# Purely Instinctive Challenge



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Ive met that type many times and the reason why Wheel shooters paint us all with the same brush, sometimes we can turn the tide.

A few years ago I was shooting North American Field champs in Miami with my buddy, we just got to the 80y walkup, a big holdup as it takes time/focus for this one, when it was our turn one of the Wheel guys call to my buddy "whats the green stuff in your Longbow", my buddy replies "Wood" then the wheel guy snorts and says "Dont know why you guys shoot those bows, you cant hit squat with them" my buddy draws up on 80y stake and shoots an 'X' walks to 70y shoots a 5, then 3 and 4 for 17 points, I cant repeat what all the wheel guys said while spotting with Binos, when we got to the target and pulling arrows my buddy grins at me and says, "Its the first time I ever shot a 17 on the 80y walkup, I couldnt have done it at a better time" :wink:


----------



## The Blue Raja (Mar 10, 2012)

Steve, thanks - it is amazing where we find inspiration. You are a great asset to the single string community. I follow your posts with great interest.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Just about the best post in the trad forum I have ever read I read it to my wife and she is still laughing. I can close my eyes and see him. Thank you for a good laugh.

Gary


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

The Blue Raja said:


> For any archer who thinks he or she shoots "purely instinctive" go ahead and make some blinders or goggles of your choosing, obscuring everything but the target. Let's put this "bore a hole pick a spot" (or is it pick a bore spot a hole? I often get it confused) "muscle memory" nonsense to rest once and for all.
> 
> Who amongst you is an archer enough to accept this most formidable challenge?


Let me start off by apologizing for his immature outbursts. 

Before you start challenging others on Pure Instinctive Aiming...you need to understand what is involved with it.

Yes....muscle/motor memory is a BIG part of it...BUT...the sight picture also plays a roll...which is also why Instinctive archers also shoot better in lighted environments when compared to total darkness.

One of the differences between a Gap shooter or String Walker and an archer aiming purely Instinctively is how the brain process all the information.

Ray :shade: 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Let me start off by apologizing for his immature outbursts.
> 
> Before you start challenging others on Pure Instinctive Aiming...you need to understand what is involved with it.
> 
> ...


+1 to that. It's fools parading around like that that give trad shooters such a poor name. I shoot a longbow cause I want to, not because I think shooting an Oly rig is "cheating" somehow (barely comparable in some respects) but because it's just different. The term "instinctive" has become obviously *******ized, but I definitely agree with what Ray said, it's a matter of how the brains processes information. "Instinctive" isn't supposed to be a pseudo-spiritual term, the way most use it who can actually shoot simply use the term to refer to conscious attention paid to the arrow or not.


----------



## sawtoothscream (Apr 19, 2008)

I just look where I want it to hit. tried string walking and gap and didnt like it. That being said 40yds is about the max I can shoot instinctive with, after that I need to gap. That being said I also dont care about aiming style. Use what works for you and I will use what works for me. Arguing is dumb, just have fun


----------



## tpcowfish (Aug 11, 2008)

Hmmm , where's Sharp when ya need him, :wink:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

It doesn't sound like the test was very conclusive given that the guy was shooting s poorly anyway.


----------



## Brianlocal3 (Dec 14, 2011)

tpcowfish said:


> Hmmm , where's Sharp when ya need him, :wink:


This has nothing to do with Ken (sharp) so no need to be the little crap disturber on the play ground. Ken shoots what has become known as instinctive in the world of archery. He will be one of the first to say the blinders won't work. You NEED the whole site picture enemy if you choose not to utilize it all on a focused level. Personally I'm a 3U split vision shooter, but on moving or aerials I do not set my gap like I do on a 3D target. I still set it but less precise. It becomes more of a guesstimation.


----------



## tpcowfish (Aug 11, 2008)

I was just joking, I have nothing against anyone on here, Sharp included, The original post struck me odd, sorry if I offended anyone


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Proof is on the paper. Didn't need blinders to prove anything, if he wasn't hitting the target from the start.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Proof is always on the paper, doesn't matter who it is. I recently shot a 300 round with some fellow archers who happened to be shooting compounds, one of them a former NFAA World Champion. I received compliments and nothing but positives from these gentlemen and it just goes to show you it always the person, not what bow they have in their hand. They asked to shoot my DAS and in return allowed me to shoot their equipment. -


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I know that i for one certainly wouldn't take that challenge...cause this is how aiming instinctively works for me..

I've often times mentioned that "nothing in the world exists except that spot"..well?..that's only at the moment of release..prior to that?..before the shot even starts?.."EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD EXISTS"....and reference points abound...acting like a veritable plethora of radar towers that allow my mind to bounce a signal off of and ultimately?..visualize the arrows flight path prior to even drawing the bow..then as i draw the bow?..all the reference points go away and just that flight path tunnel to the spot remains but at the moment of release?.."ONLY"..that spot remains...if that makes sense.

And is the very reason why...i don't believe i would do very well at all attemptng to aim instinctively in an indoor range setting as there's not very many reference points at all there and not a whole lot to visualize arrow flight off of and is where more focus would have to be shifted onto gapping off the point/arrow/shelf.

This..is how i would feel attempting to aim instinctively while shooting at an indoor range...










Then again?...i understand and accept that "aiming instictively" is gapping...off a whole bunch of things..that starts out at an extremely high level of consciousness and once fight path is visualized?.. it transcends "That Spot" over everything else sending ALL else to a lower level of consciousness..and at that point if i lose focus on that spot?..i just lost visualized flight path as well..stop, let-down...start over.

It's fairly obvious what you ran into...me?..i think if an archer who's worth his salt who truely knows and proclaims himself to be "Soley Instinctive Aiming"?...the last place you would find him attempting to shoot would be an indoor range..as he'd know he was lost the moment he walked through the door stepping to the range lanes and lines.

jmho & L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

There are many types of shooters out there and no matter what your style being a blow hard is never received well.

I have nothing positive or negative to say about how G Fred shoots and I DO Not Try to emulate his shooting style but ill bet my last dollar he has been more successful than you in the field. 

So it looks to me like 2 blow hards meet at the range


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

JParanee said:


> There are many types of shooters out there and no matter what your style being a blow hard is never received well.
> 
> I have nothing positive or negative to say about how G Fred shoots and I DO Not Try to emulate his shooting style but ill bet my last dollar he has been more successful than you in the field.
> 
> So it looks to me like 2 blow hards meet at the range


JOE! LOL! :laugh:

i thought it..but you had the nads to say it...btw,,,nice having you back! :thumbs_up

Bill.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> I know that i for one certainly wouldn't take that challenge...cause this is how aiming instinctively works for me..
> 
> I've often times mentioned that "nothing in the world exists except that spot"..well?..that's only at the moment of release..prior to that?..before the shot even starts?.."EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD EXISTS"....and reference points abound...acting like a veritable plethora of radar towers that allow my mind to bounce a signal off of and ultimately?..visualize the arrows flight path prior to even drawing the bow..then as i draw the bow?..all the reference points go away and just that flight path tunnel to the spot remains but at the moment of release?.."ONLY"..that spot remains...if that makes sense.
> 
> ...





JINKSTER said:


> JOE! LOL! :laugh:
> 
> i thought it..but you had the nads to say it...btw,,,nice having you back! :thumbs_up
> 
> Bill.


Thx Bill


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

I am not a good instinctive aimer but I am certainly not knocking it. A truly good instinctive aimer, I believe, is using his entire environment to aim. Therefore you cant close off their environment with blinders and expect them to shoot well. Instinctive aiming is also more calming and relaxed, as there is less tension in setting everything up for the shot, as the shooter has ingrained all of this with much practice. This post is suspicious however, that's for certain.


----------



## BOHO (Aug 7, 2004)

thats amazing. I thought G Fred could hit a softball every shot at 25 yards. Ive read all his books and stuff. Surprising


----------



## J-san (Oct 12, 2004)

I meet guys like that on the golf course frequently. Fancy $1000+ set of clubs, monogrammed towels and balls, complete matching golf attire, etc. etc. You can tell from their 50 practice swings that they will be anywhere but the fairway. They finally tee up, take a homerun swing and hit such a wicked slice you think the ball ought to rip in half from the side spin. They then get pissed and start cursing about how they should have purchased the next level up club or something and get even madder when they see you hit a nice fading drive 200 yards along the fairway with barely a practice swing and using hand-me-down clubs and a recovered golf ball from the water hazard. 

Fortunately, my local archery range has a lot of really nice people and I really never see anyone who feels like they have something to prove. I do see a number of traditional shooter who routinely snap-shoot and can barely keep their arrows on a NFAA single spot at 20 yards, but we have a good time chatting and admiring each others' bows.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> I am not a good instinctive aimer but I am certainly not knocking it. A truly good instinctive aimer, I believe, is using his entire environment to aim. Therefore you cant close off their environment with blinders and expect them to shoot well. Instinctive aiming is also more calming and relaxed, as there is less tension in setting everything up for the shot, as the shooter has ingrained all of this with much practice. This post is suspicious however, that's for certain.


I agree with everything...especially the last part..starts out inferring a diverse acceptance and respect for competitive compound archers but then slams the first cat walk'in through the door with a non ilf and look'in like G. Fred..and the guy wanted to shoot with him and set up alongside of him and what he do?..makes a set of blinders and shames the poor guy into wearing them..when it seems he was just looking for some trad fellowship..pretty bold post for post #5.

And that's why i like outdoor ranges waaaaay better than indoor ranges cause i can just smile and walk away...far away. :laugh:


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Ken would have had a blast with this thread....instinctive this instinctive that...he could have argued this thread for at least 4 pages
Maybe more....


Dewayne Martin


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

vabowdog said:


> Ken would have had a blast with this thread....instinctive this instinctive that...he could have argued this thread for at least 4 pages
> Maybe more....
> 
> 
> Dewayne Martin


Dewayne...my call would be 9-11 pages with the last 2-3 being ken and ray going at it and then a lock. :laugh:


----------



## The Blue Raja (Mar 10, 2012)

Dare I ask, who is this Ken fellow and why would he have had a blast with this thread?


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

Blue,

I do understand your analogy of the kind of guy you met...go to any traditional shoot and they abound....but please don't call a moron like this G. Fred, as you did...and then a doppleganger.....to me,,that is a disservice to Fred and what he has done....merely by what the guy wears....alot of people of Fred's generation wore fedoras and plaid..and still do.....this guy obviously is a wannabe...heck, Fred Bear wore a fedora....many men of that age did....

To link this guy to Asbell because of how he looked, and futily tried to shoot that way, in my opinion, an insult to Asbell and everything he has done for traditional archery..I hope that was not your intent....

This is one more instance of those withing the "traditional" family beating up on each other.....he mocked your shooting style and equipment, and you in return did the same to him, by mocking his outfit and instinctive shooting....in my mind you both "profiled" each other....as I have read many times on this forum....if he wants to shoot that way....so be it...if you shoot your way....so be it.....

Yes, unfortunately it is true that most of the bowhunting community has the image of trad being guys in plaid with fedoras, etc....shooting instinctively and not hitting anything....and many of us play into that....and I do find, that after attending years of traditional shoots as both a vendor and a participant....there is a correlation between those who play "dress up" and poor shooting....but I have read many times, and been chastised as well that everyone comes at this from a different perspective...he was obviously a blow hard, attention getting wannabe....but please don't equate him with Asbell or others....

If this is going to be an instinctive vs other methods thread..hang on till I get a beer and some nachos and can enjoy "traditional" shooters beating up on each other again.....looks like the dead horse is about to get another beating.......


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I think the whole original post is B.S. and nothing more than an attempt to get start an argument.


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

I also agree with JParanee...G Fred gets a bad rap....but I am willing to bet he has more dead critters on his wall than most on this forum, and has done more for the promotion and enhancement for archery, and traditional archery specifically, than most here in total.....and is in the ARCHERY Hall of Fame, not the Tradtional Hall of Fame....his shooting schools through Black Widow are usually packed, his books still are among the best selling, and his booth at trad shoots is one of the most crowded....and I have several friends who know and shoot with Fred....I have been told if you go stump shooting with Fred for money....take plenty of dollar bills along!

If Asbell, Sharp, Fred Eichler, Barry Wensel, etc say they shoot Instinctively...then they do...no matter what your or my definition of it is.....


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I met G Fred in 2004 Denton Hill, one of the nicest guys I ever met, he took the time to talk with me and even invited me to fling some arrows with him all this after saying I enjoyed his book but found the shooting style wasn't suited to me i.e Im a long range Field/3D shooter, the man has some class and glad I met him.:thumbs_up


----------



## woodpecker1 (Sep 6, 2012)

is this real? is there a double out there of g. fred asbel?:jksign:would someone really go to an indoorrange double quivered with a knife on his belt looking like hes walking the oregon trail, in search of big game just to pick on another trad shooter over a wheel shooter?lol even his bowstring was to big looking with a huge set of catwhiskers.omg! this is a tall tale if i ever heard its one thing to say things about a man, but all that extra nonsense about his gear ,FICTION!


The Blue Raja said:


> Okay, so I was at an indoor archery range today and as usual, ended up shooting with a some compound archers, which is fine with me because I have a great deal of respect for their ability to concentrate and the precision of their style. Anyway, in walks G. Fred himself. Well, he was dressed just like G Fred anyway - khaki pants, plaid shirt, brand spanking new felt fedora with a feather and turned up brim, leather back quiver, leather armguard, leather shooting glove, he even had a knife on his belt. Wood laminate recurve with a riser that looked like it would serve as a boat anchor. Bow quiver (he had both a bow quiver and a back quiver, with several dozen custom crested wood arrows, spliced fletching, but ended up using the ground quivers like everyone else), enough cat whiskers to caulk a boat. Of course a nice fat Dacron Flemish twist string and a brass nocking point the size of a wedding ring completed the look.
> 
> So, he wanders over to me and snorts at my gear. After scoffing at my rest and plunger, he wants to know about the rest of the bow. I explain, ILF riser, performance limbs, FF string, tie-on nock, tab, Olympic style armguard, target arrows. I am also wearing a chest protector. He snorts -what's with the man bra? I ignore him and hope he goes away. Of course he sets up next to me. "Let's show these guys what happens when you take off your training wheels." Oh, lets! I think to myself.
> 
> ...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

It's up to everyone to either choose to continue the prejudices or stop it in it's tracks with your responses in interacting with one another.

How do we do that?

Open your heart to different opinions and realize that another person's opinion is NOT necessarily an attack on you just because they may disagree with you.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with using an aiming technique other than Instinctive Aiming. IT IS NOT CHEATING OR UNTRADITIONAL!

There are inherent advantages and disadvantages with specific aiming techniques under specific circumstances... generally speaking.

Just because an archer chooses to aim Totally Instinctively does NOT mean they are choosing mediocrity. In many cases...it is the best technique that fits their personal goals, abilities and personality.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

I can't be the only one that gets turned off by these aiming argument threads? Other then working on getting ones form down who in the heck cares how one person or another aims.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Arron said:


> Other then working on getting ones form down who in the heck cares how one person or another aims.


There's generally 3 types of people who care :

1. New archers/archers struggling with their current aiming technique. 
2. Coaches
3. People who are insecure with their abilities.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Just from shear curiosity to this topic, (because I am one of those who don't care how someone shoots, as long as it works for them) I'm going to post a variation of the test you did.

We performed this test twice, and it was done quite a number of years ago.

At a 20 yard indoor range with no windows, and a door that would close it off from the retail shop we conducted the following test.

At a nighttime shoot, we closed the door, and turned off all of the lights. It was pitch dark with the lights off.

We placed a 2" dot on the target butt wall, and used a laser aim pointer to illuminate it. It was very visible, but no illumination around it, or anywhere else in the room.

There were close to 20 shooters on each occasion, and each one took a turn shooting 5 arrows at the spot.

Most of the shots from each shooter were spread out in what would be described as a 4 to 5 foot grouping.
Some of the shooter actually shot the floor several times, and a couple of them hit the ceiling above the target butt.

The only shooter on both occasions that actually had a decent group, and hit the dot, was one of the guys who did not claim to be an instinctive shooter, and openly professed to being a gap shooter.

Go figure. 8^)

Rick


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Rick Barbee said:


> The only shooter on both occasions that actually had a decent group, and hit the dot, was one of the guys who did not claim to be an instinctive shooter, and openly professed to being a gap shooter.
> 
> Go figure. 8^)
> 
> Rick


And his name was Luke Skywalker :wink:


----------



## retro-grouch (Mar 19, 2005)

Not bragging, but you would not want to be standing in front of me when I shoot in nearly complete dark. I mean dark enough that I can not see any portion of my arrow. I often shoot bows in the dark just so I can focus on how much noise the bow is making. The closest light is a street light that is about 75 yards from where I shoot and it is directly behind me. While it does allow me to see the outline of my target, it does not allow me to see the arrow. Being a bowhunter only, I don't often shoot at any time more than 25 yards. Most of my nightime shooting is at 15yds or less.

As far as stereotyping some of our peers(spell??). I don't have much in common with most guys who post here, but THATS my problem. Carry on.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

steve morley said:


> And his name was Luke Skywalker :wink:


LOL, nope

It was Obi Wan. Luke was still havin a little trouble feelin the force in those days. 8^)

How ya doin these days Steve?
Been a long time.

Rick


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

It's funny how recognizable a writing style is - LOL 

Matt


----------



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

Arron said:


> I can't be the only one that gets turned off by these aiming argument threads? Other then working on getting ones form down who in the heck cares how one person or another aims.


For certain…you are not alone. I, also, do not care about how another person aims/shoots. I know virtually every method written about…and disparage none of them...but shoot the way that works for me. Children can/have learned how to shoot, as we say, “instinctively” for many thousands of years…and gone on to succeed with “archery’s greatest challenge” which, IMO, has always been putting food on the table. As children tend to be less conflicted than adults, I’m sure they might be able to offer an explanation of how they shoot…just hard to find an accepting audience, besides another child.

Actually, it’s hard to find the grain of salt with this post that might lead towards acceptance. A “Purely Instinctive Challenge” being presented as a so called challenge to some/any/all definitions or interpretations of “Instinctive”…by, apparently, someone making a case about something that that person doesn’t believe to exist. Also…it would seem to be apparent that the OP’s fairly obvious slants to the story are to take the unsuspecting readers towards the same belief the OP had before the encounter occurred...and using a certain existing buzz to enlist/solicit support. 

Don’t see much for “archer’s helping archers here”…on to another post. Rick.


----------



## vulcan12 (Oct 9, 2007)

I hope I can meet Fred someday for many reasons, one being to apologize to him for others.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Nokhead (Jun 10, 2012)

Methinks the problem is with terminology again. I consider myself an "instinctive" shooter...but I'd be the first to admit that I certainly have to aim, I just don't think about aiming. I would agree with Ferguson that the "instinctive" shooter first learns to gap, and then goes one step beyond the gap, which is to stop thinking about the gap. !!! The brain does the gapping on it's own, while the shooter concentrates on the target. ??

I also believe, but I could be wrong, (!!!!) that _very generally_ speaking, someone using the gap, string walking, or sights will produce smaller (sometimes much smaller) groups on the target range, but the "instinctive" shooter will be a little better at actually getting the arrow into the kill zone of an animal, under different conditions, lighting, and shooting positions than the gapper, walker, or the guy with the sights, possibly because the animal has less time to spot the hunter and get away, possibly because there's less time for buck fever to set in!

Or not. !! Too many variables, and it all comes down to the individual, like the Wolf says.


----------



## dave19113 (Jan 31, 2013)

vulcan12 said:


> I hope I can meet Fred someday for many reasons, one being to apologize to him for others.
> 
> Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2


 I met him... great guy..... The person who shot his mouth off is just a moron.... there are tons out there shooting tons of different equipment....

I met a guy once who was trying to explain why I needed $300.00 worth of scent cloths as he smoked a cigarette right before getting into his stand.... Just smile then go kill a deer....


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> It's funny how recognizable a writing style is - LOL


Is it that obvious? I would hate to think someone is being a little deceitful. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## Tracker12 (Sep 22, 2003)

JParanee said:


> There are many types of shooters out there and no matter what your style being a blow hard is never received well.
> 
> I have nothing positive or negative to say about how G Fred shoots and I DO Not Try to emulate his shooting style but ill bet my last dollar he has been more successful than you in the field.
> 
> So it looks to me like 2 blow hards meet at the range



I have to agree with you on this one.


----------



## AddicTioN (Nov 19, 2012)

So being that I have a longbow with natural wood limbs and a leather quiver leather glove and arm guard means I'm a fake? That's about the most ridiculous statement I have herd since being on AT. Leather last a lifetime and a wood bow is simple no tuning no extra plungers or anything like that. Also I'm not sure why your giving instinctive shooting a bad rep..but I don't feel like getting into a argument so ill leave it at that.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

AddicTioN said:


> So being that I have a longbow with natural wood limbs and a leather quiver leather glove and arm guard means I'm a fake? That's about the most ridiculous statement I have herd since being on AT. Leather last a lifetime and a wood bow is simple no tuning no extra plungers or anything like that. Also I'm not sure why your giving instinctive shooting a bad rep..but I don't feel like getting into a argument so ill leave it at that.


Totally off topic but you still need to tune your longbow. It will boost accyract and performance IMMENSELY and you mentioned wanting to use an expandle- you'll have serious issues with an expandable if you're arrows and bow aren't tuned up! If you haven't there's a brief how to on my site for tuning your Omega.


----------



## AddicTioN (Nov 19, 2012)

kegan said:


> Totally off topic but you still need to tune your longbow. It will boost accyract and performance IMMENSELY and you mentioned wanting to use an expandle- you'll have serious issues with an expandable if you're arrows and bow aren't tuned up! If you haven't there's a brief how to on my site for tuning your Omega.


No worrys kegan my omega is tuned but what I was meaning was its nothing like a compound or a bow with a raised rest or plunger . Just bare shaft tune arrows and nock point and my bow seemed pretty accurate. Sorry my post was unclear there is "some"tuning to a long bow but nothing like my compound bow


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Oh! Ok, no issues. Yeah, only have the most brief experiences messing with tuning compounds... I'd rather tune a fully decked out FITA rig than one of those bad boys! Rest and plunger are nothing, just act like they're a very well designed arrow shelf


----------



## AddicTioN (Nov 19, 2012)

kegan said:


> Oh! Ok, no issues. Yeah, only have the most brief experiences messing with tuning compounds... I'd rather tune a fully decked out FITA rig than one of those bad boys! Rest and plunger are nothing, just act like they're a very well designed arrow shelf


Yea really when I got my longbow I put a nock on loose about a 1/4 above center. Shot it moved it up some and was pretty accurate minus my not so great skills at trad archery. But it was a treat compared to my compound!! Which may soon be sold depending how long it takes you to break out that ilf long bow


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Don't hold your breath, I want to work out all the kinks before I start selling them. It's going to probably take a while


----------



## woodpecker1 (Sep 6, 2012)

remeber when dryad started out with just a simple deantorges style bbo. then they moved into glass bows and now they make the sheep eater and all this ilf stuff. static limbs and all! they made it pretty far and it hasnt even takin them a super long time to do it. the hardest part is all the trial and error witch is sadly a verry expensive path to travel !been there many times and im sure most bowyers have. im sure youll turn out a real nice ilf, good luck :wink: kegan


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

It shouldn't take me TOO long, all the effort by those before has made it easier than ever to make a great ILF bow without mush trouble- I just need more machining practice


----------



## woodpecker1 (Sep 6, 2012)

:mg:machining! i wonder if ya could make a belly mount ilf?that would be verry inovative


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

JParanee said:


> There are many types of shooters out there and no matter what your style being a blow hard is never received well.
> 
> I have nothing positive or negative to say about how G Fred shoots and I DO Not Try to emulate his shooting style but ill bet my last dollar he has been more successful than you in the field.
> 
> So it looks to me like 2 blow hards meet at the range



:rockband: :set1_applaud: And got into a silly pissing match and both came out stankin.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

The Blue Raja said:


> Dare I ask, who is this Ken fellow and why would he have had a blast with this thread?



You seemed to know quite well who he was on Dec 23rd at 5:11 pm.
He actually wouldn't have a blast with this thread because he lets blowhards stress him out. He's also not too tolerant of people who come in the forum spouting off about a subject they obviously don't understand,yet insist on trying to define instinctive shooting and what it is and is not for others.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> It's funny how recognizable a writing style is - LOL
> 
> Matt


I thought the same but I guess I don't care enough just yet to think much about it. That will probably change soon though. :zip:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Thank you Fotoguy for the perspective check.

It's an amusing story, but whether it's real or not, I have not personally met anybody like that, and it's not a general representation of most archers out there, instinctive or not. Heck, I know lots of archers that like to dress up for the more 'Traditional' events, myself included (I've got a really cool cloak!), but while in some circles there may be a dysfunctional bias towards a particular method of aiming as the 'right' way to do things, for the most part, people are pretty good at letting other people shoot the way that they want.

As for Mr. GFA, while I don't subscribe to a lot of what he proposes, I have learned things from reading this books that did work for me, and he is without doubt a far more successful hunter than I  I've enjoyed all of the three books that I've read of his, and would buy another if it popped up in front of me. You can tell he has a genuine passion for what he does, is sincere in how he does it, and in that respect, is certainly qualified as a role model.


----------



## spcenigma (Apr 3, 2007)

Don't take the bait from a troll.

It is a shame to run down a man's good name, especially G Fred, with this attempt at humor.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It's up to everyone to either choose to continue the prejudices or stop it in it's tracks with your responses in interacting with one another.
> 
> How do we do that?
> 
> ...


I so wish more people could have the MO of open-mindedness and not feeling threatened by new or different information, simply being able to view it as objectively as they can and try to understand it - this would make a for a much more productive world no matter what way you look at it. Humans are pathetically unadaptive sometimes (myself included).


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> I so wish more people could have the MO of open-mindedness and not feeling threatened by new or different information, simply being able to view it as objectively as they can and try to understand it - this would make a for a much more productive world no matter what way you look at it. Humans are pathetically unadaptive sometimes (myself included).


I'm glad to see there's at least one other person who agrees with me on that :wink: :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'm glad to see there's at least one other person who agrees with me on that :wink: :thumbs_up
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


At least two. I'd venture to say, more than that in this group. As much as there is a tendency to get reactive and spiral out of control from time to time, I also see as much reconciling of reality, where people can have their own preferences and opinions.

But, yes, if we can actually stop to make the effort to actually understand what somebody's saying, and be okay with them having that perspective, instead of jumping on it to be right about our own, everything goes farther, and to a better result.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Barney: Well said!

Ray: The nutrition and training industry would sure be a lot better off as I'm sure you'd be able to appreciate


----------



## airwolf (Jul 28, 2005)

this is the kind of thread I wish sharp was still around for, there are not many purely instinctive shooters but I imagine there will be a couple guys on here willing to accept that challenge


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Barney: Well said!
> 
> Ray: The nutrition and training industry would sure be a lot better off as I'm sure you'd be able to appreciate


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

Blue, Entertaining opening post- I enjoyed it.

I was initially turned off to trad shooting by more than one of these bozos but now have come to know some stickbow guys who I highly respect. Heres one right back at ya;

I was on a moose hunt in northern Canada [compound] sharing camp with 2 trad guys. I was intrigued by their equipment and the whole "Why and How" of it all until they just went on and on about how horrid the compound is, and how they can just draw and shoot- insufferable guys that got worse when they saw me put 6 arrows in a 4" spot at unmarked distances out to about 55 yards. I did my best to let it go, the guide was a friend of mine.

The one guy just kept on me though. The guide and I had a few snickers about how he just glowed in the evergreen forest wearing his Sleeping Indian snow camo everywhere. I tagged out, then went to video for them. We called a big bull in to him at about 10 yards. I have a solid one minute of video with him in the foreground-shaking like a leaf. Never did step out and shoot- he couldn't move. In an alcoholic stupor later he admitted he couldn't draw his bow and had wet himself. We about wet ourselves laughing at that campfire. The other guy rifled one but made us take the photos the next day- him, the bull and his longbow. I'm sure the boys back home in SD got a different story.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

airwolf said:


> this is the kind of thread I wish sharp was still around for, there are not many purely instinctive shooters but I imagine there will be a couple guys on here willing to accept that challenge


There's actually plenty on here...especially based on how sharp claims to aim.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Beendare,

I can't stand 'elitist' attitudes....especially when a person has absolutely nothing to back up their attitudes with any kind of skill and just rely on their choice making them 'elite' in their own minds.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I find the Elitist types are the ones that refuse to try any other form of Archery blindly thinking their way is not only the best but the only way to shoot a bow.

I believe that you you should try every bow at least once, from Primitive to high Tec compound, 3D to 90m target shooting, I think we would have a lot more respect going around in this sport.


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

I guess over all these years of hunting, I tend to usually only have long talks with people who hunt, (just like having something in common for a talk to last more then 15 min.) & what weapons they perfer to use, heard alot of stickbow hunter this, compound hunter that, etc. I don't think it's the weapon someones uses, but the person, that you like or dis-like. It can be the stickbow guy who talks the talk & dresses the part, or the guy with the lastest compound with all the toys & a carbon suit, & at the moment of truth when a buck is standing in front of them, & they always seem to fall apart, it does not matter how there dressed or the weapon they use, it's the person that fell apart. Usually if ya don't like-um with a bow, ya won't like-um with a fishing rod also.
Maybe someone who is trying so hard to prove something to you, is really trying to prove something to themself & working on there own demons, & just don't know it yet. Sometimes those that tear down others do so to build up themself. 
From what I've seen over the years, for the most part is, a hunter is a hunter, a shooter is a shooter, (and every now & them the two don't go hand in hand) no matter the weapon, or how they aim or how ya look won't change that.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

G Fred, has become a description of trad bowhunters for me - the name is all I need to hear to get a real clear picture of what type archer the op was talking about................price of fame I suppose. Sure would like to see his shoot a softball every time at 25 yards sometime.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Wayko said:


> Maybe someone who is trying so hard to prove something to you, is really trying to prove something to themself & working on there own demons, & just don't know it yet. Sometimes those that tear down others do so to build up themself.
> From what I've seen over the years, for the most part is, a hunter is a hunter, a shooter is a shooter, (and every now & them the two don't go hand in hand) no matter the weapon, or how they aim or how ya look won't change that.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I can recall a day when i was obsessed with being the best...until i peaked my wheelbow skills...and then the harder i tried?..the more miserably i failed..but until that time?..if something worked for me?..it was the only way and no one could tell me any different and if they tried?..i simply turned a deaf ear..during such time?..i was often times indignant if not belligerent towards others that at a glance?..i could write off as "less thans"...that was nearly 3 decades ago..i was a mid 20's young former marine..and extremely competitive.

But i always had the utmost respect for the archers shooting recurves and longbows..no matter what they wore...wether it was gentlemen white with curly vanes and clickers or flannel with hats and turkey feathers...cause while the guys in white could show me how to stick a spot?..the guys in flannel could show how to find a spot to stick. :laugh:


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Beendare,
> 
> I can't stand 'elitist' attitudes....especially when a person has absolutely nothing to back up their attitudes with any kind of skill and just rely on their choice making them 'elite' in their own minds.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Agreed. Especially when we are talking "Archery" or "Bowhunting".....now if you are a world renown Back surgeon [a buddy] who has all of the worst cases on your doorstep and you hold their quality of life in your hands [and the weight of something going wrong on your conscience] I suppose you have a right though if you met him on a range you would never know. It seems to me, the guys that "can" are the ones at peace with their abilities and aren't on display as in the OP's example.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Beendare said:


> Agreed. Especially when we are talking "Archery" or "Bowhunting".....now if you are a world renown Back surgeon [a buddy] who has all of the worst cases on your doorstep and you hold their quality of life in your hands [and the weight of something going wrong on your conscience] I suppose you have a right though if you met him on a range you would never know. *It seems to me, the guys that "can" are the ones at peace with their abilities and aren't on display as in the OP's example*.


Exactly. Just because they aren't young doesn't mean they're not insecure. It can look different when you're older, often covered up with a wall of blind pride, but one doesn't need to be verbally defensive and emotional about their abilities or choices if they can speak for themselves. The only time it's necessary to tear down others in an attempt to build oneself up (in this case making excuses for his crap shooting) is when one isn't confident in one's own abilities, hence our so called "trad" friend here. Next time simply tell him that his argument is fallacious in nature and therefore illogical and not worth debating. I doubt Jimmy Blackmon would be parading around muttering about training wheels at an indoor shoot - neither would Steve, Ray, Kegan, etc etc.


----------



## BigCnyn (Nov 5, 2008)

I think shooting a bow any-way you aim, becomes a TOTALITY of circumstances. 
Whatever you are trying to accomplish, becomes the goal, but to get there, the WHOLE picture becomes involved.You have to "Sub" or "Consciously" be aware of the picture to be accurate..
Prove to me that you do not see it subconsciously !!! cause I don't believe it..

And I can't prove you are not gapping,--- so all else equal its a Draw... Over time we teach ourselves what that shot should look like and Walllaaa...

:wink:


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

I have learned over the many years of my life that _if_ I keep an open mind I can learn something from most anyone...even if it's only what _not_ to do. I read a tremendous amount of articles about traditional archery and bow hunting. Some are written by people who are legends in archery that I respect and some by people I've never heard of. I've learned from both. I've incorporated the things that helped my archery pursuits and cast away those that didn't. All in all it's made me a better archer. I've tried gapping, didn't care for it. Tried stringwalking...absolutely love it and use it on occasion as the shot dictates. I settled on split vision....and anything else that helps me hit where I'm aiming.

I learn something every time I read...even if it's only not to waste my time reading that particular person's ramblings again. I enjoy a good debate and hate to see people in a "manhood measuring" contest.

The first post in the thread is one of the later and I'll dismiss it......


----------



## nineworlds9 (Aug 12, 2012)

Blue- bold thread, LoL. First, that guy was the exception, not the rule, don't ever judge trad archery or bowhunting by people like that. There's a name for people like that in any sport and the initials are G.Q. But who knows really what kind of guy he was, you had him zeroed in and assessed from the moment he walked in and had a plan of how to deal with him before he said a word. I understand that G.Fred came to mind with what the guy was wearing, but as others have said G.Fred has a well earned reputation and is one of the gurus of the hunting/instinctive end of the sport and deserves respect, IMHO for what he's done for bowhunting more so even than shooting. To be honest, I understand your frustration with someone like that, HOWEVER, I think you've done what many others have done and that is misinterpreted what instinctive shooting actually is. The blinders experiment was doomed to fail unless you had someone exceptionally talented to work with, even then, it'd be a longshot. Kinda like a star NBA player who can shoot a hoop from halfway down the court. Instinctive is about proprioception, quick range estimation, and a bunch of other things coming together. Like someone else said above, a 'totality' of the shot. Really your average claimed instinctive shooter is not going to put all that together..they're probably using a hybridized system of aiming and just not thinking about it. I would probably fall into that category. I try to 'not care' when I'm making a shot and generally when that works is when I shoot well..there's more to it than that but that's a simplification. Furthermore, eventhough G.Fred claims to have made some really long instinctive shots, most of the people I've heard of or encountered, myself included, trying to shoot instinctive are really only trying to do well at it at say 30 yds or less, more like 15-20 on average. Perfectly doable. This is not target archery. I don't think anyone is trying to go shoot Olympic style target archery in this manner. Maybe Howard Hill could do that? LOL. Anyway, speaking of G.Fred, have you actually read cover to cover the first two of G.Fred's books on the subject? If not I'd say you stand to gain some good insight. You mentioned instinctive as being a variation of gap shooting, well that's a whole debate in itself. One might say good instinctive shooters are 'unconscious' of the gap, or have just smoothly integrated it into the rest of their sight picture. I dunno. The whole encounter sounds like it was a trainwreck. I mean, you could have handled it differently, been more diplomatic..and who knows...he might have turned out to be a jerk anyway, or perhaps after some icebreaking you might have had a new trad friend...than be a trad guy standing in a hall full of wheelie shooters. Just sayin.


----------



## Albrecht Kurze (Aug 23, 2012)

Alright; I'm new to archery, only been shooting about a year now and not often enough to feel I'm an authority on much of anything yet. I have however grown up using the English language as most of us on this board. 
I don't know Mr. Asbell, never read his book, never seen him shoot.
I've met my share of blowhards.
I've met my share of instigators as well.

Something that happens to me almost every spring while driving that I'd like to share. As it gets warmer out the bugs start coming out. It never fails, I'll be driving along just after dusk (perhaps a little over the speed limit) and one of those great big bugs splats against the windshield at just the right trajectory that I just don't see it coming. I don't freak out, swerve, slam the breaks, etc... I flinch a little (maybe) and blink. That blink is an INSTINCT. It is an automatic and natural bodily defense mechanism. That is what an instinct is. 

I pose that the qualm everyone gets their dander up about is... in the end, word usage. No matter what, you're purposely engaging and relaxing muscles to draw and shoot a bow. There is nothing instinctive about it. You may be so practiced and focused that it seems to happen almost on autopilot...I get that, it's the same way professional athletes sometimes describe their bodily mechanics for repetitive motion activities in their respective sports. It feels good to reach that level of competency. I think few of us REALLY know that level of competency. It takes a level of commitment a lot of us can't afford and still keep a roof over our heads, but I digress... Basketball shooting mechanics, golf swing mechanics, baseball pitching mechanics, dart throwing mechanics; all things where you need to learn to perform a repetitive motion (muscle memory) as well as learn to aim (to the point that your body adjusts subconsciously). And all are things your brain engages in with ques from your five senses, analyzes these environmental inputs, and makes subconscious adjustments and decisions that help you reach your goal. It's not instinct. It's not intuition. It's not magic. It's a learned response through repetition (practice). 

Whether you use some super complex site in a compound bow with the latest and greatest gear and arrows, or you're shooting a 50 year old longbow and woodies you've had for 15 years...your brain does this on it's own with practice. It's a learned response. 

You want to know the one and only instinctive shot you've ever taken? That very first shot you took in archery...that's it. You had zero experience and your brain had no clue what to do with it. 

Instinct is when you jump when a vehicle backfires in the supermarket parking lot. 

When I see talk of "aiming instinctive" or "instinctive shooting", no matter who the argument is coming from or what they imply; to me it is simply an overused buzz word that says the author: doesn't know what they're talking about well enough to properly describe it, lacks the writing ability to convey what they really intend, wants to sound complex or special, or someone else said it or told them they are so they think it must be true. 

I will go so far as to say that even in Mr. Asbell's case; he's not shooting instinctively, he's subconsciously aiming at best. That's not a rip on him or anyone else. I'm sure there are lots of great people who are working under this misconception or mis-definition of the word instinctive. 

None the less, I've learned A TON since I started reading posts here on AT. I've learned this is often a hot topic and cause for contention. I've seen many arguments for "instinctive". Some, somewhat compelling based solely on the fervor that people really believe it exists and they do it, do it well, etc. 

To me, the bottom line is that there is no such thing as "instinctive" in archery. Your brain has learned to pick up on ques around you (generally your site picture, coupled with sense of your atmosphere such as wind direction and speed, distance to target and learned trajectory of your mean shot average) and apply this environmental data to decisions and actions to aid you in reaching your goal. In short, it's a learned set of responses to your environment gained from experience...that's it. "Instinctive" is simply not the right word to describe this process. It's very nearly the antithesis of the word.

This'll be my last post in regards to "instinctive shooting", so don't bother to flame me because I won't respond anyway. I will likely read what you write, but I'm not the arguing type.

Whatever your personal reasons for using the "instinctive" moniker, I do wish you well in your archery pursuits.

Albrecht Kurze


----------



## nineworlds9 (Aug 12, 2012)

Great post Albrecht, I think you summarized very clearly how many of us feel about 'instinctive shooting'. No one should flame you for that. I was pointing in the direction you went in my post but didnt want to dive in, I was forming a response to Blue's encounter. Well done sir. I think you nailed it calling it a buzzword. It's a label for a shooting philosophy perhaps rather than a system and/or perhaps a type of person, most likely a hunter, that has a set of goals based on practice, proprioception, and shooting well under a variety of conditions. Definitely a label, we all know how much people like labeling things.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

G.Fred is a great guy, and as mentioned, he has a well deserved, well earned GOOD reputation.
His methods are not the same as all others, but they do work for countless numbers of folks who he has helped get into the sport with both feet & confidence.

Lots of other folks use different methods, that vary quite a bit.

Isn't it GRAND, that we are not all the same. "DIFFERENCE" is the spice of life.
Sure would be a boring world if we weren't.

Rick


----------



## nineworlds9 (Aug 12, 2012)

I think Ray is right on the money with this post from another thread. It applies to this thread as well and is the nail in the coffin, this thread is done:

Quote:

"This 'elitist' attitude is a cause of sooo many disruptive threads....such as Gap vs Instinctive, Asbel form vs FITA form and it can be based on BOTH sides of the fence claiming their way is the best or only way.

There's a thread here started recently about an Instinctive Aiming challenge that shows the unproductive biases of 2 archers who are on opposite sides of the fence.

I'm just exposing those biases so people know the truth that there are MANY different ways an archer can choose to shoot these bows without someone saying they're doing it all wrong.

There's a big difference in telling someone to go ahead and shoot a bow how ever they feel like without taking their goals, abilities and personality into consideration and giving advice based on the archer's specific goals, abilities and personality.

If I was coaching both you and Jinks...I would definitely NOT approach or teach you both the same way. The only reason why I would...would be because you both shared the same goals, abilities and personality.

Ray "


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Great job explaining how the instinctive shot process works. I doubt we will ever be able to change the name.
Gary


Albrecht Kurze said:


> Alright; I'm new to archery, only been shooting about a year now and not often enough to feel I'm an authority on much of anything yet. I have however grown up using the English language as most of us on this board.
> I don't know Mr. Asbell, never read his book, never seen him shoot.
> I've met my share of blowhards.
> I've met my share of instigators as well.
> ...


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I guess I come in on a different side of this. I think it can be healthy to debate methods or even termenology.

As far as putting somebody else's method down, it's not always insecurity. Anymore just about everything is getting to be big business and everybody seems to want to teach. The thing is there are many who are teaching garbage and, in some cases, even getting people hurt.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Albrecht Kurze said:


> I pose that the qualm everyone gets their dander up about is... in the end, word usage. No matter what, you're purposely engaging and relaxing muscles to draw and shoot a bow. There is nothing instinctive about it.


You are ABSOLUTELY correct when you say that most of the debate about Instinctive Aiming is about word usuage and what particular definition a person clings to.

The fact is....words can have multiple meanings and definitions and they can evolve over time.

For example...the word 'hot' can be used to describe the tempreture of something...BUT...it can also be used to describe the attractiveness of another person. 

Some people will insist that a woman can not be hot unless she is running a fever...but many of us understanding what it means when a guy claims that some woman is 'hot' when they're using that word to describe how beautiful and/or sexy he thinks she may be.

This is basically nothing more than making an effort to understand what a person means. ALL it takes is a little research and humility to understand how a word is being used.

I just don't understand why some people get soooo hung up on ONE particular definition...even when there is evidence to show how the word can be used in popular dictionaries.

Most of us here realize that the term 'Instinct/Instinctive' does NOT apply to an aiming technique in the way the term was taught to us in elementary school science class.

Here's a DIRECT quote from the Webster Dictionary in how the word can be used in a sentence.

1: a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity <*had an instinct for the right word*> 

*Here's the challenge.

Please explain how a person can have an instinct for the right word...when language is learned?*

Here's the link for research purposes to prove that neither I or anyone else is just making this stuff up - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

The way I see it....a person has 2 options.

1. a person will deny that Webster's dictionary has any relevancy to the English language and claim Webster got it wrong.

2. a person finally recognizes and accepts that the word 'instinct' has evolved and can have different meanings that ALSO apply to something that can be learned...such as language or an aiming technique.



Albrecht Kurze said:


> Basketball shooting mechanics, golf swing mechanics, baseball pitching mechanics, dart throwing mechanics; all things where you need to learn to perform a repetitive motion (muscle memory) as well as learn to aim (to the point that your body adjusts subconsciously). And all are things your brain engages in with ques from your five senses, analyzes these environmental inputs, and makes subconscious adjustments and decisions that help you reach your goal. It's a learned response through repetition (practice).


This is EXACTLY how the word 'Instinctive' applies to an aiming technique that is used to help explain and seperate itself from being confused with any other aiming technique.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> I think it can be healthy to debate methods or even termenology.


:thumbs_up Especially if a person is responding in a humble, open minded and respectful attitude.



MGF said:


> As far as putting somebody else's method down, it's not always insecurity.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## TheLongbowShoot (Mar 23, 2012)

Post a picture of what you call blinders.


----------



## Mark Land (Dec 4, 2003)

Blue Raja I think you should make your post very clear as to the fact that you are talking about a G Fred wanna be and not the original G Fred Asbell himself as the the man G F Asbell is definitely 1 of character and class and not like you are representing in your post. I have met and shot with the original G Fred and he is a great man and never pushes anything on anybody, in fact he stresses that each archer should find their own form that works for them and utilize it and that consistency is everything!
Now about instinctive, I believe it is hard to not reference something in your sight windown when shooting, but also can attest to shooting purely instinctive and what has led me to win many **** shoots. If you really want to see how well someone can shoot a bow instinctively just turn out all the lights with nothing but a glowing dot or candle to shoot at and see how everybody does. We used those little 1/4 cylume sticks in the **** targets I shot the last time and at night that is all you can really see and will not be able to see or align your arrow and bow when shooting so it is purely instinctive form for shooting.
However for me personall at longer ranges my instinctive shooting becomes more quesswork then accuracy so I do tend to gap at 30yds or more.
Now snap shooting, well personally to me I have not seen many people that can snap shoot with any real consistency and it becomes more of a crap shoot then anything else. I am sure there are some that can do it fairly well, but I am sure that only happens at very close range. We do alot of snap shooting when bowfishing, due to fast shooting and moving targets but we are talking about distances measured in feet rather then yards!


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I keep telling you guys I'm no expert but I play around shooting in the dark...though I normally do a "split vision sort of thing. Sometimes I just shoot in the dark where I can barely see the target and sometimes I lay a flash light on the ground on the ground illuminating the target. It's mostly for fun (not to prove anything) but I do ok at it sometimes.

I've been playing around with some snap shooting too. Close, under 15 yards, more often 10 or so but I can aim as I draw, release before or just at full draw and hit at that distance.

IME, all the same elements of form come into play exactly the same way and "follow through" looks pretty much the same. Based on that, I don't think that any problem with "snap shooting" is because of not holding. You only have to hold as long as you need to hold and, I think, holding too long can be just as bad as not holding long enough. It's because some people who snap shoot and ignore the basic elements of good (consistent) form.

I just came in from starting my morning routine...which is to take one shot cold and STOP. I'm a hunter so it's the first shot that counts. I put that one arrow in my one inch sharpie dot from about 18 yards. If that was a deer, it would be a good day. LOL

I guess I "aimed" but I'm not really sure how. I do know that I was pretty careful about what I did with my bow arm, kept my string arm relaxed, exhaled a bit, held and pulled through the shot. Slowly but surely, I'm getting to the point where the sequence is there but it doesn't take a lot of thought or time.

I'm finding that, under pressure, it help me to disect the shot a little more.


----------



## Albrecht Kurze (Aug 23, 2012)

Alright, I can't help it...Ray you have a way of sucking people into these conversations and I fear I've fallen for it as well...

I like research. A person actually has a third option...find a research source that agrees with their views...lol.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/instinct
1 a : a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned : a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way
Funny how it's also from Webster... And it was linked from your source. 

I pose that since we're talking about the human body and activities central to such, why not use the medical definition of instinct...also from your source:

Medical Definition of INSTINCT

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

If we follow that definition, there is nothing instinctive about anything involving archery (perhaps with the exception of that very first archery shot I mentioned).

Or we could scroll down to the explanation from the Concise Encyclopedia; also from your source:

"Involuntary response by an animal, resulting in a predictable and relatively fixed behaviour pattern. Instinctive behaviour is an inherited mechanism that serves to promote the survival of an animal or species. It is most apparent in fighting and sexual activity. The simplest form is the reflex. All animals have instinct, but, in general, the higher the animal form, the more flexible the behaviour. Among mammals, learned behaviour often prevails over instinctive behaviour."

So according to that, learned behaviour (in this case a well practiced shooting sequence as I described in my previous post with the learned responses to environmental stimuli) prevails over instinctive behaviour. 

So according to your very source, there is much more in your source which agrees and supports that "instinct" is indeed nearly the antithesis of "technique", "method", "aiming", etc., all of which are learned processes through practice. Actually, almost everything in your source supports my definition of instinct apart from the (in my opinion) poor usage example and that weird adjective definition (weird to me because I've never heard it used as such). 

Again, I'm not discrediting Mr. Asbell or his contributions. It's just a poor word choice that discredits the brain's ability to learn and function on the subconscious level through practice, thus acquiring that knowledge through deliberate, repetitive action.
I'm not discrediting people claiming to use this technique. I'm discrediting the use of the word "instinctive" involved in a process that is clearly learned behaviour.

Albrecht


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Albrecht,

You're response is no different than anyone else's who has tried to debate the use of the word as you see it.

It basically appears you choosing the route of option #1. a person will deny that Webster's dictionary has any relevancy to the English language and claim Webster got it wrong.

Is that correct?

Because it appears you're ignoring it and using other definitions to support your belief.

The difference between you and I for example is that I accept and acknowledge the use of the word as it applies to what we were taught in elemantary biology class....but I ALSO recognize how the word has evolved and how it can be applied to an aiming technique or help describe something that is learned to the point a person isn't consciously aware of exactly how they are doing something.

If it is correct that you believe option #1....than this debate between you and I is basically over....because there isn't anything more I can say or prove to you how the word has evolved and can actually be used to describe an aiming technique even though most of us who accept the term understand it doesn't mean the same thing as it relates to elementary BIO 101 definition.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I know in Europe "Intuitive shooting" (definition as in Automatic/done by habit) seems to replacing the word Instinctive, still not 100% spot on but I am starting to warm to this description more than Instinctive. 

I dont really care what word anybody uses, I wont be trying to correct anyone when they talk to me in Archery terms I understand their meaning, which is enough for me.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Albrecht Kurze said:


> .....more in your source which agrees and supports that "instinct" is indeed nearly the antithesis of "technique", "method", "aiming", etc., all of which are learned processes through practice.
> 
> Albrecht


That's the whole problem with the word use and we will forever be stuck with using it I'm afraid. 

I suspect aiming without a sight or fixed reference was loosely described as relying more on one's instincts, irregardless of the fact that instincts had little to do with the process. Harmless enough. The real debate, which is more an Internet thing than something at least I have ever run into in real life shooting with folks, is with some trying to make more out of it than it really is - shooting with less reliance on a fixed aiming reference. 

I also think that had a different word been used, we would not have as much grief over it, as still, some try to make more out of it than it is just because the word can conjure up the notion of an archer's ability above and beyond himself and his own limitations.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> I dont really care what word anybody uses, I wont be trying to correct anyone when they talk to me in Archery terms I understand their meaning, which is enough for me.


EXACTLY! :thumbs_up

IMO....causing a debate over semantics in this case is often ridiculous....especially when people make it quite clear EXACTLY what is meant by the use of a word...even if that word has another meaning and definition.



Sanford said:


> The real debate, which is more an Internet thing than something at least I have ever run into in real life shooting with folks, is with some trying to make more out of it than it really is - shooting with less reliance on a fixed aiming reference.


EXACTLY! :thumbs_up

BUT...I'll also add....this debate is also caused by those that try to make it into something LESS than what it is....as if their ego can't except that some people are just more naturally gifted with better hand and eye coordination than they are.

The fact is....some people are born with a natural ability to excel in certain sports or other abilities than others. We all have gifts we excel in. Some people are naturally smarter than others with higher IQ's and others are more naturally gifted athletically.

That does not mean a person can't become smarter or more athletic...it just means they may have to go about things differently to achieve the same or similar results as someone else who may be more gifted in that area.

Ego can be such a fragile and argumentative state of being.

Ray :shade:


----------



## waiting4fall (Sep 20, 2007)

Blackwolf can you demonstrate this on video, I'm just not following what this is. A video of you shooting would be very helpful.


----------



## TheLongbowShoot (Mar 23, 2012)

I just don't understand the point of the argument. To show who is better or what?!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

waiting4fall said:


> Blackwolf can you demonstrate this on video, I'm just not following what this is. A video of you shooting would be very helpful.


What exactly are you wanting me to demonstrate?

Ray :shade:


----------



## TheLongbowShoot (Mar 23, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> What exactly are you wanting me to demonstrate?
> 
> Ray :shade:


I want to see what that guy means by blinders and I will show people what I can do with them lol.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

TheLongbowShoot said:


> I just don't understand the point of the argument. To show who is better or what?!


I think it's just something to kill time arguing about during the cold off-season months.

You draw the bow, release the arrow and either hit or miss. What difference does it make what name you give your method? I think I'll call my aiming method Gertrude. LOL


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> What difference does it make what name you give your method? I think I'll call my aiming method Gertrude. LOL


As I always say...it's for teaching and communicative purposes.

If the debate is ego related...it's pretty worthless. 

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> What difference does it make what name you give your method? I think I'll call my aiming method Gertrude. LOL


I call mine "archery". The rest, leave that to the zealots at one end of the spectrum and the pedants at the other extreme end - each trying to tell us what we are supposed to think of it, when we, don't actually care.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

It always entertains me when people claim to NOT care about the use of term Instinctive Aiming and yet participate in these threads.

Why bother if you don't care?

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Ray, everyone has a thought on the subject from time to time and post in a take-it-or-leave-it manner. Notice all kinds of folks coming into and out of aiming discussions at various times, as there's no shortage of "instinctive" threads around here. But, if someone is constantly involved in cut-n-paste debates, every time, page after page, they might just have too much ego involved in the topic, even if it is in the name of educating folks. That's just one of two extremes. Either your comment will get blasted and picked over by the instinctive zealot or the other, the one who wants to change everyone's opinion to his own, the only right one.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford,

AGAIN...it's not about changing everyone's opinion to meet mine. It's about respectful debate sharing the evidence that exists on this subject for those new, undecided or confused about this topic.

I'm NOT so closed minded that I'm not open to learning anything new regarding this topic.

I just refuse to ignore this topic when there is so much confusion regarding it that can often be contributed to the cause of wounded egos and strife amoungst or group...when there is plenty of information to shed light on this often confusing topic.

I just don't get why someone would post on a thread they claim to not really care about.

If you really don't care....why even post on this topic...telling us you don't care?

Ray :shade:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I agree, I usually follow these threads as there can be useful information but unfortunately there are far too many cases (perhaps all of them) where it's the same closed minded bickering about semantics, when in fact closer examination shows that both people are portraying two sides of the same idea. It becomes a philosophical debate, _literally_ bickering over the interpretation of words. It's incredibly frustrating to see threads degrade into a silly verbal debate, an internet one at that, over something that really has nothing to do with archery in the end.
I've thrown this picture in there before and it seems to work 










I do appreciate those that give relevant input and help regardless of words used, there are many on here like that and I wouldn't want to take away from that.

And Ray if I'm not mistaken I think Sanford meant that's who will flame you, from what I can tell he wasn't implying that you're trying to change everyone's opinion. I haven't really gotten that sense from you but I've seen you get frustrated with stupid debates, entirely understandable.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> I agree, I usually follow these threads as there can be useful information but unfortunately there are far too many cases (perhaps all of them) where it's the same closed minded bickering about semantics, when in fact closer examination shows that both people are portraying two sides of the same idea. It becomes a philosophical debate, _literally_ bickering over the interpretation of words. It's incredibly frustrating to see threads degrade into a silly verbal debate, an internet one at that, over something that really has nothing to do with archery in the end.
> I've thrown this picture in there before and it seems to work
> 
> View attachment 1588813
> ...


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

Yea it reminded me of trout fishing, guys are decked. Waders,special nets,exspensive vests, they look like models for a fly fishing mag. And there I am in levis and old wet tennis shoes and ripped 20 year old vest.





J-san said:


> I meet guys like that on the golf course frequently. Fancy $1000+ set of clubs, monogrammed towels and balls, complete matching golf attire, etc. etc. You can tell from their 50 practice swings that they will be anywhere but the fairway. They finally tee up, take a homerun swing and hit such a wicked slice you think the ball ought to rip in half from the side spin. They then get pissed and start cursing about how they should have purchased the next level up club or something and get even madder when they see you hit a nice fading drive 200 yards along the fairway with barely a practice swing and using hand-me-down clubs and a recovered golf ball from the water hazard.
> 
> Fortunately, my local archery range has a lot of really nice people and I really never see anyone who feels like they have something to prove. I do see a number of traditional shooter who routinely snap-shoot and can barely keep their arrows on a NFAA single spot at 20 yards, but we have a good time chatting and admiring each others' bows.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

TheLongbowShoot said:


> I just don't understand the point of the argument. To show who is better or what?!


Good question. In the nearly 30 years I've been involved in archery I've never seen an argument over what constitutes instinctive shooting except on the internet. And some of the folks obsessed with these exchanges have been having the same arguments online for over a decade. 
It's like a deranged Energizer Bunny that keeps going and going and going....


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> In the nearly 30 years I've been involved in archery I've never seen an argument over what constitutes instinctive shooting *except on the internet*. And some of the folks obsessed with these exchanges have been having the same arguments online for over a decade.


Amen! Bolding for emphasis!!!


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

I'm a mess, I shoot a 1 pc longbow with woods because that is what I like. Pretty much instinctive out to 30 yds but know where my gaps are , then goes pretty much gap. Also a little finger walking here and there just for giggles. Hey it is a stick and string, do what ever floats your boat.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

J. Wesbrock said:


> In the nearly 30 years I've been involved in archery I've never seen an argument over what constitutes instinctive shooting except on the internet.


Me too!

Every conversation I've ever had has always been respectful in person...even if there are disagreements.

It's only been on the internet where egos seem super sensitive and where people get disrespectful. Maybe it has something to do with the security some people feel when hiding behind a computer.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TheLongbowShoot (Mar 23, 2012)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Good question. In the nearly 30 years I've been involved in archery I've never seen an argument over what constitutes instinctive shooting except on the internet. And some of the folks obsessed with these exchanges have been having the same arguments online for over a decade.
> It's like a deranged Energizer Bunny that keeps going and going and going....


I really hate how people have to argue over it. Its WHAT PEOPLE THINK why do you have to argue over what you think is right. That is what I hate about so many people. CAN WE NOT HAVE FUN AND SHOOT? WHY ARGUE?!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

Just for fun, I typed "Instinctive Shooting" into the search feature here..and there were 34 pages of threads! Talking about the kicking the proverbial dead horse! Mr. Wesbrock is correct...I have attended countless number of traditional shoots, as a vendor and as a participant...and I have yet to hear a discussion about shooting styles....if there is, it is such a small percentage it's not worth mentioning...

I firmly believe if more people actually got out and practiced their shooting style, instead of sitting at the keyboard and arguing/debating, or trying to label their style and the style of others....they would be better off. Nobody is going to sway or convince anyone else that their style is better/ worse...whatever works for the individual, no matter the definition...should be most important....

I personally don't care if someone shoots instinctive, gap, gapstinctive, gun barrel, string walk, sights, whatever...as long as they practice and are happy with their results...

I believe I shoot instinctive, by my own definition....subconscious, unconscious, grip it and rip it., doesn't matter...whatever it is, it's the style works for me, for what my goals are...hunting...

Whatever the style is that I shoot...all the deer I have managed to shoot had no idea what style shooting I used...and for me, that is all that matters....you can label it whatever you want...for me all that matters is the arrow goes where i am looking....


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

All the deer I have met have avoided my instinctive shooting technique. I guess that means it's inferior


----------



## Albrecht Kurze (Aug 23, 2012)

I've not argued the validity of anyone's technique. I've argued that it's name is ridiculous. As I stated, I'm a rookie and lack substantial experience to support such an argument if I even cared to do so. I fail to grasp what that has to do with ego. 

Yes! Please, call it Gertrude. The Gertrude Technique! At least that doesn't discredit that it is a learned technique. Heck, steal from the dead-reckoning method of navigation and call it Dead-Reckoning Archery. That at least makes sense. Habitual Archery even makes more sense than Instinctive... 

Having fun shooting is what it's all about, yes. No, to 99% of people this doesn't matter. But to a newbie archer, trying to learn on his own, they can come across this term and read some of the not so well explained descriptions of it and set themselves up for some disheartening experiences. Obviously I'm not going to singlehandedly change the term in the entire archery industry, it's too late for that. But if just ONE person moves forward from this thread and describes this method better to a new archer than just repeating a buzzword, I've made a difference to at least one newbie. I guess that's my ego getting in the way again..thinking I can help someone lift the veil of confusion built around this is really going to somehow stroke my ego like it's some huge personal accomplishment. Darn it...now I'm being disrespectful again by trying to help find a less confusing means to convey clearer understanding of a technique...I'm sorry. Guess I'll fold my disrespectful, monster ego in my pocket and exit stage left...

Albrecht


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Albrecht Kurze said:


> I've argued that it's name is ridiculous. Yes! Please, call it Gertrude. The Gertrude Technique


LOL...so calling it the Gertrude Technique is less ridiculous? :wink:



Albrecht Kurze said:


> At least that doesn't discredit that it is a learned technique.


Calling the aiming technique Instinctive does NOTHING to discredit it from a learned technique...IF...a person excepts that words can have multiple meanings and a person isn't stuck on just one of them.

Instinctive Aiming as it relates to an aiming technique does NOT mean that a person has an innate ability to shoot a bow accurately as a new born suckles from their mother.

Anyone who believes that....does NOT understand what is meant by Instinctive Aiming.



Albrecht Kurze said:


> But to a newbie archer, trying to learn on his own, they can come across this term and read some of the not so well explained descriptions of it and set themselves up for some disheartening experiences.


Which is EXACTLY why I NEVER try to explain it as the term applies to how most of us learned to use it in elemantary school.

Why are you avoiding the questions I asked previously?

Ray :shade:


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)




----------



## takefive (Aug 19, 2012)

I started shooting my recurve barebow about 2 months ago. It's something that I have wanted to do since I saw a very good shooter (part owner of the archery shop where I bought my first compound 30+ years ago) shoot nice groups with his barebow compound. I gap either the tip of the arrow or off the top of the riser, or sometimes both. I'm finally shooting consistently good groups (but that's only at ten yards in my basement) and am beyond thrilled that I can do it without using a pin. Probably not a big deal to guys who have been shooting barebow for a long time, but to me it is a huge accomplishment. Instinctive vs. gap style or philosophy does not matter at all to me. What matters is that I found something that works for me. 
Beyond that, I would really like to meet the character that the OP described if he actually does exist (I have my doubts). I keep picturing Yosemite Sam with quivers instead of holsters


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Albrecht Kurze said:


> . I flinch a little (maybe) and blink. That blink is an INSTINCT. It is an automatic and natural bodily defense mechanism. That is what an instinct is.


Isn't that the description of a reflex rather than an Instinct ... or at least it was when I was a Neurophysiology student 30 years ago


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

takefive said:


> What matters is that I found something that works for me.


A good point, something Ive seen a lot over the years is people shooting Instinctive and its just not working for them but they wont try anything else because Instinct has some kind of historical romance for them, Im sure the same can apply to gap without the romance part.

Important thing is not how you aim, only that you are hitting consistently and enjoying your shooting, nobody but *you* knows how you aim unless you want to tell them, end of the day the thing that really impresses people is consistent/accurate groups and not how you aimed. I watch Compounds shoot and it impresses me, I know they have all the bells and whistles but still great to watch. I saw Dave Cousins shoot 04 worlds, shot 5 days and dropped 6 points the whole week...... that is an amazing level concentration :thumbs_up


----------



## Albrecht Kurze (Aug 23, 2012)

I'm sorry Ray, I don't see where you've asked me a question. 

Are you talking about this?:

"It basically appears you choosing the route of option #1. a person will deny that Webster's dictionary has any relevancy to the English language and claim Webster got it wrong.

Is that correct?

Because it appears you're ignoring it and using other definitions to support your belief."

If so, I see a question mark...but no question. I see a condescending assumption stated as a rhetorical question. And I'm the one being accused of showing disrespect.

Ray, there's maybe 1% of the information on the page YOU CHOSE as a reference to support your claim to an alternative definition. And said information is quite simply a bad usage example...NOT A DEFINITION. And you feel that is sufficient support to claim it's an alternative definition, flatly ignore the rest of the information in the source, and then act like I'm the one with a skewed vantage point, or that I'm picking and choosing how a word is defined. Dude, you're the one not willing to accept that the source you chose to support your argument might just be mistaken (as the usage example contradicts the rest of the information put forward to define the word). That does happen, even with the best references. 

I'm familiar with language growth and evolution. I don't see how Webster's definitions of this word support such evolution as you imply. I'm familiar with the concept; "Gay" now means non-heterosexual where it once meant something akin to "joyous" and is an example we're all probably familiar with. Many more abound. I just don't see it supported for this word in this reference. That's not skewed opinion, that's reading what is there in black and white in a source of your choosing.

Look, you drug me into this exchange by challenging me:
"Here's the challenge.

Please explain how a person can have an instinct for the right word...when language is learned?"

And then you pretty much state that your opinion, based on this very small amount of information, is irrefutable because it's from the Webster dictionary...and how dare I think I'm smarter than Webster. Funny...

So, let me turn the tables for you...
*I challenge you Ray, to perform research like an academic and not like the six o'clock news; find at least three reference sources which support your thesis in it's entirety and don't just pic tiny little sound bits and skew them to support your opinion like MSNBC and FOX.*

No doubt you'll claim my ego is just on overdrive and that I'm being disrespectful or some other excuse like this has nothing to do with archery. Here's the thing; anything we do or share here will help the understanding of the term to the average english speaker which in turn makes understanding this topic more clear which is important because it eliminates the confusion this topic is shrouded in, it makes this aspect of traditional archery much more easily explained. This matters from the outside looking in; it turns something that is aloof to a more accepted and more easily understood common definition. Continuing to use the term "instinct" and all it's derivatives or synonyms to describe a learned technique does a disservice to traditional archery as a whole. First impressions are important. If someone unfamiliar with traditional archery and the term "instinctive" comes across a trad archer half as loopy as the example in the original post of this thread, it makes us *ALL* look like that guy. This is particularly true of new archers and archers from non-traditional archery aspects alike. *THAT* is why it matters. *THAT* is why I've stuck with this conversation despite being told I'm being disrespectful and letting my ego push the argument.

Albrecht


----------



## Albrecht Kurze (Aug 23, 2012)

"Isn't that the description of a reflex rather than an Instinct ... or at least it was when I was a Neurophysiology student 30 years ago"

The action is the reflex, the natural compulsion that triggers that reflex is an instinct (in this case it's better defined as a defense mechanism, which is a category of the instinct type). Knee-jerk reaction for example. There is nothing about archery that is a knee-jerk reaction. Habit, yes absolutely. Habit to the point of being nearly automatic, certainly.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Albrecht Kurze said:


> I'm sorry Ray, I don't see where you've asked me a question.


It was in posts #83 and #89.

All...the negative thoughts and insecurities you seem to be expressing here are NOT because I asked you a simple question. You're obviously reflecting into the question and assuming what I'm thinking. It's very common for people to do that on the internet. I've never said you were being disrespectful and I'm sorry if you think that's what I said.

The questions I asked were to try and help me and anyone else who may be following this thread understand that if YOU or ANYONE ELSE believed that an 'instinct' can NOT be learned than why does Webster use it to explain how a person can choose the right word in regards to language...which is learned.

It basically was a simple...Yes or No question.

You either believe Webster got it wrong and is mis-using the word...OR...you finally see what I...and many others can see why the word is used to help explain an aiming technique.

Whatever you or anyone else reads into that question is NOT what I said or tried to imply in regards to ANYONE being disrespectful just because they may disagree with me in regards to the evidence presented and the questions asked.

If I specifically named you as being disrespectful...PLEASE quote me and I'll apologize.



Albrecht Kurze said:


> Dude, you're the one not willing to accept that the source you chose to support your argument might just be mistaken (as the usage example contradicts the rest of the information put forward to define the word).


The FACT is....Instinctive Aiming is a term that has been around a LOOOOONG time before I ever picked up a bow....and that term has evolved to mean different things. I did NOT create it or make it up...BUT...I chose to try and understand what is meant by it...because like you and many others...I do NOT believe it is meant to describe an aiming technique that is innate to us!!!!

In the beginning the term 'Instinctive Aiming' was used to basically just describe ANY aiming technique that didn't involve a mounted sight. Now...it is used to basically descibe a more specific barebow aiming technique that is different from Gap or any other barebow aiming technique.



Albrecht Kurze said:


> Look, you drug me into this exchange by challenging me:


I didn't force you by grabbing your hair and dragging you into this...YOU made the choice to discuss this! I simply asked questions.



Albrecht Kurze said:


> And then you pretty much state that your opinion, based on this very small amount of information, is irrefutable because it's from the Webster dictionary...


The evidence is irrefutable...NOT my opinion. No can deny the evidence I presented. They can disagree with it and try to refute it's meaning...BUT...No...you nor anyone else can refute the evidence exists that I'm sharing.



Albrecht Kurze said:


> and how dare I think I'm smarter than Webster. Funny...


That is funny...because I never said that about you. That's you making an assumption!



Albrecht Kurze said:


> *I challenge you Ray, to perform research like an academic and not like the six o'clock news; find at least three reference sources which support your thesis in it's entirety and don't just pic tiny little sound bits and skew them to support your opinion like MSNBC and FOX.*


A person would basically have to be blind or totally new to our sport to NOT know how the term has, is and will continue to exist to describe a specific aiming technique. There are countless books, videos and articles that exist trying to describe and explain what is meant by Instinctive Aiming. IMO...it would be ridiculous to ignore ALL those just because a person is stuck on one particular definition that was taught in elemantary biology.

It would be NO different from me if the aiming technique was originally named the Gertrude Technique. I would still research it and try to understand what was meant by it and NOT get hung up on it becuase the only way I understood how the word 'Gertrude' was used...was as a person's name.



Albrecht Kurze said:


> No doubt you'll claim my ego is just on overdrive and that I'm being disrespectful or some other excuse like this has nothing to do with archery.


AGAIN...that is in your own mind...NOT MINE! This is a PERFECT example why these threads get so derailed with negative emotion. It's becuase people read into things and make poor assumptions. If you think something I said applies to you....ask before making an assumption!

Ray :shade:


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Albrecht Kurze said:


> The action is the reflex, the natural compulsion that triggers that reflex is an instinct


You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. If it's a reflex, the motor outcome ( the flinch) begins with an external stimulus and is executed without the involvment of the central nervous system, that's why it's called a reflex arc. If it's an instinct, instinctive actions are believed (believed, because as yet within the Neuro sciences there is no concensus neurophysiological definition of instinct) to originate within the Hypothalamus, which is, the last time I looked, within the CNS. I suspect you're getting you Automatic and Autonomic mixed up.. either way you original statement is incorrect


----------



## TheLongbowShoot (Mar 23, 2012)

I'm sorry but I really think we need a close on this thread. There is no real point in this.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

TheLongbowShoot said:


> I'm sorry but I really think we need a close on this thread.


I disagree!

There's nothing wrong with healthy, respectful debate.

No one here...IMO...is being disrespectful!

Some people do seem to be extra sensitive when someone disagrees with them...but that's not an indication of disrespect or a worthless debate.

I guess some people hate any type of confrontation...which can explain why some people don't like boxing or MMA.

If a person doesn't like these type of discussions...just avoid them. It's not like you have to read these posts that discuss these type of contraversial topics.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

TheLongbowShoot said:


> I'm sorry but I really think we need a close on this thread. There is no real point in this.





BLACK WOLF said:


> I disagree!
> 
> There's nothing wrong with healthy, respectful debate.
> 
> ...


Even though I'm just a lurker on this thread, I agree with Ray. Debate is good as long as nobody gets their undies in a bunch. Both reading and posting on a thread is optional for everyone.

I do think that whoever is posting under "The Blue Raja" alter is sitting back somewhere and wondering if any further yanks on the chain would add to the fun...:wink:


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Yewselfbow said:


> You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. If it's a reflex, the motor outcome ( the flinch) begins with an external stimulus and is executed without the involvment of the central nervous system, that's why it's called a reflex arc. If it's an instinct, instinctive actions are believed (believed, because as yet within the Neuro sciences there is no concensus neurophysiological definition of instinct) to originate within the Hypothalamus, which is, the last time I looked, within the CNS. I suspect you're getting you Automatic and Autonomic mixed up.. either way you original statement is incorrect


There you go with that science again. You should know by now that it has no place on Archery Talk...:doh:


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Easykeeper said:


> There you go with that science again. You should know by now that it has no place on Archery Talk...:doh:


:thumbs_up I try my best but sometimes it 'aint easy :thumbs_up


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Yewselfbow said:


> :thumbs_up I try my best but sometimes it 'aint easy :thumbs_up


LOL...some of us are listening.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Easykeeper said:


> LOL...some of us are listening.


That's nice to know. Thank you


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> :thumbs_up I try my best but sometimes it 'aint easy :thumbs_up


:thumbs_up :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

What will power. I've stayed out of this thread until now. Let me tell you of a few of people I shoot with. One is my son, 44 year old, who hadn't shot of bow since he was 18 or so. Two years ago he showed up at the Baltimore Traditional Classic and I lent him my favorite '63 Howat Hunter and some autumn orange arrows and he proceeded to out shoot most of my shooting companions. They refused to believe he was not a regular shooter but he is a natural shot. We have NEVER discussed aiming techniques and he doesn't go on the internet on archery forums so he is a pure natural shooter. I gave him that bow for his last birthday by the way.

The other guy is my 29 year old neighbor whom I sold two bows to and made him a couple dozen carbon arrows. I taught him to shoot but outside of form issues NEVER discussed aiming techniques. He is also a deadly shot. After a year of shooting in my back yard I took him to his first 3-D shoot and his first animal he elevened it. My friends thought he was a ringer and kidded him unmercifully. He doesn't do internet so is blindly unaware of what instinctive shooting is and I never asked him how he aims.

The other people are my 5 grandchildren. I taught them form, put them in front of the target and told them to shoot it. I would say aim higher next time, aim lower next time, etc. Before long the three boys (7-11)were shooting at field targets from 35-40 yards away and hitting them with no prior experience at distance shooting.

My point is these people are very good shots and I've had a hand in their archery shooting learning experiences but the subject of aiming NEVER came up, not once. So it seems kind of silly to me to be reading about it ad nauseum on these forums.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

man..i ain't seen this much action between Ray and..nevermind..since..ah..nevermind. :laugh:


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

Oh, and as to the original post elitism comes in many forms.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

reddogge said:


> but the subject of aiming NEVER came up, not once. So it seems kind of silly to me to be reading about it ad nauseum on these forums.


Well....the reason why you see it discussed ad nauseum is because there's a whole larger world out there besides just your family.

I think it's AWESOME that your kids are obviously naturally gifted....and how you have obviously coached them well! :thumbs_up

In many cases.....aiming doesn't need to be discussed. Many archers will figure it out for themselves...BUT...for those that struggle with achieving their specific goals....aiming techniques can become a hot and interesting topic of discussion.

As I've ALWAYS said...how a person aims should really be only important for educational and coaching purposes for those who may be new to the sport or to those wanting to try something new.

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

reddogge said:


> Oh, and as to the original post elitism comes in many forms.


oh contrar'e reddogge! LOL!...true elitism only comes in one truely pure form..cause there's only ever one single correct way to do anything right and if ya don't believe me?..just ask any elitist...and they should be very easy to locate..

cause there seems to be plenty around and narrow minds tend to live in extremely small worlds.  :laugh:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> man..i ain't seen this much action between Ray and..nevermind..since..ah..nevermind. :laugh:


LOL! :thumbs_up :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL! :thumbs_up :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Ray...do ya think it possible that he had "A Mole Membership" stowed away from a different IP preplanned for just such an event?...

cause if ya asked me?..AK is sounding just like..ah...nevermind. :laugh:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> Ray...do ya think it possible that he had "A Mole Membership" stowed away from a different IP preplanned for just such an event?...
> 
> cause if ya asked me?..AK is sounding just like..ah...nevermind. :laugh:


Could be....LOL...but a member here PMed me and told me that they think it's a certain individual from TradTalk :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

So can you have elite archers and also archers with elitist attitudes or are they the same :wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> So can you have elite archers and also archers with elitist attitudes or are they the same :wink:


LOL..yeah...DEFINITELY NOT the same...but can be...:wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

All the elitists are in Washington DC. Man, I hate that place...


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> In many cases.....aiming doesn't need to be discussed. Many archers will figure it out for themselves...BUT...for those that struggle with achieving their specific goals....aiming techniques can become a hot and interesting topic of discussion.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Maybe so but I don't see how anyone new or old could learn anything from this thread.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Instinctive is a word, nothing more. People who have been around archery know exactly what it means when they hear that word. I know, I know, there are those here and all over the cyber world fighting the "good fight" saving all the newbies from "Webster". It always boils down to someone just wanting to be right. If you are new to the sport, google Instinctive Archery and go from there, all you get on forums are semantics. The concept is very easy, doing it well, different story. Speck


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

reddogge said:


> Maybe so but I don't see how anyone new or old could learn anything from this thread.


I TOTALLY agree with certain people....especially those that don't like confrontation or any kind of heated debate...but for those not easily offended by it....I see little nuggets here and there. 

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> Instinctive is a word, nothing more. People who have been around archery know exactly what it means when they hear that word. I know, I know, there are those here and all over the cyber world fighting the "good fight" saving all the newbies from "Webster". The concept is very easy, doing it well, different story.


:thumbs_up :wink:

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

I guess my problem is I shot a 3-D round today and did pretty good (didn't keep score because we were shooting from all different stakes) but I'd have a hard time describing how I shot it. Perhps I just shoot when the sight picture looks right. But that doesn't bother me so I have a hard time understanding why people argue and hash over how they shoot.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

reddogge said:


> Perhps I just shoot when the sight picture looks right. But that doesn't bother me so I have a hard time understanding why people argue and hash over how they shoot.


I can totally understand why you don't understand.

You seem satisfied with your aiming technique and there currently is no need for you to investigate or research any other aiming technique for personal use or teaching purposes.

Unfortunately... there are those that feel if you're not aiming Instinctively you're cheating and/or nontraditional...and those that think if you don't aim like they do...you're somewhat lazy or irresponsible by choosing an aiming technique that is at a disadvantage under many competition circumstances.

I personally do NOT fit into any of those categories.

My concern is ONLY for educational and teaching purposes. I personally can careless how anyone aims...as long as they're happy. 

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Yewselfbow said:


> You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. If it's a reflex, the motor outcome ( the flinch) begins with an external stimulus and is executed without the involvment of the central nervous system, that's why it's called a reflex arc. If it's an instinct, instinctive actions are believed (believed, because as yet within the Neuro sciences there is no concensus neurophysiological definition of instinct) to originate within the Hypothalamus, which is, the last time I looked, within the CNS. I suspect you're getting you Automatic and Autonomic mixed up.. either way you original statement is incorrect


Excellent post, never thought I'd find actual neuroscience on here. What do you do?

Good post Ray. I never understood why people involved in the debate were often on an extreme end. Plinking around and practicing has led me to wonder why people wouldn't attempt to take advantage of both systems for various purposes, i.e. gap shooting for longer ranges and applicable course shoots, and "instinctive" for reactive or close-up shots (i.e. hitting disks out of the air for fun). I think far too often humans are predictably extreme and get emotionally tied to ideas - I don't remember many threads where people posting "written in stone" advice asked what the archer's intended purpose was or what they were trying to accomplish. I used to shoot 600m+ rifle shoots as well as close-quarters reactive pistol shooting, and that definitely wasn't a universal aiming system.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Good post Ray.


Thanks! :thumbs_up



CFGuy said:


> I never understood why people involved in the debate were often on an extreme end.


Unfortunately....it's not much different when a person is prejudice against a group of people based on their color. Many of these people have become the way they are because they have allowed people who have ridiculed or attacked them for their aiming technique to influence their thoughts on such an extreme level...that they themselves become prejudice towards a group of peope who aim a certain way.



CFGuy said:


> Plinking around and practicing has led me to wonder why people wouldn't attempt to take advantage of both systems for various purposes, i.e. gap shooting for longer ranges and applicable course shoots, and "instinctive" for reactive or close-up shots (i.e. hitting disks out of the air for fun).


The reason why some people don't take advantage of it...is based on their goals, abilities and personality.

It can be a number of factors.

No patience.
Prefers to master one technique...rather than manage several.
Prejudices.
Ignorance.
Satisfied with their current abilities.

There's really nothing wrong with any of those....until a person starts reflecting their personal choices onto others in a negative manner.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I think I just accidentally bunched my undies


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> I think I just accidentally bunched my undies


LOL...can anyone say 'snuggy'! :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I'm sooo glad the majority of people here on AT understand and acknowledge that Instinctive Aiming does in fact exist and is NOT the same thing as Gap Aiming or any other aiming technique.

If a person was go to some of the other websites and discuss Instinctive Aiming...they would get bombarded with comments that it doesn't exist and/or how it's no different than aiming Gap.

It amazes me how some people can act sooo prejudice or act so insecure over a simple aiming technique.

I've even seen where some people will claim that everybody aims Instinctively even when a person clearly admits to consciously using an aiming reference.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'm sooo glad the majority of people here on AT understand and acknowledge that Instinctive Aiming does in fact exist and is NOT the same thing as Gap Aiming or any other aiming technique.
> 
> If a person was go to some of the other websites and discuss Instinctive Aiming...they would get bombarded with comments that it doesn't exist and/or how it's no different than aiming Gap.
> 
> ...


Or maybe they just don't want to get into a circular argument about semantics


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> led me to wonder why people wouldn't attempt to take advantage of both systems for various purposes, i.e. gap shooting for longer ranges and applicable course shoots, and "instinctive" for reactive or close-up shots (i.e. hitting disks out of the air for fun). .


This is what I do but Im shooting various types of tourney shooting from WA3D with a 33y max to Field/3D out to 80 yards, its an advantage to use various aiming styles to suit the situation, people shooting just one discipline like IBO only need one aiming solution both Gap and Instinct work well for this type of shooting and just personal choice, if I was to shoot 70m Fita target round I would drop the gap and switch to a sight so I would be competitive with my peers.

Im guessing the people thinking Instinct is a superior aiming method to Gap have never been in an IFAA Field tourney and same for applies to hard core Gappers shooting Aerial targets against a good instinctive shot :wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Or maybe they just don't want to get into a circular argument about semantics


That may be true...but I just can't understand WHY it has to be that way when there is plenty of evidence to show and explain what Instinctive Aiming is and what it isn't.

Maybe if we disect and seperate the evidence that exists...maybe that will make it easier to discuss and help avoid these circular debates on semantics. If anyone disagrees with one of them...let's discuss it along with mentioning the one's you agree with.

Let's discuss each existing piece of evidence one at a time. I'll number them to try and make it easier to discuss specific ones.

#1. Instinctive Aiming is a term that is currently used to describe a specific aiming technique that is similar yet uniquely different than any of the other Barebow Aiming techniques.

#2. There are countless books, videos, papers, websites and threads trying to explain what is and is not Instinctive Aiming.

#3. Instinctive Aiming does NOT mean that an archer is born with an innate ability to accurately shoot a bow and arrow.

#4. Words can evolve to have multiple and different meanings.

#5. Merriam Websters Dictionary uses the word 'instinct' to show how a person can use it with a learned ability.

#6. Many archers believe that sights or other aiming references that are placed on the target or very near it can be used subconsciously through out the whole aiming process without the archer being consciously aware of where those aiming references are in relationship to the target at any time. These same people basically believe that everybody therefore aims Instinctively.

#7. There are different levels of conscious awareness that can also be described as levels of concentration and/or focus that often gets confused with being executed totally subconscious and/or unconscious.

#8. Instinctive Aiming has inherent general advantages under many close distance hunting circumstances and will also have inherent general disadvantages at longer distances.

If I forgot anything...please add it.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> That may be true...but I just can't understand WHY it has to be that way when there is plenty of evidence to show and explain what Instinctive Aiming is and what it isn't.


Is that glossary starting to sound like a good idea yet? 

I'm totally onboard with what you're proposing. If I were to edit this into something more condensed, I would submit...(actually, edit, condensed, then re-expanded. Sorry, I guess I failed on that parameter 

Instinctive Aiming is an established, though often debated term in the lexicon of archery, currently used to describe a specific aiming technique. It has mechanical similarities to other Barebow Aiming techniques, but differs in that the shooter makes no acknowledged effort to consciously use any reference other than looking at the target. Despite the most literal definition of Instinctive, Instinctive Aiming does NOT mean that an archer is born with an innate ability to accurately shoot a bow and arrow, any more than people are born with an innate ability to walk, talk, or drive a car. Rather, the term Instinctive is used, as explained by Merriam Websters Dictionary, to describe the use of a learned ability that has become relatively automatic in process.

Many argue that the use of any aiming reference, be it a sight, the arrow, the bow itself, in relation to the target, can be identified by the shooter, and are therefore inherently part of the shooter's consciousness. However, if the shooter has no explicit knowledge of how this alignment works, and uses the 'sight picture' automatically, the aiming method they are engaging, regardless of the biomechanical methods, still qualifies as Instinctive Aiming. Many others would argue the opposite, but the same criteria for the basic label of Instinctive Aiming applies. If a shooter uses knowledge of the visual reference, that would suggest that another aiming method is involved, even if it shares some of the mind/body's learned automation processes to make small adjustments based on prior experience.

It is important to note that there is a continuum of technique both within and beyond what can be described as Instinctive Aiming, just as there is a continuum of conscious awareness in terms of mental focus. 

In terms of the degree that some use various mechanisms available with Instinctive Aiming, Some may actually shoot using very little visual reference, if none at all, relying mostly on muscle memory. For instance, a shooter that takes quick shots at moving targets successfully without establishing a consistent anchor point will likely be using more muscle memory than a sight picture. A shooter that consistently comes to anchor and takes time to look at the target while at anchor is probably using the visual reference of the bow/arrow vs. the target to some degree, though if using Instinctive Aiming, won't have any idea that they are doing so.

It is also important to note that shooters can blend Instinctive Aiming characteristics with other methods to suit them, and that in practice, often times the implementation of one aiming method may often stray into the execution of another. For instance, many dedicated 'Instinctive' shooters sometimes mention using the arrow as a quick intial reference to make sure that they're starting in the right general direction, but as almost immediately push it out of their mind to pay attention exclusively to the target during the aiming process. Conversely, many 'gap' shooters find that they eventually learn to set their gap distance automatically, without conscious thought. They may be conscious of the 'gap' through the shot, but their focus is centered on the target, and the awareness of the arrow in relation to the target is secondary, and fades with the shot execution. These are not items to debate that both are doing the same thing, and therefore, both are doing neither. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the aiming method is a general description, primarily of the mental approach that the archer chooses.

It's just a description of an approach, so lighten up about it already!

I would exclude #8 from the glossary entry, just because even though I agree with it, it seems primed to bunch undies. If you wanted to get into it, I think it could use some more qualification, and probably a whole lot of description of why, including the biomechanics, specifics of circumstances, etc. In other words, truly valid, but a whole bigger ball of wax.


----------



## Basinboy (Oct 13, 2006)

I just look at what I want to hit. Call it what ever, it works for me. 
10 consecutive shots from 20 yards all in a 6" circle


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

Well, #8 actually works for me...up to 15-18 yards I shoot instinctive. Past that I stringwalk, not because I can't hit past 20 but because I can hit more consistently past 20 by stringwalking.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> I'm totally onboard with what you're proposing.


Cool :shade:



BarneySlayer said:


> Instinctive Aiming is an established, though often debated term in the lexicon of archery, currently used to describe a specific aiming technique. It has mechanical similarities to other Barebow Aiming techniques, but differs in that the shooter makes no acknowledged effort to consciously use any reference other than looking at the target. Despite the most literal definition of Instinctive, Instinctive Aiming does NOT mean that an archer is born with an innate ability to accurately shoot a bow and arrow, any more than people are born with an innate ability to walk, talk, or drive a car. Rather, the term Instinctive is used, as explained by Merriam Websters Dictionary, to describe the use of a learned ability that has become relatively automatic in process.


Nailed it! Or at least we completely agree there :thumbs_up :wink:



BarneySlayer said:


> Many argue that the use of any aiming reference, be it a sight, the arrow, the bow itself, in relation to the target, can be identified by the shooter, and are therefore inherently part of the shooter's consciousness. However, if the shooter has no explicit knowledge of how this alignment works, and uses the 'sight picture' automatically, the aiming method they are engaging, regardless of the biomechanical methods, still qualifies as Instinctive Aiming.


Some people definitely do believe that...BUT...based on what I know....the closer an aiming reference is to the archer's direct line of sight with the target....the more consciously aware they will become of that aiming reference...and the conscious awareness also increases the longer an archer holds anchor and adjusts their sight picture.



BarneySlayer said:


> Many others would argue the opposite, but the same criteria for the basic label of Instinctive Aiming applies. If a shooter uses knowledge of the visual reference, that would suggest that another aiming method is involved, even if it shares some of the mind/body's learned automation processes to make small adjustments based on prior experience.


:thumbs_up



BarneySlayer said:


> In terms of the degree that some use various mechanisms available with Instinctive Aiming, Some may actually shoot using very little visual reference, if none at all, relying mostly on muscle memory. For instance, a shooter that takes quick shots at moving targets successfully without establishing a consistent anchor point will likely be using more muscle memory than a sight picture. A shooter that consistently comes to anchor and takes time to look at the target while at anchor is probably using the visual reference of the bow/arrow vs. the target to some degree, though if using Instinctive Aiming, won't have any idea that they are doing so.
> 
> It is also important to note that shooters can blend Instinctive Aiming characteristics with other methods to suit them, and that in practice, often times the implementation of one aiming method may often stray into the execution of another. For instance, many dedicated 'Instinctive' shooters sometimes mention using the arrow as a quick intial reference to make sure that they're starting in the right general direction, but as almost immediately push it out of their mind to pay attention exclusively to the target during the aiming process. Conversely, many 'gap' shooters find that they eventually learn to set their gap distance automatically, without conscious thought. They may be conscious of the 'gap' through the shot, but their focus is centered on the target, and the awareness of the arrow in relation to the target is secondary, and fades with the shot execution. These are not items to debate that both are doing the same thing, and therefore, both are doing neither. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that the aiming method is a general description, primarily of the mental approach that the archer chooses.


You made some great points... but if I read you correctly...we still may be in disagreement about what constitutes Instinctive Aiming as a separate and unique aiming method.

I do believe archers can blend different characteristics of other aiming techniques into one...BUT...I believe that whatever the aiming technique is primarily founded on...that's what it is.

An archer that presets a gap consciously and than executes the shot more Instinctively is NOT aiming Totally Instinctively. Call it what it is or come with a different name. They're aiming Gap or Gapstinctive. Claiming they are aiming Instinctive when they are clearly conscious of their aiming reference at some point within their sight picture only adds confusion, IMO. 



BarneySlayer said:


> It's just a description of an approach, so lighten up about it already!


Are you addressing anyone specifically because what you were saying up to that point was very respectful and beneficial towards a good informative discussion?



BarneySlayer said:


> I would exclude #8 from the glossary entry, just because even though I agree with it, it seems primed to bunch undies.


I personally wouldn't exclude anything if it was factual and could benefit someone. If a person gets their undies bunched up over something like that....they should do some examination on why evidence like that gets them sooo worked up.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## La Wildman (Mar 9, 2010)

SUBSCRIBED......Getting off work and i want to finish reading this later.....lol


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

Ray I think I'm a #8. I do just look at the target on close shots and moving targets but gap at the longer ones. Whew, at least I can describe how I shoot.

Basinboy, keep it up. That's great shooting. Give your brain two clicks up and you'll center it.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Whether you shoot from the hip, behind the back, or eye level, there's gapping involved. Matter fact, lower positions allow a much easier gap at very short distance - you can see gap and elevation of entire arrow at the same time in your peripheral. Now, you get on a continuum from the sighted shooter who doesn't notice his sight much to the instinctive guy who sees nothing at all. More likely, two describing the same thing.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

BarneySlayer said:


> Instinctive Aiming is an established, though often debated term in the lexicon of archery, currently used to describe a specific aiming technique. It has mechanical similarities to other Barebow Aiming techniques, but differs in that the shooter makes no acknowledged effort to consciously use any reference other than looking at the target. Despite the most literal definition of Instinctive, Instinctive Aiming does NOT mean that an archer is born with an innate ability to accurately shoot a bow and arrow, any more than people are born with an innate ability to walk, talk, or drive a car. Rather, the term Instinctive is used, as explained by Merriam Websters Dictionary, to describe the use of a learned ability that has become relatively automatic in process.



BarneySlayer.... I have to say, that the best description of this topic I've read on any forum ....well done


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Whether you shoot from the hip, behind the back, or eye level, there's gapping involved.


Of couse a gap exists between an aiming reference and a target when the aiming reference isn't placed on target within the archer's direct line of sight. I don't think anyone has EVER debated that.

The difference is IF and how the gap is perceived consciously or unconsciously/subconsciously.

Gap Aiming and Instinctive Aiming are NOT one in the same.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> BarneySlayer.... I have to say, that the best description of this topic I've read on any forum ....well done


I agree. I've been saying that for years :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> Instinctive Aiming is an established, though often debated term in the lexicon of archery, currently used to describe a specific aiming technique. It has mechanical similarities to other Barebow Aiming techniques, but differs in that the shooter makes no acknowledged effort to consciously use any reference other than looking at the target. Despite the most literal definition of Instinctive, Instinctive Aiming does NOT mean that an archer is born with an innate ability to accurately shoot a bow and arrow, any more than people are born with an innate ability to walk, talk, or drive a car. Rather, the term Instinctive is used, as explained by Merriam Websters Dictionary, to describe the use of a learned ability that has become relatively automatic in process.





Yewselfbow said:


> BarneySlayer.... I have to say, that the best description of this topic I've read on any forum ....well done


I agree, very well said. 

Of course you realize you just wiped out a large percentage of the entertainment value of this forum...:grouphug:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Easykeeper said:


> Of course you realize you just wiped out a large percentage of the entertainment value of this forum...:grouphug:


That would be nice...but a person could go visit some of the other sites if they want to participate in more drama and read all the ridiculous comments : wink:

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> You made some great points... but if I read you correctly...we still may be in disagreement about what constitutes Instinctive Aiming as a separate and unique aiming method.
> 
> I do believe archers can blend different characteristics of other aiming techniques into one...BUT...I believe that whatever the aiming technique is primarily founded on...that's what it is.


Not disagreement so much as me being unclear about going off on a side track that really should have been left out. It may indeed be confusing the matter. Probably something more fit for in depth discussion. I would agree that how it starts is the best way to categorize it.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Probably something more fit for in depth discussion. I would agree that how it starts is the best way to categorize it.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I agree. I've been saying that for years :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


In fact, you _did_ say that, but with numbers in front of it. That's why I point the blame at you 

Of course, we can still argue if we want to :wink:

I wonder what we could come up with about Instinctive Scoring... By this method, I am champion of my back/front yard!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Basinboy said:


> I just look at what I want to hit. Call it what ever, it works for me.
> 10 consecutive shots from 20 yards all in a 6" circle


Nice shooting and I enjoy Instinctive shooting, what I love about Gap is I can shoot 6 arrows like this at 60yards.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Nice shooting and I enjoy Instinctive shooting, what I love about Gap is I can shoot 6 arrows like this at 60yards.


There is a lot of truth to the saying that " a picture is worth a thousand words" and maybe, just maybe, some of the guys and gals on here will get to the point where they want to be more accurate archers and learn some of the other ways of aiming non sight. For those of you who have never shot your bows at distance, you are missing out on one of the most beautiful sights, that of watching your arrows in flight for more than a nano second.


----------



## Basinboy (Oct 13, 2006)

steve morley said:


> Nice shooting and I enjoy Instinctive shooting, what I love about Gap is I can shoot 6 arrows like this at 60yards.


Great shooting Mr Steve! I need to practice at long distances.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> and maybe, just maybe, some of the guys and gals on here will get to the point where they want to be more accurate archers and learn some of the other ways of aiming non sight.


Highly likely...and you will be a wealth of info for those that would like to pursue that...BUT...it's also highly likely that some archers have found the technique that perfectly and accurately meets their every need.



itbeso said:


> For those of you who have never shot your bows at distance, you are missing out on one of the most beautiful sights, that of watching your arrows in flight for more than a nano second.


Dats fo sure!!!

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> In fact, you _did_ say that, but with numbers in front of it. That's why I point the blame at you


:wink: :thumbs_up



BarneySlayer said:


> Of course, we can still argue if we want to :wink:


Believe it or not....I honestly hate arguing...sooo...let's not if we don't need to :wink:



BarneySlayer said:


> I wonder what we could come up with about Instinctive Scoring... By this method, I am champion of my back/front yard!


What exactly is Instinctive scoring?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...so calling it the Gertrude Technique is less ridiculous? :wink:
> 
> Kinda.  Not that the term "instinctive" is ridiculous, until a very small percentage of archers actually have it in their mind that they shoot "instinctively" and do not use any part of their bow, arrow, body, or surroundings as a conscious or sub-conscious reference point.
> 
> ...


You realize that folks who shoot instinctively do not possess some mystical powers that allows them to become "one" with the bow and arrow, allowing them to hit exactly where they want every time, even blindfolded, nor is that what they are implying. I realize the same thing. Sadly, there are more than a few, who just like our compound shooting counterparts, actually make themselves believe things that simply are not true.

BTW Mr. Wesbrook, I have had this conversation with folks in the real world on a few occasions.

I shoot instinctively myself. I judge the distance, then instinctively slide my 3 fingers protected by a tab along the string until they align with my color coded instinctive thread used for various yardages, then I instinctively draw and put my tip where I want to hit and try to execute something remotely similar to a clean release.:tongue:


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

I'm really messed up here , so I make it a point to shoot instinctive this afternoon. So I just hit a random distance, the problem started when experience told me it was about 30 yards. So I draw with three fingers under the nock to shoot this thing instinctive , now I got another friggen issue. I know what the gap is between my aiming point and tip and there is no way not to see it.
So now I'm thinking SHEZZZZ , what the hay. So I decide to spit in the air and shoot from where ever it hits dirt, ok now from experience tells me I'm at 23 or so yards, nother problem. You guessed it. I know what the gap is that is right there in my sight window again, there is no ignoring it. So I said screw it and just shot it and called it instinctive. problem solved. :wink: 
You boys are either way over thinking this thing , or you would argue with a rock. The only thing instinctive is the site picture and the gap created by it on whether it is correct elevation wise, the gap can be very large or very small depending on how you set it up. There is many ways to skin a cat gap shooting, but one way or another it is all about the gap.

Scott


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Basinboy said:


> Great shooting Mr Steve! I need to practice at long distances.


Nice, Once you go Gap, you never go back!! LOL!

But seriously, when I was Instinctive aiming I never knew how to correct my aiming flaws, and could not easily discern between aiming and form flaws. Now when I gap, elevation issues are eliminated. Any error is directly related to form. No more guessing. Hit the bale, work on form, then come game time, go out and execute, because I know the gaps. Not busting instinctive aiming, but I'm too old to shoot a thousand arrows so my Instincts can kick in, I can shoot a dozen arrows and know all my gaps from 10 to 30 yds which is all I need to know at this time.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Big Country said:


> You realize that folks who shoot instinctively do not possess some mystical powers that allows them to become "one" with the bow and arrow, allowing them to hit exactly where they want every time, even blindfolded, nor is that what they are implying. I realize the same thing. Sadly, there are more than a few, who just like our compound shooting counterparts, actually make themselves believe things that simply are not true.


:thumbs_up



Big Country said:


> BTW Mr. Wesbrook, I have had this conversation with folks in the real world on a few occasions.


Me too!



Big Country said:


> I shoot instinctively myself. I judge the distance, then instinctively slide my 3 fingers protected by a tab along the string until they align with my color coded instinctive thread used for various yardages, then I instinctively draw and put my tip where I want to hit and try to execute something remotely similar to a clean release.:tongue:


That's NOT Instinctive Aiming...but I think you already know that :tongue: :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MotherLode said:


> The only thing instinctive is the site picture and the gap created by it on whether it is correct elevation wise, the gap can be very large or very small depending on how you set it up. There is many ways to skin a cat gap shooting, but one way or another it is all about the gap.
> 
> Scott


Assuming your form is good to where your left and right issues are not inconsistent, that's all that's really left to chance decision, elevation estimation. Whether we shoot with a sight pin or bare bones, it's still just our sight picture at work at the right moment of release - pretty much all in the subconscious either way - one way just narrows the gap more closely than the other, hence, one has less overall variance in the dispersion.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MotherLode said:


> The only thing instinctive is the site picture and the gap created by it on whether it is correct elevation wise, the gap can be very large or very small depending on how you set it up. There is many ways to skin a cat gap shooting, but one way or another it is all about the gap.


For the archers that TRULY shoot Totally Instinctively...the gap NEVER enters their mind consciously in regards to a known measurement between the aiming reference and the target.

For those archers...it just does NOT consciously factor in as it does with nearly any other aiming technique using an aiming reference...even when a gap can exist. Archers aiming Totally Instinctively primarily rely on proprioception/kinesthesia and muscle/motor memory to hit their targets...NOT consciously knowing and adjusting a gap within their sight picture.

People need to start realizing that a DIFFERENCE does in FACT EXIST between Gap Aiming and Instinctive Aiming. THEY ARE NOT ONE IN THE SAME.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Can anyone tell me what this archer's gaps are for the shots he takes?

Does anyone believe that he consciously knows exactly what his gaps are for the shots he takes?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Ray, everyone is entitled to their interpretation, explanations, and opinions. No one NEEDS to see it your way. There's nothing anywhere that says we are wrong, and there's nothing anywhere that says you are wrong. You should learn to embrace the knowledge and understanding of others and they might start to see some of what you have to say.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Can anyone tell me what this archer's gaps are for the shots he takes?
> 
> Does anyone believe that he consciously knows exactly what his gaps are for the shots he takes?
> 
> Ray :shade:


Sure, the moment he decided how far he was going to stand from the target - he paced off the target and consciously started determining his gaps.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sanford said:


> Whether you shoot from the hip, behind the back, or eye level, there's gapping involved. Matter fact, lower positions allow a much easier gap at very short distance - you can see gap and elevation of entire arrow at the same time in your peripheral. Now, you get on a continuum from the sighted shooter who doesn't notice his sight much to the instinctive guy who sees nothing at all. More likely, two describing the same thing.


Sure, from a biological/physical perspective, sure. But, as far as a conscious approach to a method, and I mean this in non-nervous system definition, i.e., us lay people, if a person doesn't think they're gapping, or know that they're using a particular method other than looking at where they want to hit, I think it's a pretty useful defintion. If we say that because these mechanisms are used, particularly to the extent that if you can see the bow/arrow and target at the same time, you are therefore using the method of Gapping, that's not a very useful definition. From a discussion of the physical processes involved, it may be accurate and useful to acknolwedge. 

However, if you're saying that everybody who can see the bow/arrow, regardless of whether they know they're doing it, is by definition Gap Aiming, I see your point, but it's not a very useful definition, because if you go by that criteria, everybody does the same thing, which may be true of you generalize enough, though that kind of defeats the purpose of description and a definition.

I guess I mean to stress that while the physical and largely neurological processes may have similiarities, and even be identical in some cases if you're looking at it from a sensory level, from the standpoint of a useful description that actually means something that describes what people are talking about, in this case, for the _broad_ umbrella of Instinctive Aiming, what the shooter _thinks_ they are doing, _is_ what they are doing. You can parse out the mechanisms and be perfectly correct, but it doesn't change the fact that they are executing those processes by one approach or another.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> What exactly is Instinctive scoring?
> 
> Ray :shade:


Example:

"The shot _felt_ good. The target lines may not agree, but my gut instinct tells me that was a 10, so let's score it that way. It was probably just a fluke. Most of the time, I can hit a pine cone at 40 yards."


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Sure, the moment he decided how far he was going to stand from the target - he paced off the target and consciously started determining his gaps.


LOL...are you serious?

So do you know what his gap measurements are at those distances?

Do you have any videos of yourself shooting this quickly?

Unless you have shot this quickly...you will KNOW that you will have no idea exactly what your gaps are for any distance you shoot from.

An archer who shoots this quickly is relying on proprioception/kinesthesia and muscle/motor memory...NOT a gap!

There's a reason why Instinctive Aiming is often compared to throwing a ball or shooting a basketball.

ANYONE who has been a successful athlete knows that when they are throwing a ball or shooting a basketball they're NOT thinking about exactly where and how their arms need to be positioned or gapped to hit their target. In most..if not nearly every situation...if an athlete starts thinking about how they need to move their body...they've already lost and missed their target.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Example:
> 
> "The shot _felt_ good. The target lines may not agree, but my gut instinct tells me that was a 10, so let's score it that way. It was probably just a fluke. Most of the time, I can hit a pine cone at 40 yards."


LOL....I know some people who score like that. It's called Fantasy or Denial scoring in my book :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

A sign of a poor or mediocre coach is one who over generalizes and believes those generalizations should fit anyone and everyone and therefore that is how they teach and coach...no matter what the individual archer's goals, abilities and personality would benefit more from.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Ray, everyone is entitled to their interpretation, explanations, and opinions. No one NEEDS to see it your way.


ABSOLUTELY :thumbs_up

But in a debate...there will often be disagreements and there is nothing wrong with sharing evidence and/or asking more questions between others.

It amazes me how some people seem to get sooo offended just because someone asks them for more detailed information or a deeper explanation. It's as if they are saying...how dare you ask me to explain anything further.



Sanford said:


> There's nothing anywhere that says we are wrong, and there's nothing anywhere that says you are wrong.


When there are 2 DIFFERENT beliefs...BOTH can't be right...but...both can be wrong :wink:

A correct and accurate answer does exist...it's up to us to figure it out or at least try.



Sanford said:


> You should learn to embrace the knowledge and understanding of others and they might start to see some of what you have to say.


I definitely embrace the knowledge and understanding of others...but I won't always agree...and when I don't...I'll ask questions or share the evidence that we can all discuss.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

Ray, when I posted that last night I knew that I had two choices this morning. I could either argue with my wife over a chair I moved 6 inches last night or argue with you over what is instinctive , even though decades went by when I didn't even know what gap shooting was or meant. But for now I have to go see about a stud Billy Goat and argue over price. Plus it gives me time to think about a meaningless reply to a meaningless thread. :wink:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

My engineering experience taught me that when you have trouble finding an answer, the real problem is often in the question. You just can't get the right answer if you ask the wrong question.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MotherLode said:


> Plus it gives me time to think about a meaningless reply. It's all good LOL


It's only meaningless if your reply is filled with meaningless information that no one can learn anything from.

If your reply is respectful, honest and filled with evidence we can discuss...it's NOT meaningless in my book...even if we may still disagree.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> My engineering experience taught me that when you have trouble finding an answer, the real problem is often in the question. You just can't get the right answer if you ask the wrong question.


Sooo often...very true!

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> A sign of a poor or mediocre coach is one who over generalizes and believes those generalizations should fit anyone and everyone and therefore that is how they teach and coach...no matter what the individual archer's goals, abilities and personality would benefit more from.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Then it's a good thing I don't call myself a coach!

My daughter just started wrestling in middle school. So often I want to brain dump on her, which of course would not be helpful. There are so many little details regarding sequence, stance, head position, steps, pressure, leverage, timing, that more experienced wrestlers never think about, things that make a world of difference between picking somebody else up and taking them down to their back vs. simply getting flattened on your face with somebody on top trying to bend your arm around the back of your head. Lots of easy, little things. A couple times, I've asked her, "Can I show you something?", and she has graciously let me go through the motions, and I think she may have been okay with it maybe even learned something, sort of, but I need to also realize that her coach is throwing a lot at her, and she can only absorb so much. Plus, when she's done with practice, she's really ready to be done with practice. In the long run, it's most important that she has fun with it. She'll learn more that way, in wrestling, and beyond.

I guess there are two things in this that actually relate to the thread. First, is that our bodies/minds can learn very specific, literally non-instinctive movements, such that we can perform those actions in a way that _seems_ like it was innate. However, when you first try to learn those motions, you have to do them slowly (such is the value of a really light bow when beginning), and it feels like a real hassle, such that it would also seem like all of those details are unnecessary over complications. (i.e., why bother with a shot sequence, just look at the target, grip it, and rip it). Initially, all of those steps _do_ get in the way of their own execution, before they are internalized. Some wrestlers at the lower levels do alright taking the approach of just grabbing the other person and trying to push them down, particularly at a young age when they may be far more physically developed than their peers. However, _nobody_ competes at a top level, even in high school, without having developed very good technique and form, developed from hours and hours of repetitive training.

Similarly, the wrestler, while he or she may learn as much as they can, must ultimately craft their own style, based on their personal strengths, features, and abilities. All things do not work equally well for all people against all opponents. If you try to force something that just won't go, it will inevitably fail, or at least not work as well as another alternative.

Also similarly, once you reach a certain proficiency, those little details fall away, maybe even get forgotten and archived for purely diagnostic use, and thinking becomes more of simply looking for, and trying to create opportunities, and the moves themselves become automatic, just like an experienced archer will often focus on a few key elements of the shot sequence that tend to steer everything else in line.

Okay, I've rambled, but then, haven't we all, just a little bit, in this thread? It's not always a bad thing to stray off topic .


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Sure, from a biological/physical perspective, sure. But, as far as a conscious approach to a method, and I mean this in non-nervous system definition, i.e., us lay people, if a person doesn't think they're gapping, or know that they're using a particular method other than looking at where they want to hit, I think it's a pretty useful defintion. If we say that because these mechanisms are used, particularly to the extent that if you can see the bow/arrow and target at the same time, you are therefore using the method of Gapping, that's not a very useful definition. From a discussion of the physical processes involved, it may be accurate and useful to acknolwedge.
> 
> However, if you're saying that everybody who can see the bow/arrow, regardless of whether they know they're doing it, is by definition Gap Aiming, I see your point, but it's not a very useful definition, because if you go by that criteria, everybody does the same thing, which may be true of you generalize enough, though that kind of defeats the purpose of description and a definition.
> 
> I guess I mean to stress that while the physical and largely neurological processes may have similiarities, and even be identical in some cases if you're looking at it from a sensory level, from the standpoint of a useful description that actually means something that describes what people are talking about, in this case, for the _broad_ umbrella of Instinctive Aiming, what the shooter _thinks_ they are doing, _is_ what they are doing. You can parse out the mechanisms and be perfectly correct, but it doesn't change the fact that they are executing those processes by one approach or another.


If instinctive aiming is a refined gap to the point of subconscious execution on the sight picture, what is a Gap to the point of execution on the sight picture in the subconscious or sighted for that matter? 

After you have shot both for awhile, you find not enough to dwell on much or to create a whole confusing point of concern for teaching new archers. Whether sighted or unsighted, a good coach will just teach an archer to shoot a bow and the aiming is small enough an issue to never warrant full disaggregation from the process. Even in sighted archery, a good coach de-emphasize aiming over emphasizing it - the ultimate being a sighted shooter who can more subconsciously aim his sight aperture and worry about his archery. All the while, never worrying about "any" definition. It's all just archery.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Barney,

A good coach will do as you did...as you took into consideration your daughter's goals, ABILITIES and personality.

Each one of those should play a roll in how a good/great coach addresses and coaches a specific student.

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with teaching fundamentals to a new or old student...unless it does NOT fit their goals or abilities. There are alos variations of fundamentals in regards to archery just as there is variations between the different fundamentals/techniques in MMA's. Karate isn't the same as Kung Fu...for example...even though BOTH are considered MMA.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> If instinctive aiming is a refined gap to the point of subconscious execution on the sight picture, what is a Gap to the point of execution on the sight picture in the subconscious or sighted for that matter?


IF...it FULLY evolves into that...than it has become Instinctive Aiming...BUT...people need to understand...that there are different levels of conscious awareness/concentration/focus that can be confused or perceived as subconscious/unconscious.

If at ANY point an archer is even slightly consciously aware of their aiming reference as they adjust their sight picture to hit their target...they are NOT aiming Totally Instinctively as the name applies to a unique way to aim a barebow.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Ray, the name applies to many different interpretations. There's nothing anyone needs to understand other than your opinion on your interpretation, which doesn't negate any other.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Understanding the differences and variations in form is really no different than understanding the differences and variations in aiming techniques.

Being a great coach involves being able to accurately communicate and explain what the archer needs or should be doing based on their goals, abilities and personality.

If a person isn't coaching, isn't trying to learn a new technique and is happy with their shooting....it shouldn't matter how they think they are aiming. 

It's only important in good communication, teaching or learning.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

To claim that Instinctive Aiming is no different than Gap is like saying there is no difference in a closed stance vs. an open stance or 3 Under vs. Split Finger.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sanford said:


> If instinctive aiming is a refined gap to the point of subconscious execution on the sight picture, what is a Gap to the point of execution on the sight picture in the subconscious or sighted for that matter?


I need the second half of that question explained, but I did understand the first part. On the first part, I would say that the IF condition is not a given. If somebody practices gap aiming in the explicit sense (i.e., I learn my gaps as given distances, then execute those gaps) and eventually become so used to doing that, that they forget how they're doing it, but they're still, as a matter of cognitive process (and forgive me if I'm using that incorrectly, it's been over... jeez...about 18 years since I studied cognitive science), using the arrow/riser to aim, and they understand that they're doing that, aware of it while they're shooting, I would call that using a gap aiming method. If somebody is using features of the sight picture (i.e., doing the same thing that the gap shooter is doing), but has no idea of how they're doing what they're doing, I would throw that under Instinctive Aiming. I realize that both may physiologically be the same thing, but the gap shooter has a fundamental difference. Even if the gap shooter has the process highly automated, even to the point of not thinking about setting the gap explicitly, even if the gap shooter loses track of the arrow in terms of mental focus during the shot sequence, to in effect, be shooting pretty much the same way as the shooter who does 'Instinctive Aiming', the gap shooter is aware of that there is a relationship between the particulars of the sight picture and the path of the arrow. If a shooter who relies on Instinctive Aiming were to become aware that their point lined up XXX" below the intended target, even though they might have knowledge, it wouldn't mean anything to them. I realize that this is, in effect, a very subtle distinction, but in common application, I think it's still useful. While I agree that you can say that everybody is gap shooting to some degree or another, I would, personally, put that into the minutia of detailed discussion.



> After you have shot both for awhile, you find not enough to dwell on much or to create a whole confusing point of concern for teaching new archers. Whether sighted or unsighted, a good coach will just teach an archer to shoot a bow and the aiming is small enough an issue to never warrant full disaggregation from the process. Even in sighted archery, a good coach de-emphasize aiming over emphasizing it - the ultimate being a sighted shooter who can more subconsciously aim his sight aperture and worry about his archery. All the while, never worrying about "any" definition. It's all just archery.


I sure agree with you there


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Just for clarification...I ALWAYS emphasize the importance of learning form FIRST.

Just because a person chooses to discuss what is and is not involved with Instinctive Aiming does NOT mean that they are trying to emphasize aiming over form... in case anyone was making such an inaccurate assumption.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

It's interesting how some people try and de-emphasize aiming into an almost non-event in regards to shooting a bow and arrow accurately.

It's as if...when a person asks about a specific aiming technique or how to improve their accuracy under specific circumstances...these same people who want to de-emphasize it...would rather just tell them to work on their stance or some other aspect of their form...when it in fact may be an issue with learning a new aiming technique.

There's a reason why there are countless books that go into detail discussing aiming techniques.

If it was soooo unimportant or such a non-event for many archers...as some people would like us to think it is...you wouldn't see so many books, videos and questions being asked about the different aiming techniques.

An archer's aiming technique and execution may not be as important as specific aspects of their form...but aiming is still important...and for some archers...learning a different aiming technique may immediately increase their accuracy.

A good/great coach will know and be able to explain the differences between the different aiming techniques and the general advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances to help guide their students in becoming the archers they want to become.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

Your right Ray , and I apoligize for the way I came off in my last posts, here is a question though. Is it truelly gap shooting if someone knows that if they shoot point on 12 in below the mark that it will hit the mark at a given distance ?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MotherLode said:


> Your right Ray , and I apoligize for the way I came off in my last posts,


No prob. I figured you were most likely joking.



MotherLode said:


> Is it truelly gap shooting if someone knows that if they shoot point on 12 in below the mark that it will hit the mark at a given distance ?


It really depends on what the archer is focusing on. They could be aiming Point of Aim, Split Vision or Gap.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I don't know how you could expect to hit anything if you don't aim...by some method. Sure enough, you'll probably miss if your form isn't consistent but, you'll also miss if you don't aim. Only hits count.

Leave it to me to be contrary but I've decided that I don't like this "blank bale" stuff. Things go differently when I'm trying to hit something and the form and aiming have to mesh or I don't hit anything. If anything, I move to my point on, which is only a shade over 30 yards.

I know that "good" shots can feel and sound different than bad shots but, too me, the proof is the group. I can't tell anything about the group unless I'm aiming at the same spot every shot.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> Leave it to me to be contrary but I've decided that I don't like this "blank bale" stuff. Things go differently when I'm trying to hit something and the form and aiming have to mesh or I don't hit anything.


Have you tried to make the transition from Blank Bale to hitting a target by using The Bridge technique?

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Have you tried to make the transition from Blank Bale to hitting a target by using The Bridge technique?
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


No, not really.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> No, not really.


That could be part of the reason you're not able to transfer what you developed at the Blank Bale to shooting at targets...BUT...if you've found something that currently works...GREAT! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## 05allegiance (Sep 11, 2008)

I'm going to guess 10 pages.. Anybody else?


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

05allegiance said:


> I'm going to guess 10 pages.. Anybody else?


At least it's 10 civil pages.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Easykeeper said:


> At least it's 10 civil pages.


This is a perfect example on how a topic can be discussed and kept civil...even when people may disagree.

Big difference when compared to how these threads use to go with a certain individual/individuals were participating in them.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

When Jimmy did his Gap shooting video he said the Gap becomes "Instinctive like" for me its just knowing within myself the Gap is right, the only conscious input is before the shot starts, visualizing the sequence and gap after that I will only be consciously aware of the Gap if the aim/sight picture feels wrong, my aiming focus is directed at where I want the arrow to hit "Instinctive like" and a few key elements of my shot sequence, when Im learning a new bow I much more aware of the Gaps as confidence increases I can put less attention to the arrow gap and more towards where I want the arrow to go. If I start looking for the arrow tip in relation to the target it wont be such a good shot.

Instinct is a different mental process for me, just looking where I want to hit and letting my body react to the shot, its more of a leap of faith in trusting that it will work as I dont get that same awareness if the shot sight picture is right/wrong and find the actual shot sequence is more subconscious also.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

MGF said:


> Leave it to me to be contrary but I've decided that I don't like this "blank bale" stuff. Things go differently when I'm trying to hit something and the form and aiming have to mesh or I don't hit anything. If anything, I move to my point on, which is only a shade over 30 yards.


I feel very much the same way. I used to do a lot of blank bale shooting, thinking I was making my form better, mostly with my compound bow. The practice of removing the target, I think, can be useful if you're actually having a problem with the target or aiming getting in the way of the shot sequence execution. If that is the case, and you're trying to work on something specific for your form, blank baling, in my opinion, can be useful. However, it seems to be that when I'm trying to hit something small, it forces my form to get better more than a blank bale, because if my form suffers, the grouping suffers, and I miss. There are still aspects of the shot sequence that i'm working on that swamp aiming in significance, but it becomes far more obvious to me when at 20 yards and arrow goes 4 inches, or more, left or right. If I'm doing things right (for me), the groups should be 2-3 inches wide, and I want to cement that. If it's a little wider, I might need to just pay more attention. If much bigger than 4 inches, I need to stop and figure out what I need to do differently, and focus on that, because I'm simply doing something wrong. Even with my crude aiming system, I should be able to hit a beer can at 20 yards if my shot execution is close to correct. If it's a close miss, I try harder. If it's not close, I need to back up. Regardless, I need the feedback. Otherwise, I'll just do what I did before, and develop (more) bad habits.

Similarly, I was playing with a chronograph again today, comparing string materials and silencers differences and i saw again that I could get vast differences in arrow speed with a collapse, and significant differences in arrow speed if I had a glitch and executed a release that was closer to dead than dynamic. Perhaps a chronograph could be used as a training tool, particularly if you don't have access to shooting very long distances, where arrow speed makes more of a difference. I know when I'm shooting in the 50+ yard range, it becomes much more critical to get consistent draw an expansion.

Hold on, i'm having a Deja Vu.... I think Viper has said this before. Maybe it was in some book or other propaganda...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

steve morley said:


> When Jimmy did his Gap shooting video he said the Gap becomes "Instinctive like" for me its just knowing within myself the Gap is right, the only conscious input is before the shot starts, visualizing the sequence and gap after that I will only be consciously aware of the Gap if the aim/sight picture feels wrong, my aiming focus is directed at where I want the arrow to hit "Instinctive like" and a few key elements of my shot sequence, when Im learning a new bow I much more aware of the Gaps as confidence increases I can put less attention to the arrow gap and more towards where I want the arrow to go. If I start looking for the arrow tip in relation to the target it wont be such a good shot.
> 
> Instinct is a different mental process for me, just looking where I want to hit and letting my body react to the shot, its more of a leap of faith in trusting that it will work as I dont get that same awareness if the shot sight picture is right/wrong and find the actual shot sequence is more subconscious also.


Similar, though less experienced, experience recently. I've been learning the gap shooting, getting better slowly. It's not so much learning the gaps themselves, but getting the gap references integrated into my shot sequence such that they don't trip me up. Anyway, we got a speed round section, and for the last few targets, probably at 7 yards or so, I consciously decided to not even worry about settling into a 'right' sight picture, but rather just thought of it as shoving the arrows into the target right off the string. It's interesting, in that I started shooting with a more 'Instinctive' approach, but as i get used to gapping, even if I may not set my gap with explicit instructions to myself or elevation of windage, unless it's reactionary, it has become part of the process, more part of the awareness, even if the focus of attention is elsewhere.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> It's not so much learning the gaps themselves, but getting the gap references integrated into my shot sequence such that they don't trip me up.


By mentally setting the Gap and visualizing/running the shot sequence just before I start the shot is like resetting/programming the subconscious, a bonus is that it stops you over thinking the shot or any negative thoughts creeping into the the mind at that critical moment, it has helped me shoot consistently under high pressure tourney situations over the last few years.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Back in 1969 I started shooting a gap system using fractions of an inch at the end of the arrow, the fractions being the distance between the tip of the arrow and the spot, bringing the spot back from the target and visualizing it sitting right over the end of my arrow. That gap system is done approximately 30 inches in front of your face rather than up at the target many yards away. There is nothing instinctive or subconscious about it. I memorize every gap for every yardage and at no time does it get relegated to my subconscious. When aiming, I am acutely aware of the gap distance at all times. It is my contention that if anyone is relying on their subconscious mind to do their aiming for them, they are not going to realize their full potential as far as scores and animals taken are concerned. This seems to be a never ending discussion but the facts and scores are there for the world to see. I just don't seem to get it when archers are given a path to success and want to look a gift horse in the mouth. I do get the fact that not everyone is trying to be world champ, but on the other hand I, personally, have never met an archer who didn't want to shoot better. There have been statements made that instinctive works better for short distances and gap works better for longer shots. Again, it is my conviction that gap shooting is more accurate at any distance than instinctive, stringwalking even more accurate, in theory.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Itbeso even Oly target shooters are taught to focus on the spot and let the subconscious guide the sight, your method obviously works for you and Ive tried it myself but personally Im more comfortable focusing on the spot allow the known Gap to center itself subconsciously. Some people do some strange stuff when it comes to aiming, as long as they are happy with the results theyre getting who am I to preach anything different.

I have to say Instinct is not a short range game, IBO made it like that, I have won UK NFAS Nationals a number of times first couple of times was Instinctive before I switched to Gap, NFAS is all unmarked Animal or 3D rounds, no rule about max distances so some shots can be 100 yards but normally the average Deer shot was somewhere between 30 to 45 yards.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> I just don't seem to get it when archers are given a path to success and want to look a gift horse in the mouth. I do get the fact that not everyone is trying to be world champ, but on the other hand I, personally, have never met an archer who didn't want to shoot better. There have been statements made that instinctive works better for short distances and gap works better for longer shots. Again, it is my conviction that gap shooting is more accurate at any distance than instinctive, stringwalking even more accurate, in theory.


It's all really circumstantial.

When an archer masters Instinctive Aiming....shot execution can become very quick...which is an advantage in many hunting circumstances that can require a quick shot such as...shooting at certain moving targets, animals appearing in a short window of opportunity, not needing to consciously analize yardage or gaps, etc. etc.

It's not that an archer can't learn to shoot fast with any other aiming technique...it's just that Instinctive Aiming allows the archer to shoot even quicker due to how the brain works.

An archer that has never mastered or even tried Instinctive Aiming will most likely never understand or realize the benefits of it...just as the same is true for some archers who have never tried or mastered Gap Aiming or any of the other Barebow aiming techniques.

It all boils down to an archer's GOALS, ABILITIES and PERSONALITY.

There is NOT a one size fits all.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

I have been working with split-vision for the last month. I love it. It's not a big change from what I was doing, but it has made a huge difference in my "consistent" accuracy, especially at longer distances. I am consistently killing a medium deer at 45 yds, couldn't do that at all before and 20yds seems like 10yds now. Speck


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I've been trying a little bit of everything. I normally do a split vision kind of thing with my primary focus on the target. I don't measure gaps (though I did a few weeks back just to see what they were). I just memorize what the sight picture need to look like. My gaps don't change much out to 25 yards anyway. Beyond that, it would be some real pot luck trying to hunt because the arrow is droping like a rock.

When I get sloppy or in some strange lighting conditions, I'll focus more on the arrow like you would the front sight when using iron sights on a gun. The other day I started playing around with string walking. Like I said, the gaps don't change much over my hunting distance so the thought of just grabbing the string a little lower and shooting point on is kind of interesting. I have to play with it some more.

I also mess with shooting in the dark and air born targets (though I haven't done that for a while)...instinctive?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> I have been working with split-vision for the last month. I love it.


Speck,

That's awesome! :shade:

Curious....the Split Vision Aiming technique can mean something specific for different people. Which definition or meaning are you applying to your aiming technique?

#1. The Split Vision term was originally made famous by Howard Hill where an archer would place their arrow tip on a secondary marker within their sight picture and than focused on the target as their vision/concentration was basically split between the arrow tip, the secondary marker and the target.

#2. This version for Split Vision basically describes what most expereinced Gap shooters end up doing...where the archer focuses primarily on the target but is aware of where their aiming reference within their periphial vision as it relates to the target by means of a gap. It's Gap Aiming but just a different way of saying it like I do when I describe one of my aiming techniques as Gapstinctive.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Ray, probably #2 would best describe it. I see the arrow, but it's not like I am focusing on exactly where it needs to be, but rather I know where it is?? That may not make any sense. I have heard it described as "a feel good gap". It has definitely improved my consistency and I am looking forward to "test driving" it in a tourney. Speck


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> Ray, probably #2 would best describe it. I see the arrow, but it's not like I am focusing on exactly where it needs to be, but rather I know where it is?? That may not make any sense. I have heard it described as "a feel good gap".


Totally makes sense! :thumbs_up

That's exactly how I aim for most of my shots...which some people often confuse with Instinctive Aiming...because we are not analizing our gaps and are more or less feeling them at a lower level of conscious awareness.

It's basically Gap Aiming in limbo which is in between Instinctive Aiming and Gap Aiming at a higher level of conscious awareness.

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It's all really circumstantial.
> 
> When an archer masters Instinctive Aiming....shot execution can become very quick...which is an advantage in many hunting circumstances that can require a quick shot such as...shooting at certain moving targets, animals appearing in a short window of opportunity, not needing to consciously analize yardage or gaps, etc. etc.
> 
> ...


Ray, we've had this discussion many times before. I still feel that any archers GOAL is to be a better shot. By the same token, an archers ABILITY is going to be improved by using a superior aiming system. An archers PERSONALITY has nothing to do with bettering themself as a shooter if that is what they want to accomplish. Like I said, I have never met an archer who didn't want to be a better shot though not every one wanted to dedicate themselves to being a champion or a member of the Grand Slam Club. One of the problems here is the repeated definition of a gap as being a point up on the target so many inches or feet below the spot. That is pick-a-point shooting. The true gap shooting technique is every bit as fast as shooting instinctively and infinitely more accurate. The problem with hunting stories is that there is usually noone else around to verify or refute the storyteller so how does one really know the truth about whether we are accurate in the woods or not. I know that my shot to kill ratio using the gap system has been extremely good over the years but do I have proof of that, no. That is one of the main reasons many archers are going to be short changed on here, so many contradictary opinions which tend to lend confusion to any cry for help.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Ray, we've had this discussion many times before. I still feel that any archers GOAL is to be a better shot.


For most of us our ultimate goal is to become a better shot...but that's an overly generalized statement unless you look into the details on what those goals entail. Does a future Olympian have the EXACT same goals and needs based on the goals of a bowhunter or trick shot?

The answer should be a clear, NO...but if you don't agree...we'll just have to agree to disagree.



itbeso said:


> By the same token, an archers ABILITY is going to be improved by using a superior aiming system.


Not necessarily so. It's still going to be circumstantial. An archer who is gifted with superior hand and eye coordination and has learned to make their aiming technique work under the circumstances they are shooting in will not need to learn any other aiming technique...even if some other aiming technique is considered 'superior' by a few people.

There's a reason why Instinctive Aiming has advantages under certain circumstances over other aiming techniques.

Gap Aiming is NOT the superior aiming technique under all and every circumstance for everyone!

AGAIN...if you can't understand how it's circumstantial and why some people excel in certain sports more than others or how some archers can excel aiming Instinctively more than others...we'll just have to agree to disagree.



itbeso said:


> An archers PERSONALITY has nothing to do with bettering themself as a shooter if that is what they want to accomplish.


Sure it does. If you've spent years coaching people for as long as I have...you would understand how a GREAT coach takes into account an athletes personality in how they approach coaching that individual. 

Some people are left brain thinkers. Some people are right brain thinkers...and what that basically means is some people are more analytical while others are more feeling oriented...and a good coach can take that into consideration and design a more customized program to suit that individuals personality.

A person who is more analytical may like aiming techniques such as String Walking, Face Walking, Gap and Point of Aim...than an archer that is drawn more to gut feelings and emotion.

Again...if you still can't understand what I'm explaining...we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso,

I heard you did pretty good in Vegas this year :thumbs_up

Do you happen to know how the archers who beat you aimed or was everyone using the same 'superior' Gap aiming technique you use?

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> itbeso,
> 
> I heard you did pretty good in Vegas this year :thumbs_up
> 
> ...


Ray, your attempt at sarcasm was thinly veiled. You have no Idea what I had to go through at Vegas just to keep arrows on the paper and if you think those scores were indicative of how I shoot, why don't you check back in a month or so.Meanwhile I'll take my licking and keep on ticking, so get your digs in while it's fashionable.:jeez:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Ray, your attempt at sarcasm was thinly veiled. You have no Idea what I had to go through at Vegas just to keep arrows on the paper and if you think those scores were indicative of how I shoot, why don't you check back in a month or so.Meanwhile I'll take my licking and keep on ticking, so get your digs in while it's fashionable.:jeez:


WOW...you sure are a sensitive person :jeez:

I'm sorry if you some how took my question as a scarcastic dig towards you.

It amazes me how you could feel that way when I was giving you a thumbs up to your accomplishment and have made positive and supportive comments on other threads about your abilities.

The question wasn't meant as a dig or any kind of thinly veiled attack on you and/or your abilities.

It was meant to shed some light on your belief on how your aiming technique is the 'superior' technique....when in fact...most archers scoring well in that specific type of competition...use Point of Aim as they adjust their form and equipment to get their POD at or close to 20yrds.

Under those circumstances and with those specific goals...POA is the 'superior' aiming technique when compared to Gap or any of the other Barebow aiming techniques....generally speaking.

AGAIN...it's circumstantial! There is NOT a one size fits all or a 'superior' technique that applies to everyone under any and every circumstance.

Ray :shade:


----------



## 05allegiance (Sep 11, 2008)

Wow, i was way off.. im now going to say 24 pages.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Ben - can you say "********"

Matt


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Totally makes sense! :thumbs_up
> 
> That's exactly how I aim for most of my shots...which some people often confuse with Instinctive Aiming...because we are not analizing our gaps and are more or less feeling them at a lower level of conscious awareness.
> 
> ...



Before he started string walking, Scott Antczak did a video on shooting, and what you are describing I believe is what he call "feel good" gap shooting, which is pretty much how I feel I shoot....or maybe what some people now call "gapstinctive".


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

fotoguy said:


> Before he started string walking, Scott Antczak did a video on shooting, and what you are describing I believe is what he call "feel good" gap shooting, which is pretty much how I feel I shoot....or maybe what some people now call "gapstinctive".


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Back in 1969 I started shooting a gap system using fractions of an inch at the end of the arrow, the fractions being the distance between the tip of the arrow and the spot, bringing the spot back from the target and visualizing it sitting right over the end of my arrow. That gap system is done approximately 30 inches in front of your face rather than up at the target many yards away. There is nothing instinctive or subconscious about it. I memorize every gap for every yardage and at no time does it get relegated to my subconscious. When aiming, I am acutely aware of the gap distance at all times. It is my contention that if anyone is relying on their subconscious mind to do their aiming for them, they are not going to realize their full potential as far as scores and animals taken are concerned. This seems to be a never ending discussion but the facts and scores are there for the world to see. I just don't seem to get it when archers are given a path to success and want to look a gift horse in the mouth. I do get the fact that not everyone is trying to be world champ, but on the other hand I, personally, have never met an archer who didn't want to shoot better. There have been statements made that instinctive works better for short distances and gap works better for longer shots. Again, it is my conviction that gap shooting is more accurate at any distance than instinctive, stringwalking even more accurate, in theory.


Itbeso, do you have any tips on visualizing gaps at the bow or arrow tip? I have not been successful with this visualization technique. Rather I've been gapping at the target, which works well for distances out to maybe 30 yards.


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

Yea that is what I told myself, but the little guy on my shoulder was being a dick


BLACK WOLF said:


> No prob. I figured you were most likely joking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Ben - can you say "********"
> 
> Matt


Matt, I have no idea what that means. Not familiar with the term, but coming from a friend it doesn't matter, good or bad. Just came back from an afternoon of practice and there is no better way to get a chip off your shoulder than watching arrows fly.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Itbeso, do you have any tips on visualizing gaps at the bow or arrow tip? I have not been successful with this visualization technique. Rather I've been gapping at the target, which works well for distances out to maybe 30 yards.


Since itbeso seems to be still working on his chip on his shoulder...I'll try to answer your question. Hopefully he will answer your question in a PM or come back later when he's calmed down.

I personally gap at the bow in fractions of inches...even though I can't tell you exactly what my gaps are for any specific distance.

It's how I perceive my gaps when others perceive them at the target.

You basically just have to make a conscious effort to perceive them at the bow or arrow tip rather than at the target.

Here's a link that may help explain it better or at least explain it better with pictures.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1775877

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> WOW...you sure are a sensitive person :jeez:
> 
> I'm sorry if you some how took my question as a scarcastic dig towards you.
> 
> ...


Ray, yes, I am a sensitive person and all my ladies like it that way.:teeth: Your argument for pod aiming in the Vegas competition is very narrow minded. Not I, nor very few others gap at that distance indoors. But to say that the gap system isn't in play there is ridiculous. The basic fundamental of knowing your gaps is based on knowing what your point on is because each gap is set off that point on. My point on is usually 40 yards but using your rationale, if i am shooting at a 40 yard target then I am not using my gap system. Of course I am, It just happens that 40 yards is my point on and a very integral part of the gap system. The winner at Vegas was a stringwalker as was the second place finisher. I have always stated that stringwalking was, in theory, the most accurate form of nonsight shooting. Unfortunately, in the trad class it is not allowed, and I feel the gap system is far superior than any other system in that style ( also nfaa bowhunter class) of shooting. You can rationalize all the other types of competition you want ( aerial shooting, speed shooting, etc.). A good gap shooter is going to be at the top of all of them. The good thing about the gap is that it is accurate right out of the box. You don't have to warm up with getting a point picked out or getting your rhythm down by shooting 20 arrows at thrown targets before you start scoring.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Your argument for pod aiming in the Vegas competition is very narrow minded. Not I, nor very few others gap at that distance indoors. But to say that the gap system isn't in play there is ridiculous.


There is really nothing wrong with being sensitive or compassionate. It's when a person becomes overly sensitive is where it can lead to problems. This is where your sensitiveity and poor assumptions over ride reality.

I've NEVER said your aiming system isn't in play or unworthy compared to any other aiming technique.

ALL I said was that the majority of archers, who compete at a high level in those type of tournaments are shooting POA and have adjusted their equipment and form to get the POD as close to 20yrds. as they can. 

If you want to disagree with that and twist that statement as an attack on your technique...have at it!

Maybe you modified your equipment and form to get your POD at 20yrds. for this competition? Maybe you used your Gap method and had your arrow tip below the target during this competition? I don't know...which is one of the reasons why I asked.



itbeso said:


> The basic fundamental of knowing your gaps is based on knowing what your point on is because each gap is set off that point on. My point on is usually 40 yards but using your rationale, if i am shooting at a 40 yard target then I am not using my gap system.


If a gap no longer exists as when an archer is shooting at their POD...they are no longer Gap Aiming. They are now using POA because a gap no longer exists between the arrow and the target.

String Walking and Face Walking are techniques where an archer changes their rear sight while they try to keep their arrow tip on target for different distances while aiming POA.

Aiming techniques are basically defined based on what the archer is consciously focusing on and is consciously aware of in regards to aiming references.



itbeso said:


> You can rationalize all the other types of competition you want ( aerial shooting, speed shooting, etc.). A good gap shooter is going to be at the top of all of them.


We will have to agree to disagree there.

The funny thing is....whenever a person PM's me or posts on this board asking about what I personally think is the best overall aiming technique for a number of different circumstances...I tell them it's Gap...but I aslo know that it is NOT the best aiming technique for EVERY circumstance and situation. You can choose to still believe what you do about your aiming technique or that String Walking or Face Walking are even better under every and all circumstances. I'll just still have to disagree.

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Itbeso, do you have any tips on visualizing gaps at the bow or arrow tip? I have not been successful with this visualization technique. Rather I've been gapping at the target, which works well for distances out to maybe 30 yards.


Urban, It is extremely hard to show our gap system to people in person so I doubt I can do it justice over the internet but I'll try. The first thing you must do is find what your point on distance is. My definition of point on is when the top arc of your arrow is aimed in the middle of the dot at some distance, and impacts in the middle of the dot. The next step is to move 5 yards closer and come to full draw with the tip of your arrow under the dot. The hardest thing for people to do is visualize the dot sitting in air over the end of their arrow rather than on the target many yards away. Think of the old bouncing ball when song lyrics were shown many years ago. With this in mind, your gap will be about3/16 to 1/4 inch for every 5 yards depending on your bow speed and anchor height on you face. Realize that a 1/4 inch gap at the end of your arrow would translate into many inches or feet down at the target. With that said, if you ever know where your arrow tip is pointed(except at point on) then you are not doing this gap system correctly. Your entire focus should be on the distance between your arrow tip and the spot, again visualizing the spot sitting in space over the tip of the arrow. So, if your point on is 40 yards then 35 would be approx. 3/16 gap between spot and arrow tip, 30 would be approx. 3/8 inch, 25 approx. 9/16 inch, etc.. If your point on is less than 40, then your short gaps will be even tighter. At longer distances than your point on it is imperative that you look through your arrow with both eyes open and use the gap in reverse, with the arrow tip over the dot this time. If we are ever at a tourney at the same time I would be more than happy to spend time explaining it in person.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Urban, It is extremely hard to show our gap system to people in person so I doubt I can do it justice over the internet but I'll try. The first thing you must do is find what your point on distance is. My definition of point on is when the top arc of your arrow is aimed in the middle of the dot at some distance, and impacts in the middle of the dot. The next step is to move 5 yards closer and come to full draw with the tip of your arrow under the dot. The hardest thing for people to do is visualize the dot sitting in air over the end of their arrow rather than on the target many yards away. Think of the old bouncing ball when song lyrics were shown many years ago. With this in mind, your gap will be about3/16 to 1/4 inch for every 5 yards depending on your bow speed and anchor height on you face. Realize that a 1/4 inch gap at the end of your arrow would translate into many inches or feet down at the target. With that said, if you ever know where your arrow tip is pointed(except at point on) then you are not doing this gap system correctly. Your entire focus should be on the distance between your arrow tip and the spot, again visualizing the spot sitting in space over the tip of the arrow. So, if your point on is 40 yards then 35 would be approx. 3/16 gap between spot and arrow tip, 30 would be approx. 3/8 inch, 25 approx. 9/16 inch, etc.. If your point on is less than 40, then your short gaps will be even tighter. At longer distances than your point on it is imperative that you look through your arrow with both eyes open and use the gap in reverse, with the arrow tip over the dot this time. If we are ever at a tourney at the same time I would be more than happy to spend time explaining it in person.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> There is really nothing wrong with being sensitive or compassionate. It's when a person becomes overly sensitive is where it can lead to problems. This is where your sensitiveity and poor assumptions over ride reality.
> 
> I've NEVER said your aiming system isn't in play or unworthy compared to any other aiming technique.
> 
> ...


Ray, you are so longwinded that it just seems like our disagreements are many.:teeth: I do modify my equipment for shooting Indoors at 20 yards as do most archers.When I say that stringwalking is, in theory, the most accurate form of nonsight shooting, I am obviously referring to stationary, accuracy tournaments such as field , 3-d, indoor, and target archery. my mistake was in not qualifying my statement because I mistakenly figured that most people would realize stringwalking, for instance, wouldn't usually be a viable system for aerial shooting nor speed shooting. So, if we want to get picky about things then I can definitely say that I use a gap at my point on distance from time to time. If I'm shooting a steep downhill 40 yard target where the cut is a yard or more, that creates a gapping situation, conversely, If I am shooting a steep uphill 40 yard target, there will again be a gapping situation as I will be adding yardage to my shot in order to hit the middle. Every aspect of archery has its nuances, that is why I try to keep things general in nature unless someone wants to get into certain specifics.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> my mistake was in not qualifying my statement.


:thumbs_up

That's a mistake many people make when they make over generalized statements without qualifing them in more detail. It's never wize to blindly make assumptions without asking questions first or just assume everyone knows what you're trying to imply....especially over the internet :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> :thumbs_up
> 
> That's a mistake many people make when they make over generalized statements without qualifing them in more detail. It's never wize to blindly make assumptions without asking questions first or just assume everyone knows what you're trying to imply....especially over the internet :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Would you say that's agreeing to disagree or disagreeing to agree?:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Would you say that's agreeing to disagree or disagreeing to agree?:wink:


LOL...I'll have to get back to you on that :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Itbeso I want to thank you for the tips you gave me on your aiming system and Gary also when I shot with him at NAFAC it has helped me reduce my short and mid range Gaps and really upped my Recurve Bowhunter game, the system you describe doesnt work so well for me and I had similar issues with Stringwalking where it did up my average scores but I still wasnt able to improve on my best Gap scores, I came to the conclusion after 3 months Stringwalking just wasnt suited to me.

I think I found the reason, on a recent eye test I found my dominant eye has become weaker and Im getting a conflict between both eyes, Im so used to shooting with both eyes open that when I close one eye I pick up too much movement and distracts from my Form, if I focus on the spot with both eyes and let the learned Gap float subconsciously I get my best performance results and able to shoot my most relaxed.

Your system may be more superior to normal Gap but it does not mean it will be superior for every person, this really relates to any of the non sighted aiming methods, I have seen many shooters living the Instinctive Robin Hood dream and its obviously not workng out for them, same goes for some Gappers Ive met where maybe Instinct would be a better choice, it may not be the best choice for they particular type of shooting i.e. Field but it gives them their best results.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Your system may be more superior to normal Gap but it does not mean it will be superior for every person, this really relates to any of the non sighted aiming methods, I have seen many shooters living the Instinctive Robin Hood dream and its obviously not workng out for them, same goes for some Gappers Ive met where maybe Instinct would be a better choice, it may not be the best choice for they particular type of shooting i.e. Field but it gives them their best results.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> This is a perfect example on how a topic can be discussed and kept civil...even when people may disagree.
> 
> Big difference when compared to how these threads use to go with a certain individual/individuals were participating in them.
> 
> Ray :shade:



I guess that you thought this cheap shot at a 'certain individual' would not be noticed since the 'certain individual' is not around right now to see it.
Oh yeah, the other /individuals are still watching out for the bs projected about instinctive shooting. Just because we have not participated in this long boring thread does not mean we're not watching.
Some of the participants in this thread really don't have a clue about instinctive shooting. But, since I doubt that anyone who has a serious interest to learn about the instinctive method is following it, I have pretty much considered it to be harmless.
Btw,I didn't realise that you had become a coach. I have a question about that. I have always noticed that you use the terms 'good' coach and 'great' coach quite often. In which category do you rate yourself as a coach? Good,great or GREAT?

Now, if you,or anyone else, don't want me to make the thread 'uncivilized', then refrain from taking the cheap shots at 'certain' individuals who are not present and capable of responding at this time.


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I guess that you thought this cheap shot at a 'certain individual' would not be noticed since the 'certain individual' is not around right now to see it.
> Oh yeah, the other /individuals are still watching out for the bs projected about instinctive shooting. Just because we have not participated in this long boring thread does not mean we're not watching.
> Some of the participants in this thread really don't have a clue about instinctive shooting. But, since I doubt that anyone who has a serious interest to learn about the instinctive method is following it, I have pretty much considered it to be harmless.
> Btw,I didn't realise that you had become a coach. I have a question about that. I have always noticed that you use the terms 'good' coach and 'grear' coach quite often. In which category do you rate yourself as a coach? Good,great or GREAT?
> ...


:thumbs_up


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

It's hard to ignore the truth and reality of the circumstance.

I don't take cheap shots at people that I wouldn't say to their face and like I said this thread has been a perfect example how this topic can be discussed without a bunch of drama created by certain individuals. I have NOT said anything here I haven't said before to anyone previously.

As far as qualifying myself as a certain type of coach...I would personally categorize myself as good after 25yrs. of coaching and training...but if someone wants to truly know how good of a coach they are...they need to ask their students and clients. I've never had a client tell me they weren't happy with what I taught them and I still have clients I've been training for years who can afford me.

I've already spelled out in other threads what separates a good coach from a mediocre coach.

To simplify it...a mediocre coach basically just teaches fundamentals and basically forces everyone into their mold without any customization or reference to a specific archer's goals, abilities and personality.

You may have your own definition and it may disagree with mine. So what...who cares. You have a right to your opinion and we all have the right to agree or disagree...and than talk about it.

If you want to create more drama here...go for it...but this thread has been pretty much drama free compared to how these topics use to go.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I guess that you thought this cheap shot at a 'certain individual' would not be noticed since the 'certain individual' is not around right now to see it.
> Oh yeah, the other /individuals are still watching out for the bs projected about instinctive shooting. Just because we have not participated in this long boring thread does not mean we're not watching.
> Some of the participants in this thread really don't have a clue about instinctive shooting. But, since I doubt that anyone who has a serious interest to learn about the instinctive method is following it, I have pretty much considered it to be harmless.
> Btw,I didn't realise that you had become a coach. I have a question about that. I have always noticed that you use the terms 'good' coach and 'great' coach quite often. In which category do you rate yourself as a coach? Good,great or GREAT?
> ...


Forest, you claim to be instinctive but this post is definitely pick-a-point. lol:teeth:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Some of the participants in this thread really don't have a clue about instinctive shooting.


Who might that be?

Although the most argued about on Internet Forums out of all the non sighted aiming methods Instinctive is likely the quickest to learn and easiest to explain (hardest to totally master) to a newbie because really you are just telling them to ignore the arrow and focus on the spot and keep shooting till they start nailing their target, when they are happy with groups to start mixing it up with various shots/distances, a large part of the Instinctive aiming process is just trial and error on the archers part, all a Coach can really do is help develop better Form consistency and help them understand better if any miss is due to aiming error, tuning error or form error, what is so hard about that?

Quite a few Gap shooters on this Forum started out shooting Instinctively and later added or switched to some other aiming method Gap or Stringwalking, just because they developed other aiming methods does not mean they suddenly forgot or lost the ability to shoot Instinctively, as a Gap shooter Im quite happy to demonstrate my Instinctive abilities which is on a par with anybody on this Forum.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Forest, you claim to be instinctive but this post is definitely pick-a-point. lol:teeth:



LOL, interesting,I thought I had left some large 'gaps' in it. Shows my complete ignorance about aiming methods other than the mostest superior one of all.

Your above post was good but once again proves how impossible it can be to explain the real gap system that you use. I understand the theory but was unable to put it into action. However, if I was younger and wanted to use an aiming system it would be the one I would definately figure out. And, I would recommend it to others who might need to gain more accuracy by using a system to aim their arrows. For those people, I do wish that you and Gary could find a way to make it easier to grasp and keep it in the spotlight around here. Could be very helpful to lots of people.

For me,well, I guess I will just continue with the old 'look and choote' method.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> Who might that be?
> 
> Although the most argued about on Internet Forums out of all the non sighted aiming methods Instinctive is likely the quickest to learn and easiest to explain (hardest to totally master) to a newbie because really you are just telling them to ignore the arrow and focus on the spot and keep shooting till they start nailing their target, when they are happy with groups to start mixing it up with various shots/distances, a large part of the Instinctive aiming process is just trial and error on the archers part, all a Coach can really do is help develop better Form consistency and help them understand better if any miss is due to aiming error, tuning error or form error, what is so hard about that?
> 
> Quite a few Gap shooters on this Forum started out shooting Instinctively and later added or switched to some other aiming method Gap or Stringwalking, just because they developed other aiming methods does not mean they suddenly forgot or lost the ability to shoot Instinctively, as a Gap shooter Im quite happy to demonstrate my Instinctive abilities which is on a par with anybody on this Forum.



Who might that be?
Lets just say, not you. Good post btw. You explained it perfectly and yes many people seem to start one way and change it up over time. No secret there. I'm convinced that most of us actually mix it up to a degree and incorporate different methods together to become instinctive. That's the wonderful part of instinctive shooting, just look at what you want to shoot,draw the bow and shoot it. No agonizing about the details.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> LOL, interesting,I thought I had left some large 'gaps' in it. Shows my complete ignorance about aiming methods other than the mostest superior one of all.
> 
> Your above post was good but once again proves how impossible it can be to explain the real gap system that you use. I understand the theory but was unable to put it into action. However, if I was younger and wanted to use an aiming system it would be the one I would definately figure out. And, I would recommend it to others who might need to gain more accuracy by using a system to aim their arrows. For those people, I do wish that you and Gary could find a way to make it easier to grasp and keep it in the spotlight around here. Could be very helpful to lots of people.
> 
> For me,well, I guess I will just continue with the old 'look and choote' method.


The thing that a lot of people who don't fully grasp this gap system can't realize is how fast you can loose an arrow with accuracy with it. By the time I get to full draw, my gap is usually acquired, and if I choose, I can release the arrow fast enough that it would look instinctive to the casual viewer. I prefer to take an extra few seconds to fine tune the shot when shooting tournaments but the gap plays out well for hunting as well. Because I have complete faith in the gap, sometimes I get a little overbearing in espousing it, but as Ray likes to say, there are different objectives for different archers


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It's hard to ignore the truth and reality of the circumstance.
> 
> I don't take cheap shots at people that I wouldn't say to their face and like I said this thread has been a perfect example how this topic can be discussed without a bunch of drama created by certain individuals. I have NOT said anything here I haven't said before to anyone previously.
> 
> ...



Spin it any way you like,call it drama , call it uncivilized or even call it bs if you like. I just didn't recall that you represented as a coach after four or five years of reading your posts. Or maybe I'm missing something here. Is it archery coach we're talking about or exercise coach? Or just all around 'coach in general'?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Or maybe I'm missing something here.


LOL...that doesn't surprize me :wink:



FORESTGUMP said:


> Is it archery coach we're talking about or exercise coach? Or just all around 'coach in general'?


I've been a Fitness trainer, athletic coach and physical therapy aide for over +25yrs. and have coached quite a few of my friends and acquaintances who have approached me asking for advice in regards to archery over the years.

I believe anyone trying to give advice on here or anywhere else is basically trying to coach...to some degree or another...especially when it has to do with developing the form and aiming techniques of others.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Although the most argued about on Internet Forums out of all the non sighted aiming methods Instinctive is likely the quickest to learn and easiest to explain (hardest to totally master) to a newbie because really you are just telling them to ignore the arrow and focus on the spot and keep shooting till they start nailing their target, when they are happy with groups to start mixing it up with various shots/distances, a large part of the Instinctive aiming process is just trial and error on the archers part, all a Coach can really do is help develop better Form consistency and help them understand better if any miss is due to aiming error, tuning error or form error, what is so hard about that?
> 
> Quite a few Gap shooters on this Forum started out shooting Instinctively and later added or switched to some other aiming method Gap or Stringwalking, just because they developed other aiming methods does not mean they suddenly forgot or lost the ability to shoot Instinctively, as a Gap shooter Im quite happy to demonstrate my Instinctive abilities which is on a par with anybody on this Forum.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

itbeso said:


> Matt, I have no idea what that means. Not familiar with the term, but coming from a friend it doesn't matter, good or bad. Just came back from an afternoon of practice and there is no better way to get a chip off your shoulder than watching arrows fly.


Ben

"********" is from briar rabbit - they built a decoy out of tar and every time someone hit it they just got tangled up more. Sort of like talking instinctive aiming on the net - you aren't going to change them they aren't going to change you and every post draws you deeper into a convoluted debate about semantics. 

Matt


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> Ben
> 
> "********" is from briar rabbit - they built a decoy out of tar and every time someone hit it they just got tangled up more. Sort of like talking instinctive aiming on the net - you aren't going to change them they aren't going to change you and every post draws you deeper into a convoluted debate about semantics.
> 
> Matt


Wow Matt!...That's colder than that ben and jerrys in your avatar! :laugh:

so lemme try! :laugh: how's this?....

"Gapping Great if ya hafta depend on sights!" :laugh:

ya know Matt...there's more than one way to shoot or aim...and i know that crap is true because check this out...

every now and then on the rare occassion that i do try aiming "gap"?..

i hit the freaking spot my point was on! :laugh:

and man is that aggravating! :laugh:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...that doesn't surprize me :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK,thanks. So coaching in general it is,good,great or otherwise. I didn't want to redirect the thread,just asking for clarification in case I was reading something wrong in a previous post.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Bill

That wasn't my point at all - I truly could give a rip how anyone aims. It's the endless defining, redefining and analyzing of the word instinctive that I just don't get. When someone says the aim instinctively I get it I understand how they go about aiming. 

What has been accomplished in the last 13 pages?? 

Instinctive is a way to aim - one of many - nothing more nothing less. I don't think the word instinctive is the best word to use to describe what is going on but, WHO CARES I understand what a person means when they use it. 

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

For me personally...when someone is asking me about Instinctive Aiming or discussing the technique...I need a little more clarity on exactly what they are trying to describe if we plan on understanding one another.

The way I see it...is there are 2 similar definitions on how a person aims Instinctively.

#1. The archer is focused on only the target and is not consciously analyzing the exact amount of gap between the archer's aiming reference and the target...but is more or less feeling it at a very low level of conscious awareness.

#2. The archer is focused on only the target but is completely relying on muscle/motor memory and proprioception/kinesthesia to hit their target. Generally speaking...these archers are generally very easy to recognize because they shoot very fast and fluid.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Bill
> 
> That wasn't my point at all - I truly could give a rip how anyone aims. It's the endless defining, redefining and analyzing of the word instinctive that I just don't get. When someone says the aim instinctively I get it I understand how they go about aiming.
> 
> ...


Without instinctive the forum would die. Slow, agonizing death but death just the same. Did you notice how it's color was changing before this thread started? Getting rather pale with the what arrow, what bow stuff.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Without instinctive the forum would die. Slow, agonizing death but death just the same. Did you notice how it's color was changing before this thread started? Getting rather pale with the what arrow, what bow stuff.


Not sure if I agree or not but, I will say it's sort of boring with sharp gone. 

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I much rather have it respectful, informative, fun and relaxed than drama filled, disrespectful and filled with accusations of personal attacks...just because there's a disagreement. 

Boring to me is being a member of some other site where everyone basically needs to drink the cool aide being poured there :wink:

There's usually some great info that can be found all over the net...but this site seems to be the most diversified.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Ben
> 
> "********" is from briar rabbit - they built a decoy out of tar and every time someone hit it they just got tangled up more. Sort of like talking instinctive aiming on the net - you aren't going to change them they aren't going to change you and every post draws you deeper into a convoluted debate about semantics.
> 
> Matt


Dammit, If I had read Brer Rabbitt rather than shooting him I would have known that!:teeth:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Forrest you sure you want me in this thd?


itbeso said:


> Back in 1969 I started shooting a gap system using fractions of an inch at the end of the arrow, the fractions being the distance between the tip of the arrow and the spot, bringing the spot back from the target and visualizing it sitting right over the end of my arrow. That gap system is done approximately 30 inches in front of your face rather than up at the target many yards away. There is nothing instinctive or subconscious about it. I memorize every gap for every yardage and at no time does it get relegated to my subconscious. When aiming, I am acutely aware of the gap distance at all times. It is my contention that if anyone is relying on their subconscious mind to do their aiming for them, they are not going to realize their full potential as far as scores and animals taken are concerned. This seems to be a never ending discussion but the facts and scores are there for the world to see. I just don't seem to get it when archers are given a path to success and want to look a gift horse in the mouth. I do get the fact that not everyone is trying to be world champ, but on the other hand I, personally, have never met an archer who didn't want to shoot better. There have been statements made that instinctive works better for short distances and gap works better for longer shots. Again, it is my conviction that gap shooting is more accurate at any distance than instinctive, stringwalking even more accurate, in theory.





FORESTGUMP said:


> LOL, interesting,I thought I had left some large 'gaps' in it. Shows my complete ignorance about aiming methods other than the mostest superior one of all.
> 
> Your above post was good but once again proves how impossible it can be to explain the real gap system that you use. I understand the theory but was unable to put it into action. However, if I was younger and wanted to use an aiming system it would be the one I would definately figure out. And, I would recommend it to others who might need to gain more accuracy by using a system to aim their arrows. For those people, I do wish that you and Gary could find a way to make it easier to grasp and keep it in the spotlight around here. Could be very helpful to lots of people.
> 
> For me,well, I guess I will just continue with the old 'look and choote' method.


----------



## spenceman (Apr 1, 2004)

I think this thread should end......... I guess if I say im a pure instinctive shooter than ill will get torn apart on this thread.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

spenceman said:


> I think this thread should end......... I guess if I say im a pure instinctive shooter than ill will get torn apart on this thread.


I've never heard of you so you must be a strictly instinctive shooter.lol:teeth: I hope you realize that statement was all in jest, Spence. These threads do serve a good purpose, I'm just having a hard time figuring out how. Seriously though, I feel that threads like this liven up the forum and relieve the humdrum of what bow- what arrow, sage vs. black widow, etc. Every once in a while, a gem gets dropped and provides me with something else to try out. Some, but thankfully not most, take all this banter way too personally. Read, enjoy, and possibly learn while getting a few good laughs along the way


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

steve morley said:


> Who might that be?
> 
> 
> Quite a few Gap shooters on this Forum started out shooting Instinctively and later added or switched to some other aiming method Gap or Stringwalking,


Not me I had to be different..I did just the opposite without even knowing about it or being aware of it.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Instinctive is a way to aim - one of many - nothing more nothing less. I don't think the word instinctive is the best word to use to describe what is going on but, WHO CARES I understand what a person means when they use it.


I vote we put that into the first, condensed definition of the glossary


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

spenceman said:


> I think this thread should end......... I guess if I say im a pure instinctive shooter than ill will get torn apart on this thread.


You can be whatever you like. But somebody might ask you what exactly you mean by that. But, I'm going to assume that I know what you're talking about


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

spenceman said:


> I guess if I say im a pure instinctive shooter than ill will get torn apart on this thread.


I dont see why not nobody has trashed the aiming method, maybe some attitudes of people and some interpretations of what exactly Instinct means related to the Archery world but not the actual effectiveness of the aiming method.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

spenceman said:


> I guess if I say im a pure instinctive shooter than ill will get torn apart on this thread.


Not if I can help it :wink:

I got your back! :shade:

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I much rather have it respectful, informative, fun and relaxed than drama filled, disrespectful and filled with accusations of personal attacks...just because there's a disagreement.
> 
> Boring to me is being a member of some other site where everyone basically needs to drink the cool aide being poured there :wink:
> 
> ...




Suggestions;
1. Don't be disrespecful and it won't be a problem. Sometimes our comments can sting the other party and trigger a hostile response even when we might not have meant for it to happen. But, if we then attack that response as disrespectful or drama when we actually caused it,then it starts a fight. 
2. And around here no one person gets to decide what flavor coolaid is being poured. When they attempt to do so it's quickly challenged.
3. This site should remain diversified. But that is not the case when a few individuals make it a point to try to control things by starting fights with others and then cryng foul, when they are at least partially responsible for the 'drama'.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

2413gary said:


> Forrest you sure you want me in this thd?



Sure,come on in because apparently itbeso needs some help(again) explaining how to visualize the target sitting just over the tip of the arrow instead of some distance away. Maybe you can help out and that would be extremely valuable to others.
He did make a statement in a previous post that caught my attention and I am going to check out later about starting at a point on distance and then moving five yards closer. Good idea, and something I did not do when I played around with the idea some time back. 
I like this idea and I think we should make sure that people who could benefit from a seemingly precise aiming method does not miss out because we fail to make it clear.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Mo0se said:


> Not me I had to be different..I did just the opposite without even knowing about it or being aware of it.



Probably you and thousands of others. And most likely thousands of others did exactly what Mr. Morley said. I'm convinced that most of us are using a mixed bag of these things to arrive at the same place. Most likely we all utilize the information provided to our brain through our eyes to make adjustments to the shot. At the same time interpreting it differently and using different words to describe what we are doing. Two roads that wind up at the same place.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Suggestions;
> 1. Don't be disrespecful and it won't be a problem. Sometimes our comments can sting the other party and trigger a hostile response even when we might not have meant for it to happen. But, if we then attack that response as disrespectful or drama when we actually caused it,then it starts a fight.
> 2. And around here no one person gets to decide what flavor coolaid is being poured. When they attempt to do so it's quickly challenged.
> 3. This site should remain diversified. But that is not the case when a few individuals make it a point to try to control things by starting fights with others and then cryng foul, when they are at least partially responsible for the 'drama'.


Sooo true! :thumbs_up 

Thanks for supporting that! 

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Sure,come on in because apparently itbeso needs some help(again) explaining how to visualize the target sitting just over the tip of the arrow instead of some distance away.


It's really extremely simple to do.

You just look at the gap in fractions of an inch at the bow...not what a 1/4" would look like measured down range at the target.

Figure out what your POD is and than step about 10yrds. closer to the target and hold your arrow tip about a 1/4" below the target as if the target was directly above the arrow tip.

If you hit high or low...just adjust accordingly.

If you hit 2" high at the target that might translate to a 1/16" gap change at the bow...for example.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Sure,come on in because apparently itbeso needs some help(again) explaining how to visualize the target sitting just over the tip of the arrow instead of some distance away. Maybe you can help out and that would be extremely valuable to others.
> He did make a statement in a previous post that caught my attention and I am going to check out later about starting at a point on distance and then moving five yards closer. Good idea, and something I did not do when I played around with the idea some time back.
> I like this idea and I think we should make sure that people who could benefit from a seemingly precise aiming method does not miss out because we fail to make it clear.


Forest, you have to have some imagination to shoot our gap system and understand it. Most people can't grasp the concept of visualizing the spot sitting over their arrow tip rather than 35 yards away. Try this, if you can find one of the safety pins with the round colored heads. go to a field or hunter target 35 yards away and hold an arrow out in front of you pointed at the target but approx. 18 inches below the dot. Now take the pin head and hold it above the tip of the arrow so that it covers the spot 35 yards away. The distance between the pin head and the tip of the arrow is your gap. When you are shooting, the spot is visualized where the pin head would be, rather than 35 yards away. You have to let go of everything you have learned about gapping up on the bale


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Forest, you have to have some imagination to shoot our gap system and understand it.


:thumbs_up

And be willing to think outside of the box.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Suggestions;
> 1. Don't be disrespecful and it won't be a problem. Sometimes our comments can sting the other party and trigger a hostile response even when we might not have meant for it to happen. But, if we then attack that response as disrespectful or drama when we actually caused it,then it starts a fight.
> 2. And around here no one person gets to decide what flavor coolaid is being poured. When they attempt to do so it's quickly challenged.
> 3. This site should remain diversified. But that is not the case when a few individuals make it a point to try to control things by starting fights with others and then cryng foul, when they are at least partially responsible for the 'drama'.


:thumbs_up

I was thinking last night, I do miss a certain individual. Sure, he can be sensitive, and sometimes reactionary, but he also has good input on topics. We can point a finger at that individual and say be different, but we can also recognize that the individual is the way he is, a known quantity, and behave in a manner that doesn't fondle the trigger, so to speak, and if a fuse it lit, simply defuse it with a clarification. I've noticed that a lot of 'arguments' on here are more a matter of people talking about something different, or making assumptions about what the other person intends. Even with something potentially inflammatory as 'Instinctive' aiming, there is in fact agreement beyond what there seems to be. It's merely a matter of what goes under the umbrella, for a given perspective.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> I've noticed that a lot of 'arguments' on here are more a matter of people talking about something different, or making assumptions about what the other person intends. Even with something potentially inflammatory as 'Instinctive' aiming, there is in fact agreement beyond what there seems to be. It's merely a matter of what goes under the umbrella, for a given perspective.


I agree! :thumbs_up

I also think ackowledging and expressing the aspects a person agrees with can make a noticable improvement in communication instead of constantly disagreeing with everything a person says no matter what they are saying or just ignoring what they agree with entirely.

It's always wize to also ask questions before making full blown assumptions if you don't understand what someone is saying.

I just don't see the need for any disrespectful or synical remarks...over a silly aiming technique...just because there are disagreements or a lack of understanding for one another.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Forest, you have to have some imagination to shoot our gap system and understand it. Most people can't grasp the concept of visualizing the spot sitting over their arrow tip rather than 35 yards away. Try this, if you can find one of the safety pins with the round colored heads. go to a field or hunter target 35 yards away and hold an arrow out in front of you pointed at the target but approx. 18 inches below the dot. Now take the pin head and hold it above the tip of the arrow so that it covers the spot 35 yards away. The distance between the pin head and the tip of the arrow is your gap. When you are shooting, the spot is visualized where the pin head would be, rather than 35 yards away. You have to let go of everything you have learned about gapping up on the bale



Don't you get any wrong impressions here,I'm an instinctive shooter and plan to stay that way. But I do believe it's a good system for many people including some who may be struggling with the instinctive method. 
I intend to play around with it some more when I get the time. The colored head pin seems like a good idea and does explain the visualization part better. I could see that in my 'minds eye' while I was reading it. Hey, isn't that what visualization really is? We need to keep the discussion going because I'm sure there must be some people looking for an accurate way to aim the arrow.
I will say though that every time I get it in my head to mess around with these 'systems' I wind up needing to reprogram the old tried and true shoulder mounted computer to shoot instinctively again. The main problem for me with aiming the arrow is that all arrows are too short. With a 32" drawlength I don't have the luxury of a couple inches of arrow in front of the bow to use for aiming.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BarneySlayer said:


> :thumbs_up
> 
> I was thinking last night, I do miss a certain individual. Sure, he can be sensitive, and sometimes reactionary, but he also has good input on topics. We can point a finger at that individual and say be different, but we can also recognize that the individual is the way he is, a known quantity, and behave in a manner that doesn't fondle the trigger, so to speak, and if a fuse it lit, simply defuse it with a clarification. I've noticed that a lot of 'arguments' on here are more a matter of people talking about something different, or making assumptions about what the other person intends. Even with something potentially inflammatory as 'Instinctive' aiming, there is in fact agreement beyond what there seems to be. It's merely a matter of what goes under the umbrella, for a given perspective.



Just so that you, nor anyone else, gets the wrong idea, that post was not intended to be aimed at sharpbroadhead. It definately was directed to a few specific individuals but obviously went right over their heads. I was trying hard to be nice and civil. We'll see how long it takes for one of them to blow that idea. 
It looks to me that sharpbroadhead is starting to be missed around here and some of the people missing his straightforward approach are the very ones who were always ready to jump on the dogpile every time he posted nearly anything. Even if he had said good morning, it was wrong. And all becuase he spoke his mind without sugar coating it for the crybabies.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

There's a difference in being respectfully straight forward and being straight forward while being cynical and/or disrespectful.

There's a reason why people get banned here...and it's NOT because they were respectfully straight forward!

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Don't you get any wrong impressions here,I'm an instinctive shooter and plan to stay that way. But I do believe it's a good system for many people including some who may be struggling with the instinctive method.
> I intend to play around with it some more when I get the time. The colored head pin seems like a good idea and does explain the visualization part better. I could see that in my 'minds eye' while I was reading it. Hey, isn't that what visualization really is? We need to keep the discussion going because I'm sure there must be some people looking for an accurate way to aim the arrow.
> I will say though that every time I get it in my head to mess around with these 'systems' I wind up needing to reprogram the old tried and true shoulder mounted computer to shoot instinctively again. The main problem for me with aiming the arrow is that all arrows are too short. With a 32" drawlength I don't have the luxury of a couple inches of arrow in front of the bow to use for aiming.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> This is a perfect example on how a topic can be discussed and kept civil...even when people may disagree.
> 
> Big difference when compared to how these threads use to go with a certain individual/individuals were participating in them.
> 
> Ray :shade:



OK, I will take the bait. Was this post respectfully straightforward or was it an intentional poke at a certain person? Keep in mind that everyone who has been around here for a while knows exactly who the intended target was. Yeah sure, it's disguised with the /individuals,but no less of a direct hit which could be taken as an insult by that person.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sometimes the truth hurts. If the shoe fits....wear it. Instead of anyone whining about it and acting like some kind of victim...they should man up and learn something about themselves concerning why they got banned.

It's a simple policy here. Be respectful or go home. 

There's absolutely NO reason why someone needs to be cynical or disrespectful every time someone disagrees with something they believe or said.

Ray :shade: 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> itbeso,
> 
> I heard you did pretty good in Vegas this year :thumbs_up
> 
> ...



And then this. Was it respectfully straightforward or an intentional slur? I know that the response by the person on the recieving end indicated that he didn't quite see it as respectfully straightforward. You probably meant no harm, but got caught up in a situation where the other party might have misunderstood what you were saying. It happens to all of us at times. I don't believe he ran to the moderator crying foul either. He tried to be nice and let it go but we can't always expect everyone to react the same way. Some choose to fight fire with fire.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Ray, your attempt at sarcasm was thinly veiled. You have no Idea what I had to go through at Vegas just to keep arrows on the paper and if you think those scores were indicative of how I shoot, why don't you check back in a month or so.Meanwhile I'll take my licking and keep on ticking, so get your digs in while it's fashionable.:jeez:



And here's the response. Trying hard to be nice.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Since itbeso seems to be still working on his chip on his shoulder...I'll try to answer your question. Hopefully he will answer your question in a PM or come back later when he's calmed down.
> 
> I personally gap at the bow in fractions of inches...even though I can't tell you exactly what my gaps are for any specific distance.
> 
> ...



And then this. Chip on his shoulder? That could result in a severe reaction from a less understanding person,like myself. I'm gonna get out of this now,but I just wanted to point out the subtle ways that the 'fights' get started and sometimes a person who is not quite smooth enough with words can be wrongfully blamed.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

This is what's ridiculous and constantly being abused on message boards.

It's the poor assumptions made by some people that drive them into then making poor accusations.

There was no hidden attack on Ben's accomplishment in Vegas. I started off praising him and in other threads about his abilities and personal accomplishments. I can't help what people will read into when they read something I write. A person needs to ask before they accuse! 

I apologized already for how he misinterpreted my question.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

I thought sharpbroad was the only victim here, starting to think maybe not...LOL....Sorry about that, just kidding, that just my form of bad humor, please forgive me.

itbeso, nice post on the colored safety pin thing, one of these days my pea brain might figure that system out, but I'll keep trying.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Question about itbeso's gap system. I get the gap at the riser part. I guess the question is, what's different about it than simply gap at the riser? Is the eye focused on the target, but you're thinking about the gap distance at the riser during the shot execution? or, is the eye focused at the riser, and the target gets blurred. or, is it something else?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BarneySlayer said:


> Question about itbeso's gap system. I get the gap at the riser part. I guess the question is, what's different about it than simply gap at the riser? Is the eye focused on the target, but you're thinking about the gap distance at the riser during the shot execution? or, is the eye focused at the riser, and the target gets blurred. or, is it something else?



I'm sure he will be around later to explain but what I understand it's not about the riser but the arrow point. The pin explanation seemed to make the whole idea clearer to me. If I am getting it right you need to basically imagine a sight pin just above the arrow point instead of the riser and concentrate focus on the gap between the curvature of the arrow (in the peripheral) and the imaginary pin. That should leave the target spot, or whatever the target is at the time, and the arrow just slightly out of focus while concentrating on that very small gap. Sounds like a plan, execution might be another thing. I know this,I would bet a Ben Franklin that it would become instinctive fairly soon.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> I guess the question is, what's different about it than simply gap at the riser? Is the eye focused on the target, but you're thinking about the gap distance at the riser during the shot execution? or, is the eye focused at the riser, and the target gets blurred. or, is it something else?


It depends on the archer.

I believe Ben focuses on the gap which causes the target to blur...while I focus on the target which causes the arrow tip to blur.

The key is finding out what works best for you.

Ben obviously can smoke a target with his technique...probably better than I can...but I believe focusing on the target allows me to use my technique better under a variety of circumstances. 

IMO...my technique may have a slight advantage under hunting circumstances and moving targets...whereas Ben's technique may have a slight advantage under typical competition circumstances.

The techniques are so similar that it may be just a wash in regards to any general advantages.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## pudgester (Jul 2, 2012)

I've put candles out in a completely dark basement where the candle was the only light 15 yard away. I dont know if my mind still saw where the arrow was or not.



PDGSTR


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

pudgester said:


> I've put candles out in a completely dark basement where the candle was the only light 15 yard away. I dont know if my mind still saw where the arrow was or not.


The ambient light given off by a candle can be enough to help an archer see their sight window and arrow.

Using a lazer pointer to shoot at eliminates any ambient light and can be a HUGE eye opener in how much some archers rely on their sight picture.

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I'm sure he will be around later to explain but what I understand it's not about the riser but the arrow point. The pin explanation seemed to make the whole idea clearer to me. If I am getting it right you need to basically imagine a sight pin just above the arrow point instead of the riser and concentrate focus on the gap between the curvature of the arrow (in the peripheral) and the imaginary pin. That should leave the target spot, or whatever the target is at the time, and the arrow just slightly out of focus while concentrating on that very small gap. Sounds like a plan, execution might be another thing. I know this,I would bet a Ben Franklin that it would become instinctive fairly soon.


Forest explained it to a tee. I focus entirely on the gap while the spot and arrow tip are in my secondary vision. I don't think it ever becomes instinctive, Forest, but it sure does become learned and repetitive. The thing about the gap, for me anyway, is that it has taught me to shoot ( what every one calls instinctive) very well. Instinctive shooting for me, comes into play on short targets where my gaps tend to be too wide to accurately gauge. This situation can be corrected by setting your point on at a closer distance so your gaps are never too wide. Please keep in mind that I come from a compound background for the last 38 years. Compound gaps are much tighter than recurve gaps, usually about 1/8 inch per five yard difference. For those of you setting up for 3-d shooting, I would definitely recommend a shorter point on than I use if you are going to gap or Instinct. my main area of focus is on field and target, therefore I like to keep my point on in the 40-42 yard range to help with the 80 yd targets in field. Nfaa trad does not allow stringwalking or face walking, so I will be competiting in RU at 3-d shoots so I can stringwalk.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I'm going to try using an imaginary pin, though i may still need to reference the riser as a general sight picture until i get to about 40 yards or so. I suppose i can play with heavy arrows, but i have yet to become comfortable with a higher anchor, but maybe i just haven't found the right position for that.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

My riser is used as an aiming reference also. Gaps exist from the riser also. I think of it as framing my target.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> My riser is used as an aiming reference also. Gaps exist from the riser also. I think of it as framing my target.
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Nice way to think of it. I will add that to my mental collection.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Nice way to think of it. I will add that to my mental collection.


Barney, keep in mind that Ray shoots 70 pounds and has a 100 yard point on. His arrows are travelling much faster than most of us. When he brackets the target or gaps off his riser, he probably has more margin for error because of the speed of his arrow. I'm thinking that for those of us who can't shoot 70 pounds, that we be allowed to use 2-35 pound bows and get to use both. One to lag the arrow up close on the long shots and one to finish the target off. What are your thoughts, Ray?lol


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> What are your thoughts, Ray?lol


LOL...I like it! :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> His arrows are travelling much faster than most of us.


What speeds are you guys shooting?

If I remember correctly...I think I'm shooting somewhere between 190 - 200fps. with my 580g. arrows...which are a little over 8g./lbs. I definitely could be wrong about the speed. I'd have to test it again.

I think my POD has alot to do with me shooting Split, anchoring with my index finger on a tooth in the corner of my mouth and a long face.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

itbeso said:


> Barney, keep in mind that Ray shoots 70 pounds and has a 100 yard point on. His arrows are travelling much faster than most of us. When he brackets the target or gaps off his riser, he probably has more margin for error because of the speed of his arrow. I'm thinking that for those of us who can't shoot 70 pounds, that we be allowed to use 2-35 pound bows and get to use both. One to lag the arrow up close on the long shots and one to finish the target off. What are your thoughts, Ray?lol


I like the idea of having a different arrow for each distance. Then, I can have a small to no gap over a very wide range!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> What speeds are you guys shooting?
> 
> If I remember correctly...I think I'm shooting somewhere between 190 - 200fps. with my 580g. arrows...which are a little over 8g./lbs. I definitely could be wrong about the speed. I'd have to test it again.
> 
> ...


Last time I chrono'd, couple days ago, with the silencers on (which is how I shoot it), it sits about 198-199 fps, out of the gate, 8gpp, assuming I do a good consistent shot. When I screw up, it's almost always slower, significantly. I did clock something over 300 fps, but I couldn't reproduce that. I also clocked, once, something in the range of 60 fps. I clocked 208 fps average with a raw FF+ string, and 206 fps average with 8125g, but both were way loud, and surprise, it threw the arrow tune out of whack. I'll take the silencers for now. going to try adjusting the mass/material a little, and maybe limb vibration dampeners. 

My POD is about 65 yards. At 20 yards, my gap is more than 2" above the arrow tip, probably 2 1/4" or so. I find it easier to simply frame where I want to hit so that it's halfway between the arrow point and that last part of the sight window that is actually where the limb mounts to the riser. Out to 30 or 35 yards, I use that reference and simply put it high or low on the target (gap at the target using the gap at the bow), and that seems to work alright, but I'd really like to try the method of visualizing the imaginary pin, regardless of whether I'm referencing it it to the arrow or the frame of the sight picture. It's an interesting, individual art, it seems 

I'm already shooting 3 under, and I've tried playing with a higher anchor point, but nothing so far feels better to me than my thumb knuckle behind the jaw, and I seem to group better that way too. If I were dedicated enough to a particular game, I could probably make a high anchor work with a 35-40# bow, but i'd like to keep my style compatible with my 70# beast, who still needs love from time to time


----------



## Roughrider (Oct 19, 2012)

Once while playing golf with two good friends and one of their friends we decided to play for dinner two man scramble, we pared up and by the 9th Steve and the new guy were killing us. My partner Chris said watch this, he asks the new guy who was killing us putting do you exhale or inhale before you put? He says I never thought of that before but thanks for putting that in my head. He didn't make a put on the back nine! That's how I feel about now, I thought my bare bow shooting was like throwing a baseball I just look at the spot and shoot, now I am looking at the arrow, gap the kids riding their bikes cars driving by and lord knows what else, THANKS FOR THAT!:mg:
Just kidding I just suck some days.:wink:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Roughrider said:


> Once while playing golf with two good friends and one of their friends we decided to play for dinner two man scramble, we pared up and by the 9th Steve and the new guy were killing us. My partner Chris said watch this, he asks the new guy who was killing us putting do you exhale or inhale before you put? He says I never thought of that before but thanks for putting that in my head. He didn't make a put on the back nine! That's how I feel about now, I thought my bare bow shooting was like throwing a baseball I just look at the spot and shoot, now I am looking at the arrow, gap the kids riding their bikes cars driving by and lord knows what else, THANKS FOR THAT!:mg:
> Just kidding I just suck some days.:wink:


Used to be that we could just screw up one person at a time by planting things in their heads. Now, with the internet, we can take out all our competition at one time, eh Gary.:teeth:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I have a question guys 

I have been an instinctive shooter my whole life and as most instinctive shooters I have moments of genius to moments of *** was that  

I have also shot with some very good gap shooters and some very good instinctive shooters and believe me in most situations the gapers will be more consistent 

John Wert has been trying to get me to try and shoot gap but IMHO if I'm going o do so why would I not just throw a sight on my bow or some form of a sight.


I am a simple hunter and have no intentions on competing in any barebow competitions so there for do not care if a form of a sight is used 

I never went trad I've been shooting recurves my whole life and for me its the only type of hunting bow I care to use 

The last few days I have received a few SRF sights and I have mounted them on my primary ILF rigs and a few of my kids bows

I wold not want o put a pin sight on my recurve but so far I'm kinda impressed with the SRF 

By no means am I saying I am convinced that this setup is for me but after some dialing in I have to admit it has been a great form coach because if your anchor is correct and your sight picture is true the arrow goes where it is supposed to and any mistakes in form are readily apparent

Shooting groups like this on my 15 yd indoor range are fairly easy and rather confidence inspiring 




















I bought a few of the different size apertures and thus far since my bows are fast with a hunting weight arrow the smallest one takes me out to about 30 yds 

They have also made my kids very consistent 

People that say they are an instinctive sight are a bit mistaken IMHO it is very much a sight and the mind just likes to center things so maybe that's what they mean but when you drop your spot to the bottom of the aperture you are definitely aiming  












So after loosing that big buck last year that I'm not saying would have been any different with this on my bow it just has me questioning things and looking for a more finite way of doing things 

Again I am not sold buts its early enough in the year that I can work with some things and in the end it can and will be a form exercise at least  

Just my thoughts


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

JParanee said:


> I have a question guys
> 
> I have been an instinctive shooter my whole life and as most instinctive shooters I have moments of genius to moments of *** was that
> 
> ...


J, you stated that you don't want to compete and would rather just hunt. The reason I don't shoot sights now is that I just get a lot more satisfaction hitting something without a sight. It is a personal thing. If you just want to hunt and be as effective as you can, then I would encourage you to use the sight . I hadn't seen that particular sight before but it seems to me that it would make an excellent recurve sight and at the same time I feel that you could definitely get a little touch of gap aiming with it. Whatever you decide, good luck and good hunting.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Thanks itbeso and I appreciate the kind words 

I respect all forms of aiming and shoot and like I said I have shot with some fantastic gapers that really new hoe to shoot so I am very open minded and can understand your logic and the enjoyment you get from doing something well

As for the SRF I saw it on one of Matt Potters bows and was not sure what I was looking at 

I am enjoying playing with and we shall see how it goes by hunting season it might be there or it might not 

The way it is working for me is that you pick your spot and from 10 to 20 kinda just float the bracket around the middle 

As it gets further you pick your spot and center the lower part of the bracket 

Very confidence inspiring  

It is also very fast


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee,

The SRF sight is like a scaled down version of how I see my sight picture. The SRF frames the target like my riser does...but in a much smaller frame.

It can be used very Instinctive 'LIKE' just as many Gap shooters aim at a very low level of conscious awareness in regards to their aiming reference/references.

I've had friends use it...and it helped them greatly with their accuracy and confidence.

I say 'Go for it'!

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Jp - glad you gave them a shot - they are pretty cool David Sosa is a smart man 

Matt


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> JParanee,
> 
> The SRF sight is like a scaled down version of how I see my sight picture. The SRF frames the target like my riser does...but in a much smaller frame.
> 
> ...


We shall see 

I take my hunting very seriously and chances on big bucks come hard after botching that shot on that big boy last year I'm not ashamed to say I need a little confidence injection 

We will see as time progresses 

Thx Ray


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Jp - glad you gave them a shot - they are pretty cool David Sosa is a smart man
> 
> Matt


Yes he is and so are you  

Thanks for the advice and I am glad I asked you

You said you use the b aperture 

What is that giving you distance wise and what speed are you shooting 

Like I said at around 195 fps with a 530 grain arrow I'm am getting dead on @ 20..... bottom of aperture for 30 and there is not much difference between 10 and 20 

For 10 I just float a tad high in the aperture


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Oh Matt are you using the black or yellow apertures ?

I started with the black and that works well outdoors in good light but indoors I shoot better with the yellow thus far


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Last time I chrono'd, couple days ago, with the silencers on (which is how I shoot it), it sits about 198-199 fps, out of the gate, 8gpp, assuming I do a good consistent shot.


So I'm guessing I should be close to that.



BarneySlayer said:


> At 20 yards, my gap is more than 2" above the arrow tip, probably 2 1/4" or so.


I just checked mine and my sight window is 4 1/2" and at 20yrds. I would say my gap at the bow is about 4 1/4".



BarneySlayer said:


> I find it easier to simply frame where I want to hit....


Sounds very similar to how I aim most of the time when I'm Gapping.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

This is still going :exclaim::exclaim::exclaim:

I'm telling you guys. Go into a room where you can shoot 15 to 20 yards, that is totally void of light.
Place a 2" white paper circle on a target butt, and then illuminate that 2" circle with a laser aim pointer.
It'll be a real experience for you. :wink:

Shooting outside in the dark with a flashlight won't do the trick.

Rick


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Rick Barbee said:


> I'm telling you guys. Go into a room where you can shoot 15 to 20 yards, that is totally void of light.
> Place a 2" white paper circle on a target butt, and then illuminate that 2" circle with a laser aim pointer.


What do you think this test will prove?

IMO...it only proves how important an archer's sight picture is to most archers...aiming Instinctively or not. 

It does NOT prove whether an archer is aiming Instinctively or not...but it can indicate which archers are relying more on muscle/motor memory and proprioception/kinesthesia to hit their target.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

BLACK WOLF said:


> it can indicate which archers are relying more on muscle/motor memory and proprioception/kinesthesia to hit their target.
> 
> Ray :shade:


That's pretty much it. It will show who is more or less dependent on visual references other than just the spot they want to hit.

Try it.

Rick


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Rick Barbee said:


> That's pretty much it. It will show who is more or less dependent on visual references other than just the spot they want to hit.


IMO...almost all...of not all archers are somewhat dependent on visual references. 

It's how an archer uses those visual references that helps classify what aiming technique they are using.

I've had practice sessions shooting at laser pointers in the dark. Just as with most challenges...a person can get better at it through practice. The human body is capable of some amazing things.

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

BLACK WOLF said:


> IMO...almost all...of not all archers are somewhat dependent on visual references.
> 
> It's how an archer uses those visual references that helps classify what aiming technique they are using.
> 
> ...


Then we are in FULL agreement. 

Rick


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JP

Haven't shot it for a bit but if I remember right I got 40 at the bottom of the B aperture - I shoot the yellow. 

Matt


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Little update on the SRF 

I leaned my bow against the bench while I was retrieving arrows and it fell

Normally no big deal 

But guess what it landed on  

Knocked the SRF aperture loose where it threads to the rod. Now it's off the bow while the lock tite dries 

Makes ya wonder  

Shot bare bow and I do believe the short time with the SRF has helped my form 

So the verdicts still not in and I will be playing with the SRF some more


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

J I think I saw a photo of you in your trophy room you are a great hunter and Instinctive shooter. You keep dropping that bow and it will keep bending that sight. God gave you a sight and it works very well do what you do best. And no matter how many times you drop your instinctive sight you ain't going to break it.
Gary


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Great shooting JP!

Nothing wrong with a sight. I don't think that at your level it is going to improve your form a whole lot. It can be used as a diagnostic tool, particularly when you've got a real form problem going on, and you want to simply narrow it down.

My problem with using a sight is that the sight requires the bow to be at the same angle every time to work well. When I'm shooting my compound bow with lots of let off, and a bubble level built into the sight, it works great. However, I also learned on my compound bow, before learning that the bubble level was there for a good reason, particularly when standing on the side of a hill, that if you don't pay attention to your bubble level, that sight won't work nearly as well as it can. In some cases, it may even screw you up.

I played round with a sight on my recurve for awhile. At first, it seemed like entirely a good thing. After awhile, though, i found it distracting, annoying, and far less fun. It could even mess me up if I paid too much attention trying to keep the pin exactly where I wanted it, which seemed to suck mental focus away from the rest of that shot. Granted, I'm sure that if I sucked it up and trained with it for awhile, I could get used to it.

Just tried itbeso's mental trick of imagining a pin. Not a thorough try, but so far, seems reassuring. Mind is a screwy thing, isn't it? Things we do to trick it do what we want?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JP

If you put on the belly of the bow it's less likely to get wacked. 

Matt


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Jparnee...my thinking is much like yours regarding the "I" word in that..

if i wanted to make killing shots on game at beyond 30yds or so?..my bow would have wheels and cables...

if i was obsessed with the optimum in pinpoint accuracy?..my bow would have wheels and cables...

and maybe some might think me just another role playing poser...but my attraction to stickbows was the simplicity of it all...the utter and complete abscence of gizmo's, gadgets and doo-dads..shooting just a stick 'n string had this pure mystic to it that attracted me..the spiritual experience of establishing a clear mind then executing one continuouse fluid motion and actually hitting what you're looking at...and accepting the natural results of my best attempts at melding mind, body and spirit..free of any of lifes stresses or pressures...and not following the NASA launch instruction manual of a shot sequence...shooting with a free mind...and not a cluttered one...or?...veiw..which is why i choose not to have my arrow point anywhere's in it.

Just this evening as i was breezing over the last two pages here i chuckled and got to thinking..what about this aspect?

Some folks tend to think with the analytical side of their mind while others prefer the creative side of their mind...and found myself wondering...is this the fine line drawn in the mind that determines wether a person prefer the security of staring at a point or?..use the creative side and become the arrow by envisioning it's intended flight path before they ever begin the draw..cause that last one there?...would be me.

The one thing the excel did teach me?..was the day i bolted on an old pin sight and shot a few ends and then promptly asked myself..

Bill!...what the **** are you doing?

as that ain't what i came here for..and what it is is..the very reason i sold my 6 month old pse omen after blowing the cobwebs off my old Bob Lee.

Then i hafta remember...I sold the omen because it bored me...i got to where i'd just shoot a few fletching wrecking groups then hang it back up as the fun was officially over in 30 minutes or less..as i also recall myself getting all excited and deriving more joy and satisfaction by sticking one or two outta 5 in the bull at 20 with my recurve than i'd get out of stuffing all 5 in the x-ring with my tricked out wheelbow..and why?..

Because it was a test of my mind, body and spirit and not my gear, gadgets and gizmos.

all i got for now (but i think that's prolly enuff LOL!) and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

2413gary said:


> J I think I saw a photo of you in your trophy room you are a great hunter and Instinctive shooter. You keep dropping that bow and it will keep bending that sight. God gave you a sight and it works very well do what you do best. And no matter how many times you drop your instinctive sight you ain't going to break it.
> Gary



Thanks for the kind words but when those gap boys spank me around the 3 D course I just wanna give um a run  

After I took it off I shot my normal way and it felt great. So I will leave it on one bow and play with it and believe me I'm not ever gonna stop shooting instinctive


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BarneySlayer said:


> Great shooting JP!
> 
> Nothing wrong with a sight. I don't think that at your level it is going to improve your form a whole lot. It can be used as a diagnostic tool, particularly when you've got a real form problem going on, and you want to simply narrow it down.
> 
> ...


Sound advice 

Thank you


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> JP
> 
> If you put on the belly of the bow it's less likely to get wacked.
> 
> Matt


Matt as soon as I happened I though how nice those Dala risers that are threaded there would be for his set up

If I would ever really commit to it I would have one of my Titans drilled and tapped 

For now I'm just experimenting 

Thank you


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> ...but my attraction to stickbows was the simplicity of it all...the utter and complete abscence of gizmo's, gadgets and doo-dads..shooting just a stick 'n string had this pure mystic to it that attracted me..the spiritual experience of establishing a clear mind then executing one continuouse fluid motion and actually hitting what you're looking at


Many of us feel the same way :wink: 



JINKSTER said:


> Some folks tend to think with the analytical side of their mind while others prefer the creative side of their mind me.


Glad to see someone else catching on to that fact :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Jparnee...my thinking is much like yours regarding the "I" word in that..
> 
> if i wanted to make killing shots on game at beyond 30yds or so?..my bow would have wheels and cables...
> 
> ...


A lot of truth there Bill 

I never really did the compound thing and if I just purely wanted to kill critters in the archery season I would pick up a recurve crossbow that's hanging on my wall and go shoot a deer. Since the beginning there has always been a love for recurves and shooting instinctive 

But I love all types of shooting and Ill give you an example ...... Once a year a loaded buddy of mine that has a nice piece of land hosts a 3 d shoot and hires Hooters Girls and has himself a big money shoot

The targets average 30 to 50 yds and I would love to have a nice Olympic rig to use because as the only guy there shooting a barebow recurve this past year I did not get into the money  

I'd like to shoot almost anything but your right I do get bored with a sight on a bow.

Right before Oneida discontinued the last SB II's which will probable be the last bow that would suit itself to fingers, the new ones are very short axle to axle I had them make me up one in flat black and put a Sur Loc on it 

It hits hard but I get bored shooting it 

I just love my recurves


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> Right before Oneida discontinued the last SB II's which will probable be the last bow that would suit itself to fingers, the new ones are very short axle to axle I had them make me up one in flat black


LOVE that bow!

I still own the 80lbs. Strike Eagle I transitioned into Trad from.

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

:wink:Hooters girls???? Is this tourney by invite only?:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> :wink:Hooters girls???? Is this tourney by invite only?:wink:


Oh snap! What did I miss? Hooter girls at a tourney....Count me in :wink:

Are they gonna arrow caddy?

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

True story


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOVE that bow!
> 
> I still own the 80lbs. Strike Eagle I transitioned into Trad from.
> 
> ...


Ray I've only killed one deer with a compound and that was an old Aeroforce

I'll never forget it it was along time ago I had bought the bow and had put a sight on it and could not believe how I could hit things so quick 

The next day I climbed a tree and shot a 148 inch whitetail. Then I never hunted with it again  

But I do like Oneidas


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

It's like what my friend Hank said to my friend Bill at a 3-D shoot this year.. "Bill, I'd pay anything just to see what you see when you aim at a target." Bill, at 70 never misses an animal and when he does we make note of the date. He's been doing it for the last 45 years I've known him.


----------

