# Why animosity toward classic style archery?



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

centershot said:


> I was looking around on another site and there were several members giving a guy a hard time about shooting with a classic stance and shooting gapstinctive. There is no doubt in my mind that the guy catching the brunt could outshoot the guys picking on him. Made me wonder what is it that creates the animosity for shooters that stand up, hold, aim and shoot with a classic style?


Aiming is cheating……period. :lol:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

centershot said:


> Made me wonder what is it that creates the animosity for shooters that stand up, hold, aim and shoot with a classic style?


Most of the noise comes from the very few, the few who never realize that style is the Traditional way to shoot. Read up the oldest texts on archery. Read up the old texts on horseback archery. It all has the same theme we "Classic", "Target", "Oly" archers work off and is hundreds of years old. The newer stuff is all "Hollywood" shooting style.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I've recently been trying to learn traditional archery alongside my olympic. My perspective something like gap with significant hold and aim like you have a sight, maintenance of gapping records akin to sight marks, etc., feels related (if somewhat different) to where I come from. So I've tried to adopt gap. Given the methodical way I'm trained, the expectation of holding and aiming, etc., instinctive approaches sound very alien. "Snap" to someone from my background is supposed to be undisciplined and sloppy. And while the idea of shooting and shooting and shooting to "get it" is basically my practice approach, I'm practicing specific form.....elbow up. Expand through release. Etc. We'd see just "shooting" to render it instinctive as begging the question of how you intend to shoot. That being said, I believe in drilling til it's second nature and a good shot is usually not an obsessive thought exercise, it's been practiced til the rough edges and need to think are gone. I see where it converges, I'm just saying how some people trained as I was could (emphasis, could) see instinctive as almost anti-method, where gap at least feels like a cousin to my training. Take the sight off my Polaris and gap would be close to the way I shot through early last fall while taking lessons my first year. Side face anchor, hold, aim, etc. But if I "snap" shot or didn't appear to work my alignment or those sorts of things, an olympic instructor would get on my case. It cuts across that grain.

Not dissing instinctive (although I'm not using it either), just saying if you've learned archery in one particular method that I have, it's very foreign to how you've been taught. Locating one likely source of pushback for you.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

It's based on a similar reason that there's animosity towards archers who aim Instinctively or look like they're using form techniques taught by Asbell.

It's called 'elitism'.

One side feels they're superior for using harder more challenging techniques whereas the other side feels they're better for using easier and more efficient techniques.

Its based on nothing more the ego and/or insecurities.

Its no different when a fisherman uses fly fishing gear and compares himself to a person who uses spinning gear and crankbaits.

In the archery community allot of this animosity is created when someone calls another archer a cheater.

Ray :shade:


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

egos and agendas and buddy's jumping on each-others bandwagons, nothing more nothing less

like ray said, its called Elitism


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

The animosity is based purely on Their ignorance


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> egos and agendas and buddy's jumping on each-others bandwagons, nothing more nothing less
> 
> like ray said, its called Elitism





2413gary said:


> The animosity is based purely on Their ignorance


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## marcelxl (Dec 5, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It's based on a similar reason that there's animosity towards archers who aim Instinctively or look like they're using form techniques taught by Asbell.
> 
> It's called 'elitism'.
> 
> ...


Nail squarely hit!:thumbs_up

It's getting tedious too, with good threads getting ruined by it and everyone falling out.

But there's certainly something going on that is becoming divisive with this whole "Instinctive" shooting bandwagon. 

Surely its just archery……traditional archery, no more? Don't we all do the same thing and have done for 1000's of years?

Doesn't help with all the Youtube and Facebook heroes making all the noise either. But it does make me go offline and go do some bail work so that's no bad thing!

I shoot "instinctively" probably no more than I don't have the discipline to structure my shooting and I might even have some ADHD going on too. (I Flyfish too!)

It would be nice of we could all play nicely though


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

marcelxl said:


> Nail squarely hit!:thumbs_up
> 
> It's getting tedious too, with good threads getting ruined by it and everyone falling out.
> 
> ...


EXACTLY!!! :thumbs_up

They're JUST techniques people!!!

Nothing more...nothing less.

They do NOT make you a better person based on what technique or form of archery you choose to pursue.

All techniques will have there advantages and disadvantages making some harder or easier to master.

Ray :shade:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It's based on a similar reason that there's animosity towards archers who aim Instinctively or look like they're using form techniques taught by Asbell.
> 
> It's called 'elitism'.
> 
> ...


That a good post 

The fishing remark really strikes home 

When it comes to the fishing one its more the live bait vs imitation argument and we all know bait fishing is cheating  

Unless your salt water fishing


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

I tend to think hitting the mark is the ultimate goal of a shooting sport, unless you just like to hear bangs and whizzes in the air. 

I'm well versed in the so-called harder method, which ain't really that hard, and well versed in the easy method, which ain't really that easy.

Hitting the mark consistently is hard by any means, and like anything else in life, if it really was "easy" it wouldn't be worth squat as an end to your means. What works tends to work uniformly and what doesn't, doesn't uniformly work. Look at what tends to work the most uniform among the masses and there's good reason it's so popular.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It's based on a similar reason that there's animosity towards archers who aim Instinctively or look like they're using form techniques taught by Asbell.
> 
> It's called 'elitism'.
> 
> ...


Plain truth is it comes from the difference in proven accuracy at a PUBLIC event. I'll pass on the forthcoming rhetoric about how they (read they as Asbell disciples or not It doesn't matter) choose "not" to compete. My observations from participating at local events as well as National events have proven which methods are more conducive to accuracy and consistency. Also, before someone says we all have different goals not everyone want's to be a target shooter...well I have news...all animals while hunting are nothing more than targets when you get down to it. Missing is not fun no matter who you are. You here the same things over and over when they miss.. "If it had fur on it" blah blah skirvy blah. If you want to label people who choose to shoot standing erect, utilize some form of aiming, can control their bows as elitist, than put me in that camp. Label me all you want. Because historically they are more accurate when it counts, every time at these events. I don't have a superiority complex at all. What I do have is the drive to improve the status quo at least for myself.

P.S. Scorecards don't lie and there is no gray area.. Elitist out. Oh and turning in scorecards is not optional for Elitist... because they have nothing to hide.


----------



## marcelxl (Dec 5, 2010)

JParanee said:


> That a good post
> 
> The fishing remark really strikes home
> 
> ...


But if you're a fly-fisherman you are a god amongst anglers……….like when you're an instinctive archer, GODS I tell you!

Why else would Youtubers feel the need to call themselves "****** instinctive archer" and videos being specifically "instinctive archery/shooting" instead of just a nice archery vid?

Instinctive archers, live longer, can drink more, dance better, make the best lovers & are more sexually attractive, are more handsome, intelligent and just all round kings amongst men. Like flyfishermen……… I am both, go figure!


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It's based on a similar reason that there's animosity towards archers who aim Instinctively or look like they're using form techniques taught by Asbell.
> 
> It's called 'elitism'.
> 
> ...


I don't feel animosity for instinctive shooters, I mostly feel sorry for them. I have a hard time thinking they are reaching their potential. (They = the ones I have met and shot with, I hear there are some good instinctive shooters out there, I just have not yet met one.)

FWIW I also fly fish, but use sinking lines.........


----------



## marcelxl (Dec 5, 2010)

Why would you need to feel sorry for them…….they might be quite happy doing their thing?

It would be like feeling sorry for someone who feels the need a process all the thoughts for distance, elevation and try to get their gap perfect before making their shot, kind of absurd to think that I would but still………

Been thinking during the winter & indoors I might slip into bare bow and mix it up a bit, work on my mental game and structure my shooting better see if I can't get into the whole gapping thing, but then again I might not. I get satisfaction doing my thing my way without pi$$ing on anyones chips en route.

Its all bent sticks and string at the end of the day and horses for courses and you take out what you want from it. 

Sinking lines though:mg:………. bet you use them horrendous boobies too!?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Are we talking about animosity for people who have an explicit idea of what they are trying to achieve? I've never seen any animosity
towards people with classically good form. Have seen a little ribbing on explicit aiming techniques, though gapstinctive would get a lot of slack, since you have an element of the non-explicit involved. Have seen people sneer at string walking, or using sights in a trad competition.

I freely admit to using gap references, and nobody has accused me of cheating yet. Maybe I just don't win enough? Or maybe our locals are just nicer

i

ve


----------



## beerbudget (Feb 5, 2011)

Mo0se said:


> Plain truth is it comes from the difference in proven accuracy at a PUBLIC event. I'll pass on the forthcoming rhetoric about how they (read they as Asbell disciples or not It doesn't matter) choose "not" to compete. My observations from participating at local events as well as National events have proven which methods are more conducive to accuracy and consistency. Also, before someone says we all have different goals not everyone want's to be a target shooter...well I have news...all animals while hunting are nothing more than targets when you get down to it. Missing is not fun no matter who you are. You here the same things over and over when they miss.. "If it had fur on it" blah blah skirvy blah. If you want to label people who choose to shoot standing erect, utilize some form of aiming, can control their bows as elitist, than put me in that camp. Label me all you want. Because historically they are more accurate when it counts, every time at these events. I don't have a superiority complex at all. What I do have is the drive to improve the status quo at least for myself.


Great post, Moose. :thumbs_up


----------



## Anth85 (May 7, 2014)

I swear the stuff I read on here kills me... when I first got into archery I realized it was a brotherhood of sorts. Archers helping each other out , congratulating each other on good shots and shooting for the love of shooting! Who cares what someone else is doing! Goes for all styles of archery.... to me if you can't come together as a brotherhood and respect all styles of archery weather you agree with them or not! Your not an archer your a d-bag with a bow!


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

I've not yet hunted with a traditional bow but I have hunted twice with a compound and quite a lot with a rifle. 

One thing I've noticed over 30yrs of shooting and hunting is that there is an enormous gap between guys who can shoot "MOA" at the bench and guys that can harvest game. Hunting and target shooting are two very, very different things. You don't get 5min to set up a shot, the luxury of shooting at your resting heart rate, a pile of sandbags and a steel bench to rest your rifle on at the top of some mountain in the Sierra and outside of the old Larson cartoon I've never seen a deer with rings on the side with which to keep score. 








Extending that truth to archery hunting, the point is this: Given that the vitals of a deer are roughly 8-10" in diameter (allowing for difference in size between western sitka blacktail and the biggest bruiser Muley) it seems that if one can reliably put an arrow into a "target" of that size from a given distance they are comfortable with by whatever means one is doing just fine.

If you've hit a lung or two or you've hit both lungs, bisected both atria, the aorta and vena cava as well doesn't matter much. If you get the arrow into the engine room at the end of the day the deer is dead.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't know basic rifle work is all about the shooting platform (foundation) and breaking the shot 

I break the same shot off a bench that I do on top of a pack on top of a mountain


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

JParanee said:


> I don't know basic rifle work is all about the shooting platform (foundation) and breaking the shot
> 
> I break the same shot off a bench that I do on top of a pack on top of a mountain


If that is true, congratulations. It's something many message board/range hero's like to talk about. But only a fraction actually can do. 

"MOA" off of a bench is one thing, hitting a deer in the engine room while standing, kneeling or laying down on uneven ground, combined with the physiological impact of the hunt itself and excitement of viewing a deer through the sights and not a shoot-n-see target is another.

I can't tell you the number of would be hunters I've known who've bragged that they can shoot 1" groups but can barely hit paper when standing or kneeling.

Point is, that 1" groups off the bench don't matter and neither do top scores at the indoor archery range. What matters is being able to hit that 8-10" target when conditions are less than perfect. If you can do that, I'm thinking you are shooting just fine.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Archery is NOT only about scores!

There are reasons why people choose to shoot trad equipment and use specific aiming techniques combined with different form aspects.

If it was ONLY about scores....most everyone should be using compound bows with sights and releases.

The FACT is...some people try to super impose their opinions onto others...on what is 'best' for every archer...regardless of their G.A.P. profile.

The FACT is....the smaller the target...the harder it is to hit....and...requires near perfect shot execution and aiming.

The larger the target...the easier it is to hit...and doesn't require near perfect shot execution and aiming.

Some archer's GOALS involve hitting targets larger than the X ring on a NFAA 300 round.

This is just common sense.

I'm sure most if not all archers wish they could hit EXACTLY the smallest target they could...BUT...some are satisfied with achieving a secondary GOAL of missing the heart or the center of the lungs with just hitting ANYWHERE within the kill zone.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Archery is NOT only about scores!
> 
> There are reasons why people choose to shoot trad equipment and use specific aiming techniques combined with different form aspects.
> 
> ...


...adding to the bolded bit; "dead cold with the 1st arrow".

I can't yet. But that's what I'm working toward.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

All archery scores are relative to the equipment used by all in the same class of equipment. IOW, you don't get better scores in competition by using better aiming devices and equipment, that's pure nonsense to think I can use such in another class.

Being a "best" Trad archer you can be has zero to do with what a compound can do.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> All archery scores are relative to the equipment used by all in the same class of equipment.


Obviously...that's just common sense.



Sanford said:


> Being a "best" Trad archer you can be has zero to do with what a compound can do.


No one I know was claiming otherwise!

The FACT is...there are separate classes even in trad archery competition!

Why...because NOT everyone shares the EXACT same GOALS!!!

Some archers want to become good enough with a longbow and wood arrows to win a 3D competition...where as another archer wants to become good enough with a recurve and carbon arrows to win a gold medal.

The same group of archers who shoot longbows and wood arrows can be made up of some archers who want to use that gear to competitive in NFAA 300 events while others just want to be accurate enough to put an arrow into the kill zone of a deer.

It amazes me how some people are soooo narrow minded and think EVERY archer should pursue archery the same way they do.

Ray :shade:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Damn true


Thank you I try  

I know what your saying 

There are many different situations a hunter can come into contact with 

From busting a big buck on the run with an iron sighted slug gun or a Big Cape Buffalo with a big old double rifle.........to that one long shot on that big ram as he walks over a ridge 

Either way ya better be prepared and know your weapon 

When its the hunt of a lifetime on a big ticket animal and if ya have to reach out and tag something ya better get control of your shot or you are going home empty 




























I've got control of my rifle 

Now I just need to master my archery shot


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

HOLY CRIPES...that's a MONSTER sheep!!!! :thumbs_up :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

What exactly is 'classic style archery'?


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Ray, the only person on here bringing that up is you....and here we go again every other post you cutting and pasting and dicecting every single thread putting your stamp of approval or disapproval like a kindergarden teacher....dang man you need a life!!!

G.A.P. Go Away Please!!!


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> HOLY CRIPES...that's a MONSTER sheep!!!! :thumbs_up :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Thanks Ray 

my point is I killeD a lot of big bucks with a recurve up close and person but ya all will remember that big buck I shoulder shot at 30 + 

I won't let myself forget and its set me on a mission to improve my life long Archery goals 

I will become more proficient with a bow 

I will extend my range 

I hunted last year with a fingers shot cam lever because I dreamed of that big boy running away shaking my arrow in his shouldeR and it haunts me 

I can still smack a deer on a dRive with a snap shot when I have to but I want to be more confident in my game 

After almost 40 years of archery its about time 

This F 'r haunts me


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

GOOD CHRIST that is the mother of all sheep!

Didn't mean to imply that you couldn't shoot well away from the bench if that was the way it was received.

Point was that the important thing is not the tool in the hand or the method of employing said tool. What matters is achieving the desired result. 

My desired result is a reliable, dead-cold, 1st shot in an 8-10" circle from 30yds or less with a bare bow. If someone else's desired result is 5/5 in the 10-ring from X-yds using sights, that's cool too. One isn't "better" than the other and I don't see the purpose in ripping someone for using a tool or process that they find compelling or comfortable because it differs from what they find compelling or comfortable.


----------



## ArcherySupplier (May 20, 2014)

Correct.



BLACK WOLF said:


> It's based on a similar reason that there's animosity towards archers who aim Instinctively or look like they're using form techniques taught by Asbell.
> 
> It's called 'elitism'.
> 
> ...


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Damn True said:


> GOOD CHRIST that is the mother of all sheep!
> 
> Didn't mean to imply that you couldn't shoot well away from the bench if that was the way it was received.


Not at all  

What really turned my shooting around in my head is when Rod made a comment to me about long range rifle shooting 

It turned my whole way of thinking about the way I shoot a recurve 

Consistence comes the same way 

Solid foundation 

Clean break of the trigger, etc 

Made alot of sense to me


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

JParanee said:


> I will become more proficient with a bow
> 
> I will extend my range
> 
> ...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> I won't let myself forget and its set me on a mission to improve my life long Archery goals
> 
> I will become more proficient with a bow
> 
> ...


Joe,

Just like myself and many others....we learned multiple techniques to help us fulfill our GOALS.

When an archer is open to exploring all techniques...it becomes quite apparent there are advantages and disadvantages with each one under specific conditions.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

G.A.P. Go Away Please!!![/QUOTE]

Lmao, cheered me right up after reading this pile of recycled crap DeWayne. Thanks buddy 😀


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Joe,
> 
> Just like myself and many others....we learned multiple techniques to help us fulfill our GOALS.
> 
> ...


Its good to have a few tricks in the bag


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Sometimes these topics make me feel like I'm stuck on a merry-go round.
No way to stop it. No way to get off.

I can honestly say I have finally come to a point in my life where I don't care what someone thinks of my style,
and I don't care what they choose as theirs.

My goal with archery & bowhunting is to be as accurate as I can possibly be with a hunting bow, and hunting weight
arrows without adding anything to the bow to get there, and there will always be room for improvement.

Takes a lot of work, but for me the work is half the fun. 

Rick


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Archery is NOT only about scores!
> 
> There are reasons why people choose to shoot trad equipment and use specific aiming techniques combined with different form aspects.
> 
> ...


 I don't recall saying anything about and NFAA 300 round..however, I did allude to 3D. What I'm saying is the kill zone should be the focus..which is why 3D is setup that way, it replicates hunting shots. I don't have to explain that the basis of my post was centered around that ability? The SCORES (3D) matter here in the context of my post because it directly represents ones ability to display proficiency in shooting consistent kill shots. Call it hunting simulation if you will. When I speak of scorecards in the future it's very safe to assume I mean 3D. Everyone's goal are the same, to be able to hit consistently what you are shooting at. I don't own the patent on that thinking. That makes me an Elitist because I pay attention. Shame on me for thinking that people should be accountable for their ability.


----------



## Homey88 (Dec 10, 2013)

Wow what a sheep! Did you kill that Jparanee?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Homey88 said:


> Wow what a sheep! Did you kill that Jparanee?


Yes 

That's me 

Thanks


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Awesome sheep Brother Joe, and OneHellUvAshot.

Rick


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Rick Barbee said:


> Awesome sheep Brother Joe, and OneHellUvAshot.
> 
> Rick


Thanks Rick 

Everybody gets lucky


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

FORESTGUMP said:


> What exactly is 'classic style archery'?



No answer. which leaves several possibilities.

1. Nobody knows
2. Different meaning to different people
3. There is no such thing

I like all three.:wink:


----------



## Homey88 (Dec 10, 2013)

You the man!!!!


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Damn True said:


> If that is true, congratulations. It's something many message board/range hero's like to talk about. But only a fraction actually can do.
> 
> "MOA" off of a bench is one thing, hitting a deer in the engine room while standing, kneeling or laying down on uneven ground, combined with the physiological impact of the hunt itself and excitement of viewing a deer through the sights and not a shoot-n-see target is another.
> 
> ...



You are correct on one point, lots of hunters can barely hit paper with their chosen weapon/style when the rubber meets the road……that is not a good thing.

An 8"-10" group when conditions are less than perfect……..a recipe for disaster in the field. Either learn how to shoot, or learn to NOT let it fly.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Awesome Marco Polo Joe! :darkbeer:

I would love to tag one of those, but I just don`t see getting into bow range of one being a doable proposition.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Archery is NOT only about scores!
> 
> There are reasons why people choose to shoot trad equipment and use specific aiming techniques combined with different form aspects.
> 
> ...



Somebody please kick the jukebox……the record is stuck. :lol:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Big Country said:


> Awesome Marco Polo Joe! :darkbeer:
> 
> I would love to tag one of those, but I just don`t see getting into bow range of one being a doable proposition.


If I were bowhunting them I'd still be there at 17500 ft


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

JParanee said:


> If I were bowhunting them I'd still be there at 17500 ft


It takes me two full days to acclimate @ 11,000'……….I don`t know if I have enough time left in me to level out @ 17,500'? :chortle:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Mo0se said:


> I don't recall saying anything about and NFAA 300 round...


I never said you did...nor quoted you.



Mo0se said:


> Everyone's goal are the same, to be able to hit consistently what you are shooting at..


Sure....I think most every archer would love to hit the smallest target they can...consistently...BUT...most every archer has a secondary and more realistic GOAL to go along with that.

Take 3D for example. I think most who compete...have a GOAL of shooting a clean score...but most of us also have a realistic GOAL of shooting 80%, 85%, 90% or 95% of the maximum score.

Target size is relative to the archer's GOALS based on hitting a particular target consistently.



Mo0se said:


> if you I don't own the patent on that thinking. That makes me an Elitist because I pay attention. Shame on me for thinking that people should be accountable for their ability.


There's nothing wrong with wanting to become more accurate....just as there is nothing wrong with being accurate enough under the circumstances that fit into an archer's GOALS.

It's looking down upon others for their chosen aiming technique or shooting style that's 'elitist'. If an archer is wounding animals on a regular basis...it's NOT the technique that is the real issue....it's the heart of the bowhunter that needs to be addressed.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

The best thing about classic style is that you look GOOOOOD, even when you miss. Why do you think FITA shooters used to wear all white? In fact, folks are so enamored with how you look that they do not even notice where the arrow went.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> The best thing about classic style is that you look GOOOOOD, even when you miss. Why do you think FITA shooters used to wear all white? In fact, folks are so enamored with how you look that they do not even notice where the arrow went.


LOL :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> The best thing about classic style is that you look GOOOOOD, even when you miss. Why do you think FITA shooters used to wear all white? In fact, folks are so enamored with how you look that they do not even notice where the arrow went.


 Ever wonder why trad shooters wear dark clothes? It's tough as nails getting chewing tobacco stains out of anything white.


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

Big Country said:


> An 8"-10" group when conditions are less than perfect……..a recipe for disaster in the field. Either learn how to shoot, or learn to NOT let it fly.



If ones POA is in the center of the vitals and their POI is within 4-5" they will hit the vitals. Would it be better to be within .5"? Sure. But being within 4-5" still puts meat in the freezer.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Yes, if you're POI is within 5" on deer sized game, you should be fine but how many can repeatedly place a shot within 5" at 20 yards?

What the individual needs to consider is what their accuracy and precision looks like over a large number of shots. Then consider the additional stresses added by hunting conditions...cold, long uncomfortable sits, no warm up shots etc. You'd almost expect to see a lot of animals wounded and lost, wouldn't you?

With all this talk about "human nature" there might be another point that we should consider. That is that most people really aren't very good at the things they do. It's also in their nature to make excuses for it.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> With all this talk about "human nature" there might be another point that we should consider. That is that most people really aren't very good at the things they do. It's also in their nature to make excuses for it.


There definitely are some people that make excuses for poor shooting.

Ray :shade:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Mo0se said:


> Plain truth is it comes from the difference in proven accuracy at a PUBLIC event. I'll pass on the forthcoming rhetoric about how they (read they as Asbell disciples or not It doesn't matter) choose "not" to compete. My observations from participating at local events as well as National events have proven which methods are more conducive to accuracy and consistency. Also, before someone says we all have different goals not everyone want's to be a target shooter...well I have news...all animals while hunting are nothing more than targets when you get down to it. Missing is not fun no matter who you are. You here the same things over and over when they miss.. "If it had fur on it" blah blah skirvy blah. If you want to label people who choose to shoot standing erect, utilize some form of aiming, can control their bows as elitist, than put me in that camp. Label me all you want. Because historically they are more accurate when it counts, every time at these events. I don't have a superiority complex at all. What I do have is the drive to improve the status quo at least for myself.
> 
> P.S. Scorecards don't lie and there is no gray area.. Elitist out. Oh and turning in scorecards is not optional for Elitist... because they have nothing to hide.


What some people fail to realize is that not all brains are wired the same, and not all archers have the same mentality. 

Regardless of the endeavor, some people are wired to compete, improve, and keep score. Others are just content to participate. A *"competitor"* will never understand a *"participator"* and the same is true for the reverse. Some people can be content going for a bike ride and not be the least bit concerned where they end up, or how long it takes to get back. They just enjoy the process. Others, must map out their route, time themselves, and work to improve that time every time out. They are not happy unless they are improving, in some measurable way. Archery is no different. For some people, it's all about the process. Just participating is enjoyable, and being adequate is enough. For others, it all about the result. No matter how well they do, they must always strive to do even better.

I know some people that really couldn't give a ship about how they shoot, what they really enjoy about "archery" is making pretty arrows. Other's could care less about how their equipment looks, as long as they score well. The latter thinks the former is nuts, and the former think the latter is missing out on some of the finer aspects of the sport.

They're both right...in terms of how they are wired. It's only elitist when you insist on measuring someone else's accomplishments on your scale.

KPC


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

GEREP said:


> What some people fail to realize is that not all brains are wired the same, and not all archers have the same mentality.
> 
> Regardless of the endeavor, some people are wired to compete, improve, and keep score. Others are just content to participate. A *"competitor"* will never understand a *"participator"* and the same is true for the reverse. Some people can be content going for a bike ride and not be the least bit concerned where they end up, or how long it takes to get back. They just enjoy the process. Others, must map out their route, time themselves, and work to improve that time every time out. They are not happy unless they are improving, in some measurable way. Archery is no different. For some people, it's all about the process. Just participating is enjoyable, and being adequate is enough. For others, it all about the result. No matter how well they do, they must always strive to do even better.
> 
> ...



:thumbs_up Very well said.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

GEREP said:


> What some people fail to realize is that not all brains are wired the same, and not all archers have the same mentality.
> 
> Regardless of the endeavor, some people are wired to compete, improve, and keep score. Others are just content to participate. A *"competitor"* will never understand a *"participator"* and the same is true for the reverse. Some people can be content going for a bike ride and not be the least bit concerned where they end up, or how long it takes to get back. They just enjoy the process. Others, must map out their route, time themselves, and work to improve that time every time out. They are not happy unless they are improving, in some measurable way. Archery is no different. For some people, it's all about the process. Just participating is enjoyable, and being adequate is enough. For others, it all about the result. No matter how well they do, they must always strive to do even better.
> 
> ...


That's all true except that we all realize it. Once or twice per decade I go bowling or golfing. I'm not very good at either one and I don't care. However, I don't go on golf or bowling forums and extol the virtues of my "style" to beginners.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> However, I don't go on golf or bowling forums and extol the virtues of my "style" to beginners.


Or go out in the woods and try to humanely run an arrow through an animal!


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Or go out in the woods and try to humanely run an arrow through an animal!


That too. I was hesitant to touch on it because that's where I think it gets really disingenuous (or worse). I say that because it seems that we have archers who don't really hunt but tell others what kind of shooting is good for hunting...or combat.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> That too. I was hesitant to touch on it because that's where I think it gets really disingenuous (or worse). I say that because it seems that we have archers who don't really hunt but tell others what kind of shooting is good for hunting...or combat.


Yes, I don't bowhunt and have as much experience on the subject as many I see post here about it. Combat archery is even farther removed from all of us.

I still say archery is a shooting sport. The act of pulling the string, that is. Just like no one buys bullets just to hear a bang (well, there might be some that do), no one takes the time to pull a string just to see an arrow fly to nowhere (well, there might be).


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Damn True said:


> If that is true, congratulations. It's something many message board/range hero's like to talk about. But only a fraction actually can do.
> 
> "MOA" off of a bench is one thing, hitting a deer in the engine room while standing, kneeling or laying down on uneven ground, combined with the physiological impact of the hunt itself and excitement of viewing a deer through the sights and not a shoot-n-see target is another.
> 
> ...


So if you can't shoot a decent group from a bench, then you should go into the field and shoot at a deer? Yes sir, that is the exact logic that gets used all too often with traditional. FWIW I can shoot MOA from a bench and shot a nice Mule Deer and Bull Elk with my rifle last season. I can also shoot 270+ on the NFAA target and shot an antelope buck with my bow. I prefer to know what I can do when conditions are perfect so I know what I can do when they are not.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

MGF said:


> That's all true except that we all realize it. Once or twice per decade I go bowling or golfing. I'm not very good at either one and I don't care. However, I don't go on golf or bowling forums and extol the virtues of my "style" to beginners.


I tend to agree with you MGF. Crap advice is crap advice, regardless of which end of the spectrum it comes from. Folks who can't shoot well giving advice on shooting makes about as much sense as folks who don't hunt, giving advice on hunting. Some of the best hunters I know, are only "adequate" shooters on a "competition" scale. On the other hand, a guy in our club that shoots a number of 300/60's every year, also manages to wound at least one deer per year. Hunting and target shooting have a number of things in common, but they are two different disciplines. 

Any competent hunter will tell you that *when* to shoot is just as important, if not more important as *where* to shoot. No amount of 3D or paper punching will teach this.

Unfortunately, the competence and confidence that some "elite" target shooters have actually gets them in trouble in the woods, where targets don't wait around for their arrows to arrive.

*"I can make that shot"* works a lot better when the target isn't thinking *"I can avoid that shot."*

KPC


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Archery is NOT only about scores!
> 
> There are reasons why people choose to shoot trad equipment and use specific aiming techniques combined with different form aspects.
> 
> ...


My goal is consistent accuracy - shooting scores keeps track of that - the good shots and the not so good ones.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Yes, I don't bowhunt and have as much experience on the subject as many I see post here about it. Combat archery is even farther removed from all of us.
> 
> I still say archery is a shooting sport. The act of pulling the string, that is. Just like no one buys bullets just to hear a bang (well, there might be some that do), no one takes the time to pull a string just to see an arrow fly to nowhere (well, there might be).


I wasn't trying to say that you were one of those doing it but I agree. Archery is a shooting sport and so is bowhunting.

At this point, my advice to beginners who come here trying to learn to hit the target would be to listen to the guys who have demonstrated that they can hit the target...whatever the target is.

JP is a successful hunter and look at what he's working on. Jimmy Blackmon is a successful hunter. I think Dewayne and Matt are hunters? There's a bunch more we could list.

By contrast we have the "If it feels good to you it must be good for you." crowd.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> I wasn't trying to say that you were one of those doing it but I agree. Archery is a shooting sport and so is bowhunting.
> 
> At this point, my advice to beginners who come here trying to learn to hit the target would be to listen to the guys who have demonstrated that they can hit the target...whatever the target is.
> 
> JP is a successful hunter and look at what he's working on. Jimmy Blackmon is a successful hunter. I think Dewayne and Matt are hunters? There's a bunch more we could list.


Fully agree! I listen to these as well.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

GEREP said:


> What some people fail to realize is that not all brains are wired the same, and not all archers have the same mentality.
> 
> Regardless of the endeavor, some people are wired to compete, improve, and keep score. Others are just content to participate. A *"competitor"* will never understand a *"participator"* and the same is true for the reverse. Some people can be content going for a bike ride and not be the least bit concerned where they end up, or how long it takes to get back. They just enjoy the process. Others, must map out their route, time themselves, and work to improve that time every time out. They are not happy unless they are improving, in some measurable way. Archery is no different. For some people, it's all about the process. Just participating is enjoyable, and being adequate is enough. For others, it all about the result. No matter how well they do, they must always strive to do even better.
> 
> ...


That's all fine and dandy until said archers start shooting at live animals - then the animals deserve the best possible shot.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

GEREP said:


> I tend to agree with you MGF. Crap advice is crap advice, regardless of which end of the spectrum it comes from. Folks who can't shoot well giving advice on shooting makes about as much sense as folks who don't hunt, giving advice on hunting. Some of the best hunters I know, are only "adequate" shooters on a "competition" scale. On the other hand, a guy in our club that shoots a number of 300/60's every year, also manages to wound at least one deer per year. Hunting and target shooting have a number of things in common, but they are two different disciplines.
> 
> Any competent hunter will tell you that *when* to shoot is just as important, if not more important as *where* to shoot. No amount of 3D or paper punching will teach this.
> 
> ...


I mostly agree. Assuming that a hunter has a realistic view of his shooting, he can hunt up the shots that he can reliably make. At the same time, one can be a "good" archer AND be a lousy hunter.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

MGF said:


> I wasn't trying to say that you were one of those doing it but I agree. Archery is a shooting sport and so is bowhunting.
> 
> At this point, my advice to beginners who come here trying to learn to hit the target would be to listen to the guys who have demonstrated that they can hit the target...whatever the target is.
> 
> ...





I am a hunter and have become a much more accurate hunter because of my target shooting....I now know how to handle my nerves whether a little plastic trophy is on the line or a nice fat doe.

I don't understand how some archers could even remotely believe they could humanely kill an animal when they can't hit a 3-D target at half the distance..with less clothes on...no nerves,after practicing,not a cold shot,better environment altogether.

Sorry I just can't believe it...I've witnessed it too many times at my club.






Dewayne


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> That's all true except that we all realize it. Once or twice per decade I go bowling or golfing. I'm not very good at either one and I don't care. However, I don't go on golf or bowling forums and extol the virtues of my "style" to beginners.



Please name someone who participates in this forum who shoots a bow or goes hunting once or twice per decade. Maybe you failed to engage brain before putting fingers in gear but, that's ok Sir. Some of us have accepted that there are those among us who like to argue. 
But MGF, I'm going to give an example. Recently I was involved in a discussion about learning to fly airplanes. I have not flown in a number of years but, I didn't automatically forget everything I ever knew about flying an airplane. Some people find the practice of intentionally spinning an airplane to be scary and unnecessary. But, if a pilot doesn't learn the recovery technique it will always be scary and one day he will find himself in the situation unprepared. Now, back to your point. Am I now totally unqualified to discuss the subject with a beginner? Trust me, if you've ever learned that particular skill you don't forget it overnight. I believe I can still do it right now, just as I can discuss shooting an arrow from a bow.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

GEREP said:


> I tend to agree with you MGF. Crap advice is crap advice, regardless of which end of the spectrum it comes from. Folks who can't shoot well giving advice on shooting makes about as much sense as folks who don't hunt, giving advice on hunting. Some of the best hunters I know, are only "adequate" shooters on a "competition" scale. On the other hand, a guy in our club that shoots a number of 300/60's every year, also manages to wound at least one deer per year. Hunting and target shooting have a number of things in common, but they are two different disciplines.
> 
> Any competent hunter will tell you that *when* to shoot is just as important, if not more important as *where* to shoot. No amount of 3D or paper punching will teach this.
> 
> ...



Another gem, you're on a roll today.:thumbs_up


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

centershot said:


> That's all fine and dandy until said archers start shooting at live animals - then the animals deserve the best possible shot.


I disagree. What animals *deserve* is that the hunter make the best possible *decision* in terms of what shot to make or what shot not to try, based on his own ability. I trust that what Brady Ellis knows he *can* do in a competition is not what he feels he *should* do in the woods.

KPC


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

GEREP said:


> I tend to agree with you MGF. Crap advice is crap advice, regardless of which end of the spectrum it comes from. Folks who can't shoot well giving advice on shooting makes about as much sense as folks who don't hunt, giving advice on hunting. Some of the best hunters I know, are only "adequate" shooters on a "competition" scale. On the other hand, a guy in our club that shoots a number of 300/60's every year, also manages to wound at least one deer per year. Hunting and target shooting have a number of things in common, but they are two different disciplines.
> 
> Any competent hunter will tell you that *when* to shoot is just as important, if not more important as *where* to shoot. No amount of 3D or paper punching will teach this.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I'd say 95%+ of the archers at my local range are bowhunters wanting to become better shots so when they get a shot they make the best one possible. For a small club we have some very very good archers. Several State Champions, one guy that has won Vegas twice and is 3 time reining NFAA National Champion - all bowhunters, all in the hills in September. Elite target shooters?, well that's what their resume's say - good shots on game? 24 elk in 25 years on elk on public land is no accident.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

GEREP said:


> I disagree. What animals *deserve* is that the hunter make the best possible *decision* in terms of what shot to make or what shot not to try, based on his own ability. I trust that what Brady Ellis knows he *can* do in a competition is not what he feels he *should* do in the woods.
> 
> KPC


How do you know what that limit is if you do not practice - ie target shoot (formal or not)? Brady is a bowhunter and Olympic shooter - why can't a guy be good at both?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GEREP said:


> What some people fail to realize is that not all brains are wired the same, and not all archers have the same mentality.
> 
> Regardless of the endeavor, some people are wired to compete, improve, and keep score. Others are just content to participate. A *"competitor"* will never understand a *"participator"* and the same is true for the reverse. Some people can be content going for a bike ride and not be the least bit concerned where they end up, or how long it takes to get back. They just enjoy the process. Others, must map out their route, time themselves, and work to improve that time every time out. They are not happy unless they are improving, in some measurable way. Archery is no different. For some people, it's all about the process. Just participating is enjoyable, and being adequate is enough. For others, it all about the result. No matter how well they do, they must always strive to do even better.
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GEREP said:


> I disagree. What animals *deserve* is that the hunter make the best possible *decision* in terms of what shot to make or what shot not to try, based on his own ability. I trust that what Brady Ellis knows he *can* do in a competition is not what he feels he *should* do in the woods.


:thumbs_up

You are definitely on a roll! :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

vabowdog said:


> I am a hunter and have become a much more accurate hunter because of my target shooting....I now know how to handle my nerves whether a little plastic trophy is on the line or a nice fat doe.
> 
> I don't understand how some archers could even remotely believe they could humanely kill an animal when they can't hit a 3-D target at half the distance..with less clothes on...no nerves,after practicing,not a cold shot,better environment altogether.
> 
> ...


+1.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

FORESTGUMP said:


> No answer. which leaves several possibilities.
> 
> 1. Nobody knows
> 2. Different meaning to different people
> ...


It's the proper form stuff. "T" viewed from the side, and a triangle viewed from the top.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Shooting is a small part of bowhunting - a very important aspect, one that we can control. So, why not be certain that aspect is covered? IF you do everything else right, but can't hit the broad side of a barn then the whole exercise becomes pointless.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Please name someone who participates in this forum who shoots a bow or goes hunting once or twice per decade. Maybe you failed to engage brain before putting fingers in gear but, that's ok Sir. Some of us have accepted that there are those among us who like to argue.
> But MGF, I'm going to give an example. Recently I was involved in a discussion about learning to fly airplanes. I have not flown in a number of years but, I didn't automatically forget everything I ever knew about flying an airplane. Some people find the practice of intentionally spinning an airplane to be scary and unnecessary. But, if a pilot doesn't learn the recovery technique it will always be scary and one day he will find himself in the situation unprepared. Now, back to your point. Am I now totally unqualified to discuss the subject with a beginner? Trust me, if you've ever learned that particular skill you don't forget it overnight. I believe I can still do it right now, just as I can discuss shooting an arrow from a bow.


I did have somebody in mind when I wrote that but I decided that it would be better "form" to not mention names.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

centershot said:


> That's all fine and dandy until said archers start shooting at live animals - then the animals deserve the best possible shot.



Yep, and I believe I'm just the man to make that shot. In fact, I know for sure that I can do it, done it many times. What I don't do is go to the same places that you shoot and prove it to you. 
Btw centershot,if I remember correctly, this is your thread and I would still like to know what 'classic style archery' is. In order to discuss something it helps to be able to define it for clarification so that everyone knows what is being discussed.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Personally I tend to judge more by whether someone looks in control and accurate, and I can see convergences and divergences. I'm not going to fib that instinctive comes across to me alien because of how I learned and how I approach shooting, but I'm not knocking it personally. I did kind of provide a cardboard cutout of how someone would think who would criticize. I'm not knocking it but I also know that when someone asks advice on their form on here I break it down from the way I was taught.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> It's the proper form stuff. "T" viewed from the side, and a triangle viewed from the top.



Ok, at least you showed the intelligence to give some answer whether I happen to agree with it or not. But Kegan, the 'proper form' thing has been addressed in the past and was no more clear than 'classic archery' in the end. Some people just WILL NOT accept that there's more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I would still like to know what 'classic style archery' is. In order to discuss something it helps to be able to define it for clarification so that everyone knows what is being discussed.


Something that has withstood the test of time and is not a fad. "_outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality_." Some call it common knowledge.

Not shooting like the guy you saw in a video, just because you saw it works for him.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Yup, my thread and there is a very simple description of 'classic archery style' in the first post. Stand up straight, "T" shape arms and trunk, Draw to anchor, aim, hold, follow through. I think Jimmy Blackmon is a very good example of Classic Archery Form.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> I did have somebody in mind when I wrote that but I decided that it would be better "form" to not mention names.



I know that and I know who that somebody is, he does too. He might even resemble that remark and be prompted to make a snide remark in return. Causes a lot of background noise doesn't it?


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Ok, at least you showed the intelligence to give some answer whether I happen to agree with it or not. But Kegan, the 'proper form' thing has been addressed in the past and was no more clear than 'classic archery' in the end. Some people just WILL NOT accept that there's more than one way to skin a cat.


Skin the cat any way you would like - but if teaching someone else it would be prudent to show them the proper way.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

centershot said:


> Yup, my thread and there is a very simple description of 'classic archery style' in the first post. Stand up straight, "T" shape arms and trunk, Draw to anchor, aim, hold, follow through. I think Jimmy Blackmon is a very good example of Classic Archery Form.



No, that won't be necessary until I go back and look at the first post. What about Howard Hill? Is he a good example? I think Mr. hill won lots of medals and he sure shoots a lot like me.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

centershot said:


> How do you know what that limit is if you do not practice - ie target shoot (formal or not)? Brady is a bowhunter and Olympic shooter - why can't a guy be good at both?


It's ok to "target" shoot from your tree stand while wearing your hunting clothes.

I've been able to hit a pine cone (sometimes) for about as long as I could remember but it wasn't until I started doing more "target" shooting that some of my misses started to make sense.

As of my last try, I was shooting mid 260's on a 300 round but there were some 2's. A '2' could be a miss or a bad hit on a deer and that's in nice weather, wearing a t-shirt, no pressure and standing on level ground. Last year I missed a deer clean at 17 yards from a tree stand while I was freezing. There's no mystery here is there? 

Any of you guys hunt squirrels with a bow or a rifle? I ask because I never heard anybody suggest that it's best to snap shoot a rifle "instinctively" to kill lots of squirrels.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

centershot said:


> Skin the cat any way you would like - but if teaching someone else it would be prudent to show them the proper way.


Man, please give us a break with the generalities. Proper way? For what? Did Mr. Hill shoot the proper way? And I'm not trying to teach anyone but, if a person asks a question about instinctive shooting I can give them some information that works well for me.


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

What about the thousands of years before modern archery? Back before archery was lost and then recreated into its current form. During those thousands of years of archery they didn't adhere to our current standards of the "proper way".


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> No, that won't be necessary until I go back and look at the first post. What about Howard Hill? Is he a good example? I think Mr. hill won lots of medals and he sure shoots a lot like me.


I've seen the pictures of Howard shooting perfect T-stance for archery competition. He also shot for the camera, which is maybe how we like to remember his later days.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I know that and I know who that somebody is, he does too. He might even resemble that remark and be prompted to make a snide remark in return. Causes a lot of background noise doesn't it?


Yes, the BS is and causes background noise.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

centershot said:


> Brady is a bowhunter and Olympic shooter - why can't a guy be good at both?


They can, and I never implied that they couldn't. That doesn't take away from the fact that what they owe an animal is proper decision making based on the differences between the two disciplines. Being a great shot doesn't make one a great hunter, and being a great hunter doesn't require one to be a great shot.

Being a great target shooter does indeed require great shooting...period. 

On the other hand, being a great hunter only requires average shooting, as long as your hunting skills and decision making are great.

KPC


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> It's ok to "target" shoot from your tree stand while wearing your hunting clothes.
> 
> I've been able to hit a pine cone (sometimes) for about as long as I could remember but it wasn't until I started doing more "target" shooting that some of my misses started to make sense.
> 
> ...



Ok, I can go there. I do hunt squirrels with a rifle and a scope. I only take still shots now but not too many years ago I could shoot them on the run in an instinctive fashion. I haven't tried that in some years now because I don't see as well as I did then but, that doesn't mean I can't still do it or discuss it with someone. You see my point? I bet you will not ask me to prove that by shooting at targets on a wall, which I have also done in the past but have no trophies to show. 
The question here might be, do I use 'classic form' to shoot squirrels? I don't know, maybe and maybe not.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> No, that won't be necessary until I go back and look at the first post. What about Howard Hill? Is he a good example? I think Mr. hill won lots of medals and he sure shoots a lot like me.


I don't claim to be the best judge but I think Howard Hill's form was pretty good...and so was John Schultz. As far as I can tell, all the basics were there.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Ok, at least you showed the intelligence to give some answer whether I happen to agree with it or not. But Kegan, the 'proper form' thing has been addressed in the past and was no more clear than 'classic archery' in the end. Some people just WILL NOT accept that there's more than one way to skin a cat.


I wasn't arguing, just offering an answer. Oldest book I read on "proper" form/classical approach was Horace Ford's book from the 1840's I believe. I haven't read Roger Ascham's "Toxophilius" yet though. I apologize if I have his name or book wrong.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

xxxJakkxxx said:


> What about the thousands of years before modern archery? Back before archery was lost and then recreated into its current form. During those thousands of years of archery they didn't adhere to our current standards of the "proper way".



I think it's possible that no one knows the answer to that. That's exactly why I asked for a clarification about the 'classic archery' thing. Things change over time and what one considers as classic might not apply to others.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)




----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

MGF said:


> Yes, if you're POI is within 5" on deer sized game, you should be fine but how many can repeatedly place a shot within 5" at 20 yards?
> 
> What the individual needs to consider is what their accuracy and precision looks like over a large number of shots. Then consider the additional stresses added by hunting conditions...cold, long uncomfortable sits, no warm up shots etc. You'd almost expect to see a lot of animals wounded and lost, wouldn't you?
> 
> With all this talk about "human nature" there might be another point that we should consider. That is that most people really aren't very good at the things they do. It's also in their nature to make excuses for it.


That was the point of my earlier post wherein I said that my personal goal was not 5/5 in the "x" ring but a reliable, dead-cold, 1st shot in a kill zone from 30yds or less. Until I can do that, I won't feel comfortable hunting with a bow. I'll still use the rifle though. I feel solid with that out to 300yds, a bit further if I'm lucky enough to be able to shoot prone.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> I wasn't arguing, just offering an answer. Oldest book I read on "proper" form/classical approach was Horace Ford's book from the 1840's I believe. I haven't read Roger Ascham's "Toxophilius" yet though. I apologize if I have his name or book wrong.



I didn't mean to imply that you were arguing. You simply included your thoughts as to what 'classic archery' might mean. Point well taken for consideration.


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

GEREP said:


> What some people fail to realize is that not all brains are wired the same, and not all archers have the same mentality.
> 
> Regardless of the endeavor, some people are wired to compete, improve, and keep score. Others are just content to participate. A *"competitor"* will never understand a *"participator"* and the same is true for the reverse. Some people can be content going for a bike ride and not be the least bit concerned where they end up, or how long it takes to get back. They just enjoy the process. Others, must map out their route, time themselves, and work to improve that time every time out. They are not happy unless they are improving, in some measurable way. Archery is no different. For some people, it's all about the process. Just participating is enjoyable, and being adequate is enough. For others, it all about the result. No matter how well they do, they must always strive to do even better.
> 
> ...


That is a great post.


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

GEREP said:


> What some people fail to realize is that not all brains are wired the same, and not all archers have the same mentality.
> 
> Regardless of the endeavor, some people are wired to compete, improve, and keep score. Others are just content to participate. A *"competitor"* will never understand a *"participator"* and the same is true for the reverse. Some people can be content going for a bike ride and not be the least bit concerned where they end up, or how long it takes to get back. They just enjoy the process. Others, must map out their route, time themselves, and work to improve that time every time out. They are not happy unless they are improving, in some measurable way. Archery is no different. For some people, it's all about the process. Just participating is enjoyable, and being adequate is enough. For others, it all about the result. No matter how well they do, they must always strive to do even better.
> 
> ...


 Damn. That explains it perfectly. When I hop in the car or on my motorcycle to go out and drive/ ride for a few hours, I have an idea of where I want to end up but I am pretty much just there for the sights on the way. I'll take different routes that I've never been on and enjoy the sights that are always changing because life isn't about the destination, it's about the journey... at least for me.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Ok, I can go there. I do hunt squirrels with a rifle and a scope. I only take still shots now but not too many years ago I could shoot them on the run in an instinctive fashion. I haven't tried that in some years now because I don't see as well as I did then but, that doesn't mean I can't still do it or discuss it with someone. You see my point? I bet you will not ask me to prove that by shooting at targets on a wall, which I have also done in the past but have no trophies to show.
> The question here might be, do I use 'classic form' to shoot squirrels? I don't know, maybe and maybe not.


I shoot some squirrels on the move with a scoped rifle. I still use the scope to aim. I use as much of the "form" that I practice on the range as possible. It's easier on the range and we see that when we take people hunting who suck on the range and they butt shoot a bunch of squirrels in the woods. LOL

Have you ever seen somebody who was good at shooting doves or quail and stunk on the trap or skeet range? I haven't.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

J. Wesbrock said:


>



Interesting how perceptions work. You thought you were being funny. I instinctively thought how silly it was for that guy to leave his ribcage so vulnerable to a sharp blade. All for the satisfaction of smacking the other guy who might just be interested in teaching him a valuable lesson about 'form'.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> Have you ever seen somebody who was good at shooting doves or quail and stunk on the trap or skeet range? I haven't.


I have seen great shots fall under pressure under competition.

Ray :shade:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sorry Jason, couldn't help myself.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

centershot said:


> So if you can't shoot a decent group from a bench, then you should go into the field and shoot at a deer? Yes sir, that is the exact logic that gets used all too often with traditional. FWIW I can shoot MOA from a bench and shot a nice Mule Deer and Bull Elk with my rifle last season. I can also shoot 270+ on the NFAA target and shot an antelope buck with my bow. I prefer to know what I can do when conditions are perfect so I know what I can do when they are not.


Congratulations on completely missing the point. That isn't what I was trying to convey at all.

Shooting "MOA" from a bench is fine. I can do it, and so can damn near anyone with a decent rifle and reasonable fundamental marksmanship. But shooting MOA from a bench means squat in the field because you don't get the luxury of a comfy seat, sandbags and a resting heart rate. If you shoot only from the bench and don't practice shooting standing, kneeling, prone, uphill, downhill, in crap weather with your heart rate elevated you are unprepared. Under those conditions you are far less likely to shoot "MOA"....and you won't get two more shots to find out. But if under those conditions you can put your shot reliably into the kill zone it is my feeling you can (from a mechanics standpoint) take a responsible, humane shot in the field. The remaining bit is given to knowing yourself, and awareness of the conditions to asses the odds of of making that particular shot. That is where the judgement and experience comes in and that is something that cannot be gained at the bench.

The point was, connecting it back to archery that for me, I'm less concerned with 5/5 in an x ring at an indoor range than I am with reliably putting a 1st arrow within 4-5" of my POA.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

xxxJakkxxx said:


> Damn. That explains it perfectly. When I hop in the car or on my motorcycle to go out and drive/ ride for a few hours, I have an idea of where I want to end up but I am pretty much just there for the sights on the way. I'll take different routes that I've never been on and enjoy the sights that are always changing because life isn't about the destination, it's about the journey... at least for me.


But you get the points, money or meat based on your performance at the destination. What you enjoy isn't really at issue.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GEREP said:


> View attachment 1961620
> 
> 
> Sorry Jason, couldn't help myself.
> ...


LOL! No need to apologize :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I have seen great shots fall under pressure under competition.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Are those who fall under pressure really "great shots"?

What I'm thinking here is that it isn't your last shot that makes you "great" but the shot you're making right now.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

MGF said:


> Are those who fall under pressure really "great shots"?


If that's the measuring stick, there are *NO* "great shots" at all.

After all, everyone falters at some point.

KPC


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Man, please give us a break with the generalities. Proper way? For what? Did Mr. Hill shoot the proper way? And I'm not trying to teach anyone but, if a person asks a question about instinctive shooting I can give them some information that works well for me.


As described in "Shooting the Stickbow". I really don't want to retype 400 pages.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

FORESTGUMP said:


> No, that won't be necessary until I go back and look at the first post. What about Howard Hill? Is he a good example? I think Mr. hill won lots of medals and he sure shoots a lot like me.


I would not suggest a new shooter shoot like Howard Hill (at least the form he uses on the you-tube videos). I think if Howard Hill was around to shoot with the likes of Dewayne or Alan Eagleton his string of wins would be much shorter. He was certainly ahead of his time and had consistency in his form but I sure would not let him shoot an apple off my head.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Damn True said:


> Congratulations on completely missing the point. That isn't what I was trying to convey at all.
> 
> Shooting "MOA" from a bench is fine. I can do it, and so can damn near anyone with a decent rifle and reasonable fundamental marksmanship. But shooting MOA from a bench means squat in the field because you don't get the luxury of a comfy seat, sandbags and a resting heart rate. If you shoot only from the bench and don't practice shooting standing, kneeling, prone, uphill, downhill, in crap weather with your heart rate elevated you are unprepared. Under those conditions you are far less likely to shoot "MOA"....and you won't get two more shots to find out. But if under those conditions you can put your shot reliably into the kill zone it is my feeling you can (from a mechanics standpoint) take a responsible, humane shot in the field. The remaining bit is given to knowing yourself, and awareness of the conditions to asses the odds of of making that particular shot. That is where the judgement and experience comes in and that is something that cannot be gained at the bench.
> 
> The point was, connecting it back to archery that for me, I'm less concerned with 5/5 in an x ring at an indoor range than I am with reliably putting a 1st arrow within 4-5" of my POA.


So if you could put 5/5 in the X ring (I have done so on 2 occasions), would it not give you confidence that the next time out your first shot will be within that 4-5"? It would give me more confidence than spraying arrows all over the target the night before then thinking my first shot would be right on........

Same goes for the rifle - MOA groups shot off a bench confirms accuracy potential, then apply in the field.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

GEREP said:


> If that's the measuring stick, there are *NO* "great shots" at all.
> 
> After all, everyone falters at some point.
> 
> KPC


ok. I still maintain that it's the next shot that's important and there's nothing great about missing. LOL


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

centershot said:


> So if you could put 5/5 in the X ring (I have done so on 2 occasions), would it not give you confidence that the next time out your first shot will be within that 4-5"? It would give me more confidence than spraying arrows all over the target the night before then thinking my first shot would be right on........
> 
> Same goes for the rifle - MOA groups shot off a bench confirms accuracy potential, then apply in the field.


You put 5 in a row in the 'X'? Congrats. Last week I put 3 in a row in the 'X' but that was the first and only time. I won't tell you what the next end looked like. LOL


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

centershot said:


> So if you could put 5/5 in the X ring (I have done so on 2 occasions), would it not give you confidence that the next time out your first shot will be within that 4-5"? It would give me more confidence than spraying arrows all over the target the night before then thinking my first shot would be right on........


If I'd done so dead cold and the next time was under the same conditions? Maybe. 

I'd be more confident if I'd walked my local field course and had the preponderance of my 1st shots at each of the targets within the "kill zone".

Can't do it yet and I won't hunt with a bow until I can.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

It is definitely not the norm, but yes I have put 5 arrows in the X, in a row from 20 yards on 2 different occasions.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Damn True said:


> If I'd done so dead cold and the next time was under the same conditions? Maybe.
> 
> I'd be more confident if I'd walked my local field course and had the preponderance of my 1st shots at each of the targets within the "kill zone".
> 
> Can't do it yet and I won't hunt with a bow until I can.


Humm, shooting targets to gain confidence for the hunt. I do believe we are now thinking along the same lines.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

All the Howard Hill references for some reason have me thinking of the "Randolph Scott" scene in Blazing Saddles.


----------



## SPTiger (Dec 18, 2007)

Azzurri said:


> All the Howard Hill references for some reason have me thinking of the "Randolph Scott" scene in Blazing Saddles.


Randolph Scott??? *Stands, removes hat and places it over heart*


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

centershot said:


> Humm, shooting targets to gain confidence for the hunt. I do believe we are now thinking along the same lines.


If we are talking about this









not this 









then yes.

Being able to be in the kill zone shooting uphill, downhill, kneeling behind a bush, with loose and non-level footing tells me a lot more about where I am in terms of being ready to hunt than hitting the bull in a sterile environment. That said, there is IMO much to be gained in that type shooting in terms of honing certain fundamentals. But like the aforementioned analogy with bench shooting, being able to apply those fundamentals in the woods is a whole 'nuther thing. 

One I've yet to get ahold of to my satisfaction.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

centershot said:


> As described in "Shooting the Stickbow". I really don't want to retype 400 pages.



Once again you've lost me. What " As described in Shooting the stickbow" are we talking about? I haven't read the book but have read enough of the authors posts to have a general idea of his take on many subjects. I just need to know which subject we're talking about.
I'll take a leap. Are you saying that Mr. Camera described 'classic archery' in his book? Or was it Mr. Hill's shooting method? Or instinctive shooting? Remember, I've not read the book.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Damn True said:


> If we are talking about this
> 
> View attachment 1961697
> 
> ...



Lol, but you WILL get it, you have the right mindset and that's the damned truth.:teeth:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

MGF said:


> I wasn't trying to say that you were one of those doing it but I agree. Archery is a shooting sport and so is bowhunting.
> 
> At this point, my advice to beginners who come here trying to learn to hit the target would be to listen to the guys who have demonstrated that they can hit the target...whatever the target is.
> 
> ...


I hunt over 100 days a year and that is way down from where it was - I spend far more time hunting than shooting IBO same goes for Dewayne.

Matt


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Damn True, 

Those 2 pics have more in common than not.....if you can not figure that out, then I doubt I can not explain it to you.

Gump,

I recommend you read the book. Even old dogs can learn new tricks.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I'll take a leap. Are you saying that Mr. Camera described 'classic archery' in his book? Or was it Mr. Hill's shooting method? Or instinctive shooting? Remember, I've not read the book.


Depends. Are you talking from his glory days of Field Archery below or from his acting roles, Hollywood style, in movies and for short clips on hunts. Pretty decent Classical target form Field or Line if you ask me, though, the white shooter pants are a little dated these days and no longer required most places. 

Fred Bear was known to have a double life as well judging by his target form. 

Instinctive is in the book, just the Classical before Internet version took hold.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Huh ........................ looks like more similarities than differences - maybe trad really is only in the neotradies minds


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Matt, "neos" don't like their history, that's why they reinvent it every excuse they can muster.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Depends. Are you talking from his glory days of Field Archery below or from his acting roles, Hollywood style, in movies and for short clips on hunts. Pretty decent Classical target form Field or Line if you ask me, though, the white shooter pants are a little dated these days and no longer required most places.
> 
> Fred Bear was known to have a double life as well judging by his target form.
> 
> Instinctive is in the book, just the Classical before Internet version took hold.




Thanks, I am happy to know that I have that mojo of perfect classic archery form. Mr. Hill, in the picture on the right and his hunting clips, seems to look a lot like me. and, most other people that I've seen shoot for that matter. However, it's pretty obvious that his feet are too wide apart, not ninety degrees to the target, his bow arm is bent, he's bending his neck and head and his elbow is not raised over his head. AND, if that's not bad enough, he's gripping the bow. Oh, and lets not forget to look at how the bow is canted. Damn, go figure, all the things that I've said here for years and the fight goes on. Somehow his form,and mine, does not fit the 'classic archery form' that is described by many people on this forum. In fact, it seems to be completely contrary. But, that's ok, since he is considered to be one of the best ever, we can just pretend that he's doing everything 'by the book' even if the pictures tell a different story. That's really hilarious and quite entertaining.

Then there's Mr. Bear. He looks a lot closer to what I believe people here call 'proper form' He is standing erect, the bow is not canted, his bow arm is fairly straight and he's not gripping it like Mr. Hill is. Now, I'm just a dumb country boy but, I can compare two pictures and see obvious differences. Mr. Hill appears to use a style closer to mine and Mr. Bear seems to use a style closer to yours. That's pretty easy isn't it? Or am I blind too?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> View attachment 1961751
> 
> 
> View attachment 1961752
> ...



Just so we're straight here, you really see similarities, right? Please point them out.


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Just so we're straight here, you really see similarities, right? Please point them out.


 They're both holding bows. =D


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Matt,

You can lead a neotrad to water, but you cant make him think.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Thanks, I am happy to know that I have that mojo of perfect classic archery form. Mr. Hill, in the picture on the right and his hunting clips, seems to look a lot like me. and, most other people that I've seen shoot for that matter. However, it's pretty obvious that his feet are too wide apart, not ninety degrees to the target, his bow arm is bent, he's bending his neck and head and his elbow is not raised over his head. AND, if that's not bad enough, he's gripping the bow. Oh, and lets not forget to look at how the bow is canted. Damn, go figure, all the things that I've said here for years and the fight goes on. Somehow his form,and mine, does not fit the 'classic archery form' that is described by many people on this forum. In fact, it seems to be completely contrary. But, that's ok, since he is considered to be one of the best ever, we can just pretend that he's doing everything 'by the book' even if the pictures tell a different story. That's really hilarious and quite entertaining.
> 
> Then there's Mr. Bear. He looks a lot closer to what I believe people here call 'proper form' He is standing erect, the bow is not canted, his bow arm is fairly straight and he's not gripping it like Mr. Hill is. Now, I'm just a dumb country boy but, I can compare two pictures and see obvious differences. Mr. Hill appears to use a style closer to mine and Mr. Bear seems to use a style closer to yours. That's pretty easy isn't it? Or am I blind too?


You asked about Classical. If it fits you, then no need to ask again. If it were me, I wouldn't worry about what folks think of your shooting style.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Just so we're straight here, you really see similarities, right? Please point them out.


Your kidding Right?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Matt,
> 
> You can lead a neotrad to water, but you cant make him think.


Yeah but you should see my hounds double haul ;-)


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Matt,
> 
> You can lead a neotrad to water, but you cant make him think.


Ha Ha Ha - that is great!


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Most of the photos look alike with the exception of the canted Hill photo. Hill even looks fairly standard issue shooting uphill. All pretty good form although the second Hill shot is a trad-style departure.

"Canting" can be mission specific. Shooting a trad bow off the shelf at a shorter distance for hunting or short target distance -- or perhaps around an obstacle -- allows for or perhaps calls for canting where if I lean my olympic sideways trying to shoot 70m the shots will start sliding down and right because the cant has time to affect the shot.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

xxxJakkxxx said:


> They're both holding bows. =D


LOL! :thumbs_up

Similarities:

Right handed shooters are holding the bow with their left hand and drawing the string with their right hand while anchoring some where around their face :wink:

Differences:

Bow arm elbow position, bow arm angle, bow hand placement, anchor point.

They're definitely NOT shooting exactly the same. Each archer has mad choices based on their G.A.P. profile.

One archer is definitely under drawing his bow.

Another archer changed his form when he started bowhunting more.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL! :thumbs_up
> 
> Similarities:
> 
> ...





J. Wesbrock said:


> Matt,
> 
> You can lead a neotrad to water, but you cant make him think.


Point made Jason.

I'm done - I just hope that any of the new archers reading this see past the smoke, mirrors and emoticons.

Matt


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> You asked about Classical. If it fits you, then no need to ask again. If it were me, I wouldn't worry about what folks think of your shooting style.



Thanks but, I'm not concerned at all cause I shoot like Howard Hill.:darkbeer:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Thanks but, I'm not concerned at all cause I shoot like Howard Hill.:darkbeer:


If looking like Howard Hill shoots is your thing, you are no doubt, looking like Howard Hill. I think shooting like Howard Hill is a bit more involved, though, for those thinking of taking up a "look".


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Your kidding Right?



No Sir, I'm not kidding in the least. I posted the differences that I observed in post #134 and I'm curious about the explanation of the similarities as you perceive them. That's all. 
Mr. Potter, There are similarities in a square and a rectangle also. They both have straight lines on four sides and square corners but, in my eyes the similarities end there. They are two different things that share some characteristics. I think it's the same for archers, we all are the same for the most part and have different objectives which cause differences in they way we do things. Not right or wrong, just different.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> If looking like Howard Hill shoots is your thing, you are no doubt, looking like Howard Hill. I think shooting like Howard Hill is a bit more involved, though, for those thinking of taking up a "look".



Lol, maybe you're right and that's why I didn't say hitting them like Howard Hill. I don't think I'm quite there yet. I was simply referring to the style and form issue.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't comment much on the highly contested subjects or threads these days but I will make a statement here and I hope it is received with good intent 

I was a back yard shooter my whole life 

Always a hunter and quite successful 

I'm a better hunter than shot  

I had nothing to gauge my shooting on 

Most my friends went the compound way and never looked back 

I used to hate shooting at targets 

My forte was stump shooting and 3 D targets 

I look back now and the reason I hated targets was my inconsistence 

I was great on keeping the arrows in a big vital on a 3 D target or just barely nipping a leaf or being just close enough that in my mind I was doing great 

I made up excuses why I did not shoot well on a target face that I am now embarrassed of 

In my mind I thought they were two different things 

Than I start to think back on the many many groundhogs and squirrels I missed 

They do not have 10 inch vitals  

After killing walls full of big bucks the ones I screwed up on have haunted me to try harder 

Plus I don't wanna miss any more groundhogs by a hair  

I now embrace targets or anything else I am shooting at 

Why 

Because I realized that my misses were not because of the way I aimed 

They were form issues 

A pluck here 

A collapse here 

Throw my bow arm there 

I'm still missing but not as much and at Baltimore I was proud to walk up to the bails after I got shooting right and hit dots at 20 yds 

It felt good


----------



## Zurf (Mar 8, 2014)

Now, getting back to the OP about why there are animosities. I think as we read through the thread we can see that the animosities come from the need to be right. Wow. 

Me, I don't care how others shoot so long as they're being safe about it. At the range where my kids and I shoot, most of the archers are compound archers who use the range to stay in practice between hunting trips. My kids and I shoot takedown recurve bows, and I also have a Ben Pearson Cougar. We have a compound bow, but it's too strong for our only right handed archer. When she gets stronger, and if we can adjust it to her draw length, she'll probably use it and have a good time. 

Anyway, back to our range, I show up with the recurve bows and every time, if anyone else is using the range they come over and have a chat and say that they either started with recurves and miss using them, or would like to try them some time. If they are a LH shooter like me, I give them the opportunity to use mine. Now, the 3D range exit comes up in the rest area behind the shooting line of the field target area. So anyone leaving the 3D range has to walk past the field target shooting line. The other day a dad and his boy came up from the 3D range, and I asked the boy how he did? He was shy, but his Dad was beaming and said that he'd done real well. As we're talking, the boy got bored and took a shot with his lone arrow at the 20 meter target. I had been getting about three bullseyes out of 12, but that boy with his compound bow drilled the very center of the target. Right in the x. He did it from the line and we were watching, so he was being safe, but neither of us gave any coaching or advice. Despite the fact that his shot made my efforts look paltry, the Dad and I both cheered him on and were slapping high fives and thinking it was about the coolest thing ever. 

Who cares if someone is shooting a different style? Or for a different purpose? Have fun with it. If it's more important to be right than to have fun, it's time to quit.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

JParanee said:


> I don't comment much on the highly contested subjects or threads these days but I will make a statement here and I hope it is received with good intent
> 
> I was a back yard shooter my whole life
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

good post!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JParanee said:


> I don't comment much on the highly contested subjects or threads these days but I will make a statement here and I hope it is received with good intent
> 
> I was a back yard shooter my whole life
> 
> ...


Great post! JP, if we could ever get folks OFF the aiming topics and ON form, more folks would find the simple truth of where consistent archery comes from. How we make the most noise over the most minor aspect of the shot here, the aim, has always been at a big loss to new and old archers alike.

Some of us get pretty vocal when we see someone trying to make a whole form or style out of a simple aim method - maybe we vocal ones are part of that propagation process, who knows if we give voice to it by opposition. Anyways, keep at it.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

I'm all for using proper form, but I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if this young fella posted his pic on here and asked for a form critique from the experts.









I wonder what the experts would say about his alignment?

How he leans into the string?

If he's using back tension?

How he grips the bow?

:wink:

KPC


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> Because I realized that my misses were not because of the way I aimed
> 
> They were form issues
> 
> ...


Those form issues can happen to any archer shooting any style.

The key with accuracy is developing CONSISTENCY.

Most archers put the cart before the horse when they first pick up a bow. It's human nature to want to shoot at things rather than work on developing CONSISTENCY with their form.

Biomechanically there will be more efficient joint and body positions that make attaining and maintaining CONSISTENCY easier. The 'best' positions are also unattainable for some people so compromises need to be made based on the person's body type (ABILITIES) which can vary from person to person.

How a person practices can play a huge roll in how a person can ultimately shoot. Just flinging arrows won't usually cut it...but practicing with a purpose and understanding what it is an archer is trying to achieve can be HUGE.

Based on your GOALS of wanting to be accurate shooting at targets from 30yrds. and under...Instinctive Aiming can surely fit your GOALS...but...try that on a field course for every target...you may not like the results.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I'm all for using proper form, but I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if this young fella posted his pic on here and asked for a form critique from the experts.
> 
> View attachment 1961803
> 
> ...


Hint: A good coach judges most of it and makes determination on a scorecard, not a picture book. Textbook is only a base starting point - Ellison has several issue that are far from "textbook", and he's as close to the texted coach as one can get.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GEREP said:


> I'm all for using proper form, but I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if this young fella posted his pic on here and asked for a form critique from the experts.
> 
> I wonder what the experts would say about his alignment?
> 
> ...



A great coach will take into consideration the archer's GOALS, ABILITIES and PERSONALITY to help guide them in achieving those specific GOALS. In many cases it will be based on the particular archer's body structure by making customized adjustments or compromises to aspects of his form until he attains the desired CONSISTENCY.

There's a reason why Ellison and Hill don't have 'textbook' 'perfect' form...it's because they made choices based on their G.A.P. profile :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

JParanee said:


> I don't comment much on the highly contested subjects or threads these days but I will make a statement here and I hope it is received with good intent
> 
> I was a back yard shooter my whole life
> 
> ...


Pretty cool when that light bulb comes on, isn't it?


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

GEREP said:


> I'm all for using proper form, but I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if this young fella posted his pic on here and asked for a form critique from the experts.
> 
> View attachment 1961803
> 
> ...


I wonder how good he could have really been.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

centershot said:


> I wonder how good he could have really been.


At what?

Hitting dimes out of the air?

Filling his tags?

Trick shooting?

Hitting gold in the Olympics?

Hmmmm....I wonder how much better Brady would be if he actually had 'perfect textbook' form and followed 'the book' exactly? :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

centershot said:


> I wonder how good he could have really been.




:***::jeez::set1_rolf2: Funny post of the day, that's good stuff right there, I don't care who ya are. 

Ok, seriously, it's quite obvious that Mr. Hill had a natural talent that's recognized around the world. I doubt that many will ever reach that level. Not saying that there aren't people around today who could likely shoot as well or better but, it looks like his style was pretty darned good.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Do you really think he was fully satisfied with his shooting? I think he was extremely confident - to a fault.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

centershot said:


> Do you really think he was fully satisfied with his shooting? I think he was extremely confident - to a fault.



If you addressed that question to me, I can't possibly answer it. But, I would suspect his confidence came from the fact that he was very good at it. All of us have probably seen people who are good at something they had never really tried before and don't need to practice, just have a natural talent. As a kid I had a friend who could pick coins out of the air with a 22 rifle effortlessly. So good that people were always throwing things for him to shoot but, if didn't you want it hit, you had better not throw it. I asked him a few years ago if he could still do that. He grinned and said that he had not tried in a long time but thought he could.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

it seems like these threads derail quickly with the same folks about the same subject and its been going on for about a month


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> it seems like these threads derail quickly with the same folks about the same subject and its been going on for about a month


 I'm really surprised that they're still allowed to happen.
http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1886097



> From now going forward, you will not be allowed to argue your opinions over another member's. When a member asks for help, give your advice and move on. Any commenting on how another member's advice isn't worth a hill of beans, will have their access from this sub forum removed.


 It seems like that's what any thread that makes it to page 2 or higher devolves into. Arguments over who's right.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

xxxJakkxxx said:


> I'm really surprised that they're still allowed to happen.
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1886097
> 
> 
> ...


yup and as soon as it does im done with the thread, these threads are really not helpful in my opinion to any archery of any level


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

JParanee said:


> I don't comment much on the highly contested subjects or threads these days but I will make a statement here and I hope it is received with good intent
> 
> I was a back yard shooter my whole life
> 
> ...


Good well written post.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

A discussion is not an argument...unless it gets personal


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true.[1] The same word, and also abnegation, is used for a psychological defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

Denial of fact[edit]
In this form of denial, someone avoids a fact by utilizing deception. This lying can take the form of an outright falsehood (commission), leaving out certain details to tailor a story (omission), or by falsely agreeing to something (assent, also referred to as "yessing" behavior). Someone who is in denial of fact is typically using lies to avoid facts they think may be painful to themselves or others.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Bigjono said:


> Good well written post.


Well written is something I've never been accused of  

Thanks


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

J. Wesbrock said:


> You can lead a neotrad to water, but you cant make him think.


Jason, apologies but this is so good I am stealing it ...


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> A great coach will take into consideration the archer's GOALS, ABILITIES and PERSONALITY to help guide them in achieving those specific GOALS. In many cases it will be based on the particular archer's body structure by making customized adjustments or compromises to aspects of his form until he attains the desired CONSISTENCY.
> 
> There's a reason why Ellison and Hill don't have 'textbook' 'perfect' form...it's because they made choices based on their G.A.P. profile :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Emoticons and self justifying silliness.


The empty tin can will always rattle the loudest


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

benofthehood said:


> The empty tin can will always rattle the loudest


An *empty* can doesn't rattle at all. Neither does a full one. Put just a couple rocks in there though, and you can make a hell of a racket.

Same can be said for most heads.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

When it comes down to it I do not understand the need to label everything, Traditional, neotrad, classic, etc. To me it's not about labels but shooting my bow, but then again I've never had a chance (time or money) to compete for a plastic trophy at the national level.

Another thing I do not understand why some see the need to hurl insults at another, if you don't like what they post, be an adult and ignore it. That would end the majority of the BS on this forum.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

I kinda like my plastic trophies....



Dewayne Martin


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

vabowdog said:


> I kinda like my plastic trophies....
> 
> 
> 
> Dewayne Martin


I have all the respect in the world for those that have the opportuniy to go out and compete at the higher levels and be successful. Just not something I've been able to do in my 50 years. To me it's not about type of equipment or style of shooting it's just shooting. If I get a chance to compete more and if I'm able to I will, untill then I'll just keep working on improving as an archer.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

High Plains said:


> Another thing I do not understand why some see the need to hurl insults at another, if you don't like what they post, be an adult and ignore it. That would end the majority of the BS on this forum.


Most of the time its because they feel threatened or insecure and have nothing much of value to contribute.

When people start knocking common sense principles its pretty easy to tell when someone has animosity towards someone or some thing.

Ray :shade:


----------



## recurveman (May 27, 2008)

I shoot all forms of archery platforms and love shooting my traditional equipment. I have played with all aiming methods and decided to keep to instinctive but thats for me. There is too much elitism attitudes in the traditional archery crowd to suit me. If you enjoy lofting a feathered shaft or one with vanes into the air you are my brethren and I support your choices. Its that simple.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

recurveman said:


> I shoot all forms of archery platforms and love shooting my traditional equipment. I have played with all aiming methods and decided to keep to instinctive but thats for me. There is too much elitism attitudes in the traditional archery crowd to suit me. If you enjoy lofting a feathered shaft or one with vanes into the air you are my brethren and I support your choices. Its that simple.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

recurveman said:


> I shoot all forms of archery platforms and love shooting my traditional equipment. I have played with all aiming methods and decided to keep to instinctive but thats for me. There is too much elitism attitudes in the traditional archery crowd to suit me. If you enjoy lofting a feathered shaft or one with vanes into the air you are my brethren and I support your choices. Its that simple.


I agree completly. Part of the reason I stopped going to local shoots was that I got sick of hearing a few judgmental shooters putting others down. I'm just about to the point that I'm willing to attend shoots again. In fact there are 2 nearby shoots this weekend, however my granddaughter graduates high school this weekend as well. Priorities.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

recurveman said:


> I shoot all forms of archery platforms and love shooting my traditional equipment. I have played with all aiming methods and decided to keep to instinctive but thats for me. There is too much elitism attitudes in the traditional archery crowd to suit me. If you enjoy lofting a feathered shaft or one with vanes into the air you are my brethren and I support your choices. Its that simple.


What I have found when dealing with a lot of very good shooters is that no one really cares or speaks of people's aiming preference

It really is not about that 

I am what most would call an instinctive shooter even thou I do not really care for the name because there is nothing instinctive about teaching your body thru muscle memory and multiple repetitions and a subconscious sight picture that comes instinctual 

I think what you see is people that try to stress that the inconsistencies that we all suffer from time to time are more form related than sighting method related 

When I switched to three under and in doing so I brought that arrow up under my eye more and I instantly became more consistent 

I did not think I was seeing the arrow either


----------



## Joe Hohmann (Oct 24, 2013)

It seems that the more money a person has tied up in equipment, the more they need to defend it. Take Jaguar cars, for instance...a very bad rating for repairs, but a very high rating for customer satisfaction. I don't expect a person that has $2,000. in a compound "competition" bow to appreciate my $115. vintage recurve.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

High Plains said:


> I agree completly. Part of the reason I stopped going to local shoots was that I got sick of hearing a few judgmental shooters putting others down. I'm just about to the point that I'm willing to attend shoots again. In fact there are 2 nearby shoots this weekend, however my granddaughter graduates high school this weekend as well. Priorities.


I am lucky, in that in my area, at least the shoots I attend, the top shooters all set good examples. They aim with all different methods, begrudge nobody for their preference, and are happy to share their knowledge as far as what works best for them.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Allot of the problem with animosity also has to do with prejudices built on stereotypes.

Just because a stereotype may exist does NOT mean all people are like that who shoot a certain way or use a specific type of bow.

There is definitely allot of stereotyping towards aiming techniques, form choices and the people that use them. 

It does NOT have to be that way!!!

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Joe Hohmann said:


> It seems that the more money a person has tied up in equipment, the more they need to defend it. Take Jaguar cars, for instance...a very bad rating for repairs, but a very high rating for customer satisfaction. I don't expect a person that has $2,000. in a compound "competition" bow to appreciate my $115. vintage recurve.


When you can hit things that they miss, at least there's a foot in the door


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Joe Hohmann said:


> I don't expect a person that has $2,000. in a compound "competition" bow to appreciate my $115. vintage recurve.


Oh, I wouldn't say that at all! Folks have appreciation for all kinds of stuff they don't own or shoot. What I find by shooting with tons of different archers is that common respect and admiration is the norm. The guy that has tied a lot of money into his competition kit will admire and appreciate a good wood bow as anyone else. He may not shoot it, but knock the guy who does? No way! There's tons of respect there, both ways. 

I think the Internet represents archery the least, and most times, in the worst ways.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Allot of the problem with animosity also has to do with prejudices built on stereotypes.
> 
> Just because a stereotype may exist does NOT mean all people are like that...that seem to fit a particular stereo type.
> 
> ...


Agree on stereotypes, we see that outside of archery too.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Oh, I wouldn't say that at all! Folks have appreciation for all kinds of stuff they don't own or shoot. What I find by shooting with tons of different archers is that common respect and admiration is the norm. The guy that has tied a lot of money into his competition kit will admire and appreciate a good wood bow as anyone else. He may not shoot it, but knock the guy who does? No way! There's tons of respect there, both ways.
> 
> I think the Internet represents archery the least, and most times, in the worst ways.


Very good point, I think a lot of us wish we can afford the top of the line equipment, myself included. For the most part the vast majority of shooters do not care what or how someone shoots and have no problem offering advice.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

High Plains said:


> Agree on stereotypes, we see that outside of archery too.


I agree! :thumbs_up

It's human nature to want to form gangs of like minded people and than attack those they feel threatened by or don't completely understand.

It's sad...and it does NOT have to be that way!

In many cases it's just a matter of misunderstanding and/or learning to forgive.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Damn True (May 22, 2014)

At the end of the day it's likely scarcely different than what you see on shooting sports *message boards**.

"Tacti-tools" (AR/3-gun guys) who will rip on each other if they don't own the latest "new hotness" Daniel Defense with the most fashionable of accessories all look down on "Fudd's" (hunters), and Fudd's look down on Tacti-tools. Both look down on guys shooting lever guns.

"Slab-siders" (1911 guys) rip "Glock-tards" and Glock-tards look down on Slab-siders. Both rip on wheel-gun shooters and people who own Kel-Tec's.

Each of the above groups will eat their young when it comes to manipulation, grip, sights/optics and especially on caliber.

Colion Noir makes fun of the caliber debates:
45acp: 






9mm: 






*The bolded bit is key. Most won't so freely run their yaps in person. Message boards tend to embolden the expression of criticism and magnify the abilities of the poster.

When all is said and done, the only thing that matters is whether people are having fun, with the equipment they like, they are progressing toward their goals and doing so safely. Everything else is bench racing.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Damn True said:


> At the end of the day it's likely scarcely different than what you see on shooting sports *message boards**.
> 
> "Most won't so freely run their yaps in person. Message boards tend to embolden the expression of criticism and magnify the abilities of the poster.
> 
> When all is said and done, the only thing that matters is whether people are having fun, with the equipment they like, they are progressing toward their goals and doing so safely. Everything else is bench racing.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

High Plains said:


> For the most part the vast majority of shooters do not care what or how someone shoots and have no problem offering advice.


Yeah, there's a fine line between one stating and defending an opinion on a net board and one who constantly sees the need to tell everyone else what's wrong with their character for not agreeing with his. In the real world, we have spouses for that , but in the real world of archery, such whining just doesn't exist. Like real life, you just turn off anything repetitious and annoying, and it works wonders here as well. Man, help for the new guy who has to sift through the rhetorical nonsense here to find his nugget!

But, you are correct about the vast majority of archers out there if you are out in archery. What's in the hand of someone else, or offering up advice, anything, it's all archery and all met with fun and respect.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Sanford said:


> Man, help for the new guy who has to sift through the rhetorical nonsense here to find his nugget!


It is truly a shame.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

In the real world there is little if any animosity. Not in my neck of the woods anyway. Quite often the opposite is true. Compound shooters are respectfully curious, "how do you aim without a site". Sighted recurve, even the oly style shooters will give praise for a well placed shot in a 3D or 900. "what do you think about..., how do you...." are more often conversation openers than anything else. If anyone showed up beating their chest claiming all knowing superior knowledge they'd quickly end up talking to themselves.


----------



## ember (Jul 23, 2004)

JParanee said:


> I don't know basic rifle work is all about the shooting platform (foundation) and breaking the shot
> 
> I break the same shot off a bench that I do on top of a pack on top of a mountain


Yeah me too - and I am a confederate bushwacker named Josey Wales.


----------



## ghoster808 (Jun 29, 2007)

Interesting thread guys. I recently got into working on my form after getting inspired by some of the recent form threads here. I figured since I was going with a light lbs. Form rig, I might as well go with an Oly rig for shirts and giggles. Boy its different but really interesting if you like to tinker and am a gear nut. Anyway long story short, it is all pretty much the same basic stuff, no matter the genre. As JP pointed out, it all boils down to form and proper execution. And for me the "classic" form/foundation is helping my trad genre shooting which for me is all about the hunt. The fundementals of form is the common denominator in all of archery's genre IMO. Oh and Oly rigs are frigging heavy lol, so hats of to the guys in white outfits ;^)


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Damn True said:


> At the end of the day it's likely scarcely different than what you see on shooting sports *message boards**.


I've been on several message boards and it's a very common occurrence. Some of the things people take up religious devotion to can be completely idiotic-

On mtbr.com (mountain bike review) forums I've read many, and (ashamed to admit it) participated in some of the following debates-
Water bottles vs. hydration packs (seriously, who the hell cares why and how you drink water while riding?)
29er's vs 26er's
V brakes vs disk brakes (back when disks were still gaining popularity)
rigid vs. hardtail vs full suspension
clipless vs. platform pedals - and vs. the occasional the toe strap weirdos

In photography-
prime vs. zoom lenses
Natural light vs. artificial light- those can get quite heated.
brand loyalty- anyone who shoots wiht a different brand camera than me is a hack

Cell phones-
OMG how stupidly idiotic are peoples loyalty to their cell phones! Iphone vs. Android vs. windows phones debates are crazy on Engadget and cnet

My wife recently came across some very offensive hateful articles written by feminists demeaning any woman who chooses to be a stay at home mom. 

As mentioned peoples insecurities play into a lot of this, but I also think it's an inherent need for some to justify their own life choices to themselves by demeaning anyone who's made a different life choice. They get all on their rants as much to help convince themselves they are right by telling everyone else that they are wrong.

BM


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

ranchoarcher said:


> In the real world there is little if any animosity. Not in my neck of the woods anyway. Quite often the opposite is true. Compound shooters are respectfully curious, "how do you aim without a site".


I have found this to be true. At Redding, NFAA 3d nationals, a couple of freestyle shooters were giving us looks, shooting our crazy trad rigs. Eventually, they approached us, and asked exactly that question. We had a nice conversation about gapping off the riser, off the arrow point, stacking point of aim, all of that.

When my wife lobbed her 300 grain arrow with a 30# bow, and 26" draw, and hit Big Foot at over 100 yards in the toe, using pick a point in the blue sky, following the first arrow that landed at the cub stake, _*everybody*_ backed up at the target, must have been 50-60 shooters, most of whom were bowhunter freestyle or freestyle compound shooters, erupted in cheering and applause.

So, I've got to say, in my experience, people are pretty good about it.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Aronnax said:


> I've been on several message boards and it's a very common occurrence. Some of the things people take up religious devotion to can be completely idiotic-
> 
> On mtbr.com (mountain bike review) forums I've read many, and (ashamed to admit it) participated in some of the following debates-
> Water bottles vs. hydration packs (seriously, who the hell cares why and how you drink water while riding?)
> ...


Ha Ha, I hear you there - I ride a Trek Rumblefish F/S 29er, clipless w/ old school water bottle about 2,000 miles per year - oh and hydraulic disk brakes rule! mtbr is a pretty interesting place, kind of like here - read, make up your own mind.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Over the last few months I've often wondered how much of these arguments would just not exist if folks were speaking, and shooting, in person.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

centershot said:


> Ha Ha, I hear you there - I ride a Trek Rumblefish F/S 29er, clipless w/ old school water bottle about 2,000 miles per year - oh and hydraulic disk brakes rule! mtbr is a pretty interesting place, kind of like here - read, make up your own mind.


I'm still old school- ride a 1st gen Santa Cruz Blur XC, narrow bar, long-ish stem by today's standards. Well, hot riding it very much right now- life and its priorities and all, but will ride again. Though I wouldn't mind if a 29er hard tail fell into my lap....

Bringing it back around to archery- I have been wondering how to mix mtbing with stumping/roving/small game hunting. MTB is a good way to get back in some remote places, and getting there a lot faster than hiking it. My one big hindrance to that plan is my total attraction towards 1pc longbows. Riding with a 64" longbow strapped to your back might be a little awkward. Now I have heard of some people strapping a rifle against the frame along the top tube of the bike for small game hunting...

BM


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Aronnax, you could get a two piece longbow that joins in the handle and backpack it.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Sanford said:


> Aronnax, you could get a two piece longbow that joins in the handle and backpack it.


I know- I just ran across these works of functional art today http://montanabows.blogspot.com/p/one-and-two-piece-bow-designs.html but I'm really budget limited right now... I'll have to keep looking and see what I can find.

Thanks-
BM

[/thread_derail]


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Centershot...we go back a ways and you always seemed like a cool person to me...But I don't get you here lately...on one hand?...a few threads back maybe a week ago I read a comment where you posted that....

"you love shooting your metal risered ILF bows just to send chills down the spines of the died in the wool crowd"

yet now?...you post posing yourself (and others who shoot as you do) as being victimized?...suffering apparent (but unconfirmed) animosity for your "classic shooting style"?

sorry....I gotta call...


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Hardtails are more efficient...Sorry couldn't resist. 

View attachment 1962647


Mine and my trusty trail dog.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

The drama is amazing…...


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Country said:


> The drama is amazing…...


Well Big?...I managed to stay out of this one for all 9 pages...figured I earned the above especially since I tend to lean towards the "Died In The Wool" types...so this makes my 2nd and last response to this bad comic strip of a thread. :laugh:


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

...and 29ers suck the fun out of trails ;-) But really... didn't realize there were that many of us that hung out on MTBR and here... I'm under the same handle over there as well.



Mo0se said:


> Hardtails are more efficient...Sorry couldn't resist.
> 
> View attachment 1962647
> 
> ...


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Classic archery games are hard. Vintage games were even harder. Before the start of recreational archery in the 1700s it was mandated to practice at 220 yds. That round was kept well into the 1800s along with the introduction of the 160yd round. The FITA 1440 was based-upon some of these early games in which the distances were reduced as the rounds were shot, to simulate an enemy attack. That is why the further distances are always shot first!
Due to the longer range of most Classic archery games (Field, 900 round) there isn't a whole lot you can get away with in terms of form inconsistency if you want to even come close to the middle of the target (or score at all). Also all the distances are marked so they favor consistency.

People in general like to be good at things or have an excuse for why they aren't. The classic archery games aren't easy enough to master without substantial effort and talent, plus they don't have any of the excuses which are available when shooting unmarked distance. The score card doesn't lie and holes in a target don't forget.

-Grant


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Is there much in the way of records regarding what scores were had shooting at those 150 to 200+ yard distances and the size of targets used? Being it was meant to simulate an enemy attack were the shooters permitted to use what ever means they had available to assist in their accuracy, such as sights? I would think under those circumstances there would be a propensity to use any advantage.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

ranchoarcher said:


> Is there much in the way of records regarding what scores were had shooting at those 150 to 200+ yard distances and the size of targets used? Being it was meant to simulate an enemy attack were the shooters permitted to use what ever means they had available to assist in their accuracy, such as sights? I would think under those circumstances there would be a propensity to use any advantage.


From what I understand?....yes...they had yardages marked out on the lower limbs...and for preparation?...yardage markers were set.


----------



## Tracker12 (Sep 22, 2003)

I go to several Traditional shoots a year and have never seen or experienced what you have mentioned. Only place I see it discussed is on the internet


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

JINKSTER said:


> Centershot...we go back a ways and you always seemed like a cool person to me...But I don't get you here lately...on one hand?...a few threads back maybe a week ago I read a comment where you posted that....
> 
> "you love shooting your metal risered ILF bows just to send chills down the spines of the died in the wool crowd"
> 
> ...


Victomized? I don't feel victimized. I feel lucky that I found out about shooting this style. About shooting in control, and shooting with a plan. Before this I was doing what the old pro-shop guy told me (G Fred style). I just thought it might be fun do discuss something that makes one think a little bit instead of another bow of the week thread. You always need a catchy headline - must have worked. Would you have been offended if I would have ask why the animosity toward instinctive shooters? I may just do that - I doubt any 'target' shooters would care, because they are not threatened by it. Could be an interesting experiment?

I have to admit that I kind of enjoy hearing how shooting a metal handled bow w/ carbon arrows and a rest was the 100 point difference on the score card though....strange how when ask if we should trade bows and go around again that there are not many takers? Shooting a pretty vintage wood bow and stack arrows with it is also a lot of fun.

I think what gets me is that a lot of folks could be much better at this.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

patrick2cents said:


> ...and 29ers suck the fun out of trails ;-) But really... didn't realize there were that many of us that hung out on MTBR and here... I'm under the same handle over there as well.


That depends on your G.A.P - LOL


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

grantmac said:


> Classic archery games are hard. Vintage games were even harder. Before the start of recreational archery in the 1700s it was mandated to practice at 220 yds. That round was kept well into the 1800s along with the introduction of the 160yd round. The FITA 1440 was based-upon some of these early games in which the distances were reduced as the rounds were shot, to simulate an enemy attack. That is why the further distances are always shot first!
> 
> -Grant


Good post, and just think, back then they only had wooden arrows. How ever did they hit their targets without all of the fancy shmancy gadgets and materials???

EDIT: Another interesting thought is in times long before all of those classical European style games eastern archers were doing the same and longer distance shots, nearly all of them using the thumb ring with various styles. Nearly all of those using floating anchors...wow.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

centershot said:


> I think what gets me is that a lot of folks could be much better at this.


They could be but for most of us (those not blessed with a ton of "natural" ability) it takes a lot of work. A lot of people just aren't really into work.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

MGF said:


> They could be but for most of us (those not blessed with a ton of "natural" ability) it takes a lot of work. A lot of people just aren't really into work.


Ahh yes, why compounds dominate the market!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Mo0se said:


> Hardtails are more efficient...Sorry couldn't resist.
> 
> View attachment 1962647
> 
> ...


and, it's what i could get used for a couple hundred dollars used, so it is obviously superior


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Mo0se said:


> Hardtails are more efficient...Sorry couldn't resist.
> 
> View attachment 1962647
> 
> ...












What to race ;-)


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Now that is a great idea! - How does it work when they strike and go all bent for leather off the trail? Ha Ha Love it. FWIW We are going to chase some bears around this weekend, I'm tagging along with a buddy who is checking out a guide/hunt. Should be interesting to see if his hounds are as trashy as ours were!


----------



## patrick2cents (Jan 26, 2014)

centershot said:


> That depends on your G.A.P - LOL


LOL, proof nothing ever chages, regardless of the sport.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

centershot said:


> That depends on your G.A.P - LOL


Well...daaaaa!!!! LOL :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## blanco (Mar 19, 2014)

I always envy compound users as they just pull their set up right off their cases and they are ready to shoot while I am still putting my limbs on.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

blanco said:


> I always envy compound users as they just pull their set up right off their cases and they are ready to shoot while I am still putting my limbs on.


I always had the opposite thing, once my bow is strung and my bracer is on I'm left standing around while everyone unloads their bows from the cases, gets their quivers, releases, range fingers, etc. I always get ribbed for "showing off"!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> From what I understand?....yes...they had yardages marked out on the lower limbs...and for preparation?...yardage markers were set.


From what I understand the practice of using sight marks on the lower limb didn't start until the Victorian era. But then again there isn't really much information about the specifics of competition before then.

Either way >160yds is one heck of a shot with a wood longbow and wood arrows shot off the knuckle.

-Grant


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

centershot said:


> Now that is a great idea! - How does it work when they strike and go all bent for leather off the trail? Ha Ha Love it. FWIW We are going to chase some bears around this weekend, I'm tagging along with a buddy who is checking out a guide/hunt. Should be interesting to see if his hounds are as trashy as ours were!


They got their collars on and I try and road them in areas relatively free of critters.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

So they had a SIGHT !!!!!! That's not very TRAD we are just going have to Ban them !!


JINKSTER said:


> From what I understand?....yes...they had yardages marked out on the lower limbs...and for preparation?...yardage markers were set.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Matt_Potter said:


> What to race ;-)


Sure for fifty yards through the brush


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I don't know about you guys, but I will be out tomorrow at the field range shooting my longbow using the classic style, just like a FITA shooter. I will have everything but the white pants and shirt. I may even wear my blue USA Archery shirt so that I stick out from all the folks wearing camo. I guess everyone wears camo so that they blend in with the crowd.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Show 'em who's boss, Hank...and do it with style! :thumbs_up

I never felt the need to follow any crowd :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------

