# Teaching "instinctive" shooting



## stoutstuff (Mar 31, 2011)

I wish I had this kind of advice when I started shooting. Let alone when I got back into trad archery....


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

I'm sure to cause some issues with this but for discussion purposes I'd like to share my progression...I came into the world backwards (breech) so why not learn to shoot a longbow or recurve the same way, but it wasn't planned that way. I read a couple books, Become the arrow, Hunting the Hard way..etc. 

1. I learned to gap shoot first, call it a fast track to "conditioning" my sight picture and saving money on lost/damaged arrows
2. I started at 5 yards and plotted my gaps back 5 yards until reached 30. I learned that the in between yards were negligible to a point.
3. It wasn't so much the left or right issue as it was the vertical.
4. I shot one arrow at a time and retrieved it, so I would avoid autopilot flinging arrow after arrow hoping for improvement when all the while knowing only the first shot counts anyway.
5. In time I no longer had to focus on the arrow at all from 5-30 yards because of my repetitive conditioning.
6. I relied more upon the complete sight picture rather than just the tip of the arrow. Think of it as framing a shot using a camera, you know what that needs to look like to capture the shot you are after. Just like the camera, the subject is always focused, the other things can be blurred.
7. I've also learned that after shooting for a while if I consciously make an effort to gap, It's not as easy at it was in the beginning..which is a bit of a mystery but one thing isn't a mystery in my case, the more I analyze and think, the more I get in my own way. 

I have more but will save that for later.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Mo0se -

What I gave was a readers digest version and sorta limited to pure "instinctive" shooting. 

In reality, some (most) people do need to go through a point of aim and gap phase before the "instinctive" stuff sets in. Some folks need a fabricated sight. 
We do that to get the aiming thing out of the equation, when necessary. I left that out of this presentation to keep it simple. 
What and how I present stuff to students really has to depend on their needs and abilities at any given point. 

Good stuff.

Viper1 out.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

once again "instinct" is put in quotes by this "expert" "author".

As an accomplished and proven Instinctive shooter - I can tell you that most of what was said is way off base, and anyone who has read Dr. Jay Kidwells Instinctive Archery Insights or even Fred Asbells Instinctive Shooting books can see immediately how wrong Viper is - not to mention I am certain that Welch would totally disagree with most of it as well.

That is the problem with the idea of having a "coach" that puts "instinctive" in quotes and then saying it is ok and good for someone who wants to shoot instinctive to go to such a "coach".

Like I said before - it is like sending a kid to an athiest to learn Christianity.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

My apologies for getting off track 

Did I mention this is the best way to spend your lunch hour? Just don't ask me how to explain how I jammed all those in there by hand without marring feathers..insider secret!
My apologies again...for getting off track.

View attachment 1563733


----------



## cossack (May 11, 2011)

Sharp: I would like to see your point by point method of training for instinctive. No sarcasm - I'm truely interested as to how you went about learning how to do this.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> once again "instinct" is put in quotes by this "expert" "author".
> 
> As an accomplished and proven Instinctive shooter - I can tell you that most of what was said is way off base, and anyone who has read Dr. Jay Kidwells Instinctive Archery Insights or even Fred Asbells Instinctive Shooting books can see immediately how wrong Viper is - not to mention I am certain that Welch would totally disagree with most of it as well.
> 
> ...


Well, actually, studies have shown that atheists are on average better educated on religion and Christianity than the average Christian, so your metaphor rather disproves the point you are attempting to make. And Viper has sound reason to put instinctive in quotes, which is that the term is equivocal. There is no innate instinct for archery, instead it is a learned behavior, learned through lots and lots of task-specific **practice**. So, yes, one can teach "instinctive" archery. Almost all beginning archery programs do it every day by emphasizing form and the shot sequence and not even talking about aiming at first.


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

I see no insult to the instinctive technique in the usage of quotations around the word "instinctive". The quotes serve to highlight the technique as a method of shooting and to differentiate it from a more casual usage of the word in a particular sentence. 

I note that the words "mastered" and "unknown" were also presented in quotes, highlighting the points being made with an emphasis upon an implied broadening of the meaning within those particular quoted words. 

I appreciate the poster's clear attempt to describe his own sequence of teaching techniques to enable an archer to strike the mark with good, ground-up form. 

He ends with an open-ended mention of the existence of other variations concerning the teaching of this particular archery technique. Hopefully, others on this forum will accept this as an invitation to describe their own methodologies towards this end.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I am not even going to address that ridiculous comment by Warbow.

Cossack

When I teach a new archer or even the kids I teach - i first teach them the basic form of shooting a bow - I tell them to not try and aim the bow at all - to just look at their target and shoot - but to concentrate on form and not worry about where the arrow hits - but lets be real - that gets boring real fast -and most people are still going to try and hit what they want to hit.

I explain to them that without conistent form the arrow will be traveling at a different speed everytime they shoot and that this will make it nearly impossible for their brains to know what to expect and to get the arrow where they want to get it to go.

Usually the first few days is just a struggle to get them to draw the bow without torquing the arrow off the shelf or rest and getting them to come to the same anchor each time.

When it comes time to working on actual aiming - I stress the importance of paying attention to only one thing and one thing only - the spot you want to hit - and to make that spot as small as possible. Many times kids and adults will shoot and then ask "what do I do if it doesn't go where I was looking" - and I simply say - keep shooting till it does - don't change anything - keep looking at the spot you want to hit and don't drop your bow arm - if you do this and consistently do this - your subconscious will very quickly figure out how to get the arrow where you want it without any interfernce from you at a conscious level - in other words - if you shot low - don't "aim" higher the next time - just do the same thing again - and let your subconsious make the necessary adjustments to get the arrow there.

I try to explain that if you make a good shot (arrow hits the bull) but your form was bad and you know it - do everything in your power to not be happy with that good shot - becuase the subconscious does not know right from wrong - good from bad - it only knows that it's job is to do what the conscious mind wants - and if you felt happy about a shot that you know had bad form - your subconscious will try to duplicate that shot - bad form and all.

I explain that you would be much better off being pleased with a shot where your form felt and was perfect - even if the arrow did not go exactly where you want.

I explain how the subconscious mind works and things that effect it - for example if you are shooting under a branch and you are thinking about that branch and worried about hitting it - you will likely hit it - because your conscious mind is preoccupied with that branch - you subconscious is also directed at it - and will put the arrow there almost every time.

I explain how I clear my mind before I shoot, I explain different ways to recover from a bad shot and a good shot and how to move on to the next one.

I recommend that they pay no attention to distance and to practice diffent unknown distances as much as possible - the worst thing that an instinctive shooter can do is try to estimate distance at a conscious level - you do not want to think about distance at all - in fact - if I think to myself - "wow - that is a far shot" - it is a virtual guarntee that I will shoot high - I have to let the bow down, clear my mind and start the shot over whenever a thought of distance enters my head - otherwise I will blow the shot for sure.

I stress over and over to not pay any conscious attention to anything but the spot, to keep looking at that spot until after the arrow impacts, and to keep your bow arm like a rock or statue.

I recommend shooting very long distances to just "see" the arrow in flight over that long distance.

I recommend shooting at all sorts of things - small things and keeping it fun

etc...

You have to learn how the subconscious mind relates to the conscious mind to be a good instinctive shooter - and there are some great resources out there that you can gather information from - The Mental Mechanics of Archery, With Winning In Mind, and Instinctive Archery Insights are great tools for adults - for kids it is about keeing it simple and fun

anyhow - i am tired and this is an overview - I am not going to write a book in here and I am sure I have missed something or typed somthing wrong and the stalkers will be in here like a viper in the grass ready to strike - but whatever - it is what it is and I have to get to bed - I have one more Latin Lesson to do and my brain is like mush - 

good night all


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I am not even going to address that ridiculous comment by Warbow.


That is, you won't address the factual statements I've made is because they are true.

Atheists know more about religion on average than Christians: true.

The use of the term "instinctive" is equivocal: true.
The behavioral sciences definition refers to innate, unlearned behavior:



> Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors.


The colloquial definition can refer to learned behavior that has become second nature:



> adjective
> relating to or prompted by instinct; apparently unconscious or automatic : an instinctive distaste for conflict.
> • (of a person) doing or being a specified thing *apparently* naturally or automatically : an instinctive writer.


 Oxford American Dictionary.

Archery programs all across the country teach "instinctive" archery to beginning archers



> “Keep students focused on their shooting technique, rather than hitting the target. ...Continue to emphasize the focus on shooting form rather than aiming or hitting the target.”


--USA Archery Basic Certification manual, 4th ed.


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

Sharpbroadhead, 

That was a very clearly-stated overview of your approach to teaching archery. I like the point you make about not being pleased with a poor-form bull hit, for I have certainly cursed (delicately, however, and without generating stress hormone production) many of my own bulls that were more accidental than deserved. 

Although I shoot split-vision, I do stare at a spot. Your point about shrinking the spot and remaining with eyes focused absolutely on "the spot" until after the arrow's impact is something that I do not do regularly, and probably to my detriment. I think I usually relax eye focus soon after the loose, and though my form is frozen, my eye's focus "widens" to take in the larger target ... something new for me to work on tomorrow. 

Thanks for the tutorial. Cogito ergo sum. And that's a good thing!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Ok my version which seems to work pretty well with most of the people I teach, much of the Form focus on the spot you want to hit and mental aspects that have already been mentioned apply. 

As Viper mentioned a lot of people need some physical reference to get them started, obviously Gap and transfering to Instinct is one option, what I do is start off getting them to point at the target centre and ask them if their Index finger is directly on the spot or just pointing at it, they all say its pointing at the target but not covering the spot, I show then when holding the bow the joint of the Index finger now becomes their pointer, when looking at the target they look at the spot and point where they want the arrow to go, it takes around 15 to 20 min for most of them to build this relationship between where theyre pointing and where they want the arrow to go and can shoot fairly consistently out to 20y, We teach everybody Longbow and the other advantage of getting to do this is they tend to keep a more solid bowhand on release. Its a little unorthodox but a quick way to get them to build a mental relationship between bow and target and it just happens to be the way I shoot Aerial targets so I know it works.

I dont really have time to explain all that subconscious mind stuff, on our shooting sessions these people only have 4 hours, so getting them to a level where they can hit the target needs to be quick and easy to understand, most of the people afterwards go around a 14 target woodland course (20y max) and shooting around 260 out of a possible 280.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Warbow said:


> That is, you won't address the factual statements I've made is because they are true.
> 
> Atheists know more about religion on average than Christians: true.


I didn't see any data in your linked source.

I've been discussing/debating Christianity with atheists from all over for years and I'll tell you one thing for certain. The most noted, quoted and vocal athiests...like Dawkins and Harris argue nothing but "straw men". ie, they start with a complete misstatement about Christianity and then argue against it.

They get away with it because those who listen to them know even less than they do.

Knowing who Luther was isn't so important as understanding the scripture that drove him to do what he did.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Politics and religion are best kept out of Archery theads, my experience it always ends badly, lets get back on topic please.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Thanks ThinMan - and thanks for the Latin phrase - I am realy starting to like translating - now that I can do it a little without looking up every word - that one I knew without looking up - at least "I think" i did -


----------



## ozzypop (Sep 23, 2010)

Maybe archery should be left off these threads.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Gents - 

One other point that becomes fairly clear given my explanation, No0os's and Steve's is that the process is time dependent. It's fairly simple to explain this stuff to a student in a matter or hours and may even be grasped by some folks. The fact remains that certain steps really need to be practiced for some time, before moving on to the next. After that some type of re-enforcement over time is One of the reasons I'm not a fan of the one or two day "seminars", whether a group clinic or one-on-one. 

IOWs, you can explain all you want in a few minutes or hours and the student may even grasp the concepts, but it takes time to actually preform the actions competently.

Viper1 out.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

oh I wanted to add that I also stress the importance of everything "feeling" right - not so much a rigid and methodical shot sequence - rather a "feel" about the shot is coming together as we draw, when we reach anchor and as we are concentrating on what we want to hit - and if anything does not feel right - to let down and start over - and this is one of the hardest things to do - most of us want to release the arrow once we have reached anchor and focused on the spot - how many times I have you made a bad shot and said to yourself - "dang it - I knew that was going to happen"? 

Whenever I see an archer at the line draw, anchor, and let down - I know that he or she is a serious and seasoned archer - because it takes a bit of discipline to know when to shoot and when to start over.

My method of shooting, as opposed to say Rod Jenkins - is that I do not have a rigid step by step sequence - I know what feels right and that is what I do - I have tried to explain what I feel in a sort of step by step process - but when I shoot I do not go through a mental check list - in fact - the only time I really thought about what I am "feeling" in the shot was in these types of forums trying to explain what I "feel" in the shot - and sometimes I explain in it in a "check off" format - but that is not what I do when I shoot - and maybe that is the same with Rod - I don't know.

I think of archery far less technically than most - at least the shot aspect - I do take tuning to a level that is probably not necessary - but the shot - is more about feeling than anything


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Well Viper - you cannot argue with success and when guys can go to a two day clinic and come out of it and later that year become World Champions - well - obviously something is working at least for some of them. Also - most of the guys doing clinics - Rod Jenkins, Fred Asbell, Byron Ferguson, Rick Welch, etc... offer phone and email support and have videos and/or books that the archers can refer to keep going.

What is best - sure a coach that you can work with every day or even every week would be best - but, as I CLEARLY demonstrated in a previous thread - is not even a possibility for nearly all of us - and most of us, even top shooters - have never had a personal coach.


----------



## cossack (May 11, 2011)

Thank you Sharpe, Steve and Viper for the input. I can see where the time it takes to "program" the brain for lack of a better term, would vary for the individual. I would also imagine that learning this would be much easier for a new archer as opposed to an experienced one shooting a different aiming method as he/she already has a techinque "programmed" in the brain. Much appreciated. I'll spend some time playing with this.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

exactly cossack - and your comments illustrate why I think very few people can switch around between instinctive and gap or some other conscious method - personally - I think for nearly everyone - your either aim instinctive or you don't - but you cannot switch back and forth.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

cossack -

The real advantage with a new shooter is that they (usually) don't come in with a bunch of preconceived notions. They just want ot learn to shoot. Through exploration, the student and instructor can figure out the most advantageous path toward that end. The better a shooter is form wise and the more experience they have with shooting most come to the conclusion and "instinctive", gap, point of aim and even sights aren't separate isolated entities, but just different points along a continuous spectrum. IOWs, they have more in common than different.

Viper1 out.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> exactly cossack - and your comments illustrate why I think very few people can switch around between instinctive and gap or some other conscious method - personally - I think for nearly everyone - your either aim instinctive or you don't - but you cannot switch back and forth.


Ken, that statement is absolutely not true. You would do yourself and everyone else on here a big favor if you would get out of your narrow visioned world and go to a wide angled lens regarding your interpretation of archery shooting styles.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

cossack said:


> I can see where the time it takes to "program" the brain for lack of a better term, would vary for the individual. I would also imagine that learning this would be much easier for a new archer as opposed to an experienced one shooting a different aiming method as he/she already has a techinque "programmed" in the brain. Much appreciated. I'll spend some time playing with this.


Alot depends upon how a person is mentally wired. Guys like myself can easily switch from one aiming technique to another while other people may struggle doing just that.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> there the "author" goes again - he just cannot help himself


Sharp, do you have anything *substantive* to add rather than just attacking Viper? 

There is an old maxim in law. When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When neither of those are on your side, pound on the table. If you have some substantive disagreement with Viper then feel free to provide it. Merely attacking Viper because he has written a book on archery and you haven't isn't much of an argument in your favor.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Wow this has been a great thd. as I have shot Instinctive and gap and point of aim for 50 plus years. a lot of good info from all of you. I can relate to most every thing Viper, Sharp and Steve say about how to explain instinctive aiming / shooting. Sharp you can switch back and fourth between Instinctive and gapping I do it all the time. you just have to decide to look at the gap or burn the spot and have faith. The subconcious part of instinctive aiming is an amaizing thing
Gary


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

steve morley said:


> Politics and religion are best kept out of Archery theads, my experience it always ends badly, lets get back on topic please.


Quite true. You know another topic that usually ends badly? Trad forum threads on gap vs. instinctive. :wink:

In replying to Sharp's invocation of religion and atheism I was not arguing the relative merits of either, but rather demonstrating that merely being a member of a group doesn't mean that someone is an expert on it, same goes for being a good shot. It doesn't make every opinion they have on archery true. RW, who is a great shot and is lauded by some with near religious zeal, is demonstrably wrong about the difference between instinctive and gap aiming. That someone would post that video to bolster their point shows how damaging blind trust in the theoretical knowledge of someone who has physical talent in a sport can be. If somebody else had made a video falsely claiming that gapping means you have to optically focus on the arrow point it would never have the reach and persistence that RW's misinformation does.

If anyone wants to bring up religious topics like Sharp did tangentially there is a special AT forum for that, the Political, Religious, Military Threads.  It is a forum designed to keep contentious topics from mucking up the other forums. Perhaps their should be a similar forum for discussions about Trad aiming systems? :dontknow:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Warbow said:


> Perhaps their should be a similar forum for discussions about Trad aiming systems? :dontknow:


Or supposedly dissing someone's favorite aiming system - which is about the most childish gripe anyone can bring into an adult conversation and drag it down. It's almost a sad state of the adults to allow it to go on with bout every thread.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Sanford said:


> Or supposedly dissing someone's favorite aiming system - which is about the most childish gripe anyone can bring into an adult conversation and drag it down. It's almost a sad state of the adults to allow it to go on with bout every thread.


I think the mention by Steve Morley is pretty apropo. Some people talk about their aiming systems with religious zeal and are unable to discuss it without getting emotional and personally offended, as if their aiming system is their personal identity and that to talk about it as if it has both advantages *and* limitations is a personal insult.

Aiming systems are tools. You use the tools that work best for the job at hand. And as with any tool, it takes practice to become skilled in its use, so one guy might be really good with one tool, but that doesn't mean that tool is necessarily superior in general but rather that that one guy is very good with it. A guy with a lot of practice whittling with a single knife can make some amazing carvings, but that doesn't make a single knife equivalent to, or superior to, draw knives, chisels, planes, spokeshaves, etc. But you wouldn't know that from some of the arguments some people put forth that are based on a Chris Crocker-like "Leave Instinctive Archery Alone!".


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

I've decided to stay out of the "aiming","instinctive","gapping" threads ALL it does is cause hard feelings...nobodies right nobodies wrong,it's not worth arguing back and forth with close minded people.


Dewayne


----------



## joefire38 (Feb 20, 2010)

Arrow flight is everything! Whatever is done before is irrelevant. If your arrow hits consistently where you want it to hit, your doing it right! Just keep shooting!


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> Wow this has been a great thd. as I have shot Instinctive and gap and point of aim for 50 plus years. a lot of good info from all of you. I can relate to most every thing Viper, Sharp and Steve say about how to explain instinctive aiming / shooting. Sharp you can switch back and fourth between Instinctive and gapping I do it all the time. you just have to decide to look at the gap or burn the spot and have faith. The subconcious part of instinctive aiming is an amaizing thing
> Gary


Gary, you are the most politically correct schmoozer on these threads and your attempts to make others feel good about themselves by posting kind, but unwarranted compliments, do not pass the smell test. For those of you who don't know Gary, He is the current Nfaa bowhunter division champion and has been many times. When he shoots bowhunter style( which is non-sight with a compound) He uses our gap system at the end of the arrow, which, other than stringwalking, I consider to be the most accurate aiming system going for non-sight shooters. When he shoots his recurve at unmarked tournaments, he shoots instinctively. The problem is, he usually gets his butt kicked by archers who have no business beating him. I have argued with him many times to use his gap system with the recurve, but he is the most stubborn archer I have ever met. After all the years Gary has been shooting, he has probably forgotten more about archery than most of us know but he has these ingrained ideas that somehow, shooting instinctively at unmarked yardages makes sense, it doesn't. Burning a spot and having faith is not a formula for good accuracy, just a way to shoot a bow with no expectations. A lot of archers on here say that they just want to shoot their bow just for fun, not to be a champion. Then they tell their tales of stump shooting or pine cone shooting competitions against friends. Whether it's that type of competition or standing on the line at Las Vegas, the overwhelming majority of us would be liars if we said we wouldn't want to be better shots. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It amazes me that archers will come on this forum and criticize others for using long arrows to improve their accuracy. It amazes me that archers will resist using an accurate aiming system rather than point and aim. We have a poster on here who proudly likes to make the claim that he uses his hunting bow for all his competitions, as if that makes him a better man than those who don't. I don't know about the rest of you, but I only shoot hunting arrows with broadheads out of my hunting bow. I want it to be tuned for only one thing and that's harvesting animals. My target bow setup is tuned for harvesting championships. Much has been said about the subconscious mind being the driving force behind instinctive shooting. Personally I think that is bunk. Whether I gap shoot or Shoot instinctive, I am fully and consciously concentrating on what I am doing to make the arrow go in the middle. It is no wonder that non-sight shooters are regressing in scores with all the misinformation being bandied about on these forums.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

OK thats it this weekend I'm shooting gap at the indoor and will prove once and for all it's the best way to aim.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

there is a method to my madness. If we teach everybody what is best it will be harder for me to win.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

itbeso said:


> Gary, you are the most politically correct schmoozer on these threads


Hey not fair I thought that was me - Gary is old and grouchy - just tell him how good his wife is 2000 times - YOU WILL SEE

Matt


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Itbeso I have shot a mix of Gap and Instinct just for practical reasons, I have always stuck with my Field setup for 3D (L/B split and Rec 3 under 55y point on) works ok for IFAA Bowhunter but a bit harder for WA3D (33y max) so I tend to shoot Instinct under 25y and gapped on the shots past that, it worked pretty well as I won WA3D worlds in 09 but I always felt I had to be really on form, I felt I shot very average all through elimination rounds and just shot my socks of in two final rounds, lucky timing.:smile:

When I was in Miami I picked up a Dryad Orion specifically for WA3D Instinctive div, Ive set this up for a 35y point on, under 25y I use top of strike plate, 30y arrow is 2" under to 10 ring and 33y bottom of 10 ring, out to 40y Im maintaining fist size groups and Im still pretty respectable to 50y (considering it for IFAA Bowhunter as well), now I could shoot like that with the Field setup but only on my good days, it feels so much easier it kinda feels this is like shooting fish in a barrel when your gap is always in the kill zone. I see a little what Ray is on about with the arrow being so close to the eye. Im looking forward to WA3D world champs this year and gapping all the way.:smile:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

2413gary said:


> there is a method to my madness. If we teach everybody what is best it will be harder for me to win.


Hmm...so your use of instinctive archery for recurve, as described by *itbeso*, is actually the world's longest sandbagging plan?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Hmm...so your use of instinctive archery for recurve, as described by *itbeso*, is actually the world's longest sandbagging plan?


He actually LIKES getting beaten by his wife

Matt


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

Today I was driving and talking to VAbow. He said shooting instinctive and not seeing the arrow was like driving and saying you don't see your dash. It was then that I realized that my dash had been there all along. I was very aware of it, or at least my brain was. Am I my brain? Anyway, itbeso, I have one emphatic statement to make regarding your post....It Be So!!!


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm ok with sandbagging as long as it's in the Championship flite and it's done instinctively. And see what happens try to be a nice guy and everybody picks on you. So what I'm finding out here is nice or jerk you guys just enjoy poking. I'm good with that.:shade:


Warbow said:


> Hmm...so your use of instinctive archery for recurve, as described by *itbeso*, is actually the world's longest sandbagging plan?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> I'm ok with sandbagging as long as it's in the Championship flite and it's done instinctively. And see what happens try to be a nice guy and everybody picks on you. So what I'm finding out here is nice or jerk you guys just enjoy poking. I'm good with that.:shade:


AAAwwww, Group hug is in order.:grouphug:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

*Re: Teaching "instinctive" "instinctive" shooting*

"instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" 

Sorry....I just couldn't help myself :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

back on the thd. If you are going to teach instinctive aiming expect most of your students to be mediocre at best. unless you also teach them how to gap. when I say gap I mean at the arrow not at the target. when you start to put a name or a diamension to your gaps your subconcious remembers them and never forgets. your subconcious also sees and remembers what different yardages look like. when I gap I see what ever gap I need for each yardage. when I shoot instinctive my subconcious does this I dont think about what yardage or gap it is I just know it's right. If you want you students to be elite Archers teach all types of aiming then no mater what type of shooting they do or how far the target is they will hit it. for you who are stuck on 30 yds and in for hunting shoot 40,50,60,70, and 80 yds. then 30 yds and in will be a chip shot.
Gary


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive" "instinctive"
> 
> Sorry....I just couldn't help myself :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


My kind of a sense of humor. tOO FUNNY!:teeth:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Jimmy Blackmon said:


> Today I was driving and talking to VAbow. He said shooting instinctive and not seeing the arrow was like driving and saying you don't see your dash. It was then that I realized that my dash had been there all along. I was very aware of it, or at least my brain was. Am I my brain? Anyway, itbeso, I have one emphatic statement to make regarding your post....It Be So!!!


Exactly - how many times have you driven home and not remembered a single aspect of the drive? Have you ever bought a new car and suddenly noticed that everytime you drive you see the same model and color as the new car you just bought? Did those cars all get bought the same time you bought you car and suddenly appear on the road - or where they they all along but you did not consciously notice them? 

I have said ad nauseum that instinctive shooting is aiming at a subconscious level - obviously our brian is using all sorts of things to aim - it is just not done consciously - just you are not consciously looking at your dash or hood to line the car up in the center line when you drive - you look way ahead of where you are driving and never consciously think about the hood or the dash - unless for some reason it is called to your conscious minds attention - just like the new car that you just bought and are thinking about a lot and suddenly start noticing everywhere.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

gary said "back on the thd. If you are going to teach instinctive aiming expect most of your students to be mediocre at best" BULL - as is clearly evident by the fact that Rick Welch - who on average certainly has less students than many other clinics - has had at least two students go on to become World Champions and several others that place very high in the rankings

mediocre - odd - I beat all the gap shooters in the pop-up moving target challenge, beat all but 3 two years in a row in my class at the IBO Worlds, and beat all but 3 in the all class $1000.00 shoot off and that even included stringwalkers with oly bows - but instintictive is "mediocre"

what nonsense


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

that's exactly how you learn to see the gap at the arrow Sharp. you been seeing you just didn't know


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I didn't say instinctive is mediocre I said most of your students. so we have two world champs that shoot instinctive. I wonder how many world champs shoot a gap or point of aim or stringwalk


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

2413gary said:


> that's exactly how you learn to see the gap at the arrow Sharp. you been seeing you just didn't know


Correct, but not politically correct.:teeth: Couldn't agree more. I wish we could hook a polygraph to the internet, then we would know who's looking at their arrows in their field of view. Hint: Everyone!!!!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Depending, we all "ghost" the arrow to some extent - sometimes, not. We have to, it's in our line of vision to use and not use as we need. As for the dash of our car? If it were all the way up and between our line of vision and the road, that analogy would also result in a wreck. Besides, we first learned to use the dash before we learned not to need it as much - we didn't start out completely ignoring it and we certainly don't claim to never look at it. See, instinctive ("instinctive") works the same way for the rest of the archery community.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

gary - lets play the numbers - according to Jimmy and VA (and many others) - the vast majority of shooters at the IBO Worlds are gap shooters - soooo - if the vast majority are gappers and I came in 4th and two other guys came in 1st in their classes - I beat everyone on moving targets, and was 3rd in all classes at the shoot off - by percentages - instintive would be a much more accurate method of aiming -


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I like how all you guys praise Jimmy's video on how to gap - but then come in here now and say - nah - we don't do any of that - we shoot just like an instinctive shooter and pay no consious attention to the arrow at all - LOL - wow.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> gary - lets play the numbers - according to Jimmy and VA (and many others) - the vast majority of shooters at the IBO Worlds are gap shooters - soooo - if the vast majority are gappers and I came in 4th and two other guys came in 1st in their classes - I beat everyone on moving targets, and was 3rd in all classes at the shoot off - by percentages - instintive would be a much more accurate method of aiming -


ken , you obviously shot well and congrats as did the other 'instinctors'. But as an outsiders perspective, Aussie , I have a few queries/

Are the tournement numbers quite small ? 
Are they geographically situated that generally , only locals will attend ? 
Do they move form one part of the USA to another ?

Only asking as I am so far removed that some context would be helpful .


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

So it shouldn't matter how far off from the target your arrow is if you really shoot instinctive? Then why do they all shoot 3 under with inefficient high anchors?

-Grant


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Benofthehood - 

Those numbers were from the IBO World Championships and there numbers are not huge - 200-300 shooters - BUT they attract the top 3D trad shooters from all over the country (USA). 

For example - for like 4 or more years in a row I have won the Rapids Archers All Trad annual shoot - this shoot has many more shooters - 600+ - and I have had the highest score of all classes everytime I won - but I have never won my class at the IBO which has smaller numbers - let alone had the highest score of all classes - and the reason is is because the IBO attracts the top shooters and the Rapids does not - even though there are more shooters at the Rapids shoot.

So the numbers - and even the location really does not matter that much - the top shooters show up at the IBO no matter what.

Does this mean that there are not some top shooters out there that dont' go to the IBO - obviously not - but I believe that we can rest assured that there is nobody out there that can beat the pants off the top shooters at the IBO - there might be guys comparable out there that don't go to the IBO - but the IBO is the top trad 3D shooters - of that I have little doubt.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

thanks for the responce


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I guess you will be signing up RU at the Trad worlds this year ?


sharpbroadhead said:


> gary - lets play the numbers - according to Jimmy and VA (and many others) - the vast majority of shooters at the IBO Worlds are gap shooters - soooo - if the vast majority are gappers and I came in 4th and two other guys came in 1st in their classes - I beat everyone on moving targets, and was 3rd in all classes at the shoot off - by percentages - instintive would be a much more accurate method of aiming -


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Grant - they don't - the first year I shot the IBO - i shot split fingers the same as Asbell - and had I not fallen apart the first day - I would have likely taken 2nd place - the first day I got all nervous - first time ever and I missed four targets completely - first time at an event like that - the 2nd day I scored five points lower than Rick Welch who won the IBO worlds that year - and that was shooting split fingers anchoring with my middle finger in the coroner of my mouth - I won soooo many shoots shooting that way, including 3 State championships (maybe even breaking records - never bothered to check) - all shooting split fingers. I did not switch to three under until 2009 - and the primary reason that I switched was becuase I wanted to get more anchor points and could not comfortably touch a tooth on my upper jaw unless I went three under - and also I thought Ricks idea of touching the tip of the feather to your nose was a good way to ensure that my head was always at the same angle no matter how much or how little I canted the bow - it had NOTHING to do with aiming. But you won't believe that no matter what I say anyhow - and will imply that I am lying - so what is the point of all this grant - is this to push my buttons in the hopes that one day I go off and violate a forum rule and get banned - so then the masters of the AT tradtalk universe can say whatever they want unchallenged?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Benofthehood -
> 
> Those numbers were from the IBO World Championships and there numbers are not huge - 200-300 shooters - BUT they attract the top 3D trad shooters from all over the country (USA).
> 
> ...


Except for a bunch of National and State record holders who shoot predominantly NFAA in California and Washington. But IBO is coming West and many excellent shooters are going to give it a try which should be interesting.
I'd love to see Mrs. McCain shoot IBO, she makes the boys cry.

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I like how all you guys praise Jimmy's video on how to gap - but then come in here now and say - nah - we don't do any of that - we shoot just like an instinctive shooter and pay no consious attention to the arrow at all - LOL - wow.


That's because many of us who started learning Gap that way have mastered our technique to the point we don't even think about our gaps in inches or exact measurements. We feel them. It's like a gut feeling knowing and trusting that our sight picture is right. Not ALL Gap shooters make that transition. Some stay more analytical about their gaps.

So when a Gap shooter praises Jimmy's video it's because we recognize he is correct and when we say we now aim like Rick Welch demonstrates in his video that's because we have burned our sight pictures into our memory and no longer have to consciously think about what the exact gaps need to be. That form of Gap Aiming is really NO different than what many people confuse as aiming "instinctively ". 

IMO....True/Total Instinctive Aiming is quite a bit different than what you do or many other archers who believe they are aiming "instinctively".

There are different levels of conscious awareness....and the longer an aiming reference stays within an archer's vision....especially if it's close or in their direct line of sight...the harder...if not impossible it becomes to NOT consciously recognize it at least at some level of conscious awareness.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> gary - lets play the numbers - according to Jimmy and VA (and many others) - the vast majority of shooters at the IBO Worlds are gap shooters - soooo - if the vast majority are gappers and I came in 4th and two other guys came in 1st in their classes - I beat everyone on moving targets, and was 3rd in all classes at the shoot off - by percentages - instintive would be a much more accurate method of aiming -


Now there's some fuzzy logic. lOL 

Aiming method is just one of many possible variables that might have an effect on the outcome.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

gary - I shot against guys from the RU class in the all class shoot off and was beat by one of them - Scott Carpenter - that was it - one of them.

Run the numbers and compare the scores - and ask yourself - how many guys in the Recurve Unaided shot instinctive? I would venture to say NONE - not a single one - wouldn't you agree?

Ok - not one of the 21 RU shooters in 2011 shot insinctive - meaning that all of them used a conscious aiming method - yet only 3 of the 21 had a higher score than me and only 2 had a higher score than Scott Langley shooting a heavy weight bow - hmmmm - once again - instinctive seems to hold an advantage when you go by the numbers.

even in 2010 - of the 13 RU shooters - only 2 had a higher score than me and one than Langley.

And we all shot the same course and same distances


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

grant - there was a guy like you who talked like you about the IBO and about instinctive shooting - I challenged him to come to the IBO and put his bow where his keyboard was - to his credit - he did - and even though he was a highly ranked and world champion FITA and NFAA shooter - I beat him by over 50 points on the HC course and he came in 23rd in his class - so I would not be so sure that your heros are so much better than us lowly IBO shooters.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Ken,

If you can blank 4 targets and still take second in a <30yd 3D course than that says more about who didn't show up then anything else.

-Grant


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Grant,

She shot the Traditional World in both 2011 (2nd place) and 2012 (first place).


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

grantmac said:


> Ken,
> 
> If you can blank 4 targets and still take second in a <30yd 3D course than that says more about who didn't show up then anything else.
> 
> -Grant


I didnt' take 2nd - I said IF I HAD not blown those targets I would likely have taken 2nd - maybe if you took the time to read carefully before you respond - some of this nonsense would be avoided


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

so if I use your logic if I go to a shoot and consistantly beat the Instinctive guys while gapping I going to say gapping is more accurate. The problem I see is somebody keeps beating you. which class shoots the highest scores?


sharpbroadhead said:


> gary - I shot against guys from the RU class in the all class shoot off and was beat by one of them - Scott Carpenter - that was it - one of them.
> 
> Run the numbers and compare the scores - and ask yourself - how many guys in the Recurve on aided shot instinctive? I would venture to say NONE - not a single one - wouldn't you agree?
> 
> ...


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

MGF said:


> Now there's some fuzzy logic. lOL
> 
> Aiming method is just one of many possible variables that might have an effect on the outcome.




That post is in response to gary's logic and quote:

"I didn't say instinctive is mediocre I said most of your students. so we have two world champs that shoot instinctive. I wonder how many world champs shoot a gap or point of aim or stringwalk"

to which I responded: "if you want to play the numbers...."


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I doubt if I didn't choke and not have TP my wife would never beat me.


sharpbroadhead said:


> I didnt' take 2nd - I said IF I HAD not blown those targets I would likely have taken 2nd - maybe if you took the time to read carefully before you respond - some of this nonsense would be avoided


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

this is getting stupid now - btw - nobody beat Rick Welch, Scott Langley or Sean Callanan in thier repsective classes - so what does that mean? Do you now beleive that instinctive is superior anymore than I believe that gap is superior when a gap shooter wins? 

You see the difference here is that I have never said or even implied that gap shooting was "mediocre" or that most who try it will be "mediocre" - you on the other hand have said this about instinctive - when the reality is that by the percentages - the instinctive shooters consistently score higher than the vast majority of gappers and strinwalkers - even when they have equipment advantages


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Sharp - Rick shot RU this year did you check the scores??

Matt


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> So when a Gap shooter praises Jimmy's video it's because we recognize he is correct and when we say we now aim like Rick Welch demonstrates in his video that's because we have burned our sight pictures into our memory and no longer have to consciously think about what the exact gaps need to be. That form of Gap Aiming is really NO different than what many people confuse as aiming "instinctively ".


That's how I've done it from day one. It never even occured to me to measure gaps with a tape measure.


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

Forgive me, but I was thinking about what I read on all the this aim vs. that aim posts, call it a senior moment......
Archer (A) starts out with what is called instintive aiming, starts out at 5 yards & over time 1000's of arrows, gets very good at 0 to 50 yards unknown yardage shots, never noticed were the arrow is as to the target, how high the bow arm is all done in the sub-conc. there brain just knows were to point the bow, brain does the gapping so to say, at any yardage within 50 yards, they trust the shot, if the form is good, the arrow hits the target.
Archer (B) starts out with a gap system of aiming, has shot 1000's of arrow at there gap for 0 to 50 yards, at that yardage they no longer need to look at the gap, after so many arrows the gap is in-grained in there brain & they trust it at those yardages, they don't think about the yardage within 50 yards anymore, they just trust the shot, if the form is good the arrow hits the target.
Now for my senior moment.....Archer (A) started aiming one way, archer (B) started aiming a different way, but after time, 1000's of arrows, both are aiming the same way, kind'a like 2 paths leading to the samething. Archery (A) calls themself a instinctive shooter, archery (B) calls themself a gap shooter, but both are shooting the same way now, but calling it something different because of how they started.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Sticky! Minus the ridiculously outdone, sadly predictable bickering about poorly understood semantics that this thread inevitably digressed itself to, this is a great thread. Sticky!

Seriously though this "it's instinctive/it's not instinctive" debate is so ridiculously outdone. Whether or not it's technically instinctive doesn't matter when it comes to shooting the damn thing. Let's just call it what it's been called for years. Or maybe some of us don't have much better to do.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Wayko said:


> Now for my senior moment.....Archer (A) started aiming one way, archer (B) started aiming a different way, but after time, 1000's of arrows, both are aiming the same way, kind'a like 2 paths leading to the samething. Archery (A) calls themself a instinctive shooter, archery (B) calls themself a gap shooter, but both are shooting the same way now, but calling it something different because of how they started.


You are ABSOLUTELY correct for ALOT of archers...which is often why there is soooo much confusion and arguement over aiming techniques.

With all that being said...there is still a difference in what many believe is 'instinctive' aiming and what is True/Total Instinctive Aiming. There's a reason why True Instinctive Aiming is often compared to throwing a ball. The reason why is based on muscle/motor memory and proprioception/kinesthesia that involves fluid quick movements to perform a task without having to think about how to do it. The conscious mind initiates the request to perform a task and the body responds without having to think about the intricacies of exact body positions.

Watch this video of an archer who is without a doubt aiming Totally/Truly Instinctively.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

CFGuy said:


> Sticky! Minus the ridiculously outdone, sadly predictable bickering about poorly understood semantics that this thread inevitably digressed itself to, this is a great thread. Sticky!
> 
> Seriously though this "it's instinctive/it's not instinctive" debate is so ridiculously outdone. Whether or not it's technically instinctive doesn't matter when it comes to shooting the damn thing. Let's just call it what it's been called for years. Or maybe some of us don't have much better to do.


Well it IS important.

A person might come on here and ask for advice about form or bow set-up and say they shoot instinctive. If that means RW style then there are things which can help them shoot better which just wouldn't matter shooting Black Wolf style instinctive. Mainly getting a point-on distance that makes the sight picture similar to the one RW demonstrates in his video, that makes shooting his way much easier.

Its important to have an apples to apples comparison to avoid confusion.

-Grant


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> grant - there was a guy like you who talked like you about the IBO and about instinctive shooting - I challenged him to come to the IBO and put his bow where his keyboard was - to his credit - he did - and even though he was a highly ranked and world champion FITA and NFAA shooter - I beat him by over 50 points on the HC course and he came in 23rd in his class - so I would not be so sure that your heros are so much better than us lowly IBO shooters.


At the end of the day ,I think that he still has an IBO World Championchip on his trophy cabinet, alongside the IFAA , NFAA trophys ........ I may be wrong though


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

benofthehood said:


> At the end of the day ,I think that he still has an IBO World Championchip on his trophy cabinet, alongside the IFAA , NFAA trophys ........ I may be wrong though


Did they shoot the hunter challenge together - now that would have been fun. 

Matt


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

I ain't even met Redbow and he still takes the piss out of me :mg: , sure would like to shoot a course with him ... he'd whoop me up big time , but I'd be laughing all the way 

... must be that ex colonial factor


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Met the little guy but didn't get a chance to shoot with him I'll make a point of it next time - love shooting with guys who shoot woodies cedar smells so good. 

Matt


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

they only smell if you break them ...

OH i get it ...

well at least we are "trad" 

so there .........


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

benofthehood said:


> they only smell if you break them ...
> 
> OH i get it ...
> 
> ...


And if you ever get lost you are already carrying kindling - what could be better. 

Matt


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Scot Carpenter is a good friend of mine. It's strange to see his name on this forum..as he usually hangs on the LW. He shoots a Widow and gaps..Went and shot the ASA Southwest Shootout in Paris Tx with him.. good times. I didn't do well as I wasn't prepared..but that's another story. He did win the overall IBO Southern Triple Crown which I would have loved to attend with him. I believe the gaps I took the time to study and learn will never leave me. Whether the arrow is in my vision or not. But if you do not have a base to reference, it will be more difficult. I also believe once those gap at arrow "slides" are burned in your head you do get the feels right, the difference between feels right and is right is situational awareness. In competition it's very easy for feels right to be wrong, or any part of the shot (including sequence) for that matter. The champions know to never let feels right take over..they verify that's how they win. They also win by putting execution ahead of results. It's a heck of a lot harder in practice, as pride is double edged.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Moose...you silly rabbit the Classic wasn't in Paris TX...that was the Southwest Shootout...the Classic was in Cullman Alabama...


Dewayne


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

vabowdog said:


> Moose...you silly rabbit the Classic wasn't in Paris TX...that was the Southwest Shootout...the Classic was in Cullman Alabama...
> 
> 
> Dewayne


I stand corrected...my apologies.. you are correct Mr. Vabowdawg! I do know I had no phone signal there..that's probably why i didn't do too well.  It was setup very plain and organized. I have pics.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Just aggravating you!!!!! No big Deal......


Dewayne


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

vabowdog said:


> Just aggravating you!!!!! No big Deal......
> 
> 
> Dewayne


I hear ya! just playin along!


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Wayko said:


> Forgive me, but I was thinking about what I read on all the this aim vs. that aim posts, call it a senior moment......
> Archer (A) starts out with what is called instintive aiming, starts out at 5 yards & over time 1000's of arrows, gets very good at 0 to 50 yards unknown yardage shots, never noticed were the arrow is as to the target, how high the bow arm is all done in the sub-conc. there brain just knows were to point the bow, brain does the gapping so to say, at any yardage within 50 yards, they trust the shot, if the form is good, the arrow hits the target.
> Archer (B) starts out with a gap system of aiming, has shot 1000's of arrow at there gap for 0 to 50 yards, at that yardage they no longer need to look at the gap, after so many arrows the gap is in-grained in there brain & they trust it at those yardages, they don't think about the yardage within 50 yards anymore, they just trust the shot, if the form is good the arrow hits the target.
> Now for my senior moment.....Archer (A) started aiming one way, archer (B) started aiming a different way, but after time, 1000's of arrows, both are aiming the same way, kind'a like 2 paths leading to the samething. Archery (A) calls themself a instinctive shooter, archery (B) calls themself a gap shooter, but both are shooting the same way now, but calling it something different because of how they started.


Wayko, with all due respect, statements like yours are one of the many reasons that so many archers stay confused about aiming. Think about what you just said , especially " archer B ". It doesn't matter if you have shot 1000 arrows or 1,000,000, the reason for learning a gap system is to better your accuracy. Why in the world would someone put in that much effort and then relegate those gaps anywhere except to the closest reaches of their brain so they are perfectly clear on every distance? Anyone who uses a gap system properly knows precisely what the gap is for each yardage they shoot. They don't ever not look at the gap when they shoot an arrow. There is no need for trusting to faith because a good gap system is accurate from the first arrow to the last. Those that continually say that the gaps become ingrained so that they don't even have to look at them are speaking gobbledegook. Would you stop looking at your scope in freestyle after 1000 arrows? Absolutely not, and neither should a barebow archer. There are somethings that need to be said. The 69 Mets, the miracle on ice USA hockey team, and Sharp placing once at an IBO world event.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Wayko said:


> Now for my senior moment.....Archer (A) started aiming one way, archer (B) started aiming a different way, but after time, 1000's of arrows, both are aiming the same way, kind'a like 2 paths leading to the samething. Archery (A) calls themself a instinctive shooter, archery (B) calls themself a gap shooter, but both are shooting the same way now, but calling it something different because of how they started.


You are pretty close but the reason learned gapper doesnt suddenly start saying their Instinctive is the gap never realy goes away, its always there just not at the same level of consciousnes as when we first started learning Gap, when Im imprinting my gaps with a new bow the groups are average at best because focus is more on the gap and not so focused on form, as the gap becomes ingrained and Im comfortable with it, my focus shifts more to the sequence and the Gap just becomes part of the flowing shot sequence, as Jimmy says in his Gap video "Instinctive like" meaning trusting/allowing the aim to happen. Likely why some people learning Gap stuggle they dont transition from that initiatory learning stage and gap is interfering with the shot sequence.

Instinct in my opinion is a very time consuming method to maintain compared to Gap, it took me around 4 years to get good at Instinct and when I switched to Gap it took around 2-3 months to equal my Instinctive abilities. Instinct is quicker to learn initially for a novice but to get good at it takes some serious time/work, likely why you see so many average Instinctive shots, they likely dont have the shooting time to take it to the next level.

If you have the right dedication and you can master Instinct it is a *very* effective aiming method

End of the day aiming method plays only a small part of what makes up a champion shooter, so to make such a big thing about your aiming method being superiour to another is just pointless and petty.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I think no matter what method you aim with - it takes a long time to become an exceptionally good shot


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

unless you use the Star method


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> unless you use the Star method


I was told what/how the STAR method works, it would work very well but wouldnt be legal to use in any shoot org.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - I forgot all about the STAR Method - LMAO


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> the reason learned gapper doesnt suddenly start saying their Instinctive is the gap never realy goes away, its always there just not at the same *level of consciousnes *as when we first started learning Gap, as Jimmy says in his Gap video "Instinctive like" meaning trusting/allowing the aim to happen. Likely why some people learning Gap stuggle they dont transition from that initiatory learning stage and gap is interfering with the shot sequence.



:thumbs_up That's why I call my aiming technique Gapstinctive...because I am shooting at a much LOWER level of conscious awareness that many other archers consider 'instinctive'.



steve morley said:


> Instinct in my opinion is a very time consuming method to maintain compared to Gap, Instinct is quicker to learn initially for a novice but to get good at it takes some serious time/work, likely why you see so many average Instinctive shots, they likely dont have the shooting time to take it to the next level.
> 
> If you have the right dedication and you can master Instinct it is a *very* effective aiming method


I'll also add...there are general advantages and disadvantages that in FACT EXIST with most of the aiming techniques...which is EXACTLY why you won't likely ever see a True Instinctive Shooter winning any archery competitions involving targets set at longer distances unless they incorporate another barebow aiming technique for those longer targets.

Instinctive Aiming's advantages are under many bowhunting like circumstances at close range and when speed of execution factors into making the shot.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I think that David Alfords mystical STAR Method and BlackWolf's wonderous Gapstinctive method have much in common - who knows - they might be the same method - and someday they will co-author a book and we will all be STAR GAPSTINCTERS


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Gapstincter?- maybe gapstinker or gapsphincter would be better -


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I think that David Alfords mystical STAR Method and BlackWolf's wonderous Gapstinctive method have much in common - who knows - they might be the same method - and someday they will co-author a book and we will all be STAR GAPSTINCTERS


LOL...the day I write a book will be the day you actually understand what it truly means to aim Totally Instinctively :wink:

Until than...I may do some videos :smile:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Gapstincter?- maybe gapstinker or gapsphincter would be better -


How about 'denial' for the name of your aiming technique...LOL!

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

lol -good one - ya got me there you gapstinker you

winking the gapsphincter at you -:bartstush:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> lol -good one - ya got me there you gapstinker you
> 
> winking the gapsphincter at you -:bartstush:


LOL :thumbs_up :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

:happy1:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Well it IS important.
> 
> A person might come on here and ask for advice about form or bow set-up and say they shoot instinctive. If that means RW style then there are things which can help them shoot better which just wouldn't matter shooting Black Wolf style instinctive. Mainly getting a point-on distance that makes the sight picture similar to the one RW demonstrates in his video, that makes shooting his way much easier.
> 
> ...


Absolutely, and I find the discussions really interesting. The redundant argument that seems to inevitably occur gets awfully tiring though, especially when a newbie, like myself, comes browsing through threads like this to glean some wisdom, and finds the same people getting upset about semantics and sarcastically attacking one another through subtext.
That obviously doesn't go for all or most posters here though, great discussion in some respects.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I feel anybody coming into this sport needs to have an open mind, I have seen many inspired by Robin Hood or Fred Bear instinctive legend and its just is not working for them and Im positve the same applies for gap method, just that most newbies never hear of Gap till an Archer/Coach tells them about it. 

I explain all the pros and cons of their aiming options to my students, I ecourage them to explore each method and decide for themselves what feels best for them, its a vicious circle, if you cannot get comfortable with your aiming method then Form begins to suffer, if Form is suffering so is accuracy, this can be very frustrating for newer shooters because without help they cannot pin down the cause of the problem.

Instinct at very close range is a good learning tool for Newbies, its pretty close to blank bale feel and has the advantage of making Form the main focus for the student, its when aim comes more into the shot we begin to see problems, Form has to be nailed down getting them to a stage where any of the aiming methods dont stress the Archer in any way.

I watched a bunch of top Fita target shooters practice indoor rounds, they went from rapid shooting to holding on aim and not shooting, firstly running the sequence with no time to second guess the shot to holdin solid on aim with out feeling they had to release, when they shot fast their groups were just as solid as when they shot normal speed, it was interesting to watch. They were in effect taking the stress out of aiming.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> lol -good one - ya got me there you gapstinker you
> 
> winking the gapsphincter at you -:bartstush:



Noww that's Funny!!!!!


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

steve morley said:


> Instinct in my opinion is a very time consuming method to maintain compared to Gap, it took me around 4 years to get good at Instinct and when I switched to Gap it took around 2-3 months to equal my Instinctive abilities. Instinct is quicker to learn initially for a novice but to get good at it takes some serious time/work, likely why you see so many average Instinctive shots, they likely dont have the shooting time to take it to the next level.
> 
> If you have the right dedication and you can master Instinct it is a *very* effective aiming method
> 
> End of the day aiming method plays only a small part of what makes up a champion shooter, so to make such a big thing about your aiming method being superiour to another is just pointless and petty.


Steve,

I agree. I have come to the same conclusion in the almost 1 year since I began my trad journey. I can instinctively shoot out to 15 yds pretty dang good, but beyond that the consistency is not there, and the time to be great at it is all consuming, because when you are not shooting well you don't have the reference to quickly get back on target. Since raising my anchor and heavying up the arrow, I now have the visual feedback reference (a gap) and can quickly get on target and stay on target much easier. However, none of it seems to be helping with the pulling my groups to the left, LOL! 

But can you really teach Instinctive? I mean you can teach proper form, and how to set the bow up, but the archer himself is ultimately going to have to ingrain that Instinctive method through alot of practice. You can teach mental exercises in order to improve the instinctive shot but there is no instinctive methodology that I've read that gives you a step by step analytical approach to the process, because there isn't one. You just have to shoot and shoot until your brain puts it altogether. The books I've read are full of mental exercises, and its good stuff, just doesn't serve my impatient quest to be a precise shooter.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Wayko, with all due respect, statements like yours are one of the many reasons that so many archers stay confused about aiming. Think about what you just said , especially " archer B ". It doesn't matter if you have shot 1000 arrows or 1,000,000, the reason for learning a gap system is to better your accuracy. Why in the world would someone put in that much effort and then relegate those gaps anywhere except to the closest reaches of their brain so they are perfectly clear on every distance? Anyone who uses a gap system properly knows precisely what the gap is for each yardage they shoot. They don't ever not look at the gap when they shoot an arrow. There is no need for trusting to faith because a good gap system is accurate from the first arrow to the last. Those that continually say that the gaps become ingrained so that they don't even have to look at them are speaking gobbledegook. Would you stop looking at your scope in freestyle after 1000 arrows? Absolutely not, and neither should a barebow archer. There are somethings that need to be said. The 69 Mets, the miracle on ice USA hockey team, and Sharp placing once at an IBO world event.


No disrespect intended but are you primarily thinking of target shooting?

I ask because, when hunting, it's pretty common to not know the exact distance to the target. That means that you don't know the exact gap. Even if you know the exact distance to the target, the gap itself is just an estemate without a fixed reference. It would be handy if animals came with a tape measure hanging off them so you knew just where to place the tip of your arrow but they don't. With so much guessing going on it would seem practical to practice guessing.

That certainly does limit accuracy...which is one reason why, for any practical purpose, a "traditional" bow is a short range weapon.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Steve,
> 
> I agree. I have come to the same conclusion in the almost 1 year since I began my trad journey. I can instinctively shoot out to 15 yds pretty dang good, but beyond that the consistency is not there, and the time to be great at it is all consuming, because when you are not shooting well you don't have the reference to quickly get back on target. Since raising my anchor and heavying up the arrow, I now have the visual feedback reference (a gap) and can quickly get on target and stay on target much easier. However, none of it seems to be helping with the pulling my groups to the left, LOL!
> 
> But can you really teach Instinctive? I mean you can teach proper form, and how to set the bow up, but the archer himself is ultimately going to have to ingrain that Instinctive method through alot of practice. You can teach mental exercises in order to improve the instinctive shot but there is no instinctive methodology that I've read that gives you a step by step analytical approach to the process, because there isn't one. You just have to shoot and shoot until your brain puts it altogether. The books I've read are full of mental exercises, and its good stuff, just doesn't serve my impatient quest to be a precise shooter.


The thing is that we're concerned with two things...accuracy and precision. Precision is essentially repeatability. Repeatability comes from consistent form and pointing at the same place every time. If you're not precise (able to shoot a tight group), you aren't going to know what your gap is OR where to hold instinctively.

I really like Jimmy's videos but I saw one where he shot one arrow at 10, 15, 20 and 25 (I think those were the distances) and measured the gaps. Many people (most?) would really have to shoot a bunch of arrows at each distance and average them. Then, as form improves (or whatever) it all changes anyway. Unless you can drop arrows on top of each other, you don't really know what your gaps are anyway. You don't sight in a rifle by making adjustments after a single shot, do you? I don't. I shoot a group and adjust the scope to put the center of the group on target because I can't put every shot through the same hole. If you can't group, you have a tough nut to crack. 

How do you know whether form and release are good unless all the arrows are going to the same place?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

MGF - 

Also with no disrespect intended (seriously), but the whole "unmarked distances" thing at typical trad bow hunting distances of 25 yds and under is non-sense. With the scenario I suggested in the first post, or any number or variants (even just "practicing"), being able to adequately judge distances really isn't that big a deal, and being off by a few yards won't matter in the least. 

A little testing I did a few years back, showed that with a 190 fps bow, a 2 yd variance at 30 yds showed no change in point of impact (all shots in the same group). Granted going beyond 40 yds or using a much slower bow and YMMV - considerably. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

MGF and for those that dont shoot marked Field rounds I can tell you it does two basic things for you, first you get to know what all the distances from 10 yards to 80 yards looks/feels like and second the longer distances typically shot in Field really help develop confidence for those -30 yard shots, for IFAA Bowhunter unmarked 3D rounds (60y max) I only really check the distance beyond 45y and normally Im just confirming my initial gut feeling.

Remember Field was shot by Archers like Bear and Hill way before 3D was even invented, both these guys were great Field shooters as well as great Bowhunters


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Ok guys - FACT CHECK - I want you to visit this site: http://www.outdoorsden.com/archery/archbal.asp and plug in Viper's numbers - 190 fps bow zeroed at 30 yards and see what a 2 yard misjudgement in distance means and then look at what a 3 yard misjudgement in distance means - and to mistake 27 yards for 30 yards is easily done by even the most experienced archer when shooting outdoors in shadows and up or down hills.

In order to get the 190 fps you need to plug in the right numbers - for example I had a bow that went 190 fps - it was a 50lb bow at my draw and it shoot a 525 grain arrow 190 fps - and it plugged those numbers in - here they are:










Notice that you would miss by 3 inches if you were off by 2 yards in your distance judgement (suconscious or conscious) and if you were off by 3 yards in your estimate you would miss by 5 inches. 

Byron Ferguson sited a test that was done on how accurately archers really judge distance (obviously this was a conscious distance judgement - no way to meaure a subconscious distance judgement in a test) - this is what was found:

Become the Arrow - page 29-31:

This was done at the Eastern State Bowhunting Associations Fall Shoot - 10 targets were set up at varying distances from 6 yards to 25 yards - 26 people partook of this novelty - and all of them were experienced archers and thought they were pretty good at judging distances.

The actual distaces of the 10 targets were totaled in feet - the one who got the closet won. Of the 26 participants only 7 were within 20 feet (about 7 yards) of the total. 8 people judged short and 18 judged long - and I quote:

"In fact, the longest estimate was more than 5 yards off, on average to per target. That wouldn't have been the case on the shorter shots at rabbits, so you can imagine how far off the longer distance estimates would be"

remember the closer targets were 6 yards and the furtherst were 25 yards.

After I read this we did a similar novelty at one of our shoots and had very similar results - It is too bad that neither this test or the one we did at our shoot broke down just how far off they were at the 25 yard target - but you can imagine that this is where the largest percentage of error was - and if even the best were still off by a total of 7 yards - you can imagine that at unknown distances it would be nothing to be off by 3 or more yards on a 30 yard target.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Tony is spot on with the yardage thing - at short ranges it doesn't make that much difference. I'm teaching my daughter to gap right now. She was all freaked out about yardage until I told her you need 3 gaps for Shots under 30 yards near - medium - and far. Figure near is 5-15 yards medium is 15-20 far is 20-30 - figure out you gap for the middle of each range so your near gap is 10 yards so the furthest out you will be is 5 yards but the odds are it will be less. 

When you approach your shot set your gap - forget it and focus on the spot - have faith in your form and shoot a strong shot. She is ripping it up. 

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Matt - I would bet my life that what is happening is that your duaghter is "setting her gap" and then when she takes her focus off the gap and unto the target - her subconsious is readjusting the aim to make the shot - because - i am sure if you chronographed her bow and plugged the numbers in and found what the actual drop is between your 3 gaps for 30 yards and under - you would find that she would be missing the mark by large amounts on the extreme end of each "gap" - she is Likely not shooting anywhere near 190 fps - using the above calculator and plugging in numbers - what 3 gaps would cover 0 to 30 yards?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Matt think of it this way - I shoot with some amazing compound shooters - top shooters in the Wisconsin Rhinehart R100 - and the range we shoot is out to 35 yards and these guys are shooting 300+ fps bows - I can assure you that they have far more than three adjustments that they make on their sight for this 35 yard course - they adjust for each shot. So does it follow that a bow that shooting an arrow likely less than half that speed could only need 3 "gaps or sights" for 0-30 yards - or is it more likely that there is more going on than her just setting a gap and that gap covering - what a 10 yards span? 3 gaps over 30 yards? I would bet that if you never said anthing to her about the "gap" and just let her focus on the spot from the beginning - she would be shooting just as well without any gaps as she is now with gaps.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

It doesnt seem possible but I see people doing it all the time, same could be said for Byron shooting Asprins, doesnt seem possibe but he does it all the time. A while ago I was tested a few years ago on an IFAA unmarked 3D range (max 60y) by a Compound shooter with a range finder and I was within 2 yards on nearly every target, even the ones out to 60y. The top Compounds quite often shoot perfect rounds with sights or within 10 points, if they were out by a few yards at 60y they wouldnt be able to shoot perfect score or even close so it can be done with the right kind of training. The IFAA World Bowhunters in Yankton 2009 Recurve Bowhunter shooter Grahame Holmes was only 20 points behind the top sighted Compound on first round, remember this is out to 60y max. Some crazy European shot over 500 with a Primitive stick bow (must have been watching Jimmys vids lol)


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Steve it is only possible when one takes the humble and most logical approach and realizes that God gave us an amazing brain with the ability to do things at levels that we really do not control - other than simply the will to do it and aiming a bow without sights is one of those things. That is how aspirin are hit out of the air - that is how Matt can think his daughter is using three gaps to cover 30 yards, etc... - it is not the gaps or us doing the aiming (consciously at least) - it is the amazing gift of our sub or unconscious brain that is doing it.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Our indoor league is 20 yards. At times, I shoot it Freestyle Limited (sighted Oly rig). At 170 fps, the difference between my 10 yard setting and 20 yard setting is right at 5mm on the sight bar - I might notice the difference in x-count, maybe if my brain didn't adjust, but nothing that great in difference. Personally, if one can play 5mm on a gap, they are way more visually gifted than I. Most all the +300 fps compound shooters I've been around lately are all bragging on having one pin out to 30 at least, I've seen proof of one pin on a fast bow out to 40, though, again, elevation is easy to cheat with a fixed sight, but still not sure who is requiring 3 adjustment over 35 - doesn't fit my experience with these folks.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> MGF -
> 
> Also with no disrespect intended (seriously), but the whole "unmarked distances" thing at typical trad bow hunting distances of 25 yds and under is non-sense. With the scenario I suggested in the first post, or any number or variants (even just "practicing"), being able to adequately judge distances really isn't that big a deal, and being off by a few yards won't matter in the least.
> 
> ...


I understand but you know what changes over hunting distances? The way the gap looks. I feel like I hold much lower at 10 yards than at 20, though, I think a tape measure might prove otherwise. I doubt the bow I've been shooting most comes anywhere near 190 fps but my arrows are dropping like a rock beyon 30 yards and my gap at 30 is just a sliver.

While the change in gap might not chage much in relation to a deer size kill zone over 20 or 25 yards, what if the target is a squirrel?

Anyway, all that goes back to what I said earlier about a "traditiona" bow being a short range weapon.


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

itbeso said:


> Wayko, with all due respect, statements like yours are one of the many reasons that so many archers stay confused about aiming. Think about what you just said , especially " archer B ". It doesn't matter if you have shot 1000 arrows or 1,000,000, the reason for learning a gap system is to better your accuracy. Why in the world would someone put in that much effort and then relegate those gaps anywhere except to the closest reaches of their brain so they are perfectly clear on every distance? Anyone who uses a gap system properly knows precisely what the gap is for each yardage they shoot. They don't ever not look at the gap when they shoot an arrow. There is no need for trusting to faith because a good gap system is accurate from the first arrow to the last. Those that continually say that the gaps become ingrained so that they don't even have to look at them are speaking gobbledegook. Would you stop looking at your scope in freestyle after 1000 arrows? Absolutely not, and neither should a barebow archer. There are somethings that need to be said. The 69 Mets, the miracle on ice USA hockey team, and Sharp placing once at an IBO world event.



itbeso: If my summing up as to what I was reading in alot of the post of how people were aiming to me seemed to me, have more in common then being different, if my senior moment, pushed your buttons, I am very sorry, it was a observation of what it looked like to me. Agian I am sorry.
As for me, it depends on what camp someone is in as to how I currently aim, I started as a youngster when I was given a youth bow & some arrows, I was given no instuctions, just rules, don't shot pets, people, or cabins in the area. I did get somewhat good at killing chipmonks in the area, when cabin owner started giveing me a nickle for everyone I killed, then I shot I guess what some called true instinctive, I had no anchor, shot split finger, drawing the bow to my chest area, how far the shot was depended on how far I pulled the bow back, don't ever remember aiming, but do remember always having nickles in my pockets, LOL.
Then as I got closer to the age where I could archery hunt for deer, I was told I had to start to "do it right" was showed that I must anchor just behind the jaw bone, I remember that at first I could not hit the house if I was standing in it, with the arrow being right there in front of me, I started eyeing down the arrow, it was ok, but never could get very good with that, then I started gapping at the target, worked better, but for some reason I never totally felt right aiming above or below where I wanted to hit, but it did work very well for me, years ago I when to shooting what alot call instinctive, been serving me well for hunting ranges, but not so much for long ranges, I'am not a purest, I contacted itbeso via a pm on his gap at the arrow type system, (not sure of the currect name he calls it) to see if I could get it to work for me on long shots, I'am still playing with it. but I'am not there yet.
Till I came to this forum, I viewed myself as to aim instinctive, now, who knows, over the years I've shot eyeing down the arrow, gap at target, & alittle gap at the arrow, so maybe sub-consc. my aiming is a combo of all of them, it really does not matter alot to me, I care more about my arrow hitting the mark, as to the system I used to aim, as I said I'am not a purest, and maybe I should not be posting on aiming threads when the talk turn purest or best aiming system, because I really don't have a horse then that race. Agian I am sorry if I offended anyone, if I did or do offend anyone, to the ones that are trying to learn a system, please disregard my post as they may confuse you, I'am not a coach or a teacher, & I did not stay in a Holiday Inn last night, I just enjoy shooting a bow & arrow, just right it off as a cazy, mixed-up, old man, having a senior moment.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

steve morley said:


> MGF and for those that dont shoot marked Field rounds I can tell you it does two basic things for you, first you get to know what all the distances from 10 yards to 80 yards looks/feels like and second the longer distances typically shot in Field really help develop confidence for those -30 yard shots, for IFAA Bowhunter unmarked 3D rounds (60y max) I only really check the distance beyond 45y and normally Im just confirming my initial gut feeling.
> 
> Remember Field was shot by Archers like Bear and Hill way before 3D was even invented, both these guys were great Field shooters as well as great Bowhunters


I don't disagree.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Byron Ferguson sited a test that was done on how accurately archers really judge distance (obviously this was a conscious distance judgement - no way to meaure a subconscious distance judgement in a test) - this is what was found:
> 
> Become the Arrow - page 29-31:
> 
> ...


Many years ago I took my two kids through a hunter safety course. The last thing they did was have everybody out on the lawn estemating the distance to various objects. The estemates were all over the map.

From my own experience I know that estemating distance is a lot different in the woods than it is in an open field. It all depends on the visual references available. Sometimes, when you look up through the trees in big woods with hills and hollows it can be hard to tell if you're looking at something small that's close or something big that's far.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Wayko said:


> Forgive me, but I was thinking about what I read on all the this aim vs. that aim posts, call it a senior moment......
> Archer (A) starts out with what is called instintive aiming, starts out at 5 yards & over time 1000's of arrows, gets very good at 0 to 50 yards unknown yardage shots, never noticed were the arrow is as to the target, how high the bow arm is all done in the sub-conc. there brain just knows were to point the bow, brain does the gapping so to say, at any yardage within 50 yards, they trust the shot, if the form is good, the arrow hits the target.
> Archer (B) starts out with a gap system of aiming, has shot 1000's of arrow at there gap for 0 to 50 yards, at that yardage they no longer need to look at the gap, after so many arrows the gap is in-grained in there brain & they trust it at those yardages, they don't think about the yardage within 50 yards anymore, they just trust the shot, if the form is good the arrow hits the target.
> Now for my senior moment.....Archer (A) started aiming one way, archer (B) started aiming a different way, but after time, 1000's of arrows, both are aiming the same way, kind'a like 2 paths leading to the samething. Archery (A) calls themself a instinctive shooter, archery (B) calls themself a gap shooter, but both are shooting the same way now, but calling it something different because of how they started.


Where this all goes ka-put is when the pressure builds up and the archer questions his faith in "Trusting the Shot". The instinctive guy has to let it fly and see what happens, The gapper takes a second, checks his gap and knows his shot it properly aimed.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> Many years ago I took my two kids through a hunter safety course. The last thing they did was have everybody out on the lawn estemating the distance to various objects. The estemates were all over the map.
> 
> From my own experience I know that estemating distance is a lot different in the woods than it is in an open field. It all depends on the visual references available. Sometimes, when you look up through the trees in big woods with hills and hollows it can be hard to tell if you're looking at something small that's close or something big that's far.


Also, whether you step to the line with fixed sight, fixed gap, or no sight reference at all, the shooter is the only one left to make the range estimation. That is a metal reasoning job and the distance ain't going to change to fit your estimation and your not thinking of the distance ain't going to change things either.


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

centershot said:


> Where this all goes ka-put is when the pressure builds up and the archer questions his faith in "Trusting the Shot". The instinctive guy has to let it fly and see what happens, The gapper takes a second, checks his gap and knows his shot it properly aimed.



I told myself I was going to try to stay off this topic, I failed agian, lol......I guess consider me the odd ball here......maybe I see thing different then most.....After all these years hunting, I've learn a few things about myself.
If I have a relaxed deer feeding on acorns in front of me at my comfort range & have all the time in the world to shoot what should be a give-me shot, the odds are very good, no-matter the weapon my shot will be 2 to 3 inches off, the more perfect I try to be the more I'am off. Now have a deer thats alittle jumpy & I have no time, it now or never, odds are good my shot will be right were I'am looking. The more time I have to think about a shot, the worst I shoot, the less time I have to think about the shot the better I shoot, I know that it makes me different then most, I know it's all in my head, but I can't seem to help it....... Maybe that's why a see thing differently. As I said in a earler post, I'am not trying to confuse a new shooter, I'am just different I guess.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

if gapping was so perfect and allowed for all these wonderful results - how come so many people have such a difficult time mastering it? As I have pointed out numerous times now - and it was actually someone else who first made this observation - can't remember who though, how is it that at the IBO Trad Worlds were, by all accounts almost everyone gap shoots - so few shoot better than the instinctive shooters who, of the few that show up there always finish in the top five of their repsective classes?

Don't get me wrong - I don't think instinctive is a magic bullet of aiming either - the bottom line is there is no magic bullet - gap is no better than instinctive or vice versa - it just depends on the person and the situation


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

How about this Ken. You shoot unconscious gap and we shoot conscious instinctive? :teeth:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Ok guys - FACT CHECK - I want you to visit this site: http://www.outdoorsden.com/archery/archbal.asp and plug in Viper's numbers - 190 fps bow zeroed at 30 yards and see what a 2 yard misjudgement in distance means and then look at what a 3 yard misjudgement in distance means - and to mistake 27 yards for 30 yards is easily done by even the most experienced archer when shooting outdoors in shadows and up or down hills.
> 
> In order to get the 190 fps you need to plug in the right numbers - for example I had a bow that went 190 fps - it was a 50lb bow at my draw and it shoot a 525 grain arrow 190 fps - and it plugged those numbers in - here they are:
> 
> ...


Sharp, On this point we can agree. Viper is way off base on his assertion. For the last 15 years, I have been shooting compounds at 280 ft. per second and a two yard mistake in yardage estimating will definitely take you out of the 12 ring. When someone of Vipers' stature makes statements like that it , it is no wonder that newer shooters on here get confused.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> if gapping was so perfect and allowed for all these wonderful results - how come so many people have such a difficult time mastering it?


I don't think there are that many people who specifically struggle with Gap. I think people just struggle with learning how to shoot...period. I think struggling to learn basically applies to any aiming technique.

Instinctive Aiming is the easist aiming technique to teach...but to truly master it at a competition level...takes the most amount of time to develop....generally speaking.



sharpbroadhead said:


> how is it that at the IBO Trad Worlds were, by all accounts almost everyone gap shoots - so few shoot better than the instinctive shooters who, of the few that show up there always finish in the top five of their repsective classes?


Because at close distances...the advantages of the other aiming techniques kind of diminish at closer distances when compared to Instinctive Aiming. Instinctive Aiming's advantages are normally seen at closer distances. It kind of becomes a wash...unless moving targets or speed of execution is added into the scenario.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

it appears to be more than a wash - by the percentages anyhow - and I have always said that instinctive is a close range game - never denied that - 40 yards or less for most of us - some exceptional guys can do it a bit further - but most it is a 40 yard or less game.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

MGF said:


> No disrespect intended but are you primarily thinking of target shooting?
> 
> I ask because, when hunting, it's pretty common to not know the exact distance to the target. That means that you don't know the exact gap. Even if you know the exact distance to the target, the gap itself is just an estemate without a fixed reference. It would be handy if animals came with a tape measure hanging off them so you knew just where to place the tip of your arrow but they don't. With so much guessing going on it would seem practical to practice guessing.
> 
> That certainly does limit accuracy...which is one reason why, for any practical purpose, a "traditional" bow is a short range weapon.


Mgf, not limited to target at all. When hunting, I always judge yardage to the animal if I don't have time to range it. Like I said before, it's a shame we can't hook a polygraph to the internet, I think it would be interesting to really see everyones kill to shot ratio, especially the instinctive shooters. The gap system we use is the fixed reference. The only thing we look at is the gap distance at the end of the arrow in fractions of an inch. You, and most others on here can't grasp that concept because you have been bombarded with yardsticks, tape measures and other methods of having to figure a point to aim at way up at the target. Having shot field archery for all these years, you get a feel for what distances are and yardage estimation has been easy for me because of field archery. I get a kick out of posters on here that talk about burning a hole and shooting instinctive, but never talk about yardage estimation, which is as important as being able to hit your target


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

FWIW...the best archers I know of say that "aiming"--regardless of how you do it--is a very small portion of the shot--maybe 5%. Form and execution are what makes the shot happen.

Also, FWIW, it would only seem logical to me that those who use one or the other sucessfully would be the most qualified to discuss their prospective technique. I've never seen an athiest teaching Sunday school--who would listen if they did?

To me, that's akin to someone who doesn't shoot 3-D or hunt giving "expert" advice on 3-D and hunting. Sure, they are entitled to their opinion, but take it for what it's worth.

I haven't done any kind of controlled tests on yardage, but I have actually shot at countless 3-D tournaments. I remember one incident in particular, with a good friend of mine. He'd just bought a new bow that was warrantied for as low as...5 grains per pound IIRC. His thought was--as he'd been told in the sales pitch--he wouldn't have to be nearly as accurate at judging distances due to the increased speed he was getting. He also has a very long draw length, so his 40# bow should have been performing like...70#-80# or so? Seems I read somewhere you get 10# worth of performance for every inch past 28? Must stink for those who only draw 24". Anyway......

Long story a little shorter, the results were really eye-opening. Those "long" 3-D shots ("dumbed down" to 25-30 yds max) really blew his mind...HE SHOT UNDER THEM, JUST LIKE HE DID WITH HIS OTHER BOWS!! Out to 20 or so, he was practically untouchable, but past that they ate his lunch.

This was earlier in his archery journey--he later became one of the better shots I know. Point being, 5 yds does make a difference with some people, especially on a 3-D course where you have shadows, up-hill, down-hill, across gullys, etc. If you have been there, done that, then you'll know this.

My thoughts--take them for what they are worth--if you want to shoot "instinctive", then talk to someone who has proven themselves to use that method sucessfully and see if it works for you. If you want to shoot "gap" (or any of the variations of such), talk with someone who has proven that it works for them. If you want to argue, then post about it on a message board. :tongue:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> if gapping was so perfect and allowed for all these wonderful results - how come so many people have such a difficult time mastering it? As I have pointed out numerous times now - and it was actually someone else who first made this observation - can't remember who though, how is it that at the IBO Trad Worlds were, by all accounts almost everyone gap shoots - so few shoot better than the instinctive shooters who, of the few that show up there always finish in the top five of their repsective classes?
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I don't think instinctive is a magic bullet of aiming either - the bottom line is there is no magic bullet - gap is no better than instinctive or vice versa - it just depends on the person and the situation


As with ALL aspects of this sport aiming and Form it takes agood mix of talent and dedication to get to the top, just because somebody enters a world champs doesnt mean theyre world class, very few at the top and many at various stages of development, some obviously are at the top of their game, some on there way up and some just going to gain valuable experience. 

Fita 3D/Field might be the exception where to qualify you have to be at least top 3 in your home country to be selected for a World/European tourney, even then you can sometimes see varying skill levels depending on the countries archery resourses.

Again you attibute peoples shooting skill directly to aiming when it is only a very small part of champions makeup.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> MGF -
> 
> Also with no disrespect intended (seriously), but the whole "unmarked distances" thing at typical trad bow hunting distances of 25 yds and under is non-sense. With the scenario I suggested in the first post, or any number or variants (even just "practicing"), being able to adequately judge distances really isn't that big a deal, and being off by a few yards won't matter in the least.
> 
> ...


Viper, this is one of the least factual and most misleading posts I have seen on these threads. Nothing in your post is true, especially telling trad shooters that a few yards error in yardage estimating is no big deal. Shame on you!


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Tony is spot on with the yardage thing - at short ranges it doesn't make that much difference. I'm teaching my daughter to gap right now. She was all freaked out about yardage until I told her you need 3 gaps for Shots under 30 yards near - medium - and far. Figure near is 5-15 yards medium is 15-20 far is 20-30 - figure out you gap for the middle of each range so your near gap is 10 yards so the furthest out you will be is 5 yards but the odds are it will be less.
> 
> When you approach your shot set your gap - forget it and focus on the spot - have faith in your form and shoot a strong shot. She is ripping it up.
> 
> Matt


Matt, not from you too. You should know better. That would be like me telling you to only use three crawls from 10 to 30 yards on your stringwalking. We are trying to make accurate archers here, not just in the ballpark archers. Shame on you too.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Many people will say form is harder to master and maybe a few will say aiming is.

Imo...they BOTH are relatively easy once you know the correct sight picture for a specific distance and know where and how your body needs to be positioned.

The problem with most new archers is...they try to learn both at the same time....when learning form FIRST...can make learning to aim soooo much easier.

The hard part once the fundamentals are learned...is the mental aspect of the sport and putting it all together and executing both accurate aiming and consistant form at the same time. 

If an archer's aim is off...they can miss their target. If an archer's form is inconsistant...they can miss their target.

Let's face it...the act of drawing your bow, anchoring, aiming and releasing is pretty basic and easy as long as you have a bow you can easily control...it's executing BOTH accurate aiming and consistant form at the same time to achieve CONSISTENT accuracy that's a challenge.

Ultimately what an archer should strive to do is have as little on his mind at one time so our built in computers aren't overloaded with a bunch of info to cause us to stumble.

Some archers do this by breaking their shot into steps or sequences. Others strive to execute their form more instinctive like while others focus on making their aiming become more instinctive like. Than there are those that strive to make everything about their shooting instinctive.

There's no real wrong or right way to do it other than finding out what works best for the individual archer.

It's basically a matter of developing a technique that fits your goals, personality and ability.

Here's a break down to show how close it really is to a 50/50 ratio.

Form can include: stance, spinal positioning, griping the bow, gripping the string, drawing the bow, alignment, anchoring, rythem and releasing/conclusion/follow through.

Aiming can include: visually focusing on a target and/or aiming reference, yardage estimation, adjusting elevation, adjusting windage, adjusting for wind drift (if applicable), adjusting for target or shot elevation, breathing and timing.

As most can see...it isn't just aiming and it isn't just form. There are many aspects to both...that if each one is not mastered or done correctly...it can and will effect consistantcy and accuracy.

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Wayko said:


> I told myself I was going to try to stay off this topic, I failed agian, lol......I guess consider me the odd ball here......maybe I see thing different then most.....After all these years hunting, I've learn a few things about myself.
> If I have a relaxed deer feeding on acorns in front of me at my comfort range & have all the time in the world to shoot what should be a give-me shot, the odds are very good, no-matter the weapon my shot will be 2 to 3 inches off, the more perfect I try to be the more I'am off. Now have a deer thats alittle jumpy & I have no time, it now or never, odds are good my shot will be right were I'am looking. The more time I have to think about a shot, the worst I shoot, the less time I have to think about the shot the better I shoot, I know that it makes me different then most, I know it's all in my head, but I can't seem to help it....... Maybe that's why a see thing differently. As I said in a earler post, I'am not trying to confuse a new shooter, I'am just different I guess.


Wayko, you're probably right there with the majority of hunters. There is always a rush when drawing down on a game animal, at least for me, and I hope that never changes.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> Long story a little shorter, the results were really eye-opening. Those "long" 3-D shots ("dumbed down" to 25-30 yds max) really blew his mind...HE SHOT UNDER THEM, JUST LIKE HE DID WITH HIS OTHER BOWS!! Out to 20 or so, he was practically untouchable, but past that they ate his lunch.


LBR, in the anecdote, that goes to him and him only. If he was untouchable at 20 yards but was shooting "under" targets at 25 or 30, man, that don't speak right for him and not for the bow speed. It ain't the bow speed at play unless he had one ridiculous trajectory, which would imply a super slow bow. Anyone who has their game down, just flat has it down. Hint: It wasn't the bow or all our bows would act that way, and mine, even at its measly speed, sure don't.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> it appears to be more than a wash - by the percentages anyhow - and I have always said that instinctive is a close range game - never denied that - 40 yards or less for most of us - some exceptional guys can do it a bit further - but most it is a 40 yard or less game.


Alot of that depends on what a person believes to be 'instinctive' aiming and the level of accuracy being talked about.

IMO...based on how I understand the differences between True Instinctive Aiming and Gapping at a very low level of conscious awareness...the more common effective distance is 25yrds. or less.

I'm NOT saying a True Instinctive archer can't hit targets from further way...I am saying that in a competition enviroment competeing against other archers who may be String Walking or basically using another aiming technique...a True Instinctive archer will not be nearly as CONSISTENTLY accurate at those distances or size of target.

Ray :shade:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Here's a break down to show how close it really is to a 50/50 ratio.


For YOU. I can't argue what works for you, and won't attempt to. I just parrotted what is taught by some archers who are far more qualified than I, who are very well known in the sport due to their shooting AND coaching prowess. 



> There is always a rush when drawing down on a game animal, at least for me, and I hope that never changes.


Something you can only understand by experiencing it. If that ever stops, I will be done hunting. I suspect it will happen shortly after my heart stops beating permenantly.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

itbeso said:


> Matt, not from you too. You should know better. That would be like me telling you to only use three crawls from 10 to 30 yards on your stringwalking. We are trying to make accurate archers here, not just in the ballpark archers. Shame on you too.





sharpbroadhead said:


> Matt think of it this way - I shoot with some amazing compound shooters - top shooters in the Wisconsin Rhinehart R100 - and the range we shoot is out to 35 yards and these guys are shooting 300+ fps bows - I can assure you that they have far more than three adjustments that they make on their sight for this 35 yard course - they adjust for each shot. So does it follow that a bow that shooting an arrow likely less than half that speed could only need 3 "gaps or sights" for 0-30 yards - or is it more likely that there is more going on than her just setting a gap and that gap covering - what a 10 yards span? 3 gaps over 30 yards? I would bet that if you never said anthing to her about the "gap" and just let her focus on the spot from the beginning - she would be shooting just as well without any gaps as she is now with gaps.


Ken

I am getting her ready to shoot eagle (between cub and youth) at Trad worlds. So the actual yardage is more like 5 to 25 yards with the vast majority being in the 15 - 18 yard range for her. I totally agree with you that the subconscious takes over the fine aiming - I think the only difference between all of our aiming styles is what gets you closer to the mark with your gross aiming. My brain as a string-walker doesn't have to work as hard with the fine aiming as yours does as an instinctive shooter. 

By giving her 3 gaps the most she will be off with her gross aiming is a couple of yards - making it easier for her subconscious to do the fine aiming. We are talking Eagle so if she puts them all in the target she will be competitive. If she shoots all the short stuff for 6 yards all the medium stuff for 15 and all the long stuff for 25 on average all the arrows will be in the target any subconscious refinement is just a bonus.


Ben - I absolutely am trying to create a ball park archer. Olivia is 13 but has great form and a strong shot thanks to taking Rods class at a young age and working at it. If she is ball park and shoots strong shots she will do very well. We will refine the aiming as she gets older but, for now I am more interested in having her shoot strong shots without a ton of thinking about aiming.

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

If a person takes a close look at these and than applies them to different archers with different goals...it can become quite apperent why there is debate on this.

_Form can include: stance, spinal positioning, griping the bow, gripping the string, drawing the bow, alignment, anchoring, rythem and releasing/conclusion/follow through.

Aiming can include: visually focusing on a target and/or aiming reference, yardage estimation, adjusting elevation, adjusting windage, adjusting for wind drift (if applicable), adjusting for target or shot elevation, breathing and timing._

Consider a target archer shooting at known distances let's say....the NFAA 300 round.

Now because the archer is shooting on even ground, at a known distance and indoors...they can basically eliminate having to figure out the aspects that apply to those specifically to aim correctly so they are basically eliminated them from that list and form becomes more important in regards to the ratio of importance.

In some cases...this is often why you hear of target archers pushing the importance of form over aiming.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

LBR said:


> For YOU. I can't argue what works for you, and won't attempt to.


No....I tried to make it apply to the general population.

If you would like to add or subtract anything that doesn't apply to you feel free to do so....and than count each one in each category and you will have your personal ratio.

If a person was to take into consideration what most archers do when executing a shot...than it's still very close to a 50/50 ratio.

Ray :shade:


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

itbeso said:


> Sharp, On this point we can agree. Viper is way off base on his assertion. For the last 15 years, I have been shooting compounds at 280 ft. per second and a two yard mistake in yardage estimating will definitely take you out of the 12 ring. When someone of Vipers' stature makes statements like that it , it is no wonder that newer shooters on here get confused.


I think Vipers quote has a "magin of error" included in the assumption. Darn few trad archers are capable of 3" groups at 30 yards to be able to determine that it was the drop of the arrow or a miss due to human error.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> LBR, in the anecdote, that goes to him and him only.


Yes, in that particular anecdote, it was just him--and? That was just one example. Obviously I'm not the only one here that's seen such, and I've seen in many times. That was just one instance that stuck with me, because he was so sure that the faster set-up would be the cure.



> If he was untouchable at 20 yards, and was shooting "under" targets at 25 or 30, man, that's not right and that ain't the bow speed at play unless he had one ridiculous trajectory, which would imply a super slow bow.


What bow was he shooting? What course were we on? What state were we shooting in? I was there, but since you know seem to know more about the situation than I, those should be easy questions.




> Anyone who has their game down, just flat has it down.


Yep. Top shooters don't flub shots, period--right? Even those who are just getting started good (as I noted this fellow was doing) are either shooting all 10's or better, or they shoot lousy--right? You either have it down or not. Perfect score or not, regardless of the distances. Right?




> Hint: It wasn't the bow or all our bows would act that way, and mine, even at its measly speed, sure don't.


Of course not. Put your bow in a Hooter Shooter, you will have the exact same point of impact at 30 yds as you do at 5 yds. Or even 20, 25, and 30. Right?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> No....I tried to make it apply to the general population.



I mean that's your opinion, not the general concensus. 

At least two of the people I refeanced are proven coaches as well as proven shooters. I'm not going to try and explain for them--I'm not in their realm of shooting. Their opinion is actual aiming is around 5% of the shot, they have proven themselves in the public eye (world-wide) with both shooting and coaching, that's good enough for me. Not that it matters that much, but I've found it works for me also, when I apply it correctly. YMMV.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

LBR said:


> I mean that's your opinion, not the general concensus.


AND....I just broke it down to aspects that can be counted.

There's really no opinion there....JUST MATH. Everyone can make there own list in what needs to happen or be considered when they shoot to hit their target.

Now if we are going to discuss what an archer should mentally concentrate on while shooting...than that's a different story.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> Yes, in that particular anecdote, it was just him--and? That was just one example. Obviously I'm not the only one here that's seen such, and I've seen in many times. That was just one instance that stuck with me, because he was so sure that the faster set-up would be the cure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still, faster bows shoot with a flatter trajectory than slower bows - regardless of the skill level of the archer or where they shoot, less it be on the moon. If a new shooter is shooting under targets by adding in 5 more yards, that's a "controlled" test on archer skill, not on distance and trajectory effect. Unless, the question is whether a faster bow helps a new shooter shoot better, which in your observation, no. OK.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Ken, where do you get that at the IBO Trad Worlds the only instinctive shooters that show up are you and RW,Scott and Sean....I know at least 50% of the crowd shoots the instinctive method....most of the Top 10 in every category does have a method like gap or split vision and some like yourself and RW shoot instinctive.....but for you to say that all others shoot gap is just not true.....


Dewayne


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

vabowdog said:


> Ken, where do you get that at the IBO Trad Worlds the only instinctive shooters that show up are you and RW,Scott and Sean....I know at least 50% of the crowd shoots the instinctive method....most of the Top 10 in every category does have a method like gap or split vision and some like yourself and RW shoot instinctive.....but for you to say that all others shoot gap is just not true.....
> 
> 
> Dewayne



Maybe one day someone will do a survey of competitors at IBO worlds, questions like aiming method, if they ever had coaching, bow poundage for tourney/bowhunting etc, it would make interesting reading and stop people from pulling pecentages out of thin air, think we have all been guilty of that one at some point :angel:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

steve morley said:


> Maybe one day someone will do a survey of competitors at IBO worlds, questions like aiming method, if they ever had coaching, bow poundage for tourney/bowhunting etc, it would make interesting reading and stop people from pulling pecentages out of thin air, think we have all been guilty of that one at some point :angel:


I think that as the event grows and more and more people show up with aiming systems the pure Instinctive shooter is going to find it harder to compete at the top levels. Just compare the scores year to year the field is getting deeper and the scores are getting higher - I can see a time when you will need to shoot 10 points plus per target to win RU class.

Matt


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> I can see a time when you will need to shoot 10 points plus per target to win RU class.
> 
> Matt


WA3D worlds 2 years ago I watched Giuseppe Semandi shoot 20 x 10 and 20 x 11 on first days shooting, Ive never seen anybody so relaxed and with such strong focus :thumbs_up


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> AND....I just broke it down to aspects that can be counted.


Like I said, I won't attempt to argue for the others. They have proven their methods work, both shooting and coaching, for the general public.



> Still, faster bows shoot with a flatter trajectory than slower bows


No argument there.



> If a new shooter is shooting under targets by adding in 5 more yards, that's a "controlled" test on archer skill, not on distance and trajectory effect.


So use a Hooter Shooter and record the results. Either way, arrow drop increases over distance. Add the human element, it's a fact that mis-judging distance can have a huge effect.




> Unless, the question is whether a faster bow helps a new shooter shoot better, which in your observation, no. OK.


Not really. My points are: A faster bow isn't a cure-all when it comes to yardage estimation; and saying that you don't have to worry about yardage at 30 and under is a myth.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

MGF - 

Sorry, doesn't have to work that way. Light and terrain can fool you, distance wise, if you're not used to it. The more used to it, the less tricky it becomes. Even easier if you hunt from a stand or blind. since you have, or should have distance reference points marked out. Regarding the gap itself, it doesn't change and the more calculated the gap, the more reliable. Since you are seeing the arrow and riser on some level, it gives a relative depth perception. 

Sure, hunting and stumping do present different challenges, but there are proven solutions to those challenges. 

BTW - the "kill" area on a squirrel is roughly the size of a 20 yd bulls-eye, if you can consistently hit that, then a lot of this stuff doesn't matter. The nice thing about squirrels, is that given their size, you either have a hit or a miss. And "short range" is a relative term.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR said:


> Not really. My points are: A faster bow isn't a cure-all when it comes to yardage estimation; and saying that you don't have to worry about yardage at 30 and under is a myth.


Yes, the backside of the trajectory is fast dropping. Usually, for 25 and under, it's about all the same in my gaps or instinct. Not sure where 30 and 35 yards came in, must have been Sharp and his trajectory calculator, but I think the original statement concerned 25 and under. Still, 30 is just a little more glitch in the mix, not that much of a deal to deal with if you are used to it. If elevation issues are giving you a problem over a range of 25 and under, they are easily fixed just with a little practice. Farther out, things do start to require a little more detail in not only aiming, but form.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Scott Antzack last year in Cleveland OH shot a 406 on 40 targets....I shot a 377 and thought I burnt it up....til I seen his score.

I'd like to see some TRUE numbers of shooters at the IBO Trad Worlds shooting Gap,Instinctive,Split or otherwise just for curiosity...

Who knows maybe the numbers would be exact opposite of what Ken is thinking....maybe everybody but the Top 5 or 6 is shooting instinctive.

Not trying to pick a fight just saying.....


Dewayne


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

vabowdog said:


> Scott Antzack last year in Cleveland OH shot a 406 on 40 targets....I shot a 377 and thought I burnt it up....til I seen his score.
> 
> I'd like to see some TRUE numbers of shooters at the IBO Trad Worlds shooting Gap,Instinctive,Split or otherwise just for curiosity...
> 
> ...


Really wish I could make Cleveland this year if Scott, Mark and Jared are all shooting well should be a barn burner.

Matt


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Matt, if you leave today you should be there in time....


Cleveland is always a barnburner...hard to find a shoot with any more perfect conditions...indoor,no wind,sun,mud,footing is great,heated 

Always a great time....


Dewayne


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

vabowdog said:


> Matt, if you leave today you should be there in time....
> 
> 
> Cleveland is always a barnburner...hard to find a shoot with any more perfect conditions...indoor,no wind,sun,mud,footing is great,heated
> ...


Dewayne,

My wife works admin at our local hospital and has a big project that is going live that weekend - she doesn't figure she will make it home for 3 or 4 days when it goes live other wise I'd be there in s second.

Matt


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

centershot said:


> I think Vipers quote has a "magin of error" included in the assumption. Darn few trad archers are capable of 3" groups at 30 yards to be able to determine that it was the drop of the arrow or a miss due to human error.


Indeed,

Didn't we go through this with Jimmy's "Gap Compromise" video? I'm at work so I can't bring it up. From what I remember his bow was very near 190fps and he could shoot the same gap 15-25yds. Very comforting to people who want to have something to fall back on during a stressful shot.
This is because of the near and far zero effect, just like shooting a rifle over fairly large ranges.

The truth is even exceptional Trad (not barebow) shooters are consistently holding maybe 4" groups at 30yds (10 ring), that is about twice what the drop would be with a 2-3yd misjudgement in range.

Personally shooting out to 40yds I only have 3 gaps (big, small, point-on) to 30yds and then it gets a bit finer past my POD. That is of course shooting the RW instinctive method, naturally.

-Grant


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

So I came up with the 3 gap system for Olivia in my head with out playing with a ballistic calculator - I looked at Ken's spread sheet and the three gap system will work fine for her. 

If you figure 

one gap for short - 3-10 yards and shoot it for 7 your 3 high at 3 yards and 3 low at 10

one gap for medium - 10-20 yards (this is the money shot) shoot it for 15 - you are 1.5 high at 10 and 1 low at 20

one gap for Long - 20-25 yards - shoot this one for 25 cause very rarely do you shoot high on the long ones - you are 3 high at 20 yards.

The most interesting thing for me was the spread on the money distance (10 to 20 yards) only varied by 1.5 inches

I realize she is shooting a slower bow so there will be more variation but, this will give her a good start on it.

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

VAbowdog - scores don't lie

In the Recurve Unaided divsion - where guys are allowed to use elevated rests, stringwalk, stabalizers - and most importantly and somethign that gives a HUGE advantage - a clicker - lets see how myself and Scott Langley stacked up against them - Scott Langley shot in the HHW shooting a 70lb recurve and instinctive - I shot a 48lb recurve in the Recurve Division - we all shot from the same orange stake and the same distances on the same course.

*2011 IBO Traditional World Championships - how did the Recurve Unaided Class with clickers, stabalizers, elevated rests, and stringwalkers and gap shooters compare to us lowly instinctive shooters with our hunting bows shot off the shelf with no stabalizers, clickers, elevated rests, etc... - shot instintive - mind you all the shots from the same stake (distance) and on the same course:*









*You will see that two instinctive shooters - myself and Scott Langley shown in the Recurve Division and the Hunter Heavyweight Division - scored higher than 90% of the Recurve Unaided Shooters!*


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Ken - I think Dewayne's point is that you guys are the exception not the rule.

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Matt - and then why is not Scott the exeption to the rule - think about it - as far as I know there were only a handful of instinctive shooters at the IBO - and according to VA and Jimmy they both agree that there are VERY few instintive shooters at the IBO - when they make their case for gap shooting and against instinctive they love to point out that almost everyone at the IBO is a gap shooter - well - when that illogical argument is turned around - they don't seem to like the logical conclusion of their logic. 

The only instintive shooters that were there that I know for certain were instinctive we me, Scott Langley, Sean Callanan, and my brother - who was not a very serious archer - though of late he is really starting to enjoy it and is shooting two leagues etc... So of the the serious instinctice archers we all shot better scores than 90% of the guys with all the gadgets and fancy aiming systems

YET - we are the ones that they poke fun at - our method of aiming is always the subject of debate - our method of aiming is always said to be the "mediocre" method, the method that is attacked when suggested to newbies who come to this and other forums, etc...

the numbers and scores show otherwise


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Matt - and then why is not Scott the exeption to the rule - think about it - as far as I know there were only a handful of instinctive shooters at the IBO - and according to VA and Jimmy they both agree that there are VERY few instintive shooters at the IBO - when they make their case for gap shooting and against instinctive they love to point out that almost everyone at the IBO is a gap shooter - well - when that illogical argument is turned around - they don't seem to like the logical conclusion of their logic.
> 
> The only instintive shooters that were there that I know for certain were instinctive we me, Scott Langley, Sean Callanan, and my brother - who was not a very serious archer - though of late he is really starting to enjoy it and is shooting two leagues etc... So of the the serious instinctice archers we all shot better scores than 90% of the guys with all the gadgets and fancy aiming systems
> 
> ...


Honestly I think that it is the competitor more than the aiming system that makes or breaks you at Trad worlds - I mean be honest the shots aren't that hard - what is hard is the pressure - the Ibo designed it to be a pressure cooker and it is. My guess would be if you took the top 5 in each division and told them to come back in a year shooting with a different aiming style they would still do very well if not better - who knows maybe you have a world champ string-walker hiding inside you.

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - never happen - before I ever would do string walking I would just put a sight on my bow - I have nothing against sights - and to try and invent and/or master some aiming method that acts like a sight when I can just use a sight seems silly to me - I would just put a sight on and be done with it.

One of the primary reasons that I shoot traditional is because I don't want to have to judge distance or hold some sight, arrow tip, or gap on the target - I want to just look at what I want to hit and shoot - I want it to feel and be natural - like throwing a ball - and that is how my shooting is and I love doing it this way. Watch videos of me - you can see it is natural - I don't hold my bow up, aim and then draw and touch my shoulder with my string hand, etc... - it is a natural - just shooting thing - the old - Just do it thing - and so far it has served me quite well.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

vabowdog said:


> I'd like to see some TRUE numbers of shooters at the IBO Trad Worlds shooting Gap,Instinctive,Split or otherwise just for curiosity...
> 
> Who knows maybe the numbers would be exact opposite of what Ken is thinking....maybe everybody but the Top 5 or 6 is shooting instinctive.
> 
> ...


If anyone asks, I shoot instinctively. At least that's what the NFAA pin on my quiver says.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

LBR said:


> Like I said, I won't attempt to argue for the others. They have proven their methods work, both shooting and coaching, for the general public.


Again...you're missing the point even after I tried to clarify it.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I agree with sharp :wink: in regards to poking fun or putting down an aiming technique.

There's a reason why Instinctive shooters do well in typical 3D tournaments where the target distances represent common hunting shots...and there's a reason why you won't see many if any Instinctive archers near a podeum in competitions where the target distances are quite noticably further and/or a smaller target.

Each aiming technique has it's advantages and disadvantages...it's up to the archer to see if they can exploit them based on their particular GOALS, ABILITIES and PERSONALITY. If they can't they may need to try something different.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

sharpbroadhead said:


> LOL - never happen - before I ever would do string walking I would just put a sight on my bow - I have nothing against sights - and to try and invent and/or master some aiming method that acts like a sight when I can just use a sight seems silly to me - I would just put a sight on and be done with it.
> 
> One of the primary reasons that I shoot traditional is because I don't want to have to judge distance or hold some sight, arrow tip, or gap on the target - I want to just look at what I want to hit and shoot - I want it to feel and be natural - like throwing a ball - and that is how my shooting is and I love doing it this way. Watch videos of me - you can see it is natural - I don't hold my bow up, aim and then draw and touch my shoulder with my string hand, etc... - it is a natural - just shooting thing - the old - Just do it thing - and so far it has served me quite well.


Never know until you try - maybe you will like it.

Each to his own - I looked at the different classes at the IBO and decided I wanted to compete in the class that was consistently producing the top scores - tried string-walking and liked it - it's not for everyone.

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> tried string-walking and liked it - it's not for everyone.


That's for sure! :thumbs_up

Just like Gapping nor Instinctive Aiming is for everyone.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

steve morley said:


> I watched a bunch of top Fita target shooters practice indoor rounds, they went from rapid shooting to holding on aim and not shooting, firstly running the sequence with no time to second guess the shot to holdin solid on aim with out feeling they had to release, when they shot fast their groups were just as solid as when they shot normal speed, it was interesting to watch. They were in effect taking the stress out of aiming.


It's interesting you observed that..I've been beating myself up over my hold times..consciously making an effort to give everything time to "settle" When I shoot and don't think about it, my groups are no worse. I think everyone has a natural shooting rhythm, and in some cases, ignoring that and forcing other ways may or may not work out to an advantage. I'm not advocating this for TP reasons..just an observation I've made of myself. Just another example of the importance of the mental aspect of archery.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Mo0se said:


> It's interesting you observed that..I've been beating myself up over my hold times..consciously making an effort to give everything time to "settle" When I shoot and don't think about it, my groups are no worse. I think everyone has a natural shooting rhythm, and in some cases, ignoring that and forcing other ways may or may not work out to an advantage. I'm not advocating this for TP reasons..just an observation I've made of myself.


But do cowbells help your rhythm??

Matt


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Moose -

People have an optimal hold time, that oddly enough doesn't vary too much with good shooters (yes, yes, yes, there are always exceptions). The reasoning is simple: don't hold long enough, and the arrow can be gone before you're really ready to release it. Hold too long and ancillary muscles come into play, screwing with your form and where the arrow goes (I've been guilty of that). The Koreans think it's about 2 seconds (last time I checked), which corresponds to a 3 count that a lot of us use. 

Speed drills are used in both barebow/instinctive and target shooting, with penalties for breaking form, so this is nothing new. 

When I'm working with a student, I keep a count going in my head and see how long it takes them so "settle in" (yes you can tell) and I can modify their timing to be more advantageous. As you might guess, most of the time, the bare bow guys need to be slowed down and the target guys need to pick up the pace.

Viper1 out


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Matt_Potter said:


> But do cowbells help your rhythm??
> 
> Matt


Obviously... What I need is more cowbell! ROFL :teeth:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Mo0se said:


> Obviously... What I need is more cowbell! ROFL :teeth:


Looked to me like that guy might have been gapping that cow bell

Matt


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Will Ferrel was beating that cowbell instinctively..notice his eyes never left the cowbell? :jksign:


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Ken, why do you have to turn EVERY SINGLE Thread into your own little HATEFEST?????

I never said that all IBO shooters were gap all I said was of the top 5 they were all Gappers this year at the PA shoot...I never said that you and Scott were the only two "instinctive" shooters there!!!!

Scotts bow the other Day when you was talking about it was 60 lbs...now it's went to 70lbs...fudging numbers again I see....

You say the only 4 guys that show up to shoot lowly instinctive is you,Scott,Sean and RW...wow could you hand pick a better team????

Of the 74 or so that shot in the REC division in 2011 it was just 2 that shot "instinctive".....do you really believe that?????

Ken I was simply asking questions and once again you've turned it into a me against the world....


Wow....you're one of akind 




Dewayne


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Thanks for the info Tony!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Looked to me like that guy might have been gapping that cow bell


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbs_up

Thanks, Matt! :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Consider a target archer shooting at known distances let's say....the NFAA 300 round.
> 
> Now because the archer is shooting on even ground, at a known distance and indoors...they can basically eliminate having to figure out the aspects that apply to those specifically to aim correctly so they are basically eliminated them from that list and form becomes more important in regards to the ratio of importance.
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up

So true. I struggled at first learning form and aiming at the same time, and its hard to make adjustments when you are uncertain of your failings. It's finally starting to come together now with some fine tuning in both areas. AND, I am using the indoor 20 yd winter target league at the club to do this. By shooting at 20 yds all winter long, I am eliminating distance judging and working purely on form. Then, hopefully, my newly improved form will improve my Spring/Summer 3D shooting!


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

vabowdog said:


> Ken, why do you have to turn EVERY SINGLE Thread into your own little HATEFEST?????
> 
> I never said that all IBO shooters were gap all I said was of the top 5 they were all Gappers this year at the PA shoot...I never said that you and Scott were the only two "instinctive" shooters there!!!!
> 
> ...


Hate? oh - that's right - when a point slams yours - it is hate.

1. I never said that Scott Langley's bow was 60lbs before - I said that it was at least 60lbs because that is the minimum draw weight for that class - I asked my brother who shot side by side with him and he said it was like 72lbs at his draw - so I just said 70lbs - but that is a nice diversion of you.

2. You and Jimmy have many times said that almost all of the shooters at the IBO are gap - if you want to deny that now - that's fine, but we all know it has been said many times - when trying to make a case against instinctive - but now that this logic has been turned, I can see why you wouldn't like it - but there is no "hate" involved at all.

and all I did is illustrate my point - and apparently quite well - caues it sure irked you - but I can assure you - there was no hate at all involved - not even a little.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> :thumbs_up
> 
> So true. I struggled at first learning form and aiming at the same time, and its hard to make adjustments when you are uncertain of your failings. It's finally starting to come together now with some fine tuning in both areas. AND, I am using the indoor 20 yd winter target league at the club to do this. By shooting at 20 yds all winter long, I am eliminating distance judging and working purely on form. Then, hopefully, my newly improved form will improve my Spring/Summer 3D shooting!


:thumbs_up

Looking forward to hearing about your progress!

Ray :shade:


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> So I came up with the 3 gap system for Olivia in my head with out playing with a ballistic calculator - I looked at Ken's spread sheet and the three gap system will work fine for her.
> 
> If you figure
> 
> ...


Matt, Sounds like a fantastic idea. Think I may do that for myself. On a 30 target 3D course (which is the norm we shoot often in PA), I will post a few misses that I usually under shoot. I need something more consistent to avoid the misses, then fine tune into 11's! Thanks.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Mgf, not limited to target at all. When hunting, I always judge yardage to the animal if I don't have time to range it. Like I said before, it's a shame we can't hook a polygraph to the internet, I think it would be interesting to really see everyones kill to shot ratio, especially the instinctive shooters.


You don't need a polygraph for my kill to shot ratio, at least not for this year. I've already given mine. The only shot I got at a deer this year was a perfect quartering away shot at 17 of my paces (very close to 17 yards). That also hapens to be the exact distance that I shoot the most because it's the distance from the end of my outdoor table to my bag of rags target. I missed the deer clean. Shot right over her back.

Don't take that to mean that I don't shoot some nice groups at that distance. If I didn't, I wouldn't have been hunting with a bow in the first place.

My kill to shot ratio gets a little better if we count rabbits and squirrels though. I miss those sometimes too but I'm not 0 and 1.


> The gap system we use is the fixed reference. The only thing we look at is the gap distance at the end of the arrow in fractions of an inch. You, and most others on here can't grasp that concept because you have been bombarded with yardsticks, tape measures and other methods of having to figure a point to aim at way up at the target.


The tape measure thing is pretty new to me. The gap system is NOT a fixed reference.

Can't grasp the concept of a gap at the arrow? That's how I shoot but ss somebody who spent 16 years of my life designing and analyzing measurement systems, I'm not the least bit confused. In fact, I'd love to be able to do a capability study and put numbers to your ability (accuracy and precision) to estemate range and a gap at the arrow of a fraction of an inch under a reasonable range of conditions.



> Having shot field archery for all these years, you get a feel for what distances are and yardage estimation has been easy for me because of field archery. I get a kick out of posters on here that talk about burning a hole and shooting instinctive, but never talk about yardage estimation, which is as important as being able to hit your target


I've been talking about exactly that and I'll say again that a "traditional" bow is a short range weapon for any practical purpose...because, for one, it has a trajectory like a rainbow.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Matt - and then why is not Scott the exeption to the rule - think about it - as far as I know there were only a handful of instinctive shooters at the IBO - and according to VA and Jimmy they both agree that there are VERY few instintive shooters at the IBO - when they make their case for gap shooting and against instinctive they love to point out that almost everyone at the IBO is a gap shooter - well - when that illogical argument is turned around - they don't seem to like the logical conclusion of their logic.
> 
> The only instintive shooters that were there that I know for certain were instinctive we me, Scott Langley, Sean Callanan, and my brother - who was not a very serious archer - though of late he is really starting to enjoy it and is shooting two leagues etc... So of the the serious instinctice archers we all shot better scores than 90% of the guys with all the gadgets and fancy aiming systems
> 
> ...



Keep up the good work Ken. I'm here cheering ya on but I've been real busy lately,and besides you're just a whole lot better at putting the real truth into words than me. I have noticed that a few are 'getting it' though. You often see people admit that they look at a percieved gap and then abandon it in favor of the subconcious that they pretend does not exist. Some give some really good descriptions of how to shoot instinctively and then hide their faces pretending it really isn't true when they are trying to fit in with the clueless. That's ok though,as long as the message is getting across and we can prevent new instinctive shooters from being totally derailed. Mission first.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> :thumbs_up
> 
> So true. I struggled at first learning form and aiming at the same time, and its hard to make adjustments when you are uncertain of your failings. It's finally starting to come together now with some fine tuning in both areas. AND, I am using the indoor 20 yd winter target league at the club to do this. By shooting at 20 yds all winter long, I am eliminating distance judging and working purely on form. Then, hopefully, my newly improved form will improve my Spring/Summer 3D shooting!


I've had my share of form issues and maybe some TP too. Anyway, I've been shooting pretty well but the other day I started to shoot kind of sloppy. was it form or aiming?

I picked a spot to stand (about 17 yards), picked a spot to put the tip of the arrow and started shooting. I stacked them right close together. I think that means that on this day it was my aiming that fell apart and my form was, at least, consistent. I took a little more care in aiming for the rest of the day and did ok.

I guess the point is that you don't always know whether the problem is form/execution or aiming when you aren't grouping arrows.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Wayko said:


> itbeso: If my summing up as to what I was reading in alot of the post of how people were aiming to me seemed to me, have more in common then being different, if my senior moment, pushed your buttons, I am very sorry, it was a observation of what it looked like to me. Agian I am sorry.
> As for me, it depends on what camp someone is in as to how I currently aim, I started as a youngster when I was given a youth bow & some arrows, I was given no instuctions, just rules, don't shot pets, people, or cabins in the area. I did get somewhat good at killing chipmonks in the area, when cabin owner started giveing me a nickle for everyone I killed, then I shot I guess what some called true instinctive, I had no anchor, shot split finger, drawing the bow to my chest area, how far the shot was depended on how far I pulled the bow back, don't ever remember aiming, but do remember always having nickles in my pockets, LOL.
> Then as I got closer to the age where I could archery hunt for deer, I was told I had to start to "do it right" was showed that I must anchor just behind the jaw bone, I remember that at first I could not hit the house if I was standing in it, with the arrow being right there in front of me, I started eyeing down the arrow, it was ok, but never could get very good with that, then I started gapping at the target, worked better, but for some reason I never totally felt right aiming above or below where I wanted to hit, but it did work very well for me, years ago I when to shooting what alot call instinctive, been serving me well for hunting ranges, but not so much for long ranges, I'am not a purest, I contacted itbeso via a pm on his gap at the arrow type system, (not sure of the currect name he calls it) to see if I could get it to work for me on long shots, I'am still playing with it. but I'am not there yet.
> Till I came to this forum, I viewed myself as to aim instinctive, now, who knows, over the years I've shot eyeing down the arrow, gap at target, & alittle gap at the arrow, so maybe sub-consc. my aiming is a combo of all of them, it really does not matter alot to me, I care more about my arrow hitting the mark, as to the system I used to aim, as I said I'am not a purest, and maybe I should not be posting on aiming threads when the talk turn purest or best aiming system, because I really don't have a horse then that race. Agian I am sorry if I offended anyone, if I did or do offend anyone, to the ones that are trying to learn a system, please disregard my post as they may confuse you, I'am not a coach or a teacher, & I did not stay in a Holiday Inn last night, I just enjoy shooting a bow & arrow, just right it off as a cazy, mixed-up, old man, having a senior moment.




Great story, Mr Wayko. Now if it could only have ended right there with 'nickels in my pockets'. But unfortunately we all give in to the urge to try out the better mousetrap even if it's not really better. If others are doing it we can't resist. In the beginning you didn't have all that information available to clutter the mind,just draw and chute da chipmunk. How much easier can it get? What if you had been able to block out all the noise and keep shooting your way for all those years. Would you have been popping chipmunks at forty,maybe fifty yards at will? Possibly, maybe even more. 
Oh well,a nice dream. But I think it comes pretty close to validating my theory about teaching someone to shoot instinctively.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> I've had my share of form issues and maybe some TP too. Anyway, I've been shooting pretty well but the other day I started to shoot kind of sloppy. was it form or aiming?
> 
> I picked a spot to stand (about 17 yards), picked a spot to put the tip of the arrow and started shooting. I stacked them right close together. I think that means that on this day it was my aiming that fell apart and my form was, at least, consistent. I took a little more care in aiming for the rest of the day and did ok.
> 
> I guess the point is that you don't always know whether the problem is form/execution or aiming when you aren't grouping arrows.



What if I told you that it's likely none of those things? You say that you took a little more care in aiming. Maybe, but I would say that extra care intensified you focus and the result was a good shot which led to more confidence on the next ect. Pretty soon you get relaxed and live in the moment,forgetting to stress yourself trying to figure out if the worst enemy is form,execution or aiming.
Go check out Waykos story. A kid shooting chipmunks for the heck of it or later for nickels. The last thing on his mind was form,execution and aiming. Look at the chipmunk and pop him. Collect the nickel.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Keep up the good work Ken. I'm here cheering ya on but I've been real busy lately,and besides you're just a whole lot better at putting the real truth into words than me. I have noticed that a few are 'getting it' though. You often see people admit that they look at a percieved gap and then abandon it in favor of the subconcious that they pretend does not exist. Some give some really good descriptions of how to shoot instinctively and then hide their faces pretending it really isn't true when they are trying to fit in with the clueless. That's ok though,as long as the message is getting across and we can prevent new instinctive shooters from being totally derailed. Mission first.


Oh, I know it exists. I grew up throwing and catching balls, shooting slingshots, playing billiards and so on. I know I can walk up to a billiards table cold after being away for years and do some of my best shooting. Then it goes away. LOL the left side of my brain (I think i have that correct) wants to get in there and figure out how I did it so I can do it again and then I can't do it at all.

I've had the same thing happen when trying to shoot a bow by only "burning a hole" in the target or even shooting out back in the dead of night. It'll click on for a while but then it clicks back off again. Then I go back to something that I feel I have some control over like pointing the arrow.

I think my right brained artist wife who just started shooting is going to be a fairly good instinctive shooter if she keeps shooting.

Have you ever taken one of those right brain/left brain tests? I don't know how valid they are but I score about equal on both. My wife thinks that's cool. I think it sucks and a person is better off being much stronger in one or the other.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Keep up the good work Ken. I'm here cheering ya on but I've been real busy lately,and besides you're just a whole lot better at putting the real truth into words than me. I have noticed that a few are 'getting it' though. You often see people admit that they look at a percieved gap and then abandon it in favor of the subconcious that they pretend does not exist. Some give some really good descriptions of how to shoot instinctively and then hide their faces pretending it really isn't true when they are trying to fit in with the clueless. That's ok though,as long as the message is getting across and we can prevent new instinctive shooters from being totally derailed. Mission first.


Thanks - and I agree that more people are finally starting to get it and see the silliness of those who argue against instinctive and what it truly is as you and I and others have described it.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

MGF - I don't think it is the right brain left brain thing - it think it is just a personality issue.

Some people are control freaks - and this is good - without those people there would be no leaders in the world. But, for these people - the idea of accepting the fact that they are not in total concious control of the shot is outside of the realm of possibility - so they imagine that they control the shot and use their arrow like a sight pin and can use that big fat arrow and that several inch gap with the near precission of a compound shooter using a fiber optic adjustble dot sight.

I have no problem surrendering the shot to the brain that God gave us all and being thankful to Him for the amazing and wonderful aspect of our mind called the subconscious - I take no credit for it - it is part of our God given nature - we just need to learn how to use and trust it.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> What if I told you that it's likely none of those things? You say that you took a little more care in aiming. Maybe, but I would say that extra care intensified you focus and the result was a good shot which led to more confidence on the next ect. Pretty soon you get relaxed and live in the moment,forgetting to stress yourself trying to figure out if the worst enemy is form,execution or aiming.
> Go check out Waykos story. A kid shooting chipmunks for the heck of it or later for nickels. The last thing on his mind was form,execution and aiming. Look at the chipmunk and pop him. Collect the nickel.


I could almost believe that.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> MGF - I don't think it is the right brain left brain thing - it think it is just a personality issue.
> 
> Some people are control freaks - and this is good - without those people there would be no leaders in the world. But, for these people - the idea of accepting the fact that they are not in total concious control of the shot is outside of the realm of possibility - so they imagine that they control the shot and use their arrow like a sight pin and can use that big fat arrow and that several inch gap with the near precission of a compound shooter using a fiber optic adjustble dot sight.
> 
> I have no problem surrendering the shot to the brain that God gave us all and being thankful to Him for the amazing and wonderful aspect of our mind called the subconscious - I take no credit for it - it is part of our God given nature - we just need to learn how to use and trust it.


Interesting point.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> Have you ever taken one of those right brain/left brain tests? I don't know how valid they are but I score about equal on both. My wife thinks that's cool. I think it sucks and a person is better off being much stronger in one or the other.


You would be considered a Whole Brain Thinker....which people such as Einstein, Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan and many more top level athletes, muscians and some other people who are considered geniuses.

Embrace it! It can be a good thing :thumbs_up :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Ken.....HOW would I or Jimmy have ANY idea what ALL the shooters at IBO are shooting????

Think about it.....

ALL I or Jimmy has ever said is the TOP shooters have a method,gap,not instinctive...but once again you just start throwing all your BS out there and just expect everybody to just gobble it up like its the gospel....sorry not me ...not ALOT of people on here..

The only people that I'm ever in touch with either at the shoots or at home is the ones who finished in the TOP...who all shoot Gap.


Dewayne


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I am tired of this - I could go through previous threads where you guys have both said: "There is a reason that nearly all of the shooters at the IBO are gap shooters" in making some case against instinctive

well there is a reason that the instinctive shooters at the IBO score better than 90% of the Recurve Unaided shooters - even though they have the HUGE advantages of clickers, stabalizers, rests and plungers, string walking, etc...

sorry that you don't like this fact - but it is a fact none the less.

Now I am done with this thread - long enough and I have made my points and do not feel like going back and forth anymore.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Tony, I appreciate the tip on my question, and and I hope someone interested can sift through the thread and learn something, I know it was intended that way. There are a lot of knowledgeable people here, and I appreciate those who have shared their experiences. I also appreciate the top level shooters that share their failures so others do not have to learn the hard way. My hat's off to those who are willing to share the tips on getting through the hardest part in competition archery, which I feel is the mental game. We can talk favorably and positively about either, and or all aiming methods all day.. or lack thereof, and it won't matter on game day if we can't hold it together from the core. Steve M. I also appreciate your input to the thread. It hit on a topic I was currently over thinking. Thanks!


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ok lets try this...

It's dark as hell outside and I just came in from shooting. I couldn't see the target at all so I put a little flash light on the ground just in front of it. I guess I could see the outline of my arm if I tried but I sure couldn't see the arrow. 

I was shooting at a tin can hanging in front of my bag of rags. I know I tend to shoot to the center of the bag when I shoot in the dark so I put the can near the bottom of the bag. After a little messing around I was smacking the can pretty regularly from 10 yards and then from 15 yards. 

When I could look at the can hard enough that the bag sort of disappeared, the arrow went into the can. Otherwise, it wanted to go to the center of the bag. 

I was getting tired by the time I had my second can about torn to shreds. I decided to take one more shot focusing on the stick at the bottom of the can (the can was sitting on a stick). I split the stick right where I was looking and called it a night.

I had to play with timing some because if I gave myself too much time I started trying to aim and I didn't have anything to aim with. In the end I took whatever time I need to draw and get set. Once I started staring at where I wanted to hit, I'd "expand" and try to have the arrow gone by a slow count of two.

I'm not real sure what any of that proves but it was kind of fun and I think I'll play with it some more. I am a little concerned about one thing. I had trouble staying away from the center of the bag when the bag and can were all I could see. The arrow seems to go where I think more than where I look. What's going to happen in day light when I can see everything? I hope I don't think about the neighbor's dog or something.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

vabowdog said:


> Ken.....HOW would I or Jimmy have ANY idea what ALL the shooters at IBO are shooting????
> 
> Think about it.....
> 
> ...


I have always taken what has been posted here about IBO shooters as it meaning the top shooters, I only know what the top shooters do in IFAA because Im shooting with then, Ive no idea how the guy in 98th position is aiming because Im not spending time shooting with him so I never get the chance to chat with or observe them. 

When I shot NFAS Nationals in the UK they never put top shooters head to head so I got to shoot with all skill levels, it was plain to see the average archers poor shooting was more about lack of overall tourney experience and their Form consistency more than aiming choice.

I have to say they way Instinct is talked about in regards to IBO it seems to me that these shooters are being made to look talented in some unique, even superhuman way, they just have great Form/Focus like the top Aimers, I will repeat once again unmarked short range 3D very little to do with aiming choice, I can understand if one talked about marked Field or Target shooting where Gap and sights have an obvious advantage but not some 20y average distance 3D game. Look at the IBO 3D scores between Trad and RU theyre pretty close compare them to IFAA Field Scores RU (Barebow) to Trad (Bowhunter) you will see a good 50 to 100 points difference.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

steve morley said:


> I have always taken what has been posted here about IBO shooters as it meaning the top shooters, I only know what the top shooters do in IFAA because Im shooting with then, Ive no idea how the guy in 98th position is aiming because Im not spending time shooting with him so I never get the chance to chat with or observe them.
> 
> When I shot NFAS Nationals in the UK they never put top shooters head to head so I got to shoot with all skill levels, it was plain to see the average archers poor shooting was more about lack of overall tourney experience and their Form consistency more than aiming choice.
> 
> I have to say they way Instinct is talked about in regards to IBO it seems to me that these shooters are being made to look talented in some unique, even superhuman way, they just have great Form/Focus like the top Aimers, I will repeat once again unmarked short range 3D very little to do with aiming choice, I can understand if one talked about marked Field or Target shooting where Gap and sights have an obvious advantage but not some 20y average distance 3D game. Look at the IBO 3D scores between Trad and RU theyre pretty close compare them to IFAA Field Scores RU (Barebow) to Trad (Bowhunter) you will see a good 50 to 100 points difference.


I have to agree. A great shooter is just that, GREAT, period. Don't matter how they aim. They ALL have excellent form. I'm willing to bet in IBO you could put the top RU,TRAD, and LB shooters together and they would have a battle to the finish!


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

MGF -

How did you know it was 10 or 15 yds? If your first shot went high or low, how did you correct for it?
If you could see the outline of your arm, you had a reference and your brain is that good at using it. And yes, it can even be done by star light. 
IF (and that's a big IF) you could create an environment with absolutely no light, you would still have to know the distance to the target, otherwise it could be a 20' or 20 yds. 

Look, sometimes we get all wrapped up is this black box/subconscious crap and make it a badge of honor, when all we have to do is just get out there and shoot, hopefully with a little instruction along the way. It's not that complicated, really. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I was challenged to shoot in an environment with no ambient light once to see if i was "truly" instinctive. I was easily able to create this environment in the selection room where I shoot at home. I used a laser pointer on the target and stood 10 or 15 yards from it and shot (It was so dark that I could not see my hand in front of my face - there was NO LIGHT - and when I shot i missed the target completely - SEVERAL times - enough that I stopped trying for fear of damaging the wall anymore. 

For a while I conceded that at a subconscious level my entire aim must be based on the gap or something with the bow - till one day I thought of going to a gym and throwing baskets in the same manner - put the laser pointer on the backboard and turned out all the lights - I could not even hit the backboard! - Now when I throw a basketball I hold the ball over my head - so thee is NOTHING that I use to reference my aim - consciously or subconsciously - yet I still missed the backboard. 

I have since concluded that this must be due to the fact that without any light whatsoever - there is no way for our brains to calculate distance - so whatever mechanisms that go into play after our brain calculates distance to throw a ball or shoot an arrow - completely fall apart.

So - in the end - the no light theory proved nothing to me about how I aim - I still do not know how or what my brain uses to aim - I suspect it is a combination of visual references from the bow, bowhand, arrow, etc... in the peripheral vision that I am not consciously aware of - but it could also be whatever mechanism is used by the brain to throw a ball accurately - and there is no bow or gap to use there - is there? Kidwell thinks is is the trajectory that is used by the brain and that this is partly why we get better the more we shoot or throw something and the brian learns the trajectory of the object - this too could be part of it - I can honestly say I don't know - how could I know - it is happening below my conscious level.


----------



## ozzypop (Sep 23, 2010)

I think Darryl Quidot made Viper's point in MBB. He said in Vol. 1. He could shoot a very small group in his basement in the dark. Well it was not total dark so someone must have ask him about it because in Vol. 3 he said he taped up all the windows and made it as dark as he could and his groups opened up to very large size. Darryl shoots instinctive. I guess in the first experiment, not in total darkness, his eye was picking up reference points that even he was not aware of.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Viper1 said:


> MGF -
> 
> How did you know it was 10 or 15 yds? If your first shot went high or low, how did you correct for it?
> If you could see the outline of your arm, you had a reference and your brain is that good at using it. And yes, it can even be done by star light.
> ...


First of all I'll tell you the grand plan behind the shooting session. I had to be out of town on business yesterday so I didn't get to shoot during the day. I decided that I was going to shoot anyway so I had to shoot in the dark. LOL

I knew the distance because I shoot that same target from those same spots just about ever day. I tried to just concentrate on the target without intentionally correcting at all.

The most interesting thing to me was that I naturally shoot the center of the bag without trying. It took great effort to make the can "the center" and ignore the bag. I've seen that before. It amazes me that I can shoot tiny little groups in the center of the bag without trying but as soon as I hang a target there it gets harder. LOL

Sure I realize that it wasn't dark enough to completely discount visual references but pretty close. The can was only a few inches above the ground with a small flash light set very close to the can. That put my bow arm and arrow below anything that was lit and against the very dark ground. Not much to work with visually.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Shooting at a lazer pointer in complete darkness is a training technique that can help develop kinesthesia/proprioception with an archer. Just like with anything...if a person puts enough time and effort into it...they can become better at it. The problem is...it usually involves 2 people. One shooter and the other turning the lights on and off for feedback on each shot result.

This training technique is a perfect test to indicate how much someone uses their visual references to help them aim.

An archer, who is aiming Totally Instinctively will generally do better in a test like this and will also become even better if they practice it more.

How do I know this....because I've tested it and did some training with it.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF,

One of the primary reasons why you were shooting the center of the target when you didn't want to is related to muscle/motor memory from shooting from that very same spot and distance repeatedly.

Ray :shade:


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

MGF,

I can shoot nice groups just left of center all day long. Is it due to a visual reference, aiming style or form flaw?? When you were aiming at the can and hitting the bag instead do you really know what happened? This has been my struggle, and aiming instinctively made it even more complicated, because I had no way of knowing what my subconscious was doing. I need an analytical approach to define the problem so I can fix it. As soon as I took aiming out of the equation with a high anchor,heavy arrow and a manageable gap, I discovered a form flaw, which has been discussed in 2 other recent threads so I won't bore you with it again. My point is that if you are not a good, consistent instinctive shooter it can be difficult to dissect and fix shooting flaws. Im doing much better for now with a nice gap in my sight picture because that makes the aiming a constant and now I can fix form. Maybe once my form is better my instinctive shooting will improve. But for now I'm trying to become super consistent out to 25 yds. Good Luck as I feel your frustrations.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

ozzy -

There's a term in neurology called proprioception. It lets your brain know where the various parts of your body are, via pathways from stretch receptors in the tendons to the cerebellum. It's become a trad catch phrase in some circles, but not really well understood on the internet. The problem that it needs a frame of reference to be established. The frame of reference can be visual or tactile. In theory, if you where to shoot at the same target, the same distance away, given enough time, you will be able to reproduce that shot without being able to see any references or even see the target. It gets a little fuzzier when there's a force trying to collapse your shoulders, IOWs if your from isn't perfectly consistent, the proprioception will be off. Likewise, it may get you close at unknown distances (elevations), but it generally doesn't develop fast enough to be a pure aiming system. That's where the visual references come in.

Proprioception is better (or more likely) used as a way of developing form consistency. When we say we've "settled in" it should mean two things. First that we are holding on target, doing as little work as possible, and second, given sufficient repetition, our proprioceptors are happy. 

This is more of a training table talk for those interested, than a way of teaching some one to shoot. I'm just bringing it up for those interested.

Viper1 out.


----------



## ozzypop (Sep 23, 2010)

Thanks Viper always interested in your insights.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

I have a simple question regarding instinctive shooting.
Could I be taught to shoot clout distances (180 yards) instinctivly with an English longbow?. If so how? If not, why not?


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

For what little it's worth:

I honestly don't really know what label one would assign my aiming system; I think of it as primarily instinctive, but it's probably more along the lines of a modified split-vision/gap off the arrow. I do know there's more going on as I line up a shot than I'm consciously aware of, but the more I think about it consciously as I prepare to shoot, the worse the shot, so I don't worry about it much.

I've experimented with this as well, with much the same results. In very dim light in which the outer edges of the target block merged with the darkness, I consistently shot better groups than I've ever shot before. In full darkness, with just a single lazer pointer on the intended point of aim, I was lucky to be able to recover my arrows after the shots.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Yew -



Yewselfbow said:


> I have a simple question regarding instinctive shooting.
> Could I be taught to shoot clout distances (180 yards) instinctivly with an English longbow?. If so how? If not, why not?


Most of the people I've spoken to who've shot "clout" aren't gaping, they're using a point of aim.
IIRC, the origin of the term "clout" is a give-away.

Viper1 out.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> I have a simple question regarding instinctive shooting.
> Could I be taught to shoot clout distances (180 yards) instinctivly with an English longbow?. If so how? If not, why not?


Yes...but the question is....how accurate do you want to be at that distance?

I've won my fair share of clout shoots. I once even shot into the clout pole 3 times with one of the arrows being a bareshaft.

If you want to shoot real accurate at that distance...you should learn Point of Aim or find a reference place on your lowerer bow limb to help with your aim.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

jusoldave said:


> I've experimented with this as well, with much the same results. In very dim light in which the outer edges of the target block merged with the darkness, I consistently shot better groups than I've ever shot before. In full darkness, with just a single lazer pointer on the intended point of aim, I was lucky to be able to recover my arrows after the shots.


There's generally 2 things going here when an archer shoots better in these conditions.

#1. The archers focus is often intesified to help zero in on the object they are aiming at.

#2. The archer has to trust their proprioceptive/kinesthesia abilities more because they're not able to see their aiming references as well and doubt the positioning of those aiming references in relationship to the target.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yewselfbow said:


> I have a simple question regarding instinctive shooting.
> Could I be taught to shoot clout distances (180 yards) instinctivly with an English longbow?. If so how? If not, why not?


NO I do not believe it could - our brain's ability to calculate distance at a subconscioius level is limitted to about how far we can throw something - and if you think about it - this makes perfect sense - we can exstend that range and accuracy with a bow when shooting instinctively because the arrow has a higher velocity than we can throw something and because the velocity is a constant - but we cannot go too much beyond that range of throwing something - most instinctive shooters cannot shoot very well past 40 yards - 50 yards for the exceptional shot.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

regarding the points being made by the guys who claim to have some special expertise in this field and that a "truly" instinctive shooter will do better in total darkness than others - If that is true - why is it that I could not hit the backboard of a basketball hoop in total darkeness with a laser pointer pointed at it? when I throw a basket ball I hold it over my head - so there is no gap - no arrow to aim with or see - yet - when I tried shooting baskets in total darkness I could not do that either - oh - wait - a "totally" instinctive basketball player - might miss the backboard by less than me - is that it - LOL


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Regarding the points being made by the guy who claims to be aiming 'instinctively' yet can not hit the backboard of a basketball hoop in total darkness with a lazer pointed at it?

He may need to re-evaluate his athletic ability or let go of his thoughts of granduer regarding his basketball skills. Unfortunately....not everyone has natural athletic ability...and it doesn't appear that he works very hard at improving that :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> MGF,
> 
> I can shoot nice groups just left of center all day long. Is it due to a visual reference, aiming style or form flaw?? When you were aiming at the can and hitting the bag instead do you really know what happened? This has been my struggle, and aiming instinctively made it even more complicated, because I had no way of knowing what my subconscious was doing. I need an analytical approach to define the problem so I can fix it. As soon as I took aiming out of the equation with a high anchor,heavy arrow and a manageable gap, I discovered a form flaw, which has been discussed in 2 other recent threads so I won't bore you with it again. My point is that if you are not a good, consistent instinctive shooter it can be difficult to dissect and fix shooting flaws. Im doing much better for now with a nice gap in my sight picture because that makes the aiming a constant and now I can fix form. Maybe once my form is better my instinctive shooting will improve. But for now I'm trying to become super consistent out to 25 yds. Good Luck as I feel your frustrations.


I think Ray is probably right that it's at least partly due to muscle memory but I also think it's a visual thing...my eye or attention just naturally finds the center.

That might mean that I shouldn't spend so much time shooting in that same place at that same target.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

wow - amazing


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> I think Ray is probably right that it's at least partly due to muscle memory but I also think it's a visual thing...my eye or attention just naturally finds the center.


Now shifting your visual attention to something different other than your intended target is different than your muscles and joints responding naturally to what it has repeatedly done before.

Are you in fact moving you're visual concentration from the spot you want to hit to the center of the bag?



MGF said:


> That might mean that I shouldn't spend so much time shooting in that same place at that same target.


I would definitely agree to that :thumbs_up :wink:

This is also one of the reasons why an archer can struggle or doesn't shoot as well in a new shooting enviroment when compared to how they shoot back home.

Ray :shade:


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

MGF said:


> ... That might mean that I shouldn't spend so much time shooting in that same place at that same target.


That's precisely why, when I'm preparing to go hunting (today or tomorrow), I spend some time in the backyard on the rag bag, shooting the 13 spots. 

If I can wander aimlessly around my backyard shooting individual spots at whatever range and angle I happen to stop at, swing-draw and put all 12 into the spot, without range- and/or angle-estimation, and shooting past whatever trees, burn barrel, BBQ, chiminea, and lawn furniture's in the way, I figure I'm ready to go hunt today. If I can't, I don't go that day. Close doesn't count; every arrow's gotta be IN the picked spot.

The only two factors I know going in are that (1) it's safe to do; in my yard, no one can walk into my shot without my knowing they're coming, and (2) I'm limited to 35 yards by my fences... which is about my limit for hunting shots anyway.

This might not apply to your purposes, but that's _my_ system...


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> NO I do not believe it could - our brain's ability to calculate distance at a subconscioius level is limitted to about how far we can throw something - and if you think about it - this makes perfect sense - we can exstend that range and accuracy with a bow when shooting instinctively because the arrow has a higher velocity than we can throw something and because the velocity is a constant - but we cannot go too much beyond that range of throwing something - most instinctive shooters cannot shoot very well past 40 yards - 50 yards for the exceptional shot.


But ... my brain wouldn't have to calculate the distance ... it will know the distance, it's 180 yards.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

I would ask for a citation on that fact Sharp gave you, Yew. One, it steps all over his previous analogy of a quarterback hitting a reciever's hands way downfield. I'm calling made up on the fact for various other reasons myself.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Sanford said:


> I would ask for a citation on that fact Sharp gave you, Yew. One, it steps all over his previous analogy of a quarterback hitting a reciever's hands way downfield. I'm calling made up on the fact for various other reasons myself.


Sanford, I agree 
There's an excellent book "The Neurophysiological Basis of Movement" by Professor Mark Latash of Penn State University. His chapter on Vision and the sub heading "the role of visual information in voluntary movement" explains how the posterior parietal cortex processes spatial information in co-ordinating both fine and cross motor activity in multi segmental movement witin tri plane co-ordinate space.
I'm sure all the instinctive guru's know all this neuro science but have forgotten to put any of this information in any of their youtube videos or books


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Yewselfbow said:


> Sanford, I agree
> There's an excellent book "The Neurophysiological Basis of Movement" by Professor Mark Latash of Penn State University. His chapter on Vision and the sub heading "the role of visual information in voluntary movement" explains how the posterior parietal cortex processes spatial information in co-ordinating both fine and cross motor activity in multi segmental movement witin tri plane co-ordinate space.
> I'm sure all the instinctive guru's know all this neuro science but have forgotten to put any of this information in any of their youtube videos or books


Or, that I can throw a rock, man's first projectile, farther than I can judge the given distance, and sometimes, judge a mile or more but can't throw a rock that far. But, the two, my ability to throw something accurately and my ability to judge distance, are not evolutionarily tied together. That's the lore that makes Trad forums silly over serious in the name of making an aiming style appear more "instinctual".


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> There's an excellent book "The Neurophysiological Basis of Movement" by Professor Mark Latash of Penn State University. His chapter on Vision and the sub heading "the role of visual information in voluntary movement" explains how the posterior parietal cortex processes spatial information in co-ordinating both fine and cross motor activity in multi segmental movement witin tri plane co-ordinate space.


Yew,

I would like to hear more on that.

Thanks,

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## nineworlds9 (Aug 12, 2012)

++++++1 Viper all the way. I myself use a bit less disciplined version of this approach. Amazingly, and on a related note, some people are just naturals...case in point, my little brother 26 years old, on leave from the Navy a few weekends ago visiting me... picked up a 25 pound recurve I had, ZERO archery experience other than 'watching' me....m$%f$%$er starts hitting a 10" foam ball I use as a practice target almost everytime from 20 yds...and I'm talking shooting 2-3 arrows one after another into it...I swear to you he had ZERO prior archery training..never was his thing...BUT, he's a GREAT instinctive shooter with a pistol...now I know that's apples and oranges... but seriously NO SH*T on this tale...I about broke my bow over my knee with that one...hhahahahaha....couldn't effing believe it.....needless to say, he's now hooked and I'm planning on buying him his first bow as a special gift in the near future...simply amazing.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> NO I do not believe it could - our brain's ability to calculate distance at a subconscioius level is limitted to about how far we can throw something - and if you think about it - this makes perfect sense -


Well as the WR for a thrown atlatl dart and Boomerang is 477m and 427m I think were safe for 3D, Field and even Clout :wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

nineworlds9 said:


> Amazingly, and on a related note, some people are just naturals....BUT, he's a GREAT instinctive shooter with a pistol...now I know that's apples and oranges.


I'm really not surprised. It's actually quite common for people who are naturally gifted athletically or who have experience shooting other weapons the way your brother shoots his pistols to pick up archery quicker than the Average Joe.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## nineworlds9 (Aug 12, 2012)

nineworlds9 said:


> ++++++1 Viper all the way. I myself use a bit less disciplined version of this approach. Amazingly, and on a related note, some people are just naturals...case in point, my little brother 26 years old, on leave from the Navy a few weekends ago visiting me... picked up a 25 pound recurve I had, ZERO archery experience other than 'watching' me....m$%f$%$er starts hitting a 10" foam ball I use as a practice target almost everytime from 20 yds...and I'm talking shooting 2-3 arrows one after another into it...I swear to you he had ZERO prior archery training..never was his thing...BUT, he's a GREAT instinctive shooter with a pistol...now I know that's apples and oranges... but seriously NO SH*T on this tale...I about broke my bow over my knee with that one...hhahahahaha....couldn't effing believe it.....needless to say, he's now hooked and I'm planning on buying him his first bow as a special gift in the near future...simply amazing.


Oh and so after he demonstrates his 'amazing' newfound skill to me I say "dude! what the h#ll!! how are you doing that!!!!???" ...........he says to me with a little grin "I dunno bro, I'm just looking where I want to hit." ......little [email protected]$tard! LOL LOL LOL I love the boy.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Well as the WR for a thrown atlatl dart and Boomerang is 477m and 427m I think were safe for 3D, Field and even Clout :wink:


:thumbs_up :wink:

Ray:shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Wow - are these guys for real - just throwing something as far as you can is not the same as throwing it accurately (atlat dart and boomerang) - and world records - well - i am sure that somewhere the world there is an exceptional instinctive shooter than can shoot further than what I said and do it well too - but I was speaking of the average to above average - not world record holders - and a football player has someone that can run to the ball to catch it - making him not have to be as accurate as we are with our bows - unless of course our targets run to meet our arrows.

As far as shooting 180 yards instinctively - even if we know the distance - well the issue there is that instinctive archer is not a long range game - never has been and never will be - to try and focus on a spot at that distance and maintain the necessary concentration is not even possible - and for you to even make such an absurd statement illustrates just what this is all about - for crying out loud Olympic shooters with sights and clickers and stabalizers do not shoot that distance - that is just stupidity to even ask such a question.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I can't throw 10 yds accurately but can shoot instinctive past 50. Am I above average or abnormal or just plain lucky?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

most human beings can throw a ball with reasonable accuracy at least 20 yards - very few instinctive shooters can shoot well past 50 yards - so I guess you are abby normal -


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

That's what I thought


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> most human beings can throw a ball with reasonable accuracy at least 20 yards - very few instinctive shooters can shoot well past 50 yards - so I guess you are abby normal -


No, the fact that you need to support to avoid it being something you just made up is a citation showing where our yardage judgement is only as far as we can throw - so now, if that means throw "accurately", then cite where we can only judge out to 20 yards - judge distance as far as we can throw accurately. Otherwise, you need to apologize to the new folks here that might not have known your fact to be a made up myth and to me for having to take the time to correct it for them


----------



## Highstrung1 (Oct 20, 2010)

sharpbroadhead said:


> As far as shooting 180 yards instinctively - even if we know the distance - well the issue there is that instinctive archer is not a long range game - never has been and never will be - to try and focus on a spot at that distance and maintain the necessary concentration is not even possible - and for you to even make such an absurd statement illustrates just what this is all about - for crying out loud Olympic shooters with sights and clickers and stabalizers do not shoot that distance - that is just stupidity to even ask such a question.


Do you think if an "instinctive" archer practiced at 150-180yds, say, 300-400 arrows a week for several years, like most guys do at 20-30 yds, you might change your mind from never?
Ya got to admit, alot of guys get pretty good at the ranges they practice......


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Highstrung1 said:


> Do you think if an "instinctive" archer practiced at 150-180yds, say, 300-400 arrows a week for several years, like most guys do at 20-30 yds, you might change your mind from never?
> Ya got to admit, alot of guys get pretty good at the ranges they practice......


:thumbs_up

Wow...is sharp for real! :wink:

If an archer shoots from pretty even ground and from the same distance and practices quite a bit at that distance...they will eventually develop the correct motor/muscle memory and kinesthesia that consistently reproduces the ideal bow arm angle.

If anyone has shot a clout target...they know it's a pretty big target....at least the ones with the rings on the ground.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

2413gary said:


> I can't throw 10 yds accurately but can shoot instinctive past 50. Am I above average or abnormal or just plain lucky?


Abnormal of course but you live in California so you will blend right in. 

Matt


----------



## Highstrung1 (Oct 20, 2010)

jusoldave said:


> For what little it's worth:
> 
> I honestly don't really know what label one would assign my aiming system; I think of it as primarily instinctive, but it's probably more along the lines of a modified split-vision/gap off the arrow. I do know there's more going on as I line up a shot than I'm consciously aware of, but the more I think about it consciously as I prepare to shoot, the worse the shot, so I don't worry about it much.
> 
> I've experimented with this as well, with much the same results. In very dim light in which the outer edges of the target block merged with the darkness, I consistently shot better groups than I've ever shot before. In full darkness, with just a single lazer pointer on the intended point of aim, I was lucky to be able to recover my arrows after the shots.


I couldn't describe my own experiences much differently than that. However, I attribute the better groups in dim light to, not being able to see the previous arrow. I have a problem with shooting at arrows in the bull. My next 3 shots usually "clock" around the first. But in the dark, I just wince at the sound of arrow on arrow....and refletch....


----------



## zdogk9 (Dec 6, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> most human beings can throw a ball with reasonable accuracy at least 20 yards - very few instinctive shooters can shoot well past 50 yards - so I guess you are abby normal -


then why is a good pitcher so very rare?
Most can't throw for sour owl poop


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

If ANYBODY has learned anything from this 9 page thread, please start a new thread detailing your new found awareness of archery. Speck PS. Thank God for my dad, I did not realize shooting a bow was so complicated till I got a computer.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I have learned you can't talk to some here once they make up there mind how to aim.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I've learned that I have a limited capacity for reading Internet Forums. Valuable lesson


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

Highstrung1 brought up an interesting point in wondering if an instinctive shooter, shooting at tremendous distance and practicing hundreds of arrows a week for years, would yield extremely accurate results.

Speculation here may be instructive as to the nature of the limited distances that many instinctive archers note their best accuracy to reside. 

Consider that the instinctive archer, after some years of shooting, has constructed a mental "grid" of the thousands (picking a number here) of possible distance and elevation potentials within, say, a 40 yard distance (let's make windage a given). Upon the shot, the instinctive shooter employs a particular segment from that thousand-fold grid, and successfully hits the mark. 

Is a lifetime long enough to take it much further? And how much further? Here is why I ask this question. 

Considering that as you go increasingly farther past the 40 yard "wall" (for want of a better term), the mental "grid" becomes geometrically (is that the right term?) larger due to the rapidly widening expansion of distance and elevation. (This is just like a one inch miss at 10 yards becomes a two inch miss at 20 and three inch miss at 30, etc.) 

The thousands of grid memories at 40 yards becomes millions at some further point. I ain't gonna do the math, but I trust you see my point. 

If it took "x" years to ingrain the mental grid with the thousands of feelings for up to the 40 yard wall, then it reasons that it would take "x times y" years to achieve any particular distance past the 40 yard wall to achieve an acceptable accuracy. Skill builds upon skill, and repetition is a must, and therefore I pose that perhaps there simply isn't enough time during the human lifespan to develop an accurate instinctive shot much farther than the 40 yard wall, much less to the clout distances mentioned in previous posts. 

The mental grid simply does live long enough, or develop fast enough, to calculate, through repetition, much more than what is already determined to be a maximum distance by general consensus.

Also, as studied repetition is required to maintain accuracy throughout the archer's healthy mental and physical years, the employment of dedicated and time-consuming instinctive pursuit at greater distances may be to the detriment of the archer's 40 yard and under pursuits, which in most cases are practical, necessary, and perhaps the most rewarding.

We are indeed amazing beings. Some of us get to become "Super(wo)man". But the Kryptonite of mortality always lurks just past the next birthday and it becomes increasingly difficult to become "SuperDuper(wo)man", if only for lack of time.

Alas.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Thin Man said:


> Is a lifetime long enough to take it much further? And how much further?


Yes....but it's a specialized distance that can be improved through repetition with more than satisfactory results. Realistically...an archer isn't going to move from 40yrds. to 50yrds. and stay there until they're satisfied and than move to 60, 70, 80, etc. etc. the exact same way until they finally reach 150yrds. or whatever their specific goal distance is for a specific competition.

Based on your scenario I completely agree with you that it would most likely take a lifetime if an archer approached it that way.



Thin Man said:


> The mental grid simply does live long enough, or develop fast enough, to calculate, through repetition, much more than what is already determined to be a maximum distance by general consensus.
> 
> Also, as studied repetition is required to maintain accuracy throughout the archer's healthy mental and physical years, *the employment of dedicated and time-consuming instinctive pursuit at greater distances may be to the detriment of the archer's 40 yard and under pursuits*, which in most cases are practical, necessary, and perhaps the most rewarding.


I agree :thumbs_up



Thin Man said:


> An Instinctive archer that has chosen to primarily shoot from 40yrds. and under...should primarily practice from those distances to help maintain the necessary hand and eye coordination for those distances.
> 
> We are indeed amazing beings. Some of us get to become "Super(wo)man". But the Kryptonite of mortality always lurks just past the next birthday and it becomes increasingly difficult to become "SuperDuper(wo)man", if only for lack of time.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Ive learnt using words/phases on these forums like "never" and "cant be done" is a dangerous thing.






Simon Stanley shooting accurately at 200 yards with a English Warbow


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Interesting you post that Steve ... I was shooting with Simon on his farm last weekend


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

zdogk9 said:


> then why is a good pitcher so very rare?
> Most can't throw for sour owl poop


it is not the accuracy as much as the speed with which a good picture can throw and the various spins that they can put on the ball - "curve ball" - "slider", etc....


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

very cool video - thanks for posting it - is the reason that he has such strange follow through because the bow is of such a heavy draw weight?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Highstrung1 said:


> Do you think if an "instinctive" archer practiced at 150-180yds, say, 300-400 arrows a week for several years, like most guys do at 20-30 yds, you might change your mind from never?
> Ya got to admit, alot of guys get pretty good at the ranges they practice......


It would require an entirely different type of shooting - form, bow, everything - and to me - any advantage that instictive shooting has by its very nature is lost at such long distances. The advantage of instinctice shooting is being able to shoot at unknown distances without ever having to think about the distance and being able to do it fairly fast. There is no way that someone can do that at 150 yards - if your brain misjudged a 150 yards say by 3 yards - you would miss that target by not inches, but feet!


----------



## Highstrung1 (Oct 20, 2010)

zdogk9 said:


> then why is a good pitcher so very rare?
> Most can't throw for sour owl poop


Hah, Hah....no kiddin' I just thought about the millions (billions?) of dollars made off of the "dunk tank"


----------



## Highstrung1 (Oct 20, 2010)

sharpbroadhead said:


> It would require an entirely different type of shooting - form, bow, everything - and to me - any advantage that instictive shooting has by its very nature is lost at such long distances. The advantage of instinctice shooting is being able to shoot at unknown distances without ever having to think about the distance and being able to do it fairly fast. There is no way that someone can do that at 150 yards - if your brain misjudged a 150 yards say by 3 yards - you would miss that target by not inches, but feet!


Maybe more like the difference in driving and putting ... Ok, a hole in one is still a fairly lucky proposition.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

good analogy


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Ive learnt using words/phases on these forums like "never" and "cant be done" is a dangerous thing.
> 
> Simon Stanley shooting accurately at 200 yards with a English Warbow


AWESOME video! Thanks for sharing :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

so...even gifted with the ability of intelligent conversation some here are proclaiming that "Aiming Instinctively" can not be taught to another?..because if that's so..i might propose that either the teacher has a gross inability to convey thoughts or the student has a seriously low level of comprehension or worst case?..both..in which case i figure if we can teach non-conversing chimps to preform series of simple physical acts (which shooting a bow is) and even have some do things such as pilot a rocket into space?..if we consider ourselves at all to be a species of higher intellect than a chimp we should be able to convey such skills..lest we digress a few levels on the food chain. LOL!

to which i offer the two following examples..


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

and this one?..is a "baby"...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> so...even gifted with the ability of intelligent conversation some here are proclaiming that "Aiming Instinctively" can not be taught to another?]


I would NOT say it can not be taught...BUT...a person/coach does NOT need any certification or personal experience to teach it because of how basic/simple the aiming technique actually is.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

wow - this thread has now reached a whole new level of stupidity

see ya


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> There is no way that someone can do that at 150 yards - if your brain misjudged a 150 yards say by 3 yards - you would miss that target by not inches, but feet!


Sharp youre making statements you know nothing about, the whole point was to shoot on mass at an army *but* the training requirement was to be able to hit a man size target at 200 yards, these guys could do it consistently, although some scientists said it couldnt be done till Simon and Mark showed them how. Unknown terrain and estimating the range is just amazing skill that takes years to master.

They did a good article a few years ago in the Glade mag with a armour plated robot knight charging them from 200y, it covered the distance in around 30secs and had around 4 to 6 shots each and it had more than a few arrows sticking out of it, Im pretty sure they wernt gapping. :smile:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Steve - Olivia gave me a subscription to the glade for Christmas it's a fun read. 

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Steve - are you serious? When shooting multiple arrows - of course then one can make adjustments to the target regarding distance jugements - I am talking about one shot shooting - not shooting dozens of arrows and saying well - 7 out of 12 hit - therefore I am good and proved that I can do it - and of those not even all of them are vital hits - they are just hits on a man sized target. 

Since none of us shoot for war - we either shoot targets or animals - accuracy with the first shot is what matters and is obviously what I am addressing - not shooting a quiver full of arrows and then averaging the percentage of hits.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

The narrow mindedness is off the charts by a few here.

If they can't do it, don't understand how or make up there own theories and no one or just a few agree with them...they get all pissy.

Has anyone considered that as the targets distances get further and further...the size of the target also increases in some competitions.

Who here has shot a Clout Shoot and/or knows what the size of the target is?

Just as Steve, I and a few others here have been saying....it is totally possible to hit these long range targets Instinctively without gapping or any other aiming technique.

All it takes to understand how...is to truly understand how the mind and body work together in attaining and maintaining the proper muscle and joint positions to launch an arrow.

It's NOT really any differnet than learning how to aim Instinctively at close distance. When an archer takes a shot and misses....they consciously recognize by how much they missed and than trust the body to compensate for that miss on the next shot.

I don't think anyone expects an archer to be able to hold the same size groups at 150yrds. as they do at 20yrds. which is why the targets are generally bigger at those longer distances.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

No the question was very simple, could a person learn to shoot Instinctively at 200 yards, you said it couldnt be done because people can only shoot accurately as far as they can throw, I just pointed out not only is it possible but gave examples of people with the skills doing it today, you just changed to goal posts to get out of a jam, are you still claiming it not possible to shoot instinctively at 200 yards?

I could also give some examples of top IFAA 3D (60y max) Instinctive shooters who consistently place in top 5 at World/Euro events.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

wow - these guys are amazing - you all have fun


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> wow - these guys are amazing - you all have fun


Sharp Im not trying to cause an argument or be rude, just you made a statement into a fact saying its not possible to shoot 200y Instinctively when I know from personal experience this statement to be incorrect, its misleading people who may not know any better.

I know its not nice being told youre wrong but on the up side you now know with the right training if you wished you could extend you Instinctive skills right out to 60y, I was shooting that way for my first 7-8 years at even longer ranges in NFAS (no max distance)

Have a good day :thumbs_up


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> wow - this thread has now reached a whole new level of stupidity
> 
> *see ya*


wow...that didn't last long..according to the timestamps?..about 50 minutes. :laugh:



steve morley said:


> Sharp youre making statements you know nothing about, the whole point was to shoot on mass at an army *but the training requirement was to be able to hit a man size target at 200 yards*, these guys could do it consistently, although some scientists said it couldnt be done till Simon and Mark showed them how. Unknown terrain and estimating the range is just amazing skill that takes years to master.
> 
> They did a good article a few years ago in the Glade mag with a armour plated robot knight charging them from 200y, it covered the distance in around 30secs and had around 4 to 6 shots each and it had more than a few arrows sticking out of it, Im pretty sure they wernt gapping. :smile:


Steve..not to one-up ya or anything but it's even better than *that* as..they didn't need to "hit a man sized target at 200yds"...what i got out of it is really?..alls they "needed" to do was..."Hit a HORSE SIZED target at 200yds"..cause once the horse was down?..the dude struggling about in the 100lbs worth of armour and weaponry was dead meat..which incidently is why i once wanted to buy this calvary rifle from an older coworker..as much for the crispy yellowed and coffee stained calvary issued instructional manual that came with it..where in the "Introduction" page it stated...

"In it's 500gr configuration the 45/70 bullet is capable of taking down an indian pony at 100yds."

so apparently?..when facing a horseback mounted enmass charge?..hitting the rider was great..but taking out the horse was all that was truely needed...to survive...a mounted enmass attack.



BLACK WOLF said:


> I would NOT say it can not be taught...BUT...a person/coach does NOT need any certification or personal experience to teach it because of how basic/simple the aiming technique actually is.
> 
> Ray :shade:


I respectfully disagree Ray...on two counts..

1. No one really needs a certification to teach anything to another..i learned some of my best skills from non-certified mentors..cause if someone truely knows something?..that last thing they need or want is anybody elses stamp of approval and?..

2. I believe if a person has never experienced instinctive aiming?..ain't no way they could possibly teach what it is they don't fully understand themself.

whazzup man?..this ain't like you..so either your not fully awake or?..who are you and what did you do with Ray? :laugh:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

steve morely - so you are telling me I can set up say a 40 target 3D course - one shot per target - at* unknown* distances from say 50- 200 yards and there are instinctive shooters that could get through that course with an average of a vital hit on each target? If there are such instinctive shooters - i would love to meet them. 

I also find it odd that you guys will argue on one hand that there are no shooters in FITA that do not have a conscious aimining system - but now you argue that there are guys who can shoot instinctively to 200 yards at unknown distances - which is it?

You guys argue out of both sides of your mouth - you argue for the sake of arguing.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> 1.* No one really needs a certification *to teach anything to another..*i learned some of my best skills from non-certified mentors*..cause if someone truely knows something?..that last thing they need or want is anybody elses stamp of approval and?..


LOL...Jinks...maybe you're not the one who is awake :wink: Go back and re-read what I said...because based on what you wrote...we TOTALLY agree on this....unless my reading comprehension is waaaay off :wink:



JINKSTER said:


> 2. I believe if a person has never experienced instinctive aiming?..ain't no way they could possibly teach what it is they don't fully understand themself.


I just don't see what's soooo difficult to teach an archer to aim Instinctively when all a person has to tell them is to just focus on the target and basically point and shoot.

If you think it's more involved than that....please share with us....what an Instinctive archer can teach a person that a non Instinctive shooter can not?

Instinctive Aiming is nothing more than just focusing on the target and trusting your body will do what it needs to do to hit the target. There's no analyzing the gaps or making micro adjustments to the sight picture. There's really no conscious analyzing of the target's distance other than maybe recognizing the distances as short, medium or long. I know when I'm aiming Totally Instinctively...I'm not breaking down yardage to 23yrds. 41yrds. or 70yrds. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

oh - and please do not site scores from an "instinctive" class - becuase we all know that just because they are in that classification does not mean that they are actually aiming at a subconsicous level - you have pointed that out to us all in the past yourself.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> steve morely - so you are telling me I can set up say a 40 target 3D course - one shot per target - at* unknown* distances from say 50- 200 yards and there are instinctive shooters that could get through that course with an average of a vital hit on each target? If there are such instinctive shooters - i would love to meet them.


Likely not because its not any normal type of shoot that Archers shoot but many shooters in IFAA shoot unmarked 3D out to 60y, the scoring is different than IBO so it would be hard to compare kill averages as their is only 2 points difference between 1st kill and wound, the top Longbows are shooting solid scores with zero misses and average over 1st hit score on a 28 target unmarked 3D course, I know a few of the top Austrians who have won World/Euro titles that are Instinctive shots.



sharpbroadhead said:


> I also find it odd that you guys will argue on one hand that there are no shooters in FITA that do not have a conscious aimining system - but now you argue that there are guys who can shoot instinctively to 200 yards at unknown distances - which is it?


Please feel free to search through the threads and show me where Ive said Fita shooters do not have a conscious aiming system, its part of their shot sequence so has to have some conscious input. I have quoted KSL many times where he states focus is on the spot and the sight is allowed to float, so a little bit of both going on there. I have found over the years people have found many solutions to shooting a bow accuratly, some mainstream and some very unothodox, its what makes this sport so interesting.

I think if sombody posted here 6 months ago and said a person can shoot 3 arrows in 1.5sec and hit Aerial targets most of us would say it is not possible, yet we have some guy on Youtube doing it, sometimes its great to be proved wrong :smile:


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

My compliments to those of you who are capable of expressing your thoughts and opinions without using such condescending words as stupid, absurd, silly, nonsense, ridiculous, hilarious, etc.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...Jinks...maybe you're not the one who is awake :wink: Go back and re-read what I said...because based on what you wrote...we TOTALLY agree on this....unless my reading comprehension is waaaay off :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay ray...concerning count 1?..either you did some fast editing or i missed sump'in..either way..i digress..we totally agree. :laugh:

Count 2?: different story..and at ths point i'm thinking possibly a very subjective one pending how the individual archers brain is wired..or if they even possess the abilty to attain a level of focus that the mind is able to completely dismiss any and all attention to any and all objects within their vision save one..that spot...heck..on some days?..especially if i'm stressing about anything at all in life?..i hafta fall back on to...taking in the full sight picture...comig off several reference points..which turns out to be more of a "It Looks Right" scenario that a "It Instinctively Feels Right" scenario..easy?..to me?..is gapping..holding an arrow point on a pre-determined spot?..big whoop...which to me is more like "step-by-step instructions"...and completely devoid of any pixie dust whatsoever..and me likey pixie dust..i'm want my magic back! :laugh:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> Okay ray...concerning count 1?..either you did some fast editing or i missed sump'in..either way..i digress..we totally agree. :laugh:


Yeah....once you quote me I can't edit what YOU quoted in your post....so ya missed sumpin'...which everyone does from time to time :wink:



JINKSTER said:


> Count 2?:


Yeah...we'll just have to agree to disagree. I just don't think any of the aiming techniques are that hard to teach....it's the aspects of form and shot execution that can be hard to teach.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

steve morley said:


> I think if sombody posted here 6 months ago and said a person can shoot 3 arrows in 1.5sec and hit Aerial targets most of us would say it is not possible, yet we have some guy on Youtube doing it, sometimes its great to be proved wrong :smile:


I would also like to add its great that these Archers have these amazing shooting skills because they have not limited themself by someone elses boundries. :thumbs_up


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> Interesting you post that Steve ... I was shooting with Simon on his farm last weekend


Hey Yew....I was curious....does Simon ever shoot 3D courses with those heavy bows? How well does he shoot if he does?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

sharpbroadhead said:


> oh - and please do not site scores from an "instinctive" class - becuase we all know that just because they are in that classification does not mean that they are actually aiming at a subconsicous level - you have pointed that out to us all in the past yourself.


Ken not calling you a liar - but doesn't this statement hold true for you as well? How do we actually know how someone else aims other than taking their word for it. 

Matt


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Remember guys ... for some of us this is NORMAL shooting....

View attachment 1566716


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> but doesn't this statement hold true for you as well?


LOL...ooooh...the irony :wink:



Matt_Potter said:


> How do we actually know how someone else aims other than taking their word for it.


We really can only make educated guesses. An archer's technique can give alot of clues but ultimately we do have to take there word for it....unless it's just soooo blatantly obvious.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Matt - no it is not related at all - there is a class named "instinctive" - and it is simply a barebow class - it has nothing to do with how you aim the bow - many, if not most shooters in this class readily will tell you that they gap shoot.

You are making my point and don't even realize it - the only person who knows if they are aiming subconsciously or not is the shooter - nobody else - there is no way at all to know - other than by what the person tells you. A pause at anchor, where someone puts their fingers on the string - where they anchor, etc... does not tell anyone anything about how the person who is shooting is aiming and what they consciously see or do not see - and it is the height of arrogance for someone to think that they can know what a person is thinking and seeing at a conscious level just by looking at them or even more arrogantly - by looking at an image of them.

The only persson who knows how they aim is the shooter - and if they tell me that they are not seeing the arrow when they aim - I believe them - I am not so arrogant and obnoxious to believe that I know more than they do. A little knowledge can do more harm sometimes than one thinks.

Guys read a few article or opinions from others or take a few online courses on subjects not even remotely connected and suddenly think that they can know what someone else is thinking, seeing or doing - and they simply cannot - and it is the height of pride to think that they can.

They actually go against common sense and everyday experience to make their supposed "case".

they will say things like "nobody is going to tell me that they cannot see the arrow when it is right in front of their face" - wait a minute - how many times have you been reading the paper, watching tv, or concentrating on something so intently that your wife or someone else can talk to you and you honestly never heard them? Wait - you were in the same room - your ears were not plugged, the person spoke loud enough - THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU COULD NOT HEAR THEM - yet you did not hear them - why? Because you conscious attention was so intently focused on something else that you blocked it out and you honestly did not consciously hear that person - THIS HAS HAPPENED TO NEARLY EVERYONE - yet suddenly - in archery - they believe it is not possible that when a shooter is so intently focused on what he wants to hit that it is not possible that everything else is blocked from his or her conscious attention!

The only person who knows what they consciously see or not and use or not to aim is the shooter - there is no way to make a classification for this style of aiming - there is no limus test of form that proves how one is aiming - and there is no "true" instinctive aiming - for that implies - "false" instinctive aiming - and there is no inbetween - either the shooter is consciously determining distances and consciously using something to line up based on that distance estimation - or he is not - there is no middle ground here at all - not even a little.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yewselfbow - so on a one shot 40 target 3D course at unknown and unmarked distances from say 50 yards to 230 yards - you are telling me that you shoot instinctively and can average a vital hit on every target - is that what you are telling us?


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Hey Yew....I was curious....does Simon ever shoot 3D courses with those heavy bows? How well does he shoot if he does?
> 
> Ray :shade:


Ray
To the best of my knowledge he hasn't shot 3d for a long while ..... I will be seeing him again next Sunday so I'll ask him


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Yewselfbow - so on a one shot 40 target 3D course at unknown and unmarked distances from say 50 yards to 230 yards - you are telling me that you shoot instinctively and can average a vital hit on every target - is that what you are telling us?


No ... what I'm saying is ... can you teach someone to shoot a clout instinctivley .. if so how ... if not why not.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Steve Morely said in response to my challenge about instinctive shooters shooting a 40 target 3D course with one shot per target from 60-200 yards at unknown and unmarked distances:

_Likely not because its not any normal type of shoot that Archers shoot but *many shooters in IFAA shoot unmarked 3D out to 60y*, the scoring is different than IBO so it would be hard to compare kill averages as their is only 2 points difference between 1st kill and wound, the top Longbows are shooting solid scores with zero misses and average over 1st hit score on a 28 target unmarked 3D course, I know a few of the top Austrians who have won World/Euro titles that are Instinctive shots.
_

Hmmmm - I seem to remember somebody saying that for most instinctive shooters 40 yards getting to the max - but for some exceptional shots they can go 50 yards or a little more.  

a 60 yard max - is not uncommon from some 3D shoots even for trad - they might have one or two shots at that range - and they are meant to push the max - to be an extremely challenging shot - NOT THE NORM - but you have been just arguing about 200+ yard shots - but when I put it down to reality - your 200+ yard shooters are shooting MULTIPLE arrows at a man sized target and not even hitting the target with many of the arrows and when they do hit the target it is not always in the vitals.

Heck - I can shoot to 200+ yards too if I can shoot a quiver full of arrows at it and I would hit a mansized target with some of them as well.

Clearly I was talking about true accuracy - one shot accuracy - and you twisted it around into this stuff - come on - and now you say that in true one shot per target accuracy the MAX is 60 yards - what happend to the 200+ yard shooting

wow


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yewselfbow - I am not interested in clout archery - it is gernade archery - where close enough is all that matters. I am interested in one shot accuracy - as I am sure most instinctive archers are and nearly all the archers in this forum are.

For me insinctive is about hitting my mark - it is about killing animals - it is not about holding my bow at a precise angle and flinging arrows in the air at 200 yards and then scoring based on who gets closest to the target with with the most arrows.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> it is not about holding my bow at a precise angle and flinging arrows in the air at 200 yards and then scoring based on who gets closest to the target with with the most arrows.


Seriously...what do you think archers do when they're competeing at 20yrds. on a NFAA target?

No wait....I'll tell ya. They're holding their bows at precise angles seeing who can get closest to the target more often than the next archer.

The only differences in Clout are basically the distance and the size of the target. 

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Yewselfbow - I am not interested in clout archery - it is gernade archery - where close enough is all that matters. I am interested in one shot accuracy - as I am sure most instinctive archers are and nearly all the archers in this forum are.
> 
> For me insinctive is about hitting my mark - it is about killing animals - it is not about holding my bow at a precise angle and flinging arrows in the air at 200 yards and then scoring based on who gets closest to the target with with the most arrows.


Ken

Step back and put yourself in the other guys shoes - if your not totally blind you will see just how insulting this post is. 

It's a big world out there and some of us want to experience all of it I would love to goto the UK and shoot clout. 

My guess is you have never shot an aimed shot past 60 yards or so - if this is the case please don't tell people that do that A- they aren't worth while and B- they are doing it wrong. Because having never done it YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE what can or can't be done. 

Matt


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> For me insinctive is about hitting my mark -


Ken there's a beautiful irony in your comment ... I'll leave you to figure out what it is.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Matt - no it is not related at all - there is a class named "instinctive" - and it is simply a barebow class - it has nothing to do with how you aim the bow - many, if not most shooters in this class readily will tell you that they gap shoot.


If you mean WA3D Instinctive div it pretty much mirrors IBO Trad div, no idea why they called it Instinctive, Ive no idea what % shoot Gap or Instinctive, Im guessing a fairly even match between the two aiming methods, the countries that exclusively shoot WA3D a lot shoot Instinctive, I know this because some Danish guys came to try Field and were a little lost past 40y.The counties like our who shoot both IFAA and WA you get a mix of both aining styles many using multi aiming techniques like myself.


Ken it is a shame that you have no respect for anything anybody else can do outside of your own Instinctive IBO world, it gives you a very narrow view of the archery world, you demand respect for your aiming style yet youre unwilling to give any respect to others and the primary reason why you argue with a large amount of people here and previously on other Forums, they cant ALL be wrong all of the time.


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

How do you teach instinctive shooting? Put them in a dark room and shoot at a laser dot ... and it works.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I think some of us here think Traditional archery only shoot unmarked 3d. Teach all ways to aim and your students will have a better understanding of Archery. And be able to compete or hunt at any level. 
Gary


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Yewselfbow - I am not interested in clout archery - it is gernade archery - where close enough is all that matters. I am interested in one shot accuracy - as I am sure most instinctive archers are and nearly all the archers in this forum are.
> 
> For me insinctive is about hitting my mark - it is about killing animals - it is not about holding my bow at a precise angle and flinging arrows in the air at 200 yards and then scoring based on who gets closest to the target with with the most arrows.


Wow, really, what a sad narrow minded view


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I personally shoot truly instinctively from the hip with my eyes closed, like in did back in my army days.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> *Heck - I can shoot to 200+ yards too if I can shoot a quiver full of arrows at it and I would hit a mansized target with some of them as well.
> wow*



As a long time Clout and Roving Marks archer and bowhunter , I have won tourneys , whooped up Englishman at their own game and by chance killed a few animals ... quite a few actually .

To suggest that Clout and Roving Marks is either spray and pray a bunch of arrows , or an exercise in Calculus is either just being inflammatory or plain ignorant.

To be so dismissive of "instinct" [ or people abilities, accomplishments and or/experience] at longer Roving ranges whilst being so in love with it at 3d/hunting range in defense of the "I am only interested in bowhunting" is absolute bollocks, particularly as it is apparent Ken knows nothing about it.

Archery is such a great sport , with so many facets to explore , play at and in some cases excel in ... this "instinctive" recurring dribble throughout the threads is just ego feeding crap .


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> To suggest that Clout and Roving Marks is either spray and pray a bunch of arrows , or an exercise in Calculus is either just being inflammatory or plain ignorant.
> 
> To be so dismissive of "instinct" [ or people abilities, accomplishments and or/experience] at longer Roving ranges whilst being so in love with it at 3d/hunting range in defense of the "I am only interested in bowhunting" is absolute bollocks, particularly as it is apparent Ken knows nothing about it.
> 
> Archery is such a great sport , with so many facets to explore , play at and in some cases excel in ... this "instinctive" recurring dribble throughout the threads is just ego feeding crap .


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

:thumbs_up I just love it when you sugar coat it


benofthehood said:


> As a long time Clout and Roving Marks archer and bowhunter , I have won tourneys , whooped up Englishman at their own game and by chance killed a few animals ... quite a few actually .
> 
> To suggest that Clout and Roving Marks is either spray and pray a bunch of arrows , or an exercise in Calculus is either just being inflammatory or plain ignorant.
> 
> ...


----------



## Boberau (Dec 15, 2009)

Interesting thread.

My favorate B-Ball player was Michael Jordan. He would be mediocre, by defination of some on this tread, because he didn't "gap" shoot jump shots. Actually, I'd love to see any NBA player "gap shoot." .... Be fun to watch... Well, then, Roger Clements didn't get into the Hall of Fame this week... Someone tell him he forgot to "gap" his pitches.

I enjoy two sports. Bow hunting and skydiving. In skydiving, it's very interesting to watch grown men and women flail around the sky like babes learning to walk. But, the ones that make it are more like babies than "serious adults" because, like babies, they are smiling, having fun, and enjoying the experience. And, in the process, they absorb the coaching in addition to absorbing the requirements of flying their bodies in the sky to the subconscience. A baby does the same trying to put one foot in front of another. ... Can anyone imagine teaching a baby to "gap" his steps? I can't. Gapping is frontal lob stuff. Instinctive is cerebellum stuff.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

My point was that we are talking about two totally different types of archery.

The archery that we bowhunters and 3d shooters shoot is about shooting as accurately as possible so that we hit our game in the vitals.

Clout archery is about shooting as far as one can and to get as close to the flag or object as possible - the accuracy level required for the two sports is ENTIRELY different. A clout shooter could go through an entire event and never come closer than a foot to the flag and still win - if a bow hunter or 3d hunter never got closer than a foot to his mark - he would not even attain a point or an animal.

Clout is a totally different style of archery that looks like it would be fun and requires skill without a doubt - but it is totally different than the type of archery that most all of us in this forum engage in - and obviously my comments about instinctive shooter were not about a form of archery that neither myself or the vast majority of members of this forum engage in - just like all the other comments about 200 yard shooters shooting at man size targets - they are unloading a quiver full of arrows at the man sized target and half or less hit the target and of the ones that hit - they are not all in the vitals.

So to even bring this style up in the context of what the vast manority of us discuss and talk about - leads others to think that there are intinctive shooters out there shooting at 3d targets at unknown and unmarked distances ACCURATELY out to 200+ yards - which is CLEARLY not the case.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yewselfbow said:


> Ken there's a beautiful irony in your comment ... I'll leave you to figure out what it is.


wow it is really ironic to say that aiming instinctive is about hitting my mark

Oh the irony - well - I have thought about it and tried my hardest to figure it out and find the "beautiful irony" in that comment - but I must admit - you must have a far superior intelligence level, because I don't see any irony in it at all. I mean - how stupid of me to think that I want to hit my mark and that is what instinctive aiming means to me.

Me paenitet. Ego bardus sum.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Me paenitet. Ego bardus sum.


Latin Translation to English: "Me it causes to repent. I stupid to be"

you sure that's what you meant to say Ken?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Ken

He wants to hit his mark as well yet you totally dismissed him. He is an archer just like you not better not worse just different. Yet because he dares to do something other than 20 yard instinctive 3D his style of archery is "grenade" archery. Guess what by your definition the guys in the Olympics practice "grenade" archery. 

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

That is not what it translates to - it translates as, "I am sorry. I am stupid" - online calculators are not accurate


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Yet because he dares to do something other than 20 yard instinctive 3D his style of archery is "grenade" archery. Guess what by your definition the guys in the Olympics practice "grenade" archery.
> 
> Matt


I think we'd find that he's actually been practicing grenade archery, just the target is so close to the grenade, it can't miss. Where the grenades require much more precision in throwing, like the longer distances, your throwing skills have to match that of grenade throwers at those distances.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Matt - read about Clout archery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clout_archery - it is like throwing horse shoes - except with arrows over great distances - ever hear of the saying: "close only counts in horseshoes and gernades" - that is where the gernade comment comes from.

They shoot ends of 6 arrows (a quiver full) - at a flag - and they are scored by how close they are to the flag - they can be up to 7.5 meters away from the flag (depending on the tournament) and still get points.

This type of archery looks like it would be a lot of fun - and at the distances being shot would without a doubt require quite a bit of skill - but this is NOTHING at all like what we all discuss when talking about instinctive aiming.

They clearly left the impression from their original comments that they were shooting accurately at these great distances - well - if you define accurately as being several meters from your target - I guess they are accurate.

I don't know about you - but when I talk accuracy - I am talking the vitals of an animal or an animal target or a vital sized target.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> They shoot ends of 6 arrows (a quiver full) - at a flag - and they are scored by how close they are to the flag - they can be up to 7.5 meters away from the flag (depending on the tournament) and still get points.


And you stick one in the back end of a rubber deer at only 20 yards and still get points


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Accuracy is relative to the distance and size of the target.

The closer the distance...expect tighter groups. 

The further the distance....expect larger groups.

Everything is relative. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Sanford said:


> And you can be in the ass end of a rubber deer at only 20 yards and still get points


dang..did you say that out loud sanford? :laugh:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Matt - read about Clout archery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clout_archery - it is like throwing horse shoes - except with arrows over great distances - ever hear of the saying: "close only counts in horseshoes and gernades" - that is where the gernade comment comes from.
> 
> They shoot ends of 6 arrows (a quiver full) - at a flag - and they are scored by how close they are to the flag - they can be up to 7.5 meters away from the flag (depending on the tournament) and still get points.
> 
> ...


Ken , not that I should be justifying your dribble with a response , but when shooting Roving Marks , as alluded to in Yewselfbow's pic and video links [ Which is not Clout by the way , but lets not facts get in the way of such silliness] how is it you think people actually aim ?

You continually rant on about how great ' instinctive' is , and then dismiss any sense of excellence or achievement of those who adhere to it as an aiming choice with one fell swoop because they don't fall under that amazingly limited scope of Eastern 3D / whitetail hunting that pervades every thread you post on .

Given that Samick , Black Widow, Howard Hill Archery, Great Tree , Bob Lee , Trad Tech etc etc sell thousands of bows are year in America alone , yet you only have a couple of hundred people turn up at these tourneys you continually hawk on about , perhaps Archery , Barebow archery Trad archery or whatever you want to call it is way way more popular and diverse in its participants than you would thought possible ... 

... and as such your dismissal of anything at all that is not defined by your narrow view of "trad" impedes any real adult discourse on any topic that is not solely that which you participate in .


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

Sanford said:


> And you can be in the ass end of a rubber deer at only 20 yards and still get points


:mg:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

SteveB said:


> :mg:


Fixed that


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

beneofthehood - in your "dribble" that I should not be justifiying with a response either - where do you get that I have dismissed anyting about clout.

This is all about how one defines accuracy - and unless I am totally mistaken - most of us in this forum define archery in terms of inches - not feet and yards. And yes BlackWolf is right - it is all relative to distance.

When I said that instinctive is a close range game - that was speaking of the accuracy that most of us strive for in this forum - that is - accuracy defined by inches - not feet and meters. So when all of a sudden I am being attacked and told that I am totally wrong - there are guys out there shooting instinctive over 200 yards - I called foul - because - most of us define accuracy in inches.

I agree - it is probably just as difficult, if not more difficult to score high in clout than it is in 3D - but the bottom line is that most of the people in this forum do not shoot clout - probably do not even know what it is, and likely will never shoot it.

I have not dismissed anyone who shoots instinctive - I have dismissed the idea of compariung the accuracy levels needed for each sport - which was implied since most forum members, as I have said - define accuracy in terms of inches not feet or yards.

So - in summary.

I think that there are awesome clout shooters - I think it is style of archery that requires great skill - and that there likely are guys who shoot it instinctively - but in a different manner than what most of us think of as instinctive - ie: - they are likely not so much concentrating on the target - but the angle of the bow - but I could be wrong - I don't know - never shot it - but either way - the accuracy measure is totally different.

In virtually every discussion in this forum about instinctive archery - it was related to accuracy defined in inches - not yards! So to all of a sudden throw out that there are instinctive shooters who can shoot accurately at 200+ yards and to use that to "call me out" - when I say that instinctive archery is a close range sport - was disingenious at best. 

You all know that I define accuracy in terms of inches -- not feet and yards - you all know that most everyone in this forum thinks of accuracy in terms of inches - not feet and yards.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Accuracy is relative to the distance and size of the target
> 
> Everything is relative.
> 
> Ray :shade:


I wonder how close a 2" miss at 20 would be at 180 ?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> I wonder how close a 2" miss at 20 would be at 180 ?


EXACTLY! :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I would venture to say that most members of this forum don't care what a 2" miss at 20 yards would be at 180 yards - as most of us will never shoot 180 yards.

I would venture to say that the intent of the discussion in this thread was not clout archery or 200+ yard shooting.

i would venture to say that if you took a survey of forum members less than half would even know what clout archery is - let alone have ever shot it

I would venture to say that this was a deliberate diversion from the discussion

I would venture to say that I am tired and have to go to sleep now


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

I would venture to say that you are doing one heck of a job trying to make sure your original claim that instinctive would not work for clout because we can only judge distance as far as we can throw gets buried in non related debate. I'm staying on track and still need that cite, BTW.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> As far as shooting 180 yards instinctively - even if we know the distance - well the issue there is that instinctive archer is not a long range game - never has been and never will be - to try and focus on a spot at that distance and maintain the necessary concentration is not even possible - and for you to even make such an absurd statement illustrates just what this is all about - for crying out loud Olympic shooters with sights and clickers and stabalizers do not shoot that distance - that is just stupidity to even ask such a question.


I would venture that in response to your last two posts , one of which is directed at my response to you that you read your post #232 as above .......

I would venture to say that it is not a deliberate diversion from the discussion but a response to your posts which I didn't agree with , nor apparently a subject you know much about .

But the irony of you telling someone "how " they do something ..... suggesting that I don't shoot such such distances instinctively ... If Ray suggestedd the same thing to you ? Well , we have been down that road before just a few times .

I would venture that you are talking out of your "cavus"


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

*"well the issue there is that instinctive archer is not a long range game - never has been and never will be"*

That for me was the whole issue you using the word *"never"* and why I felt so strongly in having to speak up, firstly you have no idea how somebody aimed 1000 years ago, and secondly Instinctive is a viable aiming method for any distance, when you were called out on this you distracted the whole thing by suddenly talking about instinctive 3D accuracy, as accuracy is defined by the skill of the archer not the aiming method, a novice shooting a 70m target with sights isnt going to hit the gold as often as an Olympic shooter, just the same as the average Instinctive 3D shooter against your own skills, so accuracy is only really limited by the skill of the archer.

Also you now saying oh I think Clout is great and those guys have great skill doesnt wash, we ALL know exactly what you meant in that clanger of a post and there is no taking it back.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Accuracy is relative to the distance and size of the target.
> 
> The closer the distance...expect tighter groups.
> 
> ...


I don't know if I should interrupt the jump on Ken fest for this but it might be a concept that could help some folks analyze their shooting. 

"Accuracy" is how close you are to the mark or how close a measurement is to the true value of the quantity being measured. "Precision" which is often incorrectly used interchangeably is the repeatability or reproducibility.

In regard to shooting, the readers digest version is that "accuracy" is the location of the center of the group in relation to the target. "Precision" is the size of the group. What's relative is the usefulness (capability) of the system (in this case a bow in the hands of an individual, or individuals) on a given target at a given distance. Accuracy and precision are how we measure or describe that effectiveness/capability.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Clout accuracy feet
instinctive accuracy inches
Gap accuracy in thousand's of an inch
PERIOD!!!!!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> "Accuracy" is how close you are to the mark or how close a measurement is to the true value of the quantity being measured. "Precision" which is often incorrectly used interchangeably is the repeatability or reproducibility.
> 
> In regard to shooting, the readers digest version is that "accuracy" is the location of the center of the group in relation to the target. "Precision" is the size of the group. What's relative is the usefulness (capability) of the system (in this case a bow in the hands of an individual, or individuals) on a given target at a given distance. Accuracy and precision are how we measure or describe that effectiveness/capability.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

2413gary said:


> Clout accuracy feet
> instinctive accuracy inches
> Gap accuracy in thousand's of an inch
> PERIOD!!!!!



Who wants to bet this will get a negative response??


----------



## BigCnyn (Nov 5, 2008)

2413gary said:


> Clout accuracy feet
> instinctive accuracy inches
> Gap accuracy in thousand's of an inch
> PERIOD!!!!!


Simple... just like that


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> I don't know if I should interrupt the jump on Ken fest for this but it might be a concept that could help some folks analyze their shooting.
> 
> "Accuracy" is how close you are to the mark or how close a measurement is to the true value of the quantity being measured. "Precision" which is often incorrectly used interchangeably is the repeatability or reproducibility.
> 
> In regard to shooting, the readers digest version is that "accuracy" is the location of the center of the group in relation to the target. "Precision" is the size of the group. What's relative is the usefulness (capability) of the system (in this case a bow in the hands of an individual, or individuals) on a given target at a given distance. Accuracy and precision are how we measure or describe that effectiveness/capability.



How dare you? Interrupting such a wild blanket party with a bunch of silly reasoning.  Maybe I even managed to derail the horse**** because most don't know what a blanket party is and will now spend another five pages trying to prove me wrong.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

FORESTGUMP said:


> How dare you? Interrupting such a wild blanket party with a bunch of silly reasoning.  Maybe I even managed to derail the horse**** because most don't know what a blanket party is and will now spend another five pages trying to prove me wrong.


I know what it is..get in your bunk! Sweet dreams.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I like Archery Golf.

Problem is, only one place I know that offers it, once a year.

Archery Golf at night, with illuminated nocks, is FANTASTIC! 

(yes, I yelled. Wanted to have some belligerent cred )


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

2413gary said:


> Clout accuracy feet
> instinctive accuracy inches
> Gap accuracy in thousand's of an inch
> PERIOD!!!!!



Gary are you aware that the 'gap' you speak of is really different from the gap that many others refer to. As different as instinctive accuracy for hunting vs the 200yds accuracy.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Sanford said:


> I wonder how close a 2" miss at 20 would be at 180 ?


20 yards= 1828.8cms 2inch= 5.08cms error angle = 0.159 degrees

180 yards = 16459cms error angle = 0.159 miss distance 45.7cms or 17 63/64 inches

so, a two inch miss @ 20yards is the same as a 17 63/64 inch miss @180 yards


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I thought would like it:smile:


FORESTGUMP said:


> Gary are you aware that the 'gap' you speak of is really different from the gap that many others refer to. As different as instinctive accuracy for hunting vs the 200yds accuracy.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

vabowdog said:


> Who wants to bet this will get a negative response??


Since Gary said "PERIOD!!!", there can be no follow-on discussion.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Arcus said:


> Since Gary said "PERIOD!!!", there can be no follow-on discussion.


Are we sure it was Gary it might have been Sandy??

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> 20 yards= 1828.8cms 2inch= 5.08cms error angle = 0.159 degrees
> 
> 180 yards = 16459cms error angle = 0.159 miss distance 45.7cms or 17 63/64 inches
> 
> so, a two inch miss @ 20yards is the same as a 17 63/64 inch miss @180 yards


Thanks for that :thumbs_up

I thought the miss would be larger than that at 180yrds. but that math does seem right :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Thanks for that :thumbs_up
> 
> I thought the miss would be larger than that at 180yrds. but that math does seem right :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


I envisioned it much larger, but I guess to think it through, the angle creating 2" at 20 doesn't change, so it should create 2" more for every 20 thereafter, and 9x20 = 180. So, 9x2" = 18" and we can give him the 1/64"


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

:mg:


Arcus said:


> Since Gary said "PERIOD!!!", there can be no follow-on discussion.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Arcus said:


> Since Gary said "PERIOD!!!", there can be no follow-on discussion.


So true. Saying "PERIOD!!!" is just like saying QED, er, without the QED... :embara:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Sanford said:


> I envisioned it much larger, but I guess to think it through, the angle creating 2" at 20 doesn't change, so it should create 2" more for every 20 thereafter, and 9x20 = 180. So, 9x2" = 18" and we can give him the 1/64"


If you take this out further a consistent 2 inch miss from your center point gives you a 4 inch in diameter group - not out of the question as that is the size of the 5 ring on a NFAA 40 cm target - this would give you a 36 inch group at 180 yards - now that I find amazing - do clout shooters shoot groups like that at those ranges??

Matt


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

some of you are sooooo sensetive. just having fun
PERIOD.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

2413gary said:


> some of you are sooooo sensetive. just having fun
> PERIOD.


Yeah well take this - SEMI COLON 

Matt


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> - this would give you a 36 inch group at 180 yards - now that I find amazing - do clout shooters shoot groups like that at those ranges??
> 
> Matt


Some of the top clout shooters here in England Matt are looking for 24 inch groups. They're shooting full FITA set ups with modified sights suspended from the long rod fixing


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Yewselfbow said:


> Some of the top clout shooters here in England Matt are looking for 24 inch groups. They're shooting full FITA set ups with modified sights suspended from the long rod fixing


Very cool makes me want to go do it more - you guys in the UK are very lucky with the amount of field and other recreational archery you have going on.

Matt


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Thanks for that :thumbs_up
> 
> I thought the miss would be larger than that at 180yrds. but that math does seem right :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


C'mon Ray, that math is as faulty as Kens' arguments.:teeth:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> Some of the top clout shooters here in England Matt are looking for 24 inch groups. They're shooting full FITA set ups with modified sights suspended from the long rod fixing


Yeah, and I hear they have been looking since the bow was invented!:teeth:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> Yeah well take this - SEMI COLON
> 
> Matt


I'll raise. INTERROBANG‽‽‽


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Warbow said:


> I'll raise. INTERROBANG‽‽‽


You win - I had to google that - LOL

Matt


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Yeah well take this - SEMI COLON
> 
> Matt


Semi-colon? Is that anything like half a&&ed?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> You win - I had to google that - LOL
> 
> Matt


I'm just surprised that the symbol is a standard one and shows up on my computer. I don't know if it shows on yours, but that is one ugly punctuation mark. It looks more like a glitch than a proper bit of type. :dontknow:


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

itbeso said:


> semi-colon? Is that anything like half a&&ed?


lmhao


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Very cool makes me want to go do it more - you guys in the UK are very lucky with the amount of field and other recreational archery you have going on.
> 
> Matt


I think it is the lack of hunting that makes this possible Matt. Archery is viewed as a sport/pastime there.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

itbeso said:


> Semi-colon? Is that anything like half a&&ed?


Pretty sure it's a medical procedure you old guys get to look forward to. 

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> C'mon Ray, that math is as faulty as Kens' arguments.:teeth:


:doh: :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> C'mon Ray, that math is as faulty as Kens' arguments.:teeth:



I agree about the math but what's wrong with Kens arguments? Is it because he's always right and some of you get your panties in a wad?


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I agree about the math but what's wrong with Kens arguments? *Is it because he's always right* and some of you get your panties in a wad?


I declare "man crush"


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I agree about the math but what's wrong with Kens arguments? Is it because he's always right and some of you get your panties in a wad?


Benofthehood, Talk about stating the obvious. MAN CRUSH! MAN CRUSH! I never was able to connect the dots before. Thanks.:teeth:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

I do what I can .........


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

No the math is not correct...or at least, it's not descriptive of the mechanics. It's not as simple as calculating an angle over the distance. That would work for a laser pointer but not for an arrow. There can be variations in arrow flight and speed that can change the trajectory. Variations in release, draw length, arrow weight, straightness, fletching etc are not necessarily going to have a linear effect on point of impact.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> I declare "man crush"


LOL!

Ray :shade:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

who's drinking who's coolaid


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> I do what I can .........




EXCEPT ANSWER THE QUESTION.
For the reading handicapped,here it is again. What is wrong with the arguments of the individual? Could be any individual,in this case it is sharpbroadhead. They are opinions just like anyone elses arguments here. His just happen to agree with mine and others who understand instinctive shooting. And, they are consistent. Unlike lots of people around here who just want to argue for the sake of argument. Maybe they even think the sillyness is cute. Don't know. What I do know is that some will say that they know all about instinctive shooting and sometimes write things that make it appear that have some understanding. And then, they will flip flop and and argue with their own previous arguments just to try and prove someone else wrong. 
I don't think I want to understand that kind of childish mentality, however, I do think it makes the forum less credible and so I don't like it. I would understand if it were some teenagers doing these things. But that's obviously not the case. Some are old men who should know how to conduct themselves in public.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> EXCEPT ANSWER THE QUESTION.
> For the reading handicapped,here it is again. What is wrong with the arguments of the individual? Could be any individual,in this case it is sharpbroadhead. They are opinions just like anyone elses arguments here. His just happen to agree with mine and others who understand instinctive shooting. And, they are consistent. Unlike lots of people around here who just want to argue for the sake of argument. Maybe they even think the sillyness is cute. Don't know. What I do know is that some will say that they know all about instinctive shooting and sometimes write things that make it appear that have some understanding. And then, they will flip flop and and argue with their own previous arguments just to try and prove someone else wrong.
> I don't think I want to understand that kind of childish mentality, however, I do think it makes the forum less credible and so I don't like it. I would understand if it were some teenagers doing these things. But that's obviously not the case. Some are old men who should know how to conduct themselves in public.


Gump, If the shoe fits....................................................................................!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

FORESTGUMP said:


> EXCEPT ANSWER THE QUESTION.
> For the reading handicapped,here it is again. What is wrong with the arguments of the individual? Could be any individual,in this case it is sharpbroadhead. They are opinions just like anyone elses arguments here. His just happen to agree with mine and others who understand instinctive shooting. And, they are consistent. Unlike lots of people around here who just want to argue for the sake of argument. Maybe they even think the sillyness is cute. Don't know. What I do know is that some will say that they know all about instinctive shooting and sometimes write things that make it appear that have some understanding. And then, they will flip flop and and arIgue with their own previous arguments just to try and prove someone else wrong.
> I don't think I want to understand that kind of childish mentality, however, I do think it makes the forum less credible and so I don't like it. I would understand if it were some teenagers doing these things. But that's obviously not the case. Some are old men who should know how to conduct themselves in public.


Really? The only people I see doing that are the ones who have already decided they are right, no matter what the truth is. Funny how they are the ones who are always complaining about being called a liar. Are you a liar if you are just too ignorant to learn the truth?

Grant


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - one is "ignorant" if they don't accept grant's version of the truth - the height of arrogance


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grantmac said:


> Really? The only people I see doing that are the ones who have already decided they are right, no matter what the truth is. Funny how they are the ones who are always complaining about being called a liar. Are you a liar if you are just too ignorant to learn the truth?
> 
> Grant



I'm getting the impression you wouldn't know the truth if it slapped ya upside the noggin. BTW what truth are you talking about anyways. Truth according to whom. In case you didn't know there have been many so called truths proven to be totally false over the years.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Gump, If the shoe fits....................................................................................!



Well,your lame little attempt at cute didn't work for me. I was really looking for a reasonably sensible answer. Must have come to the wrong place.


----------

