooh yeah! :wink: :thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Gents -

The measure of a man can often be determined by what he spends his time debating. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I thought you needed a tape measure for that??? :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Viper1 said:


> Gents -
> 
> The measure of a man can often be determined by what he spends his time debating.
> 
> Viper1 out.


or how many nock locators he ties on his string


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Okay, sometimes I love this thread. What part of me do I get measured?

Honestly, I don't see what isn't being understood, by anybody. Biomechanics, neural functions, cognitive processes, and what we think we're thinking... pick your definition, state it, and use it. All fine by me.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Oooh wait...the true measure of a man only debates form issues. What were we all thinking. Form is the ONLY thing that matters in life....aaaaand the letter T :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Thing of it is nobody is really "debating" anything - more like pounding on the table and screaming "I'm right - listen to me"


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

You're totally right, Matt...so you better ease up on that table! You're gonna break it before I do :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> He does not have a deeper understanding of what goes through my mind when I shoot than I do - and that definition has been the same ever since I can remember and it makes perfect sense. Just as no matter how many degrees, how many surgical procedures, how high his IQ is, etc... he will never be able to quantifiably test or show an idea in someone's brain - he will never be able to demonstrate the workings of the subconscious.


Ironically he's explained some of those workings already. You realize you'll never be able to prove what the subconscious actually is, nevermind there's no such lobe that is "the subconscious". Officially :deadhorse :BangHead: .

For the record I'm finishing a psychology degree so I find debates (not fist slamming arguments) interesting about it. I'd love to learn more from Yewselfbow, but this topic has officially verged into "science is for lame-o's".


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

there is no such "lobe" that is an idea either - but I know that ideas exist just as much as I know that the subconsious exists - table pounded once again!


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

one more pound - I never said "science is for lam-o's" - in fact I have a degree in Applied Science which was necessary for my job.

But science is not infallible - and is often times out right deceptive - consider how many "missing links" have been out right frauds - I could post all of them if you like - and even though they are known to be frauds and have been known as such for decades - they are still sometimes included in textbooks.

You are studying psychology - do you want to get into some of the nonsense that that field of science has perpetuated over the years and then later recanted and renounced?

Just as science will never be able to find, map, and chart where ideas come from - it cannot find, chart, or map the subconscious - at least at the level we are discussing.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Absolutely, but then it's not really science. True science, if kept in the realm which it was meant to study, is generally as infallible as anything on earth can be.

Sure there's plenty of crap in psychology (or was), but there's also plenty useful stuff that's 100% on and backed by science. I've focused as much as I can on neuroscience and clinical psychology, which deals with concepts like the subconscious and obviously the physical workings.

The issue is that the subconscious is a human concept designed to better understand the processes that take place outside our conscious awareness. The examples Yewselfbow has brought up, in the paper and otherwise, are areas of the brain and processes that make up said "subconscious". The fact is that to a degree, science *can* tell you what's going on inside your brain when you take a shot, and this has already been discussed at length.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Yewselfbow - just read the definition of instinct and you can figure that out yourself:
> 
> Main Entry: in·stinct
> Pronunciation: primarystressin-secondarystressstieng(k)t
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up Ken .... what would we do without you

....anyway .. got to go ... I'm about to board a plane to Hong Kong .... play nicely while I'm away


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Yewselfbow said:


> Thanks for clearing that up Ken .... what would we do without you
> 
> ....anyway .. got to go ... I'm about to board a plane to Hong Kong .... play nicely while I'm away


Have a safe and fun trip...

Mac


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

CF - Science is not infallible - most of it is based on theory - and there are sooooo many things that science once held as infallible fact - that later turned out to be false that it would fill volumes to list them all.

You said:

"*The issue is that the subconscious is a human concept designed to better understand the processes that take place outside our conscious awareness*. The examples Yewselfbow has brought up, in the paper and otherwise, are areas of the brain and processes that make up said "subconscious". The fact is that to a degree, science can tell you what's going on inside your brain when you take a shot, and this has already been discussed at length."

Regarding the bold portion - yep - that is 1000000% true. Actually - the whole thing is true - BUT, while it is true that to some degree science can see what is going on inside your brain - it cannot see what is going on inside your mind - just like it cannot see an idea - it cannot see what the archers focus and attention is on.

All the scans in the world can never prove that G. Fred Asbell is a liar when he says that he does not see the arrow when he shoots - that is something that only he knows and no scan can say otherwise.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Ok.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

I really like how this thread has grown from light hearted banter to questioning peoples vocations and fields of study, and round and round and round it goes ... and the nitpicking is often kind of nasty . 

Utter silliness.

its bows and arrows , maybe we should all go outside and shoot them ...


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I personally think discussing the existence of subconscious and the science behind it fascinating, and I'd love to pick the brain of someone who works in an applicable field like Yewselfbow. The questioning vocations, etc, not so much. The intelligent discussion seems more or less at its end - it seems like things are being argued that weren't originally part of the discussion which is why it's getting confusing and redundant. Too damn hot to shoot or I'd be outside .


----------



## doowop (Jul 6, 2011)

Hey Ken, go to you tube and pull " Meet The Champs." Pretty well proves your point.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

It's like I can make my mind hold it's breath...

until it almost feels like my heart stops beating for a second or two...

and nothing in the world exists...

except that spot.










but ever since I started gapping I can't hit chit! :laugh:


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

First air gap your sensitive devices, next take a walk with a shot glass...it is legal.







Thought this thread might benefit from some pics...







Another reason to shoot instinctive is lot's O' bows N lot's O arrows?!


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

dowoop I did a search of "meet the champs" and there are a lot of things that come up - can you give a link - I am interested in seeing this


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

JINKSTER: Careful now. I prefer to cough hard once or twice to get things traditional again.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

That's it time for another ditty - again written by a smarter man than I

--------- 
Here's one to "The battle of New Orleans" by Jimmy Driftwood

One day last weekend we took a little trip
Along with some buddies to the range to shoot a bit.
We took a couple warfers and some nifty carbon shafting
And we shot beside instinctive purists kicking up some leaves.

Well..... We fired our bows the 'stinctives kept a lookin'
They hadn't as many arrows as they had a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to cussin'.
'Bout those stupid carbon arrows and those zippy Warfer Bows.

We looked at the targets and our arrows was a groupin.
And there must have been a dozen of 'em glaring at the bale.
They was still kicking leaves around looking for their arras.
And swearing all the while their instinctive shooting couldn't fail.

Well.... We fired our bows the 'stinctives kept a lookin'
They hadn't as many arrows as they had a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to cussin'.
'Bout those stupid carbon arrows and those zippy Warfer Bows.

My buddy said let's back up cause this 20 yards is boring
He said that we could hit those bales at 30 yards or more.
The 'stinctives said that more than 20 yards wasn't ethical
And when we hit those bullseyes anyway they cussed and swore some more.

Well..... We fired our bows the 'stinctives kept a lookin'
They hadn't as many arrows as they had a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to cussin'.
'Bout those stupid carbon arrows and those zippy Warfer Bows.

Yeah, they looked through the brush and they looked through the briars
and they looked for their arras where a rabbit couldn't go.
They looked so hard that they was kickin' and a spittin and
with all the leaves they kicked they they never found their lost arrows.

Well, we fired our bows and we pulled all our arrows
and we fired 'em again when we got back to the line.
We kept on shootin' till the bales wouldn't stop 'em
then we headed back home after having one great time.

But the 'stinctives glared and they blamed us all for gappin'.
They said we wasn't trad cause we shot 'em to the bull.
We didn't use cedar and we didn't short draw 'em.
And we knew where to find 'em when it came our turn to pull.

hut, hut, three, four....
We don't mind to shoot for score...


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

the only "ditty" I know is the one about Jack and Diane


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

wseward said:


> JINKSTER: Careful now. I prefer to cough hard once or twice to get things traditional again.


Hey...whatever floats your sights...just don't drink the bong water. :laugh:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

This thread became interesting again.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> It's like I can make my mind hold it's breath...
> 
> until it almost feels like my heart stops beating for a second or two...
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as gapping.:smile:


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Now that right there is funny!




Matt_Potter said:


> That's it time for another ditty - again written by a smarter man than I
> 
> ---------
> Here's one to "The battle of New Orleans" by Jimmy Driftwood
> ...


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> It is excellent and helped me to understand the mental game of archery more than anything else I have read.


The book came in today, didn't take long, ordered it from Amazon. The author signed it, too.


----------



## doowop (Jul 6, 2011)

Ken, it is on YouTube. It's an old Wilhelm brothers short. Some amazing shooting.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)




----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Capt JJ - let me know what you think of it - I thought it was excellent - easy to read and filled with great common sense examples of what they are saying.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


>


They are clearly cheating! 

Everyone knows Instinctive Aiming has an unfair advantage shooting at targets like that :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

so much for that phrase that is attributed to Howard Hill about never seeing a good instinctive shooter!


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Have been shooting Instinctive mostly. Pull out my sighted Martin Jag every now and then. My Instinctive 300 round score at 20 yards stinks...so I stuck this sight on my Excel 66" bow (BOOOO!!!...Hissss!!!):







Then on the first shot...for a sight just screwed on and no adjustments...used my poor Instinctive skills to pick the second pin down (yellow) and loose from 12 yards:







I think I will try this sight for a 300 round from 20 yards and see if I can produce a "Hunting" score...then pull off the site to get back to Instinctive!


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

doowop said:


> Ken, it is on YouTube. It's an old Wilhelm brothers short. Some amazing shooting.


Shoot field with their kids - they both shoot Oly - one of them was on the US FITA team that went to France


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

wseward ... hunting pins on recurves is what I grew up with ... and makes a fine hunting rig IMHO !!!

Matt ... very cool how the circle continues with the Wilhelms ... very cool .


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Capt JJ - let me know what you think of it - I thought it was excellent - easy to read and filled with great common sense examples of what they are saying.


Will do. I am the stage where the mental part is what I need to work on to get more consistent, good timing.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

CAPTJJ said:


> Will do. I am the stage where the mental part is what I need to work on to get more consistent, good timing.


There is one word in the english language that every archer needs to learn and utilize at crunch time. PATIENCE. If everyone would just slow the process down when under pressure, you would be amazed at what that does for your shot and shot result. Most of us get under pressure and start shooting too fast, snap shooting, and in general, forgetting all about your form and what got you there. The next time you get into a pressure situation, slow down, take an extra second to collect yourself, take an extra second or two to aim, and do not take your eyes off your aiming spot until the arrow hits the target.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

itbeso said:


> There is one word in the english language that every archer needs to learn and utilize at crunch time. PATIENCE. If everyone would just slow the process down when under pressure, you would be amazed at what that does for your shot and shot result. Most of us get under pressure and start shooting too fast, snap shooting, and in general, forgetting all about your form and what got you there. The next time you get into a pressure situation, slow down, take an extra second to collect yourself, take an extra second or two to aim, and do not take your eyes off your aiming spot until the arrow hits the target.


Rushing the shot is exactly what I am battling now. Have worked out my anchor and my form(we're always working on form, but you know what I mean). The further the distance from the target, the faster I shoot and then form and anchor just go away. Pisses me off to no end because I know what I can do, I just can't make myself do it. Speck


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Speck1 said:


> Rushing the shot is exactly what I am battling now. Have worked out my anchor and my form(we're always working on form, but you know what I mean). The further the distance from the target, the faster I shoot and then form and anchor just go away. Pisses me off to no end because I know what I can do, I just can't make myself do it. Speck


That's funny speck I'm exactly the opposite I can aim until the cows come home on the long ones but give me a 10 yarder and all I want to do is hurry up and pin wheel that thing.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I am like Matt - I usually shoot to slow on the far shots and get out of my norm and to fast on the close ones.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Haven't shot enough competitions to really talk here but I'm probably similar. Aim too hard on long shots. If I'm in a groove it goes better.


----------



## Xero (Apr 20, 2013)

My instincts told me I'd be happier if I owned one of these . . . :teeth:









Sure Loc Quest X 550 -- 

I have two other bows, Samick Sage 40# and Fuse Focus 24#. Long limbs on this bow are 30# and 40#, 28" front stab., 10" sides. 20 yds in the "Archery Barn" -- at paper plates of various diameters. I draw 11" and 16" circles on an appliance box face, pinned to straw bales. 

My instinctive feel for all this is that I'm having fun. Not too concerned how it's defined.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> That's funny speck I'm exactly the opposite I can aim until the cows come home on the long ones but give me a 10 yarder and all I want to do is hurry up and pin wheel that thing.


Matt, I just came off 4 months without shooting. I have been back at it for about 3 weeks, and I have changed a couple of things, but they are not major changes. I believe at this point it is a lack of confidence as much as anything. What bothered me yesterday is started to show up at 25yds and in. Speck


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

My goal is to shoot basically the same speed and rhythm at 10yrds. as I do at 100yrds.

For me...if I spend more time at anchor aiming...it's based on a lack of confidence in myself and I'm holding and aiming longer because of doubt.

Sometimes a little more time is needed but I know the difference between that and doubt.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

itbeso said:


> There is one word in the english language that every archer needs to learn and utilize at crunch time. PATIENCE. If everyone would just slow the process down when under pressure, you would be amazed at what that does for your shot and shot result. Most of us get under pressure and start shooting too fast, snap shooting, and in general, forgetting all about your form and what got you there. The next time you get into a pressure situation, slow down, take an extra second to collect yourself, take an extra second or two to aim, and do not take your eyes off your aiming spot until the arrow hits the target.


Patience I've got and pressure isn't really an issue for me, playing sports helped with that. I need to work on maintaining my concentration, especially focusing on the spot I want to hit.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Ray, good point, that kind of consistency is what makes shooting with a clicker "easier". Depends on what you're shooting though right? I.e. rabbit runs in front of you snap shooting might work fine.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

CAPTJJ said:


> Patience I've got and pressure isn't really an issue for me, playing sports helped with that. I need to work on maintaining my concentration, especially focusing on the spot I want to hit.


JJ, you stated you needed to work on the mental part of your game. If you reread my post, it is all about the mental part of archery because most of us mentally break down at the critical parts of our shots. Of course, on the internet, no one ever crumbles under pressure. I've been shooting for 4 decades and I call b.s. on anyone who tells me they don't feel or respond to pressure. Your initial post seemed like you were looking for advice, sorry for misinterpretating.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Ray, good point, that kind of consistency is what makes shooting with a clicker "easier". Depends on what you're shooting though right? I.e. rabbit runs in front of you snap shooting might work fine.


Exactly! :thumbs_up

I was addressing target competition and the majority of my practice sessions.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

itbeso said:


> JJ, you stated you needed to work on the mental part of your game. If you reread my post, it is all about the mental part of archery because most of us mentally break down at the critical parts of our shots. Of course, on the internet, no one ever crumbles under pressure. I've been shooting for 4 decades and I call b.s. on anyone who tells me they don't feel or respond to pressure. Your initial post seemed like you were looking for advice, sorry for misinterpretating.


I appreciate the advice. I was responding to Ken about the book he suggested: The Mental Mechanics of Archery. What I meant is there is no pressure when I am shooting in my yard, I am not into competitive archery, just bowhunting. I agree that patience is really important when shooting at game, its definitely important to not rush the shot. Also, when I am practicing I do much better when I only shoot one arrow at a time; when I shoot groups things sometimes start to fall apart. So I could be getting fatigued and starting to rush things, you may be onto something. Thanks.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Exactly! :thumbs_up
> 
> I was addressing target competition and the majority of my practice sessions.
> 
> ...


Gotcha, I'm with you on that. I don't think I really ever practice snap shooting, if I do it for some reason (specific situation) it's more or less a shortened shot sequence.


----------

