# At this rate?...I'll never be a good target shooter!



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Only 18yds...but so seductively relaxing and cool to just let it happen with what seems almost zero stress & effort...



















and I guess it helps big time that this Herters Perfection Magnum instinctively/snaps like a dream for me and for some reason?...hit's where I look...it's so amazing it's addictive...I started with my longbow tonight....and there's been many other nights that started with many other bows...but at the end of the day?...somehow it's always the herters that works it's way back into my hand...Lord I love This Bow! 

Thanks for looking and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

Guys got to have fun and I am glad you are. Every time is see a close up of that riser all I can think of is, "Got Wood".


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Good shooting Bill and that bow just keeps getting better and better


----------



## Stub (Aug 13, 2013)

That's what its all about. Just being able to get away, fling some arrows, forget about all the stress... works for me!

Bow is looking good man!


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Target shooters have more fun!!!LOL!!!



Dewayne


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

vabowdog said:


> Target shooters have more fun!!!LOL!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Dewayne


Dewayne...I wouldn't rule out that possibility...mainly because I can't...cause see...I'm fresh outta "rules". :laugh:


----------



## Homey88 (Dec 10, 2013)

Great shooting! You are definitely one with the bow!


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Homey88 said:


> Great shooting! You are definitely one with the bow!


Thanks Homey and yes...I'm getting that "one with the bow" feeling from this herters...then again?...I'm of the firm belief that you could give a kid a bent 3 iron and if he grows up whacking a bunch of golf balls with it?...sooner or later the kids gonna get freaking deadly! :laugh:

I had a slingshot when I was a kid...it wasn't even one of the good wrist-rocket/surgical tubing ones...it was literally just a wooden "Y" with rubber strips tied to a leather ammo pouch....somewhere along the line I found out I could be deadly if I shot glass marbles out of it...I was at a construction site busting dirt clods with it...with couple of my friends watching... when one of the heavy equipment operators shut down his machine and walked over and asked me...."Are you really aiming for those dirt clods?"...I proudly said "yep"...he didn't believe it...saying well how can you prove it?...I shrugged my shoulders...he walked over to his machine and grabbed an empty beer bottle telling me that if I broke that bottle he'd give me $5 but if I missed?...my slingshot was his...I think it was mainly because the marbles were very consistent in size and weight that me and my two buds got to spend the rest of the afternoon drinking ice cold cokes...about $5 worth! :laugh:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Bill 

I love slingshots and the best still are the simple Y ones  

Wrist rockets the ones with the arm brace are for guys with weak arms 

Here's one in steel and Black Phenolic


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JParanee said:


> Bill
> 
> I love slingshots and the best still are the simple Y ones
> 
> ...


Joe, is that ours? I really like that. Don't get me started! You now you can get a good workout on your back tension with that one. 55 pounds I guess.
Dan


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Yes its mine 

Nathan at Simpleshot made it

It takes flat bands or tube (Chinese band sets)


----------



## Homey88 (Dec 10, 2013)

Great story on the sling shot!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

"Practice like you fight" Musashi Miyamoto, same goes for Archery, it's mostly a mental game that requires you to let go of desire and fear. 'Book of five rings' is a great read for tourney Archers. 

What makes a great shooter is he can make as good shots in a tourney as he can in his back yard, Jinks you keep trying to fix a mental problem by changing your shooting style when nothing was actually wrong with your style in the first place.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> "Practice like you fight" Musashi Miyamoto, same goes for Archery, it's mostly a mental game that requires you to let go of desire and fear. 'Book of five rings' is a great read for tourney Archers.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I'm glad you're enjoying the bow and your shooting but I'm not sure I understand the title of the thread.

I shoot a lot of super tight groups. It's just that when I shoot at a target and score an extended number of shots it becomes apparent that not all the groups are so tight and/or not exactly on target. The point is that a relatively small number of shots can be deceiving.

I guess it's mind over matter...if you don't mind then it don't matter.


----------



## ocean123 (Apr 8, 2014)

It is a very nice bow. You really want to have it in your hand and touch it :wink:


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Looks like pretty nice shooting to me Bill. You might not call yourself a _target_ archer but in my opinion you're a _skilled_ archer...:thumb:


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Curious - you always paint spots on your bales to shoot at - are they not Targets? I have a hard time understanding this fear of 'Targets'. Maybe it is just the definition that goes astray. Even just shooting that straw bale I would pick out a shiny straw or dark spot to use as a 'Target'. Not sure I have ever loosed an arrow that was not 'Aimed' and shot at a 'Target'. Getting back to your Title - it looks to me like you shot a pretty good group at a 'Target' and therefore are a pretty good 'Target' shooter already. Be careful, shooting 'Targets' that well may get you banned from some Trad sites.....


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

JINKS:

If you wanted to be an excellent target shooter, it would be very simple. 

Just start a new thread and say the following: 

_*"I will never ever be an excellent target shooter. I have no interest in being a target shooter, therefore it ain't never gonna happen...period, paragraph, end of story."*_

Based on your past definitive statements, within a few weeks, you will be the best target shooter on this site.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Once the mechanics are basically mastered...archery or any other sport becomes 90% a mental game.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

I think you're better off for knowing so Jinks. Shooting for numbers is for crazy people:teeth: because no matter what you shoot there will always be a higher number or percentage or distribution that you could achieve due to the infinite nature of numbers. At what point do multiple 300 scores measure accuracy? Maybe you need to measure # of 300's over 100 sessions? What if the X is not enough to determine the "best" shot possible on a target? You then need to start counting the # of robin hoods per 1000 shots. Screw up once and your reign of flawed perfection comes crashing down the statistical mountain! It is an endless pursuit designed for crazies!

Chasing after something that wasn't there to begin with is all you are missing out on there Jinks. Keep it real:thumbs_up


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

MGF said:


> I shoot a lot of super tight groups. It's just that when I shoot at a target and score an extended number of shots it becomes apparent that not all the groups are so tight and/or not exactly on target. The point is that a relatively small number of shots can be deceiving.


This last weekend reminded me of what Steve Morley had said, about not expecting to shoot as well at tournaments as you do in practice. The prior week, I had done pretty well at a local unmarked 3D. Flung a few shafts the following wednesday, and was smacking them to my heart's delight. 3D nationals, sometimes I was on, sometimes I had to scold myself for being an idiot. While I had some nice shots, and tried to focus on getting into that good mental place, on the whole, I didn't feel like I shot very well overall on any of the three days.

Still, I got to meet and speak to Michael Orlic, who came all the way from New Jersey, and is far more accomplished than I, and he put things in a better perspective. He didn't feel like he did very well either, the first two days, but picked it up on the third and actually scored over 400 on 20 targets. That's pretty freaking amazing to me. He said something along the lines of, "You may not feel like you shot well, and we usually want to shoot better than we do, but if you score more than 1,000 in the Trad class, you shot well." 

I went away with that feeling better, turning my 3 days without an 'A' game into an opportunity. Instead, I'm thinking next year, I could do pretty well if I just don't drop so many freaking arrows  

I need to practice!

As for Jinks, I'm glad he's found the approach that makes him happy. It's a good thing, and cheaper than therapy


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

centershot said:


> Curious - you always paint spots on your bales to shoot at - are they not Targets? I have a hard time understanding this fear of 'Targets'. Maybe it is just the definition that goes astray. Even just shooting that straw bale I would pick out a shiny straw or dark spot to use as a 'Target'. Not sure I have ever loosed an arrow that was not 'Aimed' and shot at a 'Target'. Getting back to your Title - it looks to me like you shot a pretty good group at a 'Target' and therefore are a pretty good 'Target' shooter already. Be careful, shooting 'Targets' that well may get you banned from some Trad sites.....


I think it is more of the stress of being measured. Some of us like it as a means to guage how we're doing, for ourselves, and in comparison to our peers. Some of us don't. Is okay.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Arrowzen said:


> What if the X is not enough to determine the "best" shot possible on a target? You then need to start counting the # of robin hoods per 1000 shots. Screw up once and your reign of flawed perfection comes crashing down the statistical mountain! It is an endless pursuit designed for crazies!
> 
> Chasing after something that wasn't there to begin with is all you are missing out on there Jinks. Keep it real:thumbs_up


What I try to drive home to folks interested in target is that it has little to do with how many groups, x's, or robinhoods you get, as those will happen. It's the number of 0's, 1s', 2s, & 3's you don't get that matters most. 

The best test to see if you are target archer material is to just record "every" arrow, as that's your true accuracy factor. Put up a blank sheet, shoot at whatever you like, bottle cap, pine cone, whatever, and look at "all" the holes - that's the true story and basically all a target archer is doing anyway. Even if deer is your ultimate target, it's not going to wait around for your good group shot, so in this sense, we are all the same in goal.


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

Sanford said:


> What I try to drive home to folks interested in target is that it has little to do with how many groups, x's, or robinhoods you get, as those will happen. It's the number of 0's, 1s', 2s, & 3's you don't get that matters most.
> 
> The best test to see if you are target archer material is to just record "every" arrow, as that's your true accuracy factor. Put up a blank sheet, shoot at whatever you like, bottle cap, pine cone, whatever, and look at "all" the holes - that's the true story and basically all a target archer is doing anyway. Even if deer is your ultimate target, it's not going to wait around for your good group shot, as in this sense, we are all the same in goal.



I pretty much agree, and I'm not the type of person to promote "anything goes" accuracy. I even think it would be fun to do a few local competitive shoots once and a while. Only once and while though.

I was mainly joking about how extreme and tight I've seen people get about the #'s involved in archery. Reading some measured and numerical breakdowns of every archery aspect is maddening to say the least...at least to me.

EDIT: The only perspective I would view as skewed or off in your quote would be the "Every Arrow" derivative. That would only be truly meaningful if every arrow were shot within or without the same boundaries as every other arrow.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

that is one of the coolest risers in archery!


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

I agree your approach will never make you a target archer.I am NOT a target archer and have desire to be although I do try to be accurate-I think thats where you are headed.No offense-seriously-to you or GG but in MY minds eye (which means squat to anyone but me) those huge target risers even with exotic woods are really ugly(again no offense).My mind's eye prefers a small pretty but not gawdy riser that I dont mind letting ride in the pickup bed from time to time.Archery allows all kinds.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

to each is own though, every traditional archery has to be a target archer in some type of form because of form and accuracy, its so demanding to stay on form and if your slightly off your arrows will be way off, so much different than a compound


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BarneySlayer said:


> This last weekend reminded me of what Steve Morley had said, about not expecting to shoot as well at tournaments as you do in practice. The prior week, I had done pretty well at a local unmarked 3D. Flung a few shafts the following wednesday, and was smacking them to my heart's delight. 3D nationals, sometimes I was on, sometimes I had to scold myself for being an idiot. While I had some nice shots, and tried to focus on getting into that good mental place, on the whole, I didn't feel like I shot very well overall on any of the three days.
> 
> Still, I got to meet and speak to Michael Orlic, who came all the way from New Jersey, and is far more accomplished than I, and he put things in a better perspective. He didn't feel like he did very well either, the first two days, but picked it up on the third and actually scored over 400 on 20 targets. That's pretty freaking amazing to me. He said something along the lines of, "You may not feel like you shot well, and we usually want to shoot better than we do, but if you score more than 1,000 in the Trad class, you shot well."
> 
> ...


Yes. I find that I never shoot as well when there are deer present as I do when I'm practicing. LOL. It's not just game day. It's game arrow. One shot or the gold...do or do not do. Well and it's always cold, windy and after hours of sitting until my bones are fused together and I can't move.


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

After the 50 yard first shot and kneeling from 15 yards, did a few ends from 50 yards, 33 yards and 26 yards. Then a walk forward and a couple of walk backs shooting from 17 yards, 23 yards, 33 yards and 40 yards...very much fun. I was shooting at a small target, yet who needs a target. Could of used a stump, pine cone, etc. The bright orange helps though. ;-)









Not to bad for 150' (yellow and green) and 100' (olive drab). I always enjoy shooting longer distances. Get an feeling for the arch of the arrow and start plinkin'.


----------



## wojo14 (Apr 20, 2009)

Nice shooting!
and 
Nice Bow!


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Sanford said:


> What I try to drive home to folks interested in target is that it has little to do with how many groups, x's, or robinhoods you get, as those will happen. It's the number of 0's, 1s', 2s, & 3's you don't get that matters most.


Bingo - shooting 11s doesn't win you 3D shoots - not shooting 5s and 0s does. 

Target shooting is a gage of your consistency not your Precision. It tells you your hunting limits better than anything else. If all you do is stumping the natural tendency it to mentally filter out the bad shots. All you will remember is that pine cone you just missed by 6 inches at 50 yards.

It's not good enough to hit the preverbal paper plate at x yards you have to consistently hit it. The only way to know if you are consistent is by shooting multiple arrows at the same TARGET and scoring them. Even if the "score " is as simple as yes or no.

Paper also doesn't lie - your "just missed it" at 40 yards on a pine cone might in reality (due to angle of the ground ect) be 15 inches off. Take a tape measure to your 3d deer target and measure 15 inches from a perfect shot - lots of bad stuff.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Not to put too fine a point on it but consistency or repeatability is "precision". One way to think of it is that group location is "accuracy" and group size is "precision".

The thing to remember from a measurement stand point is that a larger sample size better represents the process being measured. Sanford is right. It's not the good shots that tell you the most about how you're doing...accidents happen and even a broken clock is exactly correct twice a day. It's the bad shots that tell the real story.

I'm running low on 40 cm targets so I switched to a piece of cardboard with a dot on it. I shoot lots of groups that are right on the dot. However, if you look at the target face after 100 shots, you get a different story. Just the other day on one of these forums an archer claimed to hold something like a 4" group at 30 yards. Really? So we can expect a perfect score on a 40 cm at 20 yards? That's darned good. LOL


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Bingo - shooting 11s doesn't win you 3D shoots - not shooting 5s and 0s does.
> 
> Target shooting is a gage of your consistency not your Precision. It tells you your hunting limits better than anything else. If all you do is stumping the natural tendency it to mentally filter out the bad shots. All you will remember is that pine cone you just missed by 6 inches at 50 yards.
> 
> ...


Nail on head Matt, good post.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Many years ago I went on hunting/fishing float trip down the Buffalo river in Arkansas with my cousin and some of his buddies. I took my longbow out hunting one morning and didn't find any deer but ran into a mess of squirrels. I decided that a few for the pot would be good so I shot a couple.

When I got back to camp my cousin's buddies were amazed and wanted to know how I got so good with a longbow. Later, I decided to set up a target and get in some "practice". These guys lined up to watch what they expected to be some really great shooting. Having an audience with such high expectations probably didn't help my shooting but I couldn't hit a damned thing.

Then they all wanted to know where I really got the squirrels. LOL


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BarneySlayer great post, The thing about tourneys is you learn something new every time, even my bad performances allowed me in most cases take a leap forward because I worked through the problem and improved from the experience.

You can build on both good and bad performances :thumbs_up


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Didn't somebody say something to the effect of "Success is a series of failures"?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> Many years ago I went on hunting/fishing float trip down the Buffalo river in Arkansas with my cousin and some of his buddies. I took my longbow out hunting one morning and didn't find any deer but ran into a mess of squirrels. I decided that a few for the pot would be good so I shot a couple.
> 
> When I got back to camp my cousin's buddies were amazed and wanted to know how I got so good with a longbow. Later, I decided to set up a target and get in some "practice". These guys lined up to watch what they expected to be some really great shooting. Having an audience with such high expectations probably didn't help my shooting but I couldn't hit a damned thing.
> 
> Then they all wanted to know where I really got the squirrels. LOL



You KNOW that's not true because NOBODY can shoot fur better than paper. I know it because I've read it a thousand times on AT.
Focus my friend, and a mission to hit a squirrel is totally different than shooting a piece of paper because somebody wanted you to demonstrate your skill.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

4nolz said:


> in MY minds eye (which means squat to anyone but me) those huge target risers even with exotic woods are really ugly(again no offense).My mind's eye prefers a small pretty but not gawdy riser that I dont mind letting ride in the pickup bed from time to time.Archery allows all kinds.


I have a similar aesthetic sensibility, not on that I consider them ugly, but the opposite, but in terms of personal preference. I like a bow in the 60-62" range, though I'm not as adamant about the wood. In fact, my current go to recurve, a heavily mucked out Predator Velocity, looks pretty much the abomination, from any perspective. Rustoleum 'Hammered Metal', JB Weld, Nuts, bolts, Decepticon medallions, erasers...

I love target archery, but prefer shooting what most would classify as 'Hunting Gear'. It's simply what I like.

Then again, George Chapman, who was of great inspiration to me, provided some great guidance, in compound shooting among other things, once answered my question of, "What's really the difference between a target bow and a hunting bow." His answer, "Nothing."


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> You KNOW that's not true because NOBODY can shoot fur better than paper. I know it because I've read it a thousand times on AT.
> Focus my friend, and a mission to hit a squirrel is totally different than shooting a piece of paper because somebody wanted you to demonstrate your skill.


All shooting is different, in terms of how your brain reacts to the context. Whether it's being scored, hunting excitement, looking at flat circles versus 3 dimensional shapes, which may or may not have clearly marked scoring zones.

However, the fundamentals of the shot, in my opinion, are pretty much the same. I must qualify, though, I'm an awfully lousy hunter, and it's not my shooting that's my biggest problem, it's getting close to an animal that I want to kill, but that's an entirely different challenge to overcome


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> You KNOW that's not true because NOBODY can shoot fur better than paper. I know it because I've read it a thousand times on AT.
> Focus my friend, and a mission to hit a squirrel is totally different than shooting a piece of paper because somebody wanted you to demonstrate your skill.


Ding Ding Ding.. and the winner goes to Forrest! :thumbs_up :wink:

Imagine that...someone else recognizes we're all not the same and how different circumstances can affect people differently.

Ray :shade:


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

i shoot better groups @ 20 yards at my 3d deer target other than my bag target @ 20 yards....weird stuff, anyone have input on this?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> You KNOW that's not true because NOBODY can shoot fur better than paper. I know it because I've read it a thousand times on AT.
> Focus my friend, and a mission to hit a squirrel is totally different than shooting a piece of paper because somebody wanted you to demonstrate your skill.


We can probably all agree that the mental part is really important. Personally, I don't have any trouble believing that some people are better on fur than paper. I know that my shooting drops a notch just knowing I'm going to keep score. I've gone through all sorts of exercises that demonstrate that clearly enough.

Once I was going to shoot some 300 rounds. I took a few warm up shots and did fine. I hung a clean 40 cm face and shot lousy. I continued with the round but set out another target bag right next to the 40 cm. Over and over I could shoot a lousy group on the 40 cm and follow it up with a great group shooting the beer can on the other bag.

Another time my son and I were shooting. We were both having our problems so I dreamed up a little experiment. We left the bag blank and just shot at it and measured group sized. We were both holding nice tight groups right in the middle of the bag.

Likewise, I've noticed that I can hit a small target much more consistently IF I place it near the center of the bag. Something in my little pea-brain wants the arrow to go to the middle of the target regardless of where "the spot" is.

Still, there is such a thing as luck (probability) and one hit doesn't necessarily indicate "capability". Personally, I want to be able to hit whatever I shoot at whenever I decide to shoot at it...fur or paper.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> i shoot better groups @ 20 yards at my 3d deer target other than my bag target @ 20 yards....weird stuff, anyone have input on this?



I'll try. The bag is not a simulated deer. I'm not really into play acting too much but, if I hide any target behind some bushes and pick a hole to shoot thru that is in front of the 'kill' zone it's actually easier to put an arrow in that little hole than if the target spot is right out in the open. Focus is an amazing thing.
The same thing can happen in the reverse when a real deer shows up. The bigger the deer or horns, the worse it is.:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I'll try. The bag is not a simulated deer. I'm not really into play acting too much but, if I hide any target behind some bushes and pick a hole to shoot thru that is in front of the 'kill' zone it's actually easier to put an arrow in that little hole than if the target spot is right out in the open. Focus is an amazing thing.
> The same thing can happen in the reverse when a real deer shows up. The bigger the deer or horns, the worse it is.:wink:


You're on fire!!! :thumbs_up :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## wseward (Mar 7, 2013)

Let me see now...today I could get on BART and go into the city to pay to shoot indoors at 20 yards like a robot...over and over again...while I listen to others babble above the HVAC fan?

NAAAH!

More like...go for a epic bike ride, then a epic hike...to allow for epic shooting at various distances, listening to the birds and the wind in the trees.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

yeah i tend to focus more on the deer target, because im more likely to miss the target than my bag target lol


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> We can probably all agree that the mental part is really important. Personally, I don't have any trouble believing that some people are better on fur than paper. I know that my shooting drops a notch just knowing I'm going to keep score. I've gone through all sorts of exercises that demonstrate that clearly enough.
> 
> Once I was going to shoot some 300 rounds. I took a few warm up shots and did fine. I hung a clean 40 cm face and shot lousy. I continued with the round but set out another target bag right next to the 40 cm. Over and over I could shoot a lousy group on the 40 cm and follow it up with a great group shooting the beer can on the other bag.
> 
> ...




Aaaahaaa, a center mass shooter, whether it's a beer can or a bag. Not always a bad thing but, can cause one to miss deer. I try to make a heart shot and focus on the area just behind the front leg but, always seem to get more lung hits. Probably because the deer reacts to the sound. Possibly due to the excitement of the moment resulting in a stronger yank on the string also. Sound familiar?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear - did it make any noise??

If you zip an arrow through a deers guts and nobody else is there - did it really happen??

Yep fur turns total wankers into Robin Hood - or is that just what they are willing to come clean on - we weren't there so we will never know.

Having worked as a guide and outfitter for most of my adult life I can tell you that outfitters aren't real excited when trad guys show up.

I had an interesting talk with one of my buddies who owned and ran a bear hunting camp in Canada for years. His take on trad shooters is 5 maybe 10 percent know their craft and take great pride in accurate clean shots. The other 90-95 percent like the pretty bows and the concept of trad but, have no issue wounding 2-3 bears for every one they kill. He had to institute a wounding policy specifically for the traditional archers. 

I guess the magic quality of fur to make you a better archer doesn't work quite as well when you have a guide or outfitter around to witness.


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

Hahahaha! +10 For Matt for throwing out "wankers" well used in a sentence!

Seriously, I started cracking up when I read that.:cheers:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

But the magic quality of pokin' paper is even more powerful...making an archer invincible on any target.

I bet the prefered target at Hogwarts has to be paper :wink: 

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Aaaahaaa, a center mass shooter, whether it's a beer can or a bag. Not always a bad thing but, can cause one to miss deer. I try to make a heart shot and focus on the area just behind the front leg but, always seem to get more lung hits. Probably because the deer reacts to the sound. Possibly due to the excitement of the moment resulting in a stronger yank on the string also. Sound familiar?


Actually, my last couple of shots at deer didn't hit he center of anything...except maybe the planet earth. The center of the deer's mass would have been a significant improvement. LOL


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> But the magic quality of pokin' paper is even more powerful...making an archer invincible on any target.
> 
> I bet the prefered target at Hogwarts has to be paper :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Everybody else can do what they want. My goal is to better understand what goes into a shot and gain better control of it so I have a better chance of hitting what I shoot at when I shoot at it.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> But the magic quality of pokin' paper is even more powerful...making an archer invincible on any target.
> 
> I bet the prefered target at Hogwarts has to be paper :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:



Not ALL target situations Ray, just the vast majority of targets that 99% of archers will ever fling a stick at…….but don`t let that stop you from rallying the troops. :darkbeer:


----------



## hawghunter2585 (Mar 16, 2010)

Of all the people I have ever heard say, "they can't shoot paper, but they can hit fur" (or some other variation), there has yet to be anyone that has gone on to impress me with their shooting ability. And that amplies for all types of archery.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear - did it make any noise??
> 
> If you zip an arrow through a deers guts and nobody else is there - did it really happen??
> 
> ...




:dontknow: No clue about those percentages. I only know about myself and other people that I've seen shooting which doesn't include any professional paper shooters.
But, the conversation is about focus and having a mission has a strong influence on the outcome. That mission would normally be to make a good solid hit in the vitals of an animal. Most don't want to inflict any more pain and suffering on them than necessary so a good shot is important. That seems to cause good hunters to focus better than a shot that has no consequences like shooting paper or even a foam animal.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

i practice at least an hour a day and can have a decen group at 20 but where im at right now i wont shoot an animal past 15 yards, hopefully it can increase to 25 with a few more months of practice before the fall, if im not shooting my recurve at all for weeks i will not take it too the woods, i take pride in my practice form and learning and the last thing i want to do is wound a deer or animal....ill bring my crossbow out to the woods sometimes during the fall too, its a fun weapon to shoot, much much funner than a compound, i find the compound bow to be extremely boring, infact id rather shoot my muzzle-loader before a compound bow


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

Matt_Potter said:


> I had an interesting talk with one of my buddies who owned and ran a bear hunting camp in Canada for years. His take on trad shooters is 5 maybe 10 percent know their craft and take great pride in accurate clean shots. The other 90-95 percent like the pretty bows and the concept of trad but, have no issue wounding 2-3 bears for every one they kill. He had to institute a wounding policy specifically for the traditional archers.


On a more serious comment that is really sad to read. I for one would feel horrible if I injured such a creature only to leave it with what I know would be a terrible wound. In circumstances like that I am in full agreement about accuracy and shot control concerns.

That is just not right...


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

The only magic in paper is that it records every shot and shows how non-invincible the shooter really is.

G.A.P. aside for a moment...let an archer (any archer of any G.A.P.) pick a point in the universe (any point) and shoot at it with his/her bow...maybe 100 times. Now lets just take a look at how they did.

I suppose that it's possible that the archer's goal was to miss a bunch of times. It could even be that his/her personality lets him/her be very relaxed and have a lot of fun while they miss. It could even be that their G.A.P. dictates that the best thing to do is to forget/deny they ever missed in the first place. LOL


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> Everybody else can do what they want. My goal is to better understand what goes into a shot and gain better control of it so I have a better chance of hitting what I shoot at when I shoot at it.



My opinion, a guy who can hit beer cans consistently but misses a deer is simply a victim of buck fever. It's not a new disease and many, many have had it including myself. Heck, my first shot at a deer was with a shotgun and buckshot. If he felt anything at all it was probably a ringing noise in his ears. I'm pretty sure no shot came close to him.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I usually do not get involved with fur vs target or gap vs instinctive threads 

But I am of the belief that if you can't hit a target consistently you can't kill deer consistently 

I do believe people's focus and performance can be effected by different scenarios thou

For example 

The Whitngham shoot this year was a bad showing for me 

My elbow was very sore and I was throwing shots left and right 

At the end of the day John, Ray and I took turn on the steel deer we had a good run and when I finally did miss it was not by much 

So for some reason that deer got my head in the game and made me up my game 

Was it because I was focusing harder ?

Was it because it was at my normal deer shooting range 12 to 15 yds ?

I believe so 

It was relatively close some my inconsistencies did not show up as well 

It was a relatively short period that I had to keep my focus up 

I want to clean my inconsistencies up and learn to focus longer 

So that's what I'm working on


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

my first shot at a deer was with a crossbow about 2 years ago, it was my first year of hunting, about 20 yards on the ground, and after i hit the deer i almost had an heart attack...after that shot and experience i have been hooked with bow hunting and hunting deer since...and everytime i see a deer within 100 yards my heart starts pumping, hands start shaking, i cant control it lol..last year i hunted with a compound bow, and crossbow but this year will be mainly a re curve and i cant wait!!!


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> The only magic in paper is that it records every shot and shows how non-invincible the shooter really is.
> 
> G.A.P. aside for a moment...let an archer (any archer of any G.A.P.) pick a point in the universe (any point) and shoot at it with his/her bow...maybe 100 times. Now lets just take a look at how they did.
> 
> I suppose that it's possible that the archer's goal was to miss a bunch of times. It could even be that his/her personality lets him/her be very relaxed and have a lot of fun while they miss. It could even be that their G.A.P. dictates that the best thing to do is to forget/deny they ever missed in the first place. LOL




:juggle: Apparently you have managed to completely miss the whole point. It's about focus.:horn: Focus that's supersized by the mission at hand. If the mission is to kill a squirrel, then you focus intently on "killing' the squirrel, not just shooting for the hell of it.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> :juggle: Apparently you have managed to completely miss the whole point. It's about focus.:horn: Focus that's supersized by the mission at hand. If the mission is to kill a squirrel, then you focus intently on "killing' the squirrel, not just shooting for the hell of it.


:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> My opinion, a guy who can hit beer cans consistently but misses a deer is simply a victim of buck fever. It's not a new disease and many, many have had it including myself. Heck, my first shot at a deer was with a shotgun and buckshot. If he felt anything at all it was probably a ringing noise in his ears. I'm pretty sure no shot came close to him.


I agree but what happens in a case of "buck fever"? The shooter doesn't shoot the way they might normally shoot? Why?

If an archer can hit deer but not paper, why? Not focused? So focus. Wouldn't you like that to be something you can do whenever you want?

In my case, I think I really lacked confidence. For me, and it was the same taking college exams, I have to know the material well enough that I have no doubt I can do it. Actually taking the test (or the shot at the deer) is just a mundane formality.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

JParanee said:


> I usually do not get involved with fur vs target or gap vs instinctive threads
> 
> But I am of the belief that if you can't hit a target consistently you can't kill deer consistently
> 
> ...




Mission, don't bust my arrow!!!! Mission resulting in focus.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> :juggle: Apparently you have managed to completely miss the whole point. It's about focus.:horn: Focus that's supersized by the mission at hand. If the mission is to kill a squirrel, then you focus intently on "killing' the squirrel, not just shooting for the hell of it.


I think we crossed posts but I'd rather have the ability to choose when I focus. If you aren't going to focus and try to hit the target (whatever it is), then why bother" Why not Just shoot at something that you do want to hit?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

FORESTGUMP said:


> :dontknow: No clue about those percentages. I only know about myself and other people that I've seen shooting which doesn't include any professional paper shooters.
> But, the conversation is about focus and having a mission has a strong influence on the outcome. That mission would normally be to make a good solid hit in the vitals of an animal. Most don't want to inflict any more pain and suffering on them than necessary so a good shot is important. That seems to cause good hunters to focus better than a shot that has no consequences like shooting paper or even a foam animal.


Come on - so you are telling me those guys that can't hit a 3D target are missing because they didn't really want to hit it - they don't have a mission. Well all the red faces cursing and thrown bows tell me that they might have wanted to but, couldn't. Yet they get out in the field and and all of a sudden that shot that they can't make, warmed up on level ground, becomes doable because they have a mission. 

Really????


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

"Focus", or complete concentration, or whatever term you choose is vitally important to successfully placing an arrow where you want it to go. 

Complete focus on a LOT of shots is what teaches us to be better at hitting our chosen target.

If I shot @ 15,000 squirrels a year, I would bound to be shooting out of season AND over my legal limit.

For many archers(I am definitely included here) shooting at paper targets is just about the most boring thing to do. Sadly, it is just about the best way to get in quality practice where you can actually track your performance. Folks who do not track their performance conveniently forgot most of their not so good shots.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Come on - so you are telling me those guys that can't hit a 3D target are missing because they didn't really want to hit it - they don't have a mission. Well all the red faces cursing and thrown bows tell me that they might have wanted to but, couldn't. Yet they get out in the field and and all of a sudden that shot that they can't make, warmed up on level ground, becomes doable because they have a mission.
> 
> Really????



No, in fact, you told me. I have said lots of times that I don't know all those people who don't have the ability to learn to shoot an arrow using a simple tool. Most are capable of doing so with a reasonable degree of accuracy if they have the desire to do it.

My point is still about the degree of focus that comes from the desire. Just like JP who knew that the sound of his arrow hitting the steel deer would mean a busted arrow. His Buds would laugh the same as they might do if he missed a foam deer at the same distance but, it's not the same as hearing that loud pang that announces to everyone within hearing distance that you just busted your arrow. I bet he was looking at the hole in that steel plate instead of the whole plate.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Big Country said:


> "Focus", or complete concentration, or whatever term you choose is vitally important to successfully placing an arrow where you want it to go.
> 
> Complete focus on a LOT of shots is what teaches us to be better at hitting our chosen target.
> 
> ...



Ok Superman, now I can be totally confident that you remember every shot that misses that little X for the rest of your life.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Once the mechanics are basically mastered...archery or any other sport becomes 90% a mental game.
> 
> Ray :shade:


You ever hear the expression "dumb jock"? It was coined for a reason, lol.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

The problem here is PREJUDICE!

A few people become totally prejudice and biased based on some personal experiences with people.

No one I know is saying that every guy that struggles in competition or shooting at a specific target magically becomes a Robin Hood on fur!

It always amazes me how some people like to twist the words of others to try and support their opinions.

The fact is...once the mechanics of shooting and aiming are mastered...this game becomes 90% mental and people handle stress differently.

How many people have shot with some good archers and here them say....I always struggle hitting the little 3D turkey...and than watch them completely flub the shot.

People need to stop assuming that just because an archer has a bad showing in competition that every archer who shoots like them are wounding animals left and right. It's no different than assuming just because an archer is good in competition that every target archer must be good on fur.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Once you get past the Internet BS, what you actually find in "real life" is that anyone good with a bow is good with bow. Whatever they put their mind to shooting, you can bet they will become one of the best at it in short order. What they shoot at is personal preference and not a limitation.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Once a person gets past the arrogance and ego...they realize that just because an archer is good on paper does NOT mean they are good at shooting everything else.

The reality is...there are some amazing target archers who fall apart while shooting at fur...and there are archers who struggle in competition yet are cool, calm and collected on fur.

Ray :shade:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Ok Superman, now I can be totally confident that you remember every shot that misses that little X for the rest of your life.




Forest, are you this childish in real life as well? :lol:



BLACK WOLF said:


> The problem here is PREJUDICE! The problem here Ray is a refusal to admit reality. :wink:
> 
> A few people become totally prejudice and biased based on some personal experiences with people. Not talking about a couple, or a few personal experiences here Ray. Some folks have driven 3 million miles, others have dug 1000 ditches, still others have sold a bazillion widgets. Then there are some of us who have helped literally thousands of archers, either by setting up their equipment, or helping them with their shooting, or both. These interactions have taken place in pro shops, archery ranges/clubs, tournaments of all flavors, and hunting camps in more places than you can shake a stick at. The claim of being better on fur is not a new phenomenon, nor is it uncommon. What is common about it is this…….I have yet to see this be true in person, or hear that it is true by anybody who I know who would readily identify the truth.
> 
> ...


Who exactly "assumed" that an archer having a bad day, or not winning EVER in fair sized tournaments are out wounding animals? You are so fixated with this GAP thing that you are not seeing the truth in front of you Ray. People who never, or at least very rarely wound animals are the people that honestly assess their own abilities, coupled with current weather/wind conditions, and adjust their maximum shot range to suit the situation. People who have a high wounding rate think they are better on fur than paper, and prescribe to the theory that you will never get the animal if you don`t let an arrow fly.


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

My experience with focus this past winter in spot league. 
When I could stand at a full line with all the distractions but still feel like I was the only person there it was a 260-270 night.
When I let the distractions in it was a 240-250 night. 
My average for the league ended up being 257 so you know which nights I had more of. I don't feel my form is all that bad so now I believe I am in the hardest part of archery for me. The mental aspect.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Big Country said:


> Who exactly "assumed" that an archer having a bad day, or not winning EVER in fair sized tournaments are out wounding animals?


I don't know...you tell me who it was LOL



Big Country said:


> You are so fixated with this GAP thing that you are not seeing the truth in front of you Ray.


LOL...while you continue to try and psychoanalyze me...please tell us all what the truth is?

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Big Country said:


> "Focus", or complete concentration, or whatever term you choose is vitally important to successfully placing an arrow where you want it to go.
> 
> Complete focus on a LOT of shots is what teaches us to be better at hitting our chosen target.
> 
> ...



"Folks who DO NOT track their performance conveniently forgot (was it meant to be forget?) most of their not so good shots." 

Those weren't my words. It seems to imply that those who DO track their performance never forget the 'not so good shots". Of course we all know that's not true but, the implication is still there. 
Lol, I've noticed that you get frustrated when someone pointes these things out. Then don't say them, it starts to look like trying to win at all costs when there's really no prize. Everyone has an opinion.


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

[Q









I have several thousand acres of prime hog hunting and have hosted several hundred Trad guys over the years.I must admit those numbers jive with my experience-maybe 20%.Some notable icons so to speak.I actually had a internet hero say "I shot one but it ran away".SMH.

As my Trad passion has leveled off I am much less forgiving of imposters.



UOTE=Matt_Potter;1070112530]If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear - did it make any noise??

If you zip an arrow through a deers guts and nobody else is there - did it really happen??

Yep fur turns total wankers into Robin Hood - or is that just what they are willing to come clean on - we weren't there so we will never know.

Having worked as a guide and outfitter for most of my adult life I can tell you that outfitters aren't real excited when trad guys show up.

I had an interesting talk with one of my buddies who owned and ran a bear hunting camp in Canada for years. His take on trad shooters is 5 maybe 10 percent know their craft and take great pride in accurate clean shots. The other 90-95 percent like the pretty bows and the concept of trad but, have no issue wounding 2-3 bears for every one they kill. He had to institute a wounding policy specifically for the traditional archers. 

I guess the magic quality of fur to make you a better archer doesn't work quite as well when you have a guide or outfitter around to witness.[/QUOTE]


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

you folks do get wound up about form lol


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Once a person gets past the arrogance and ego...they realize that just because an archer is good on paper does NOT mean they are good at shooting everything else.
> 
> The reality is...there are some amazing target archers who fall apart while shooting at fur...and there are archers who struggle in competition yet are cool, calm and collected on fur.
> 
> ...


Being good in paper don't mean squat in the woods... although it can help. Smart people die in the woods all the time.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I don't know...you tell me who it was LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Um, Ray, I don`t know how to break this to you sport…….you are not going to outsmart me, but feel free to continue attempting.  I understand what you are thinking with the first line, and it just shows your lack of clarity on the subject at hand. 

As far as the second line Ray, there is no psychoanalyzing going on. This one is pretty simple……you have a schtick that you seem emotionally attached to, and regardless of how silly it is, you ain`t letting go. I applaud your tenacity, even though your Goal will never be Achieved, regardless of your Preference. :wink:


Oh yea, the truth…… Being a hunter yourself Ray, you understand that woodsmanship, the ability to put yourself in the right position/place, and the ability to keep calm and collected are absolutely necessary for one to be consistently successful in filling tags. Take two hunters with very similar abilities in those area`s, one regularly knocks a hole in the ten ring on various paper targets, while the other basically does not, but he/she is better when shooting at fur……..over the long haul the former will outdistance the later in the tag filling category.

The later will quite possibly be a better tracker though……..lots more practice. I am sorry if this disappoints you Ray, but I have been following this game for more than 40 years now, and have been fortunate enough to spend more time each year doing so than the average guy/gal does in 5 years. I have yet to see an exception to the rule.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

FORESTGUMP said:


> "Folks who DO NOT track their performance conveniently forgot (was it meant to be forget?) most of their not so good shots."
> 
> Those weren't my words. It seems to imply that those who DO track their performance never forget the 'not so good shots". Of course we all know that's not true but, the implication is still there.
> Lol, I've noticed that you get frustrated when someone pointes these things out. Then don't say them, it starts to look like trying to win at all costs when there's really no prize. Everyone has an opinion.


Well Forest, "forgot" works, but I will concede that "forget" would work better. :thumbs_up

Archers who actually track their performance strive to better themselves, and while it is unlikely that ANYBODY could remember all of their less than perfect shots, it is common to remember the bad shots easier than the good shots. My statement was not an implication at all, it was was it was…..a statement. When the arrow holes are right in front of you in the target, those fliers are tough to ignore. I bet there are a bunch of guys on this site that would agree with the statement. As far as you noticing my frustration when you point these things out Forest, I really am not sure how to accurately reply to that, other than to simply say that unless and until we do business together, I cannot imagine a situation where you could frustrate me.

Trying to win at all costs…….thats funny, because that is exactly how I view you and Ray.  And yes, everybody is indeed entitled to their opinion, I just wish you would stop enticing new archers before they learn the fundamentals of shooting, and have a chance to figure out their goals. They sure don`t have a chance to ever know their true ability if they never get the basics out of the way.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Big Country said:


> Trying to win at all costs…….thats funny, because that is exactly how I view you and Ray.  And yes, everybody is indeed entitled to their opinion, I just wish you would stop enticing new archers before they learn the fundamentals of shooting, and have a chance to figure out their goals. They sure don`t have a chance to ever know their true ability if they never get the basics out of the way.


That right there is the crux of the matter. I truly don't care how anyone shoots until they start preaching to beginners. 

Ray you keep beating your GAP drum yet by doing that you never give a beginner a chance to know what they want. You will never get a choice to be a heart surgeon if you blow off 8th grade algebra.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Big Country said:


> Well Forest, "forgot" works, but I will concede that "forget" would work better. :thumbs_up
> 
> Archers who actually track their performance strive to better themselves, and while it is unlikely that ANYBODY could remember all of their less than perfect shots, it is common to remember the bad shots easier than the good shots. My statement was not an implication at all, it was was it was…..a statement. When the arrow holes are right in front of you in the target, those fliers are tough to ignore. I bet there are a bunch of guys on this site that would agree with the statement. As far as you noticing my frustration when you point these things out Forest, I really am not sure how to accurately reply to that, other than to simply say that unless and until we do business together, I cannot imagine a situation where you could frustrate me.
> 
> Trying to win at all costs…….thats funny, because that is exactly how I view you and Ray.  And yes, everybody is indeed entitled to their opinion, I just wish you would stop enticing new archers before they learn the fundamentals of shooting, and have a chance to figure out their goals. They sure don`t have a chance to ever know their true ability if they never get the basics out of the way.



Well then, I guess that makes us all pretty much the same in that department because when I make a bad shot, I sure recognize it, the same as you do. It's the implication that anyone who doesn't shoot for score takes their bad shooting lightly and I happen to know that's not always true. It's possible that most of us have different standards of what constitutes a 'bad' shot. I run on about shooting pinecones and I do but, just so you know, I don't always hit the pinecone. It's simply the target to focus on and I know which shot would be a hit to the vitals of a deer. I like to be within a couple of inches. That's a successful shot for my purposes. Of course a direct hit is good and too far from the pinecone is bad but, I don't get too hung up about it, I just know that I wasn't paying close enough attention. 

The only time you see me 'enticing' new archers is when they have stated clearly that they wish to learn instinctive shooting and usually a few people here go after them with a bunch of stuff that doesn't apply to their specific goal. What you guys consider to be fundamentals of shooting, I consider to be detrimental to someone who wants to shoot instinctively. Now, what should we do? Just stand by while some goon pushes a girly bow on a man and a bunch of target shooter bs that just confuses the person? I consider that thread jacking and can't allow it to go on unimpeded.
I suppose we could always flip the coin and do the same when guys indicate their interest in one of the aiming methods that you guys promote. The problem is, I consider myself a better person than to interfere with the desires of the person asking the question. Wouldn't be prudent.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Big Country said:


> Um, Ray, I don`t know how to break this to you sport…….you are not going to outsmart me, but feel free to continue attempting.


LOL!!!! If you think my purpose to post on this topic is to 'outsmart' you....you couldn't possibly be further from the truth.

All I care about is sharing the facts...which involves sharing the reality that involves EVERY archer...BOTH majority and minority.



Big Country said:


> you have a schtick that you seem emotionally attached to, and regardless of how silly it is, you ain`t letting go.


There is no reason to let it go...because it is a FACT and it is REALITY.



Big Country said:


> I applaud your tenacity, even though your Goal will never be Achieved, regardless of your Preference. :wink:


And what goal will never be achieved regardless of preference? :wink:

For clarification in case anyone is still confused

I am NOT saying that target practice is unimportant.

I am NOT saying that an archer can not increase their odds of filling their tags by shooting at paper or competing in a formal setting.



Big Country said:


> I have yet to see an exception to the rule.


Sooooo...because you have not yet seen an exception to your rule...it must not be possible and therefore those people do not exist...correct?

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Ray you keep beating your GAP drum yet by doing that you never give a beginner a chance to know what they want. You will never get a choice to be a heart surgeon if you blow off 8th grade algebra.


Matt....you keep beating your 'form' drum yet by doing that you never give a beginner a chance to know what they want because you are pushing your way is the only way. You will never get a chance to be a heart surgeon if you're only told that the only surgeon worth learning to be is a rectal surgeon :wink:

The fact is...questioning a beginner first about their GOALS before I push any form or style...IS giving a beginner a chance to shed some light on what they do want.

Every new or old archer has some type of GOAL. Some GOALS are just more detailed than others.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> That right there is the crux of the matter. I truly don't care how anyone shoots until they start preaching to beginners.
> 
> Ray you keep beating your GAP drum yet by doing that you never give a beginner a chance to know what they want. You will never get a choice to be a heart surgeon if you blow off 8th grade algebra.



Preaching to beginners, I like that one. Are you aware that there are about four people who have been directly responsible for chasing some recent 'beginners' off the forum. I can name them if you like, both the four and the 'beginners'. I would have to be pushed pretty hard to do that but, I can. It's the fabulous four who are not giving the beginner a chance. Don't you think that most of those 'beginners' already have a clue about what they want? Heck Mr. Potter, most of them seem to be quite intelligent and state their interests right up front. Why insult their intelligence?


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Is crack legal in MS??:dontknow:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Nock yourself out guys - Ray you know better but just like to argue.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Big Country said:


> Is crack legal in MS??:dontknow:



I could take offense to that remark but, I'm not that childish.:wink:
Are you a lawyer? They seem to ask dumb questions that they already know the answer to.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I could take offense to that remark but, I'm not that childish.:wink:
> Are you a lawyer? They seem to ask dumb questions that they already know the answer to.


Not a lawyer Forest, I simply asked because judging by the actions of our government, AND the silly stuff I read on the internet……..anything seems possible these days.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Nock yourself out guys - Ray you know better but just like to argue.


LOL...I know better about what?

I don't like to argue...but I do like making sure all the facts are shared...NOT just the one's that fit the majority of archers or a specific group of archers.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Big Country said:


> Not a lawyer Forest, I simply asked because judging by the actions of our government, AND the silly stuff I read on the internet……..anything seems possible these days.



Judging and jumping to conclusions then. So, due to the actions of our government, you concluded that I might be a crackhead? Pretty good stretch there, don't ya think?

:BrownBear:

I'm starting to catch on here I think, very interesting, yet ol' Jinks won't ever be a pro cause he likes to shoot instinctively. Oh well, he's too dang old to worry about it anyways.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

I think it's silly to be fighting over form
In my opinion whatever works for that individual doesn't have to apply to another, I love shooting instinctively and really dislike gap shooting, I have good groups at 20 yards and having a blast doing it


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

this is like Groundhog Day


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

grapplemonkey said:


> Being good in paper don't mean squat in the woods... although it can help. Smart people die in the woods all the time.


So true, mainly, in my opinion, because in the woods, assuming that you're talking about hunting, the hardest part is getting that good opportunity. As a reasonably good archer, and a really lousy hunter, I can personally testify to that.

However, I am fairly decent at getting out of the woods. My wife an I once made our way out of a hiking trip without a flashlight with trail braille, with nothing but stars to keep us oriented in direction. Moon was nowhere, and sometimes, in the deeper sections of trees, we couldn't see each other. Just had her hands on my shoulders like a four-legged caterpillar. Took a really long time, but made it without tumbling down the mountain. Not that the area was particularly precarious. If it was Yosemite, we would have just cuddled up inside a burnt out tree and waited for daytime. Now, we make sure to have a light if we're going out anywhere. Neat experience, but not looking to repeat it


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Well?...4 pages later I guess it's about time I participate in my own thread! :laugh:

and yes folks...I'll admit the tongue & cheek title may have been a touch misleading (if not "door opening" just to see who would waltz through. LOL!)...but I felt the body of the post made things readily apparent that I'm quite pleased if not flat out tickled with my shooting the other evening as it was one of those "relaxed and can't miss" kind of sessions...walking around the yard....shooting different distances...all that weird stuff us backyard champs do. :laugh:

Outside of just a few disparaging remarks and the little spat at the end I pretty much enjoyed reading it all...as to me?...it's standing proof of just how different our Goals, Abilities and Personalities are.

I was speaking with my closest trad shooting bud the other evening (who btw is an excellent shot) as I disclosed to him that I feel as though I've come full circle and landed right back where I started from and that?....I'm very happy with that...and we are both also in agreement that neither of us want anything to do with any hard point aiming systems that require guessing or knowing how far away our intended target is...our goal is to hone our skills and ability in such a way that we can look at our target and in the heat of the moment, blink of an eye, draw, loose and hit it...and we both view this as a more fitting skill set for hunting...and for bonus points?...we both find it relaxing, fun and enjoyable. 

I'm also accepting of the fact that what I do, how I do it, and why I do it that way isn't for everyone...but it meets my goals and desires.

I have no interest in standing on podiums...that's not "The Gift" for me that archery has to offer.

and not that there's a dang thing wrong doing so for those who are inspired and driven to do so...just not me...hence the title.

Carry on folks but please play nice. L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up



JINKSTER said:


> Well?...4 pages later I guess it's about time I participate in my own thread! :laugh:
> 
> and yes folks...I'll admit the tongue & cheek title may have been a touch misleading (if not "door opening" just to see who would waltz through. LOL!)...but I felt the body of the post made things readily apparent that I'm quite pleased if not flat out tickled with my shooting the other evening as it was one of those "relaxed and can't miss" kind of sessions...walking around the yard....shooting different distances...all that weird stuff us backyard champs do. :laugh:
> 
> ...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> ...it's standing proof of just how different our Goals, Abilities and Personalities are.


Isn't it funny how just a few people get so annoyed by the mere mention of what the G.A.P. profile stands for.

It's really nothing more than just common sense...yet a few refuse to acknowledge it and want to pigeonhole everyone into pursuing archery as they feel is a superior better way for everyone.



JINKSTER said:


> I was speaking with my closest trad shooting bud the other evening (who btw is an excellent shot) as I disclosed to him that I feel as though I've come full circle and landed right back where I started from and that?....I'm very happy with that...and we are both also in agreement that neither of us want anything to do with any hard point aiming systems that require guessing or knowing how far away our intended target is...our goal is to hone our skills and ability in such a way that we can look at our target and in the heat of the moment, blink of an eye, draw, loose and hit it...and we both view this as a more fitting skill set for hunting...and for bonus points?...we both find it relaxing, fun and enjoyable.
> 
> I'm also accepting of the fact that what I do, how I do it, and why I do it that way isn't for everyone...but it meets my goals and desires.
> 
> ...


Way to go, Bill! I'm so happy you've found the style and techniques that best suit you and didn't buy into the belief there is really only one best way to shoot these bows.

Ray :shade:


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

Bill please title your threads "Jinkster on"


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

GG22 & Ray...than you Gentlemen...and you know what?...I can see both sides of this very bias topic...here we have some who are seriously dedicated towards gaining the ability to target shoot well enough to be right in the hunt with average wheel bow results...and yes...that is an amazing feat....and I can see where those folks who work so hard to develop and maintain such high skill levels might become a bit jaded towards us mere mortals who simply enjoy the act of shooting whether it be for fun, exercise or shear relaxation...worse yet?...when we attend organized events more for the social aspects rather than the competitive aspects...as it's like pouring your heart and soul into something that others just aren't taking seriously...and even though their intentions are good at heart?...trying to help and all?...and maybe even looking to coach/mentor and/or create an elevated level of competition for themselves to contend with?...this is where I feel it may behoove us all for such folks to take a step back and realize that at the end of the day?...yes...there's new archers who seek such...but there's also another huge sector who would rather gouge their eyes out with a spork than apply hard point aiming to this game or be coached by a mean nun with a thick ruler! :laugh: 

and maybe recognize that "those people" have a place here as well...yet even as such?...still have plenty of questions of how to go about things...but in a less heavy handed and light hearted sort of way...as programs of attraction always seem to grow while programs of promotion have a strange way of shrinking..."our numbers". 

and Mike?...



4nolz said:


> Bill please title your threads "Jinkster on"


I ain't on nothing man!....I've been clean and sober since July 27th 2010! :laugh:

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

Attention can be addictive. why else chime in to keep these regular fighters fighting.Are we learning something?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

It's like being an ex-smoker, they're the most critical when somebody lights up, Bill were you not a very competitive Wheel shooter? When some of the good shooters post on these Forums you reply with a bad taste in your mouth.

Nothing wrong with being competitive and working hard at your game, being competitive doesn't suck the fun out of shooting, taking yourself too seriously does, I just try and be the best I can be and the fun factor is consistently hitting where I aimed and I don't get my panties in a knot when I sometimes miss.

Nothing wrong with not being competitive either but it doesn't mean you have to suck at your shooting. I likely only spend 5% of my shooting time in competition


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> GG22 & Ray...than you Gentlemen...and you know what?...I can see both sides of this very bias topic...here we have some who are seriously dedicated towards gaining the ability to target shoot well enough to be right in the hunt with average wheel bow results...and yes...that is an amazing feat....and I can see where those folks who work so hard to develop and maintain such high skill levels might become a bit jaded towards us mere mortals who simply enjoy the act of shooting whether it be for fun, exercise or shear relaxation...worse yet?...when we attend organized events more for the social aspects rather than the competitive aspects...as it's like pouring your heart and soul into something that others just aren't taking seriously...and even though their intentions are good at heart?...trying to help and all?...and maybe even looking to coach/mentor and/or create an elevated level of competition for themselves to contend with?...this is where I feel it may behoove us all for such folks to take a step back and realize that at the end of the day?...yes...there's new archers who seek such...but there's also another huge sector who would rather gouge their eyes out with a spork than apply hard point aiming to this game or be coached by a mean nun with a thick ruler! :laugh:
> 
> and maybe recognize that "those people" have a place here as well...yet even as such?...still have plenty of questions of how to go about things...but in a less heavy handed and light hearted sort of way...as programs of attraction always seem to grow while programs of promotion have a strange way of shrinking..."our numbers".
> 
> ...


Heavy handed? Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

FORESTGUMP said:


> The only time you see me 'enticing' new archers is when they have stated clearly that they wish to learn instinctive shooting and usually a few people here go after them with a bunch of stuff that doesn't apply to their specific goal. What you guys consider to be fundamentals of shooting, I consider to be detrimental to someone who wants to shoot instinctively. Now, what should we do? Just stand by while some goon pushes a girly bow on a man and a bunch of target shooter bs that just confuses the person? I consider that thread jacking and can't allow it to go on unimpeded.


Which is why I struggled for some four or five years before ever collecting a game animal. I fell for the "different strokes" mentality. I worked very hard, but not very smart. 

As for your comment about chasing off new posters, I assume you're refering to me and the fellow starting with the 70# bow?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

kegan said:


> Which is why I struggled for some four or five years before ever collecting a game animal. I fell for the "different strokes" mentality. I worked very hard, but not very smart.
> 
> As for your comment about chasing off new posters, I assume you're refering to me and the fellow starting with the 70# bow?


No Kegan he was pretty specifically referring to me and the "form nazis" - you know the guys that think a beginner should start at the beginning.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Hey Matt, I'll bet teaching your pup to double haul is looking better and better.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

The problem isn't different strokes for different folks.

The problem is buying into a stroke that doesn't fit a specific folk...in other words...an archer's G.A.P. profile.

Taking aiming for example...NOT EVERY archer can make True Instinctive Aiming work for them. Some archers need a hard conscious reference point to adjust to the target rather than relying on pure hand and eye coordination. The same thing applies to form.

An archer does NOT need to buy into the opinion there is ONLY one correct way to shoot these bows.

Some archers start of being told that to properly shoot a trad bow you have to shoot it in the 'traditional' way....knees bent, leaning over, bow canted and gripping it and ripping it.

That right there is a huge lie some people buy into.

It's no different when somone tries to force feed classical archery technique.

The ONLY aspects of form we all basically share is grabbing the bow with our left hand and drawing the string with our right hand if we're right handed.

With just those 2 aspects of form there is a HUGE variety of options.

Even in target archery circles there is debate on which joint angles and body positions are 'best'.

The FACT is and ALWAYS will be....is it really does NOT matter what an archer's form looks like or is. They can be bent at the knees, leaning over, bow canted and aiming Instinctively and ALL THAT MATTERS is how CONSISTENT they are with their form and aiming that meets their G.A.P. profile.

These debates remind me of those old martial arts movies where some people get soooo caught up in the arrogance regarding their style that they convince themselves that their style is the 'best'...when in fact...it has more to do with skill of the practioner than it does the specific form or technique.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

What you're leaving out ray is that there are things that definitely make consistency a LOT easier. For example shoulder alignment. It's a simple physical fact that that bone on bone alignment is more rigid and less dependent on muscles...making it also easier to be consistent.

John Shultz canted his bow like crazy, used a "swing draw" and shot fast but look at his shoulders, bow arm and the line from string elbow to his bow hand. Want to look at somebody more recent who is shooting little pieces of candy out of the air? Look at Jeff Kavanagh. His alignment looks pretty good too. 

And then there's how teaching, in general, is often approached with success. It's just not required to do a GAP profile and invent a new way of doing things. You teach the fundamentals which are building blocks. Once the student gains some mastery of those fundamentals, they can put the blocks together any way they want. 

I don't teach archery but I spent years teaching music and scuba diving. I don't need to know a diving students "GAP" in order to teach them how to control their depth and attitude in the water column. I don't need to know a music students "GAP" to know that some basic music theory is going to come in handy and starting them with some basic technique is going to get them started playing something. Later, they can do it any way they want.

You have to start someplace.


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

I thought that was a good and generally honest post and outlook on things Ray.

Makes me think, last night I was watching some random archery videos that people had put on youtube, and I do mean random, just kind of whatever came up.

On quite a few videos I would see someone shooting pretty darn well, and doing a fairly consistent looking draw and aim deal. 

It killed me because despite the fact these people were shooting decent and maintaining their shot forms in a way that seemed satisfactory to what they were shooting at you still see all of the ridiculous comments about, "Oh look at how they are drawing", "that anchor sucks", Or "YOUR FORM IS HORRIBLE!" I mean just loads of rude and just plain stupid remarks based on almost nothing.

Now I am quite aware there are some habits out there that will genuinely lead to bad shots, but c'mon!

I was even watching a video of Kassai Lajos, and couldn't help but notice some old guy saying something along the lines that it doesn't matter how fancy your shooting looks if you don't hit your target! 

The stuff people say about people they know nothing about is just astonishing sometimes.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

But we're not making comments on some random video. New archers who can't hit anything (sometimes with video evidence) come here and ask for advice. 

There may be more than one way to do a thing but you can't always present every way. It might be enough to offer *a* way.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

MGF said:


> You teach the fundamentals which are building blocks. Once the student gains some mastery of those fundamentals, they can put the blocks together any way they want.


Well said, we're teaching 50 to 80 a people a day and peak season around 500 to 800 people a week, we use a basic formula of those form fundamentals with an option to Gap or Instinct, we can get 90% of these people consistently hitting out to 20 yards within 30 min, some can do it in 10min.

Those wanting to take up the sport, it can take a month or so to get proper Form and sequence together but the very core basics are picked up very quickly if taught correctly.


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

MGF said:


> But we're not making comments on some random video. New archers who can't hit anything (sometimes with video evidence) come here and ask for advice.
> 
> There may be more than one way to do a thing but you can't always present every way. It might be enough to offer *a* way.


I get that, and I'm not trying to stir anything up. 

Actually in teaching my son how to shoot I have been drilling him on at least doing a certain # of things consistently, and not to worry about hitting exactly where he is aiming but to try to put his shots in as close a pattern as you can. I don't question his aiming or anything as I don't want to burn out his brain. Making things like bow arm, anchor, and stance consistent has helped him a bunch. I believe once those things are a non thought his abilities and options will be up for his interpretation.

My point is yes, form is the basis of archery, but it is variable.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> What you're leaving out ray is that there are things that definitely make consistency a LOT easier.


I'm NOT leaving out ANYTHING!

You're assuming I am...when in fact everything is in an archer's G.A.P. profile.

The 'basics' in how an archer pursues their style of archery will primarily be based on their GOALS and ABILITIES.

The key for EVERY archer is to find out what techniques they can make work that fulfill their GOALS.

I don't believe anyone is saying that there can't be certain aspects to form and aiming that make attaining and maintaining CONSISTENCY easier for most archers...because there certainly are.

There are certain aspects to form and aiming that make hitting moving targets easier.

There are certain aspects to form and aiming that make it easier to win competitions.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again....what is the 'best' form for everyone to start off with?

Is it maintaining a vertical bow?

Is it anchoring below the chin?

Is it standing in an open or closed stance?

Is it shooting with a low wrist or high wrist?

What's the 'best' position for the draw arm elbow?

Is 3 Under better than Split Finger?

What's the 'best' bow arm angle for everyone?

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Arrowzen said:


> I thought that was a good and generally honest post and outlook on things Ray.
> 
> Makes me think, last night I was watching some random archery videos that people had put on youtube, and I do mean random, just kind of whatever came up.
> 
> ...


Good catch arrowzen...and as time passes you'll notice how while some of the house target champs have no problem laying out degrading commentary...Some even referring to the more casual and laid back amiidst us as "wankers" and such?...Lord forbid we bring to their attention that the possibility exists that maybe...just maybe...not every archer seeks to become exactly like them...and then they take major offense...and it shows...big time.

hence the title of my post...As I actually pray to never become like them.

I think I've read enough here...time to enjoy shooting.

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Developing CONSISTENCY is the KEY to unlocking accuracy...no matter what it ends up looking like for a specific archer.

Most every choice involves a compromise to meet the archer's G.A.P. profile.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'm NOT leaving out ANYTHING!
> 
> I've asked this before and I'll ask it again....what is the 'best' form for everyone to start off with?
> 
> ...


Lets do it. I'm a new archer, just bought my 50# recurve bow and I can't hit anything. I'm shooting off the shelf with no sights. I think I want to hunt but I might decide to shoot some competition some day. I don't know what kind of competition because I have no idea what's out there.

Go ahead and make some suggestions.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF, 

In all fairness...I asked you or anyone else who wants to participate first to answer my questions.

I'll respectfully answer yours when you've answered mine.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> Which is why I struggled for some four or five years before ever collecting a game animal. I fell for the "different strokes" mentality. I worked very hard, but not very smart.
> 
> As for your comment about chasing off new posters, I assume you're refering to me and the fellow starting with the 70# bow?




No Kegan, I definitely was not referring to you and I had forgotten about that guy. There are a few people who come through the door with an attitude and that might have been one, don't remember for sure.
But, my friend, the guilty parties know who they are.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> What you're leaving out ray is that there are things that definitely make consistency a LOT easier. For example shoulder alignment. It's a simple physical fact that that bone on bone alignment is more rigid and less dependent on muscles...making it also easier to be consistent.
> 
> John Shultz canted his bow like crazy, used a "swing draw" and shot fast but look at his shoulders, bow arm and the line from string elbow to his bow hand. Want to look at somebody more recent who is shooting little pieces of candy out of the air? Look at Jeff Kavanagh. His alignment looks pretty good too.
> 
> ...



Tell us more about shoulder alignment. I have made some observations in that area that might not totally agree with yours. I have found that some people do a lot of talking and don't always practice what they preach. Anchor is on of those areas, they talk and talk about that and then I watch them shoot. The proof is in the pudding, always.
So, how about this shoulder alignment? Aligned with what?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Tell us more about shoulder alignment. ....So, how about this shoulder alignment? Aligned with what?


Any time the shoulders are "angular" to the line of force being held, you have created a "spring" between one line of force of in its direction of travel and one line of holding force. The integrity of that spring (angle created) is dependent on the muscles holding it at an angle. Since muscles are not static in strength and fluctuate on holding power over time, the angle is manageable in the short term but not in the long term. That's why we call alignment as in consistency in shot, because when the bones are aligned with the forces, the muscles do less holding work.

If you have two forces coming from both sides of you, the strongest position to oppose them from your arms and body is in direct line. If you take a step back and create an angle between you, your arms, and the forces, it's harder to oppose the forces equally.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Any time the shoulders are "angular" to the line of force being held, you have created a "spring" between one line of force of in its direction of travel and one line of holding force. The integrity of that spring (angle created) is dependent on the muscles holding it at an angle. Since muscles are not static in strength and fluctuate on holding power over time, the angle is manageable in the short term but not in the long term. That's why we call alignment as in consistency in shot, because when the bones are aligned with the forces, the muscles do less holding work.
> 
> If you have two forces coming from both sides of you, the strongest position to oppose them from your arms and body is in direct line. If you take a step back and create an angle between you, your arms, and the forces, it's harder to oppose the forces equally.



Theoretically speaking, I think that's probably right. In the real world of practical application, (archery) I'm not a believer. So prove it to me.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Theoretically speaking, I think that's probably right. In the real world of practical application, (archery) I'm not a believer. So prove it to me.


We can prove it in form pictures from Howard Hill, Fred Bear, and up to Brady Ellison. There's even a whole sticky poster at TradGang showing it, anti-target shooters I believe. 

But, you prove it to yourself all the time. The next time you push a very heavy load, look at where you choose to stand. Simple physics.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Lets be honest if you go on a paid guided Bowhunt and you dont shoot very well, you don't understand tuning or even really practice, then 'wanker' does come to mind. I'm sure a lot of people are not like that but it only takes a few bad apples to make that kind of label stick.

On looking back and reading the comment I don't think anybody was calling you that Bill.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Anyone see this http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2245444 The people in our 73 oly team would have their method slammed pretty hard if they were members here. Yet, at least one of them went on to win gold. Might be why a lot of top shelf shooters who could offer help don't visit this place. Assistance is easier to accept from an open hand versus slapped across the face.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> We can prove it in form pictures from Howard Hill, Fred Bear, and up to Brady Ellison. There's even a whole sticky poster at TradGang showing it, anti-target shooters I believe.
> 
> But, you prove it to yourself all the time. The next time you push a very heavy load, look at where you choose to stand. Simple physics.



I don't stand to push heavy loads, I sit. 

I looked and didn't find the sticky post but, I did get to study the form clock some. It looks good to me, do you think it's right? I didn't see bone on bone alignment though.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> MGF,
> 
> In all fairness...I asked you or anyone else who wants to participate first to answer my questions.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I was tired of typing and though that I might get you to talk about something more than GAP.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ranchoarcher said:


> Anyone see this http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2245444 The people in our 73 oly team would have their method slammed pretty hard if they were members here. Yet, at least one of them went on to win gold. Might be why a lot of top shelf shooters who could offer help don't visit this place. Assistance is easier to accept from an open hand versus slapped across the face.


Where did you witness any "slaps in the face" here? Where did anybody get slammed?

We do have a certain crowd here who argues against (I wouldn't call it a slam...well, Jinks slips one in here and there) any method that's offered.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

I guess it depends on how heavy handed it needs to be in order for what's written to be recognized as offensively delivered.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ranchoarcher said:


> I guess it depends on how heavy handed it needs to be in order for what's written to be recognized as offensively delivered.


I don't know that I've seen anything that I would consider "heavy handed". Could you point to an example?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

The top shooters that reside here offer their advice from experience and or their qualified training, that advice is free and nobody is forcing anybody to take it. 

In most cases that experience resulting from years of training can help *most* shooters but so can advice from less accomplished archers, you pick and chose what fits your personal goals.

I dont think I've every read a post from any top archer here saying you *HAVE* to do it this way or you will fail, it's just good advice and if it fits your shooting requirements it should help.

I think some people here have this degree of negativity towards success and read more into comments than actually is, just take it a face value, experienced Archers giving solid advice.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

MGF said:


> I don't know that I've seen anything that I would consider "heavy handed". Could you point to an example?


Any post where judgment is placed on a person or method when it's not asked for. For example. http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2246044 It asks are you in control of your shot. Reading the post it should be said, "Am I in control of your shot" What was the reason for holding off on the 3 count? It's a known rule of thumb not to hold for more than a few seconds at full draw to maintain accuracy. Perhaps those shooters fired away within their limits to keep control versus waiting for someone with ulterior motives to let them know when to shoot.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

ranchoarcher said:


> It's a known rule of thumb not to hold for more than a few seconds at full draw to maintain accuracy.


3-4 seconds is normal for myself and a lot of Archers but in windy conditions I've been know to hold for 8 secs, *simply, you hold for as long as it takes to make a good shot*, after 9 secs I will normally come down and restart the shot. I train to feel comfortable holding for varying times from a fast 1 sec to a slow 9 secs this covers most shooting scenarios.

Me being able to alter my timing at will, it would be reasonable to assume I'm in full control of my shot. A person doing a photo shoot may be asked to hold for extended times, way beyond normal timing, if they cannot do this then their is a possible problem with control.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Sounds logical. However, if you're told, "Let's do a 1,2,3 fire together", and you find out you were set up in order to be ridiculed in a forum, how would that go over?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ranchoarcher said:


> Any post where judgment is placed on a person or method when it's not asked for. For example. http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2246044 It asks are you in control of your shot. Reading the post it should be said, "Am I in control of your shot" What was the reason for holding off on the 3 count? It's a known rule of thumb not to hold for more than a few seconds at full draw to maintain accuracy. Perhaps those shooters fired away within their limits to keep control versus waiting for someone with ulterior motives to let them know when to shoot.


As I understood the post, a few shooters voluntarily participated in an experiment where they were going to shoot on the count of three. I don't know that there's any magic in the number '3' and I'm not really familiar with the "rule of thumb" you're talking about. There are some pretty good shooters who hold for a long time...and some that don't.

Centershot can speak for himself but I think his intention was to start a discussion that he thought relevant to the level of shooting he witnessed at the shoot.

No individuals were named. I guess I'm not seeing this "heavy handedness". I think it's a relevant topic, although, the thread kind of got hijacked and sidetracked.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ranchoarcher said:


> Sounds logical. However, if you're told, "Let's do a 1,2,3 fire together", and you find out you were set up in order to be ridiculed in a forum, how would that go over?


Nobody was ridiculed or even named.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

What was witnessed was a setup do manipulate the participants into shooting more poorly than they normally would. It was rigged. Would it be accepted if a good compound shooter were to do a similar test and state all trad shooters should be banned from hunting since they can't consistently hit the 10 ring at 60 yards? Different styles and proficiency levels shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to gloat or berate.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

MGF said:


> Nobody was ridiculed or even named.


 The implication was clear as day. Specific names aren't necessary when the majority are presumed to be in the group spoken of.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

WOW! :lol:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ranchoarcher said:


> The implication was clear as day. Specific names aren't necessary when the majority are presumed to be in the group spoken of.


Wow, I have no idea where you're getting this stuff from. I think he started a topic that he thought might be helpful to some archers and simply use an observation to illustrate a point.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ranchoarcher said:


> What was witnessed was a setup do manipulate the participants into shooting more poorly than they normally would. It was rigged. Would it be accepted if a good compound shooter were to do a similar test and state all trad shooters should be banned from hunting since they can't consistently hit the 10 ring at 60 yards? Different styles and proficiency levels shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to gloat or berate.


I see...they were manipulated into shooting poorly. LOL

I will point out that centershot didn't try to ban anybody from anything and I didn't see any gloating.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

MGF said:


> I see...they were manipulated into shooting poorly. LOL
> 
> I will point out that centershot didn't try to ban anybody from anything and I didn't see any gloating.


Why the hold over on 3 if not for that reason? Longer holds degrade accuracy. I think that can be agreed on by all. Were they told 3 was going to be delayed? I bet not. Not saying centershot was asking for a ban. But, when the subject of accuracy and hunting comes up, there are often mention of standards that should be required and often they put the bar just under the writer's capability. If a good compound shooter were the OP, we'd all be in that group per their standard. 

The gloating was implied by the disparagement of the majority.


----------



## mcharles (Nov 11, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> ...but at the end of the day?...somehow it's always the herters that works it's way back into my hand...Lord I love This Bow!


Haven't read through all the posts on here but...


You still got the Herters? :smile:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ranchoarcher said:


> Why the hold over on 3 if not for that reason? Longer holds degrade accuracy. I think that can be agreed on by all. Were they told 3 was going to be delayed? I bet not. Not saying centershot was asking for a ban. But, when the subject of accuracy and hunting comes up, there are often mention of standards that should be required and often they put the bar just under the writer's capability. If a good compound shooter were the OP, we'd all be in that group per their standard.
> 
> The gloating was implied by the disparagement of the majority.


You should ask him some of these questions but I think '3' was just an arbitrary number. As I pointed out before, I don't agree that a long hold is necessarily degrade accuracy. Just a few posts back, Steve Morley posted that he sometimes hold for a count of 9 and he's a high level shooter.

Personally, I don't have as much control of my shot as I think I should have. I can relate to the topic but I don't feel insulted or degraded by it. I just need more practice/training.

I spent all day today working on my "final execution". Specifically, NOT releasing until I'm really ready and maintaining my "hook" until it's time to release. Sometimes I know I'm not on and not ready and release anyway. Sometimes I start relaxing my hook well before I'm ready to release. That gets my forearm working and messes up the shot.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I don't stand to push heavy loads, I sit.
> 
> I looked and didn't find the sticky post but, I did get to study the form clock some. It looks good to me, do you think it's right? I didn't see bone on bone alignment though.


http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/Technique/AngularMovement/AngularMovement.html

http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/Technique/KSLShotCycle/KSLShotCycle-USA.html


----------



## Irish Sitka (Jul 2, 2009)

A friend of mine gave me a book on Archery titled:
"Zen in the art of Archery" written by Eugene Herrigel. 
The book was written in 1936 when Herrigel went to Japan to study Archery and Buddhism.
He studied under a master who's only instruction was "Let the arrow shoot itself"
Very interesting book.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> Sorry, I was tired of typing and though that I might get you to talk about something more than GAP.


I bet you must be REAL tired...LOL

G.A.P. covers just about everything.

It covers an archer's GOALS...which can be different than yours or mine.

It covers ABILITIES...which covers all the techniques whether form or aiming related.

And last but not least...PERSONALITIES...which covers why some people are drawn to different styles and techniques.

So what did I miss...other than your blatant avoidance of answering my questions first?

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I bet you must be REAL tired...LOL
> 
> G.A.P. covers just about everything.
> 
> ...


The answer to your question would be too long. Can we narrow the scope a bit?

Not to change the subject but I guess I just don't understand this GAP thing, especially, as it pertains to beginners. We just don't have a bunch or folks around here shooting from the backs of galloping horses or practicing some Eastern Martial art that involves a bow. Most folks punch paper and/or foam at the local range/club or maybe do some hunting.

Guys like Matt, Dwayne, Steve and a few others (don't mean to leave anybody out) offer real suggestions on how one might shoot better. I just don't see how that GAP thing is going to help get arrows to the center of the target (whatever the target may be). I don't think GAP really covers anything. I'm pretty that had I employed this GAP concept when I was teaching diving it would have been really bad. Fortunately for the students I set the learning objectives and performance requirements.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grapplemonkey said:


> http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/Technique/AngularMovement/AngularMovement.html
> 
> http://www.kslinternationalarchery.com/Technique/KSLShotCycle/KSLShotCycle-USA.html



Not sure what your point is. I took a quick look at those links and didn't see anything relative to the discussion. It was obviously a site for Olympic shooters. They aren't usually involved in this forum so I'm confused. Watchu talkin bout?


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

MGF said:


> You should ask him some of these questions but I think '3' was just an arbitrary number. As I pointed out before, I don't agree that a long hold is necessarily degrade accuracy. Just a few posts back, Steve Morley posted that he sometimes hold for a count of 9 and he's a high level shooter.
> 
> Personally, I don't have as much control of my shot as I think I should have. I can relate to the topic but I don't feel insulted or degraded by it. I just need more practice/training.
> 
> I spent all day today working on my "final execution". Specifically, NOT releasing until I'm really ready and maintaining my "hook" until it's time to release. Sometimes I know I'm not on and not ready and release anyway. Sometimes I start relaxing my hook well before I'm ready to release. That gets my forearm working and messes up the shot.


It's not to say a longer hold can't be done or be somewhat accurate. Generally speaking, the longer you're holding the less finesse you have. Time held is subjective as to what constitutes a long hold along with the weight of the bow. It also matters why. In wind, as Steve pointed out, there is more to contend with than arm strain. Seen top Oly shooters hold long in the wind trying to control their bow whipping back and forth and completely blank the target. Number 1 in the world no less. So, it happens. I happened to me a lot the other day. A light recurve in 20 mph gusts trying to hit a 60 yard target? Ain't gonna happen. To Joe average archer being asked to extend their hold time without prior knowledge is pushing for an inaccurate shot. Question is, what's the point when they weren't made aware it was going to be done.

The level of control wished for probably has a lot to do with desired results. To some, a pie plate circumference at 20 yards is perfect since that's all they need. Plenty of people out there only do this to hit a deer at that distance max from their favorite tree stand. To others the x ring at 70 meters is necessary. Is one any better than the other when they each got what they wanted. No.

We might both be in that same boat when it comes to keeping the string hooked up to execution. I end up low right when things start getting unglued like that. Time to take a breather since it's usually a function of being tired making the fingers open up before hand.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Not sure what your point is. I took a quick look at those links and didn't see anything relative to the discussion. It was obviously a site for Olympic shooters. They aren't usually involved in this forum so I'm confused. Watchu talkin bout?


...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> Not to change the subject but I guess I just don't understand this GAP thing, especially, as it pertains to beginners. We just don't have a bunch or folks around here shooting from the backs of galloping horses or practicing some Eastern Martial art that involves a bow. Most folks punch paper and/or foam at the local range/club or maybe do some hunting.


That's just it. It's right in front of your face yet you don't realize it.

We don't have a bunch of people here wanting to shoot from horse back...YET...there are some here who do!!!

I agree that MOST folks punch paper, shoot foam and/or bowhunt...but again that is NOT everybody here.

The G.A.P. profile addresses EVERYONE...NOT just most people.



MGF said:


> Guys like Matt, Dwayne, Steve and a few others (don't mean to leave anybody out) offer real suggestions on how one might shoot better.


And so do I and just about every other person who posts here trying to give advice.

There is NO one perfect aspect of form correct for EVERYONE...even if you eliminated the minority. There's debate even in the Olympic archery community on what is 'best'.



MGF said:


> I'm pretty that had I employed this GAP concept when I was teaching diving it would have been really bad.


As far as I know...there are quite a few different styles of diving.

Sky Diving
Free Diving
Scuba Diving
Snorkling

The G.A.P. profile helps establish what kind of diving a person would want to do :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> That's just it. It's right in front of your face yet you don't realize it.
> 
> We don't have a bunch of people here wanting to shoot from horse back...YET...there are some here who do!!!
> 
> ...


Sorry, thought I had mentioned that it was scuba diving. There are many different styles of that also, however, In regard to many aspects, students had no choice. I saw too many people hurt because of the way diving is often taught.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

> At this rate?...I'll never be a good target shooter!


Me neither, but it don't stop me from trying. 

Rick


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> Sorry, thought I had mentioned that it was scuba diving. There are many different styles of that also, however, In regard to many aspects, students had no choice. I saw too many people hurt because of the way diving is often taught.


No problem. 

I don't doubt that some people are misguided and taught incorrectly...but as you stated there are differences just as there is with archery...and if someone wants to learn or teach a specific style...it's best to understand what works best for the majority but also be aware of specific things that can work well with the minority. This is basically what the G.A.P. profile is about.

It's NOT meant to convey that it's a free for all and that anything works...but how to best teach someone with a specific GOAL, ABILITIES and PERSONALITY. It's not rocket science. It took Ben Rogers to help put it all together :wink: I was just the one who just trying to show that we're NOT all the same....NOR do we all need to learn archery the same way.

Ray :shade:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Instead of splitting this forum into bowhunting and target , 

We should just split it into the GAP Forum and " other " ...

... The first will have heaps of smilies and winks
... The second we'll talk about archery


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> Instead of splitting this forum into bowhunting and target ,
> 
> We should just split it into the GAP Forum and " other " ...
> 
> ...


How is not talking about an archer's archery GOALS, ABILITIES and PERSONALITY...NOT about archery????

With G.A.P. there is no us vs them. It includes everyone and exposes how we're NOT all the same.

Ray :shade:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Wow ...
This is just getting wierd.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> Wow ...
> This is just getting wierd.


What's weird, Ben?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

It's archery guys, not troop placement and nuke deployment. It's hard, but let's not get carried away. Speck


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Who exactly on here do we have that shoots from a horse? Who do we have that is predominantly interested in flying targets?

Sounds like a GAP forum would be a great thing. Someplace where Ray can stand on his soapbox and pontificate to the .01% who might actually benefit.

-Grant


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

Yup, cuz the way we do it here in Merica is the 99%. All the rest of the world is .01%

Isn't the traditional forum the only forum here dedicated to recurves and longbows? Which have been used in countless ways through out history? If there is a more fitting forum for this I would love to know. There probably is but I would need to know another language probably...

Oh did I say that out loud... oh well.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Arrowzen said:


> Yup, cuz the way we do it here in Merica is the 99%. All the rest of the world is .01%
> 
> Isn't the traditional forum the only forum here dedicated to recurves and longbows? Which have been used in countless ways through out history? If there is a more fitting forum for this I would love to know. There probably is but I would need to know another language probably...
> 
> Oh did I say that out loud... oh well.


You will find that the rest of the world does things much more by the book. North America as a whole has an obsession with individuality.


-Grant


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

grantmac said:


> You will find that the rest of the world does things much more by the book. North America as a whole has an obsession with individuality.
> 
> 
> -Grant



Nailed it Grant, whats needed is a formal standard of teaching the basics to get Archers to a competent level and then Rays GAP profile might then come into play if that is what the Archer wants. All a novice wants in the start is to hit the target, they have no idea of the options available to them. I remember this from talking to Target Archers when first introduced to Field archery, they never knew it existed and it was only by chance conversation that they found out, one Yorkshire target club was very unimpressed with me, it was the only place for me to practice, 3 months after joining 50% of the members had started shooting Field/3D.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

No one has yet detailed exactly what the basics are that every person must first learn to shoot a bow competently.

What are the exact joint, limb and body positions that MUST be taught and learned???

Ray :shade:


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

steve morley said:


> Nailed it Grant, whats needed is a formal standard of teaching the basics to get Archers to a competent level and then Rays GAP profile might then come into play if that is what the Archer wants. All a novice wants in the start is to hit the target, they have no idea of the options available to them. I remember this from talking to Target Archers when first introduced to Field archery, they never knew it existed and it was only by chance conversation that they found out, one Yorkshire target club was very unimpressed with me, it was the only place for me to practice, 3 months after joining 50% of the members had started shooting Field/3D.


I can understand this whole conflict in conversation when regarding new or inexperienced archers. I suppose I look at things such as shooting styles and techniques from a historical point of view. Which suggests a huge # of possibilities.

I respect your posts Steve. I know you're a pretty high end shooter and you speak in a very sensible way. This forum is a huge grab bag of topics sometimes.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> No one has yet detailed exactly what the basics are that every person must first learn to shoot a bow competently.
> 
> What are the exact joint, limb and body positions that MUST be taught and learned???
> 
> Ray :shade:


I think I might be seeing the issue here.

Ray, your GAP stuff applies to the finer details: finger placement on the bone, your specific anchor point, degree of cant, aiming style, so on. All individual, and all usually different.

The issue is that those all come AFTER the basics, which is a solid bow arm resulting from bone on bone contact, the basics of back tension, consistency with a bone to bone anchor, basic alignment and shot execution. These are the characteristics that can be found in every successful archer in any field, with only a few exceptions. Those exceptions are usually pretty lenient, however, with the required accuracy being fairly low. Here the example of the Lars fellow shooting as quikly as humanely possible works, because he is looking to just "hit", where as others using more formal form would be looking to hit the center of the center. 

Putting the cart before the horse on the basics doesn't help, though. Shooting from horseback, shooting arieal targets, all of it can and is done very well with the same fundamentals of form that do well on static targets or hunting. Learn those, and then give the new archer the basics on the bale and bridge and let them find their own GAP system. Same as what's done with the NASP program. Kids are given barebow compounds and taught to shoot that way. From there they go on to pursue what ever they might enjoy (their GAP again). That comes after the basics though. Same with driving. One kid wants to be a race car driver, another a big rig driver, another just wants to get home from work every day when he's older. They all start in their parent's car learning what levers work the turn signals and how to parallel park. 

Simple as that. Basics, then Gap.


----------



## Roger Savor Sr (Feb 16, 2014)

These debates are curious to say the least. No matter the site, forum or other venue, I watch people crawl inside out to make excuses for their inaccuracy issues. The biggest or most widespread excuse is the one that says they can kill game with consistency, but can't hold a group or put the arrow in the 10 ring on foam to save their lives.........Sorry, not buying that and the reason for it is every single person that I've met who proclaims it is a terrible shot. The deer is a target.......The dot is a target.......The 10 ring is a target......Kill one, kill all.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> I think I might be seeing the issue here.


Kegan,

I sure appreciate you trying to understand what I'm saying. It's a huge indication of a person's character when they make an effort to communicate respectfully even when they may not fully understand what someone is saying. I really appreciate it when a person first asks questions before making an accusation off of a poor assumption.



kegan said:


> Ray, your GAP stuff applies to the finer details: finger placement on the bone, your specific anchor point, degree of cant, aiming style, so on. All individual, and all usually different.


Close! but it doesn't JUST cover the finer details. That is something some people are HUGELY misunderstanding. The G.A.P. profile allows for every aspect to come into play.

If an archer has a GOAL of becoming an Olympic Archer...than he studies and learns how most Olympic archers shoot.

If an archer wants to compete in Field Rounds...than he studies and learns how most Top Ranked Field archers shoot.

If an archer wants to just bowhunt from the ground and aim Instinctively...there will be techniques that are more commonly used for that GOAL.

Same goes for any other aspect such as horseback or Kyudo to name a few more.

Now if an archer really doesn't know exactly what their GOALS are...they can research some of the styles that interest them and than try and get an overview of what's common between the different styles they're interested in.

This is a Traditional Archery forum...which covers every technique and style used to shoot a recurve, longbow or primitive bow.

This forum is NOT just about 3D, NFAA 300 rounds, bowhunting, Horseback archery, Trick Shooting, Field Rounds. It's about it ALL.

The finer details are ALSO covered in the G.A.P. profile under ABILITIES.

Here's the the most basic way I can lay it out.

GOALS = is the style of archery someone wants to pursue and than learning the techniques commonly used with that style/styles.

ABILITIES = taking the techniques used for a specific style and seeing if they can effectively use them...and if they can't...adjusting them to accommodate their individual body structure and/or abilities.

PERSONALITY = some people are drawn to certain aspects of archery more than others...so that also comes into play. If an archer isn't having fun...they most likely aren't going to stick with it.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> No one has yet detailed exactly what the basics are that every person must first learn to shoot a bow competently.
> 
> What are the exact joint, limb and body positions that MUST be taught and learned???
> 
> Ray :shade:



You're never going to get that answered by people who can't even understand something as simple as the GAP profile. Or maybe they do actually understand and are too hardheaded to admit it. Either one is the same result.

Heck, these people still think they are doing some magic trick with bone on bone contact and some perceived 'proper alignment'.What they talk about is almost physically impossible for a normal human but, hey, it's gotta be true because some guy with a funny name told them so.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Roger Savor Sr said:


> These debates are curious to say the least. No matter the site, forum or other venue, I watch people crawl inside out to make excuses for their inaccuracy issues. The biggest or most widespread excuse is the one that says they can kill game with consistency, but can't hold a group or put the arrow in the 10 ring on foam to save their lives.........Sorry, not buying that and the reason for it is every single person that I've met who proclaims it is a terrible shot. The deer is a target.......The dot is a target.......The 10 ring is a target......Kill one, kill all.



That's all in your mind Sir. Nobody here has claimed any of those things nor used any excuses for inaccuracy. I will say that it's possible that some of you know a bunch of mental midgets who make such claims.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

If one has ever wondered what happened with those kids in school who sat back row and constantly interjected "I'll never need to know this stuff in real life", well, same game, different topic.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> If one has ever wondered what happened with those kids in school who sat back row and constantly interjected "I'll never need to know this stuff in real life", well, same game, different topic.



Are you saying that when you were in high school you couldn't see much use for algebra in your future ?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Ray, I understand where you're coming from with the various tecniques, but I interpret those as just differences in anchor, equipment, or shot sequence, not form. I view the basics as the bare basics- bone alignment and muscle tension. Of course you have minor variations but ultimately the most consistent archers share the same basics. Rick Welch and Brady Ellison, for example, have different approaches because of their specific fields, but they both use bone on bone alignment through the bow arm into their shoulders and keep back tension through the shot without a great deal of involvement of the muscles in the hands or arms. Same basics with an Japanese archer shooting a yumi. None shooting with arm tension, or broken lines of tension. Anchors, grips, shot sequences, all of that is different though. The basics of alignment and muscle execution are the same in all of them.

The issue I see with all of this is when someone offers that because the new archer has no interest in punching paper at any point, they can do things differently, or worse, _should_ do things differently. You teach them the basics of alignment, of what muscles to use. You explain the how's and why's of these basics. Then, you let them go forth with that information and make compromises in it on their own to match their personality. Basics, then GAP.

The argument here is not what "works", it's what's "best" for a new archer, specifically non-target shooters. The issue that stems from that argument seems to be that some will take what works, and offer it as what's best. An example is Dick Palmer's books on longbow shooting. He dismisses recurves, any arrow other than wood, slower shooting (target style), and bows under 60# for deer hunting. However, in a photo of himself practicing with a recurve from his early years it's painfully obvious that he's muscling a recurve back with tension in both arms, hands, and every finger, depsite a very low 35# draw weight. Shooting in such a style it's obvious why he feels the heavy bows are more accurate- he lets the power of the bow over power his over exertion. He goes on to write about missing many, many shots on deer though, only collecting some thirty or so. Being the huge Hill fan he was, it begs the question why he didn't pay attention what Hill remarked in his book, _Hunting the Hard Way_, that a man who doesn't collect at least one deer out of every four shots is not doing very good shooting. Is he enjoying himself? Obviously. Is it working for him? Well enough so that he's pleased at least. Does he have any business writing to tell others that this is the best method for hunting? No, and that's the problem that comes from comparing something that is so difficult to quantify. That's the same as a very rude conversation I had with the girlfriend of a now former friend. He was driving a Silverado he bought for $5000. I made a joke about Dodge being better because it was in the shop getting the suspension fixed we used my $600 Dakota with 170,000 miles to haul supplies back for a project. His girlfriend commented that not only was my truck garbage, all Dodges were garbage. Why? They just were, they didn't last and weren't good for anything. Based on what? They just are. Based on what experience? He father said so. Why? He had one that had issues at some point before she was born. My joke was meant to be light hearted, as my Dakota had a laundry list of issues that I didn't know how to fix, but her comment was completely genuine. She had a venemous opinion on something just because she had some experiences with another brand that weren't so bad, and she had been told that this other brand was utterly worthless.

I think most of these debates utlimately turn out just like that conversation.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> No one has yet detailed exactly what the basics are that every person must first learn to shoot a bow competently.
> 
> What are the exact joint, limb and body positions that MUST be taught and learned???
> 
> Ray :shade:


No one in this thread or no one in general?


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Sanford said:


> If one has ever wondered what happened with those kids in school who sat back row and constantly interjected "I'll never need to know this stuff in real life", well, same game, different topic.


Give up Sanford... he couldn't even understand what was being offered in the sites I linked for him. Don't let him troll you.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> Ray, I understand where you're coming from with the various tecniques, but I interpret those as just differences in anchor, equipment, or shot sequence, not form. I view the basics as the bare basics- bone alignment and muscle tension. Of course you have minor variations but ultimately the most consistent archers share the same basics. Rick Welch and Brady Ellison, for example, have different approaches because of their specific fields, but they both use bone on bone alignment through the bow arm into their shoulders and keep back tension through the shot without a great deal of involvement of the muscles in the hands or arms. Same basics with an Japanese archer shooting a yumi. None shooting with arm tension, or broken lines of tension. Anchors, grips, shot sequences, all of that is different though. The basics of alignment and muscle execution are the same in all of them.
> 
> The issue I see with all of this is when someone offers that because the new archer has no interest in punching paper at any point, they can do things differently, or worse, _should_ do things differently. You teach them the basics of alignment, of what muscles to use. You explain the how's and why's of these basics. Then, you let them go forth with that information and make compromises in it on their own to match their personality. Basics, then GAP.
> 
> ...



I won't address everything in the post but, I would like to see some proof of this so called bone on bone alignment. Sometimes people say stuff as a general figure of speech and promote it as the gospel when it's actually not totally true. I see it all the time. In fact, I had a little time this morning so I looked at some archers shooting the style that some guys here are promoting and it's so obvious that the stuff belongs in the fita forum. There were other details of their arguments that I could elaborate on if I liked typing. I don't , so I often let them go but, when it comes to bogus information being distributed to people who may be young beginners, I have to take a stand. 
The other thing I will address for you is that many things are relative and subject to interpretation. Words that are thrown around like 'form' and 'alignment' have different meanings to different people depending on circumstances. But, when one uses words like square, perpendicular or parallel to describe something they should realize that those things are measureable and not simply a rule of thumb. When someone says they have their feet and shoulders perpendicular to the target and bone on bone alignment from bow hand through the shoulders, then I would like to see proof of that statement. Close doesn't count, somewhere in the general area doesn't count. I'm looking for a line drawn 90 degrees from the target through the bow hand, arm and both shoulders. So please show me something that I can believe instead of what some guy said and lots of people picked it up and ran with it.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I won't address everything in the post but, I would like to see some proof of this so called bone on bone alignment. Sometimes people say stuff as a general figure of speech and promote it as the gospel when it's actually not totally true. I see it all the time. In fact, I had a little time this morning so I looked at some archers shooting the style that some guys here are promoting and it's so obvious that the stuff belongs in the fita forum. There were other details of their arguments that I could elaborate on if I liked typing. I don't , so I often let them go but, when it comes to bogus information being distributed to people who may be young beginners, I have to take a stand.
> The other thing I will address for you is that many things are relative and subject to interpretation. Words that are thrown around like 'form' and 'alignment' have different meanings to different people depending on circumstances. But, when one uses words like square, perpendicular or parallel to describe something they should realize that those things are measureable and not simply a rule of thumb. When someone says they have their feet and shoulders perpendicular to the target and bone on bone alignment from bow hand through the shoulders, then I would like to see proof of that statement. Close doesn't count, somewhere in the general area doesn't count. I'm looking for a line drawn 90 degrees from the target through the bow hand, arm and both shoulders. So please show me something that I can believe instead of what some guy said and lots of people picked it up and ran with it.


I'm with you on this Forest...you know?...I've watched a lot of the instructional/tutorial vids produced by world class coaches and have concluded that yes...there is a generic/basic set of guidelines for maintaining shot-too-shot consistency which really boils down to "consistency of form"...iow's?...you could do everything wrong...but as long as you're doing it wrong the same way everytime?...viola...shot-too-shot consistency...meanwhile back on the farm?...I've observed (and to degree "experienced") that you could take a dozen top coaches and come out with at least 6 DIFFERENT styles of "Proper Form"...and the oh so elusive "bone-on-bone" crap?...might get touched upon when I hear those claim they "got inside their bow" but by and in large?....is a product of "Olympic Style Form" where the archer is drawing straight across their chest and anchoring low under their chin...but get up high under your eye?...to use your arrow like a crude sight pin?...and that's where the oly coach throws his hands up in the air and walks away...cause you just went all muscle...and what some lovingly refer to as "Back Tension" :laugh:

Go tell Kisik Lee you want to anchor under your cheekbone and see what his response is...do you think you'd ever see Brady anchoring like that?...but what about Rick Welch?...Does he fully agree with Rod Jenkins or Visa-Versa?....(and "I KNOW" the answer to that one!...and it's short! LOL!)....so here we have a globe full of world class archers yet so few agree on so few things...meanwhile?...here at A.T.?...there's only one way to shoot a bow? :laugh:

Gentlefolk?...don't look now but...you are caught up in the midst of a never-ending argument that is "Of This World"...meanwhile?...

I'm shooting out of this world! 

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> I've watched a lot of the instructional/tutorial vids produced by world class coaches and have concluded that yes...there is a generic/basic set of guidelines for maintaining shot-too-shot consistency which really boils down to "consistency of form"...iow's?...you could do everything wrong...but as long as you're doing it wrong the same way everytime?...viola...shot-too-shot consistency...meanwhile back on the farm?...


I agree with that. As long as you do the same thing wrong, the "same", every time, it works. That's why just about ANY system will produce a few good groups every now and again. But, we ain't machines and lack their consistency. We need to cheat our ever-changing muscle tones and strengths. That's another reason I don't care for grouped arrow brags. A target archer is just an archer who recorded and made public all his arrows - IOW, he didn't take his best group and add the whole card that way. But, one group out of a shooting session is just that, leading folks to believe or fooling yourself that that's the whole of it.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> I've watched a lot of the instructional/tutorial vids produced by world class coaches and have concluded that yes...there is a generic/basic set of guidelines for maintaining shot-too-shot consistency which really boils down to "consistency of form"...iow's?...you could do everything wrong...but as long as you're doing it wrong the same way everytime?...viola...shot-too-shot consistency...meanwhile back on the farm?...I've observed (and to degree "experienced") that you could take a dozen top coaches and come out with at least 6 DIFFERENT styles of "Proper Form"...and the oh so elusive "bone-on-bone" crap?...might get touched upon when I hear those claim they "got inside their bow" but by and in large?....is a product of "Olympic Style Form" where the archer is drawing straight across their chest and anchoring low under their chin...but get up high under your eye?...to use your arrow like a crude sight pin?...and that's where the oly coach throws his hands up in the air and walks away...cause you just went all muscle...and what some lovingly refer to as "Back Tension"



Now... how can you guarantee you're consistently doing things the same way every single time you shoot if you don't have solid repeatable reference's? 

To the guys here that are self taught archers please raise your hand.

How many have had formal coaching?

How many have participated in sports? Military? Held supervisory/managerial positions? Specialized training?

If you can't see the relevancy in my questions please don't respond.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Sanford said:


> I agree with that. As long as you do the same thing wrong, the "same", every time, it works. That's why just about ANY system will produce a few good groups every now and again. But, we ain't machines and lack their consistency. We need to cheat our ever-changing muscle tones and strengths. That's another reason I don't care for grouped arrow brags. A target archer is just an archer who recorded and made public all his arrows - IOW, he didn't take his best group and add the whole card that way. But, one group out of a shooting session is just that, leading folks to believe or fooling yourself that that's the whole of it.


While I definitely get what you're saying?...I guess I'm missing your point Sanford....and I think maybe it's because we see things so differently...I didn't post the OP group pics to brag or mislead folks...I posted them to show why I was so pleased with my shooting...and?...happy with my bow...and you wanna talk about *"ever-changing muscle tones and strengths"*?...I'm a 55 year old diabetic...sometimes my physical aptitude changes from day too day if not hour too hour...eating right and the supplements Joe Paranee turned me onto are helping balance things out though...and again we are different in that while you love recording your scores?...I don't....but that doen't mean I don't have a scorecard of my own...it just get filled out in my soul...and my reward for a well shot session is an uplifted spirit...enough so that I felt compelled to post a couple group pics and express my glee...and I had very little to do with how this thread got to page 8 here now...but I'm still enjoying shooting! 

Matter fact?...I'm trying to think of a good "First Shot" for today. L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

grapplemonkey said:


> Now... how can you guarantee you're consistently doing things the same way every single time you shoot if you don't have solid repeatable reference's?
> 
> To the guys here that are self taught archers please raise your hand.
> 
> ...


I'm a self taught archer....who's had formal coaching....and a former U.S. Marine who was a MOS/6062 Egress and Environmental Systems Technician on MCdonald/Douglas A-4 Skyhawk Attack Jets assigned to VMA-214 BlackSheep Squadron based in MCAS El Toro, CA circa 78-81...Technical Training was conducted at NAS Millington, TN where I was taught A/C, Cabin Pressurization, Liquid & Gaseous Oxygen Systems, Canopy Jettison and Ejection Seats...Our Mission Statement was to be able to move all operations and establish air superiority anywhere in the world within a 24 hour time frame....but I hafta ask...what's your relevency? :laugh:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Sandy McCain shot Olympic style for years and received some of the best coaching that is available.
Small surprise that when she switched over to Trad she has dominated the competition ever since with scores that would shame anyone in this thread.

Fundamentals are the same.

-Grant

P.S. Self taught, military, management and civilian flying experience.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up


JINKSTER said:


> I'm a self taught archer....who's had formal coaching....and a former U.S. Marine who was a MOS/6062 Egress and Environmental Systems Technician on MCdonald/Douglas A-4 Skyhawk Attack Jets assigned to VMA-214 BlackSheep Squadron based in MCAS El Toro, CA circa 78-81...Technical Training was conducted at NAS Millington, TN where I was taught A/C, Cabin Pressurization, Liquid & Gaseous Oxygen Systems, Canopy Jettison and Ejection Seats...Our Mission Statement was to be able to move all operations and establish air superiority anywhere in the world within a 24 hour time frame....but I hafta ask...what's your relevency? :laugh:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grapplemonkey said:


> Give up Sanford... he couldn't even understand what was being offered in the sites I linked for him. Don't let him troll you.


That's all you got???
Your links were about Olympic style archery which isn't real common here. The fita forum is another story. AND, at least I did see a picture there that helped to prove my points about the so called bone on bone alignment. But, I've noticed that none of you who claim to know a lot about the subject have offered anything of substance to the discussion.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> You're never going to get that answered by people who can't even understand something as simple as the GAP profile. Or maybe they do actually understand and are too hardheaded to admit it. Either one is the same result.


I think you nailed it, Forrest. 

This G.A.P. profile is about as simple and logical as it gets....but for some reason a few want to distort into something it's not.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grapplemonkey said:


> Now... how can you guarantee you're consistently doing things the same way every single time you shoot if you don't have solid repeatable reference's?
> 
> To the guys here that are self taught archers please raise your hand.
> 
> ...



Lack of relevance is THE reason for my response. Self taught vs formal coaching could be relevant but, one can get 'formal coaching' in just about any shooting style he chooses. You pays you money and you takes you choice. Heck, for a price I will coach you. A high price but, it can be had.
No one, and I mean no one, can guarantee doing things the same way shot to shot and I don't care what kind of coaching you've had. 
How would you like to address the bone on bone alignment question? Your links seemed to prove my points that you take pleasure in disputing. Show your hand or fold.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

FORESTGUMP said:


> That's all you got???
> Your links were about Olympic style archery which isn't real common here. The fita forum is another story. AND, at least I did see a picture there that helped to prove my points about the so called bone on bone alignment. But, I've noticed that none of you who claim to know a lot about the subject have offered anything of substance to the discussion.


Forest take the time to read the links. If you are as good as you say you are you're already utilizing most things discussed in the links. 

You might be tweaking them to suit your purposes but there are certain basic parts of a good archery shot the all archers share. 

Try as you might you can't get away from that fact.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grapplemonkey said:


> ...



Great answer.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> That's all you got???
> Your links were about Olympic style archery which isn't real common here. The fita forum is another story.


Historically, FITA has more in common with Trad archery than the Hollywood style that gets associated with it in some folks' minds. Again, blame it on Hollywood.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Forest take the time to read the links. If you are as good as you say you are you're already utilizing most things discussed in the links.
> 
> You might be tweaking them to suit your purposes but there are certain basic parts of a good archery shot the all archers share.
> 
> Try as you might you can't get away from that fact.



I don't have a lot of time to invest in that silly argument so, I skimmed over them. Actually, that's not exactly new hot off the press information. And furthermore it's totally unrelated to this forum as most here are not Olympic shooters,. There is more of that action in the fita forum where I suspect some of the thread jackers fail to fit in so they come here to stir their pot.

Maybe I do as you say and utilize some of the things in those links. Maybe I have tweaked them to suit my purposes but, that too is irrelevant to this particular discussion. Would you like to take a shot at demonstrating bone on bone alignment? 
I watched some videos of some Olympic shooters this very morning to see how they represent the claims made by some here in the forum. It was educational to say the least. The thing that caught my attention was the under chin anchor, which might allow a shooter to get somewhat closer to bone on bone alignment. The question is why people would be pushing Olympic style shooting in the trad forum.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Historically, FITA has more in common with Trad archery than the Hollywood style that gets associated with it in some folks' minds. Again, blame it on Hollywood.



I can't speak about 'historically or Hollywood style but, I have checked out the fita forum on a few occasions and it's painfully obvious that the regular participants actually care about that form of shooting. 
Would you care to address the bone on bone alignment question? Actually you have passed on several opportunities to do so in this thread.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Would you care to address the bone on bone alignment question? Actually you have passed on several opportunities to do so in this thread.


Most here are smart enough to look up the information and make their own conclusions.

Trying to disprove ones opinion/theory over another just ends up as non productive tit for tat arguing that adds nothing constructive to the thread but you already knew that.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Historically, FITA has more in common with Trad archery than the Hollywood style that gets associated with it in some folks' minds. Again, blame it on Hollywood.


From what I've read yes... form and technique was cool way before being cool was cool... or important for that matter.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

A cautionary tale...
After many years Billy Joe decides to take up archery. Now it's just a scratch that Billy Joe wants to itch after years of thinking about it since playing as a kid in the backyard with a stick and some twine his old man had made for him. There is a touch of nostalgia attached as he had played Robin Hood as a youngster , and recently seen a young whippersnapper named Brady at the Olympics . 
Billy Joe also wants his family to try with him and his kids ,having seen Lord of the Rings and Hunger Games are keen to go with Dad on this new journey. 
Billy Joe's wife is keen because her good friend from her Brazilian Jui Jitsu class often gets her own meat during her frequent bowhunting trips with her husband, natural protein free of additives that is cheap and rewarding.
So Billy Joe's family looks forward to getting involved, so many aspects to this new venture they'll explore together .... They read up on Feild archery , target , re enacting Longbow stuff, bowhunting with so many different types of bows, etc etc

Now the family isn't sure where to start . So the look up the phone book and start asking questions at the nearby clubs and pro shops . " we'd like to learn archery!"!

After some weeks of ringing around , they start to become despondent. Every place they call seems a bit of dead end. In discussion they tell the clubs, the coaches and pro shops of their desire to learn this ancient sport but are continually stonewalled with " but which part of the sport interests you?" These coaches and pro shops inquire .
" we are not sure ... Can't we just learn the basics and take it from there ? " Billy Joe's family ask .
The coaches and pro shops all snorted derisively ... " ha ! You might end up learning the incorrect thing ! Dang newbies ... What a waste of your time and ours ... Unless we know your G.A.P profile we wouldn't know where to even begin .....you can't learn fundamentals just like that ! What happens if after 5 years we find out you just wanted to learn Kyudo ? Then we'd be in trouble with everyone ."

Sadly Billy Jo's family went and joined a shooting club where they were taught the basics of safety and shooting mechanics. They didn't know if they were going to shoot Clay or Small bore target , but they leapt in together and got a good grounding in the fundamentals ... Excitingly the choice as to where to go is now theirs.they lived happily ever after.

Upon reflection Billy Joe realised that he should have searched the Internet both saving time and the families destroyed expectations. He had not heard of G.A.P before ... But it's on the Internet so it must be true.
As only on the internet can untested self aggrandisement be interpreted as irrefutable fact flying I n the face of practical knowledge , tested in multi faceted field testing.

Ps ... In the parallel e multiverse ... Billy Joe did his beginners course and then spent thousands of dollars on equipment for his whole family as they successfully **** competed and hunted in a bunch if differing spdisciplines. But Afters 2 years he went back to his coach and pro shop and demanded a refund.
"Why is that." the coach and pro shop demanded ...
Billy Joe slung his thumbs in his pockets and rolled back slightly on his heels ... A mean glint in his eye ..." Now ya'll didn't tell me that all this mess in' around wouldn't mean squat for instinctive sky diving horse archery !!!!!!!"

Sadly the coach and Pro shop refunded Billy Joe his money. They new deep down that they should have read Ray's guide to Archery Success: The GAP profile explained (5th edition) before this whole mess started. Would have saved Billy Joe a whole bunch if time ...


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> A cautionary tale...
> After many years Billy Joe decides to take up archery. Now it's just a scratch that Billy Joe wants to itch after years of thinking about it since playing as a kid in the backyard with a stick and some twine his old man had made for him. There is a touch of nostalgia attached as he had played Robin Hood as a youngster , and recently seen a young whippersnapper named Brady at the Olympics .
> Billy Joe also wants his family to try with him and his kids ,having seen Lord of the Rings and Hunger Games are keen to go with Dad on this new journey.
> Billy Joe's wife is keen because her good friend from her Brazilian Jui Jitsu class often gets her own meat during her frequent bowhunting trips with her husband, natural protein free of additives that is cheap and rewarding.
> ...


bwaaahaaahaaaa!!!!! I am freaking laughing so hard right now!!!! Holy crud you just made my day good sir. Thank you so much for the levity.

*" Now ya'll didn't tell me that all this mess in' around wouldn't mean squat for instinctive sky diving horse archery !!!!!!!"*


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> A cautionary tale...
> After many years Billy Joe decides to take up archery. Now it's just a scratch that Billy Joe wants to itch after years of thinking about it since playing as a kid in the backyard with a stick and some twine his old man had made for him. There is a touch of nostalgia attached as he had played Robin Hood as a youngster , and recently seen a young whippersnapper named Brady at the Olympics .
> Billy Joe also wants his family to try with him and his kids ,having seen Lord of the Rings and Hunger Games are keen to go with Dad on this new journey.
> Billy Joe's wife is keen because her good friend from her Brazilian Jui Jitsu class often gets her own meat during her frequent bowhunting trips with her husband, natural protein free of additives that is cheap and rewarding.
> ...



Well, you just made Ol' Billy Joe look pretty stupid. And there may be people like that in the world but, they damned sure should not be playing with sharp pointed sticks.
And, any archery shop, club or coach who fails to spent a couple of minutes finding out what a clients objectives are is just as stupid as ol' Billy Joe.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grapplemonkey said:


> bwaaahaaahaaaa!!!!! I am freaking laughing so hard right now!!!! Holy crud you just made my day good sir. Thank you so much for the levity.
> 
> *" Now ya'll didn't tell me that all this mess in' around wouldn't mean squat for instinctive sky diving horse archery !!!!!!!"*



Birds of a feather,,,,,


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

grapplemonkey said:


> bwaaahaaahaaaa!!!!! I am freaking laughing so hard right now!!!! Holy crud you just made my day good sir. Thank you so much for the levity.
> 
> *" Now ya'll didn't tell me that all this mess in' around wouldn't mean squat for instinctive sky diving horse archery !!!!!!!"*


Funny?....Levity?...I call it small minded psycho-babble aimed at the essence, heart and soul of the preferred style of many who no longer bother coming here for just that reason...my hats off to Matt Potter and Rick Barbee...although their styles are a bit too disciplined for what it is I seek from archery at least they step to the plate and participate in the "First Shot" event we stage here....meanwhile all the keyboard pro's are far to preoccupied cutting down others who "do". 

Let's see whatcha got hotshots?....yes...I'm calling you out...and don't think I didn't take notice that some of those disciplined form shooters refrained from participating in the "Sitting down, butt on ground, legs straight out in front of you" first shot that was called...I wonder why? :laugh:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

I'm small minded and a keyboard pro ?
And yet have 5000 less posts than you Bill ?
It was a tongue in cheek poke at the G.A.P stuff , nothing more . To infer that it is reference to any particular style shows you didn't actually read it .
And your calling me out ? 
Mmmmmmmm
Can I leave that to actually tourneys with scores and other people or hunting trips ( 2'weeks in Sth Island New Zealand leaving in 2 weeks).. And not the internet ?
Hope that's okay ...

And I' cutting down others 'who do' ... Oh the irony ......

From one instinctor to another ...
Cheers


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Responses like that is why we need levity at times. Are you that deeply offended? Good lord man... get to know a guy before you spew venom. I don't care what you says Jink's... a proven method is just that... a proven method. There are exceptions and some people are just anomalies... but no good coach in their right mind would set a student's progress back by emulating a talent versus learning a skill.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> I'm small minded and a keyboard pro ?
> And yet have 5000 less posts than you Bill ?
> It was a tongue in cheek poke at the G.A.P stuff , nothing more . To infer that it is reference to any particular style shows you didn't actually read it .
> And your calling me out ?
> ...


:darkbeer::darkbeer::darkbeer:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

My Kung fu is better than your Kung fu...LOL :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Nicely played Ray .....


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> Most here are smart enough to look up the information and make their own conclusions.
> 
> Trying to disprove ones opinion/theory over another just ends up as non productive tit for tat arguing that adds nothing constructive to the thread but you already knew that.



That's ok Mr. Morley, I see things posted all the time that some people are willing to crow about but, when it comes down to it they tuck their tails and run. I get the impression that they may not be as well versed on the subject as they pretend to be.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

If anyone wants to know the truth about why proper form works but is often incorrectly described, speak to a doctor who's also an archer. Or at least someone who's in med school. Here's something that should be noted. The usual shot sequence of a field archer is more difficult than an Oly shooter from a muscular skeletal perspective to get right. Just holding at the side of the face versus under the chin increases the angular pressure on the bow shoulder making the bow weight that much more difficult to control laterally. The draw force line is also steeper increasing vertical control issues with the string hand higher than under the chin which is closer to inline with the shoulders. Just the anchor position makes trad shooting more difficult than oly. Add to that the average field archer's bow weight being higher than an oly shooter and it becomes magnified.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

ranchoarcher said:


> If anyone wants to know the truth about why proper form works but is often incorrectly described, speak to a doctor who's also an archer. Or at least someone who's in med school. Here's something that should be noted. The usual shot sequence of a field archer is more difficult than an Oly shooter from a muscular skeletal perspective to get right. Just holding at the side of the face versus under the chin increases the angular pressure on the bow shoulder making the bow weight that much more difficult to control laterally. The draw force line is also steeper increasing vertical control issues with the string hand higher than under the chin which is closer to inline with the shoulders. Just the anchor position makes trad shooting more difficult than oly. Add to that the average field archer's bow weight being higher than an oly shooter and it becomes magnified.



Lol, that's why I compromise and use the side of my chin.:wink:
I agree completely about the draw force line. It's almost impossible for a side of face anchor shooter to get the alignment that so many preach about. It also affects back tension as well. And that's exactly why I asked some of them to be more specific about the subject and still waiting. Maybe they're studying up before they respond.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Lol, that's why I compromise and use the side of my chin.:wink:
> I agree completely about the draw force line. It's almost impossible for a side of face anchor shooter to get the alignment that so many preach about. It also affects back tension as well. And that's exactly why I asked some of them to be more specific about the subject and still waiting. Maybe they're studying up before they respond.


 It's all got some degradation from being in-line. Oly is about as close to straight as is humanly possible and is why they adopted that method. We as archers try to do what's said and our bodies correct the erroneous description. More often than not we're not even aware of it. It feels like bone on bone because there is less muscle tension being used to hold the draw. The bones were connected all along. It's not like they can separate from each other. Another one is relaxed string grip. No such thing. It's more aptly described as emphasizing the back muscles to pull with versus the arms. Much like how you would pull the chord on a lawn mower versus picking up a can of soup. That's the real difference.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

grapplemonkey said:


> From what I've read yes... form and technique was cool way before being cool was cool... or important for that matter.


At least way before 1930's plaid wool and fedora hats.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JINKSTER said:


> Funny?....Levity?...I call it small minded psycho-babble aimed at the essence, heart and soul of the preferred style of many who no longer bother coming here for just that reason...my hats off to Matt Potter and Rick Barbee...although their styles are a bit too disciplined for what it is I seek from archery at least they step to the plate and participate in the "First Shot" event we stage here....meanwhile all the keyboard pro's are far to preoccupied cutting down others who "do".
> 
> Let's see whatcha got hotshots?....yes...I'm calling you out...and don't think I didn't take notice that some of those disciplined form shooters refrained from participating in the "Sitting down, butt on ground, legs straight out in front of you" first shot that was called...I wonder why? :laugh:


So what didn't you like Bill the fact that we aimed or the fact we hit what we were aiming at??

By hot shots do you mean Forrest and Ray??? Doesn't look like they have played yet. Much to busy looking out for that 1/1000,000 archer.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Lol, that's why I compromise and use the side of my chin.:wink:
> I agree completely about the draw force line. It's almost impossible for a side of face anchor shooter to get the alignment that so many preach about. It also affects back tension as well. And that's exactly why I asked some of them to be more specific about the subject and still waiting. Maybe they're studying up before they respond.


All styles compromise somewhere. No style gets perfect alignment. Any alignment that can be had is better. Personally, I'm more reserved to use the bone-on-bone analogy for the anchor reference, but in your world I guess that can't be so either, as that's technically skin-on-skin. You taking Ray lessons or what


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> All styles compromise somewhere. No style gets perfect alignment. Any alignment that can be had is better. Personally, I'm more reserved to use the bone-on-bone analogy for the anchor reference, but in your world I guess that can't be so either, as that's technically skin-on-skin. You taking Ray lessons or what



No, but sometimes I do agree with Ray, like the GAP  Couldn't pass that opportunity. I do get tired of the form police preaching certain methods as being totally necessary to shoot accurately when I know it's not entirely true in all cases. If someone claims to be an expert on something then I do expect them to be prepared to at least describe what they're talking about. So far, NO ONE has managed to do so. Rancho took a shot and did pretty well. He basically and correctly said that some of these thing aren't humanly possible yet, some people run it into the ground. 
The main problem is the derailing of threads by referring people who mention instinctive shooting to all that Olympic stuff. For them, and anyone who wishes to copy them, it's all good stuff. But definitely not the only way to shoot with reasonable accuracy. The word reasonable in this case applies to those who aren't interested in shooting against others for points. Notice I never said anything about accepting mediocrity.
I still think some of you should describe what this elusive bone on bone alignment is about. I looked at the 'form clock' and it looks good to me but there's nothing perfectly aligned and obviously not bone on bone. 
So come on guys, lay it on us.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

It's amazing to me that (some) people who want to improve or complain about their current abilities cannot absorb simple facts. Without a solid foundation (Read shot sequence and proper form) You are not improving and never will. This isn't about being a target shooter or hunter..it's about being honest with your own abilities. If your method has failed you and you keep trying every possible thing you can on your own and still have not improved, maybe just maybe, it might be time to let go of your ideas and embrace a solid foundation. 

Spending money on bows can't make you better...wishing you were better doesn't help either. There is no dark magic or voodoo in any form of archery, It's quite simple..repeatable solid foundation. There are no shortcuts. I'm with Matt on this 100% Frankly the whole comparison between punching paper or fur is completely irrelevant. Either you can shoot consistently with a solid foundation or you can't. When you realize it isn't about the result, and it's about the mechanics and that is all that matters, your focus is shifted to what really matters.

I have witnessed many of the reasons people do not improve such as pride, ego, denial, lack of discipline, instant gratification, score before anything else etc. I can also tell you that many of the top shooters on this forum have tried to help a lot of people. Some people can't see the forest for the trees. Those who are on top of their game didn't get there by dumb luck or by declaring themselves hunters or target shooters...archers who wanted to improve...nothing more. When you've had enough of better shooting through aggressive spending, snap shot yourself into target panic prison, overbowed yourself from the beginning and wonder why there is no improvement, look in the mirror. That is what is holding you back. I've seen a lot of people on a 3D course that had no business hunting. Was it because of the mental game or pressure of the tournament? No but that's a good excuse to use so the focus isn't really on what matters. A well executed shot with a proper foundation is ALL that matters.

An example...a well executed miss is better for you than a 10 accidental hits. An archer can move their point of impact, if your shot is flawed nothing matters. It's been said many times here but it's fallen on a lot of deaf ears...putting the cart in front of the horse is a road to failure. (Results in front of execution) I DON'T MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE HERE. I can tell you with 100% certainty that there never will be a snap shooter that will ever achieve the goals they had when they started if they continue on that path. Archery is about calm control. Learn to control your bow instead of the other way around.. and remember the bow only reacts to the input received..yeah that's you.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> So what didn't you like Bill the fact that we aimed or the fact we hit what we were aiming at??
> 
> By hot shots do you mean Forrest and Ray??? Doesn't look like they have played yet. Much to busy looking out for that 1/1000,000 archer.



Potter, your condescending attitude is showing again. 
It's true, I have never posted a picture or video and it's most likely that I never will. One reason is that I don't own any kind of camera and have no use for one.
I had not realized that we were the only regulars who had not participated, thanks for pointing that out. I have enjoyed following the others though, especially yours. You guys are doing a really good job on that mission.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Bone on bone is a misused term...some take it literal which is easy to do. It's really not any more complicated than using your anatomy to gain leverage on the resistance of the bow. In other words it's much easier and requires less muscle participation for control. Use your skeletal structure to your advantage. It is more than that, it starts from the feet up.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

By the way, from what I've witnessed mediocrity is the majority, whether it's intended or not. Improvement doesn't come from the hours you put in, it's what you do with those hours.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Mo0se said:


> It's amazing to me that (some) people who want to improve or complain about their current abilities cannot absorb simple facts. Without a solid foundation (Read shot sequence and proper form) You are not improving and never will. This isn't about being a target shooter or hunter..it's about being honest with your own abilities. If your method has failed you and you keep trying every possible thing you can on your own and still have not improved, maybe just maybe, it might be time to let go of your ideas and embrace a solid foundation.
> 
> Spending money on bows can't make you better...wishing you were better doesn't help either. There is no dark magic or voodoo in any form of archery, It's quite simple..repeatable solid foundation. There are no shortcuts. I'm with Matt on this 100% Frankly the whole comparison between punching paper or fur is completely irrelevant. Either you can shoot consistently with a solid foundation or you can't. When you realize it isn't about the result, and it's about the mechanics and that is all that matters, your focus is shifted to what really matters.
> 
> ...


You're kind of all over the place so it's difficult to address all your points. I will try some. First off, I didn't realize it was a snap shooting discussion. I personally don't know but maybe one person who snap shoots. Here in the forum Jinks has demonstrated a rather unique ability in that area. In hunting situations he would be deadly. 
Personally I think the result is what we're after, method be damned. I don't care if my feet are where they're supposed to be or what my back muscles are doing if the arrow goes where I want it to go. 
Oh yeah, shot sequence. LOL, a term I had never heard before I came to the forum. It's still funny to think about people who need to count and think about a bunch of steps in order to perform a simple function. I can just hear it, pick up the bow, grab the string, make sure you grip the bow properly, check the fingers on the string, careful to pull on the string properly, etc, etc. And then, after all that and you finally get to full draw, the back muscles don't feel just right. Damn, let down and start over. LOL, I always wondered if at least some of those things couldn't be done without any special attention. I think I have always known how to pull a string back without really even thinking about it at all. Maybe I'm just a natural.
I don't believe your post was directed to anyone in particular, just in general but, those are the things that came to my mind. Just kind of all over the place ya know.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

FORESTGUMP said:


> You're kind of all over the place so it's difficult to address all your points. I will try some. First off, I didn't realize it was a snap shooting discussion. I personally don't know but maybe one person who snap shoots. Here in the forum Jinks has demonstrated a rather unique ability in that area. In hunting situations he would be deadly.
> Personally I think the result is what we're after, method be damned. I don't care if my feet are where they're supposed to be or what my back muscles are doing if the arrow goes where I want it to go.
> Oh yeah, shot sequence. LOL, a term I had never heard before I came to the forum. It's still funny to think about people who need to count and think about a bunch of steps in order to perform a simple function. I can just hear it, pick up the bow, grab the string, make sure you grip the bow properly, check the fingers on the string, careful to pull on the string properly, etc, etc. And then, after all that and you finally get to full draw, the back muscles don't feel just right. Damn, let down and start over. LOL, I always wondered if at least some of those things couldn't be done without any special attention. I think I have always known how to pull a string back without really even thinking about it at all. Maybe I'm just a natural.
> I don't believe your post was directed to anyone in particular, just in general but, those are the things that came to my mind. Just kind of all over the place ya know.


I'm all over the place because of what I've witnessed...I'm observant I suppose. I've observed Bills videos and I'm well aware of his technique. He keeps going back to that because it's familiar. Progress isn't easy. I figures it was relevant because it's something he has self admitted in the past.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Mo0se said:


> Bone on bone is a misused term...some take it literal which is easy to do. It's really not any more complicated than using your anatomy to gain leverage on the resistance of the bow. In other words it's much easier and requires less muscle participation for control. Use your skeletal structure to your advantage. It is more than that, it starts from the feet up.



Oh yeah, control, now there's a word I love. Control the bow, control the shot, heck maybe you fellas can control the target too for all I know. 
I don't use my feet to shoot. Not enough control of my feet muscles. They are just too far from my brain.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Oh yeah, control, now there's a word I love. Control the bow, control the shot, heck maybe you fellas can control the target too for all I know.
> I don't use my feet to shoot. Not enough control of my feet muscles. They are just too far from my brain.


You asked for an explanation what you do with it is not my concern.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Mo0se said:


> I'm all over the place because of what I've witnessed...I'm observant I suppose.



No, I think it might be because of what you have not witnessed. Actually that's probably not true either because everyone watches videos.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Mo0se said:


> You asked for an explanation what you do with it is not my concern.



Man, you're killin me here. I went back and read that whole thing again. What exactly did you explain about bone on bone alignment or back tension? I missed it.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I'm out. Didn't even read the rest of the posts in this thread. I will no longer comment on anything related to shooting here or on any other thread, seems that commenting on how to help others improve their hunting success simply leads to bickering. Whatever, I'm done. 

I feel bad for whoever has to go through the crap I did trying to become successful, I'd try to help but clearly that would just make things worse.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Mo0se said:


> You asked for an explanation what you do with it is not my concern.


Don't waste your time on him... I have.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> I'm out. Didn't even read the rest of the posts in this thread. I will no longer comment on anything related to shooting here or on any other thread, seems that commenting on how to help others improve their hunting success simply leads to bickering. Whatever, I'm done.


It isn't the comments from people trying to help others that cause the bickering. It's the ridicule over some techniques and the emphasis that some people place on certain aspects of form needing to be mandatory for every archer to learn who picks up a bow for the first time or whoever want to amount to anything.

It's the 'elitist' or narrow minded attitudes that lead to bickering!



kegan said:


> I feel bad for whoever has to go through the crap I did trying to become successful, I'd try to help but clearly that would just make things worse.


Don't feel bad...because some people have actually made it work.

Feel bad for the people who are told their is only one correct way to go about learning how to shoot a bow. Please correct me if I'm wrong...but based on what you've shared with us...you followed similar reasoning that didn't fit your GOALS or ABILITIES. You followed the lie that many people buy into that you have to shoot a trad bow a certain way to be trad...which usually looks like it has form aspects that Asbell promotes.

Threads like these are the PERFECT example of why the G.A.P. profile is just common sense and why there is such bickering about techniques.

The reason why...is because people have different goals, abilities and personalities. If we were all exactly the same...there wouldn't be any bickering...most likely :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Forest ... "Don't use your feet to shoot ..."
I agree and shamed that Howard Hill, Asbell and Pope wasted so much paper printing chapters on *stance* in their books ... They were all so full of it ....
Must have just hated trees ........

Heck ol' Howard wasted years shooting at the Bale/sandbox practicing form, getting John Schulz to shoot at such for 3 weeks straight with no target whatsoever ... Ingraining form or some such silliness.
He sure hoodwinked them .......


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> F
> 
> Let's see whatcha got hotshots?....yes...I'm calling you out...and don't think I didn't take notice that some of those disciplined form shooters refrained from participating in the "Sitting down, butt on ground, legs straight out in front of you" first shot that was called...I wonder why? :laugh:


Just too busy but doesn't mean I cannot do it.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Feel bad for the people who are told their is only one correct way to go about learning how to shoot a bow.
> 
> 
> > There isn't only one way... there are ways to shorten the learning curve though. There are more normal people that gifted ones who can get away with breaking rules. Not an argument Ray.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> That's ok Mr. Morley, I see things posted all the time that some people are willing to crow about but, when it comes down to it they tuck their tails and run. I get the impression that they may not be as well versed on the subject as they pretend to be.


I seem to remember a former member that kept demanding proof of certain members qualifications/knowledge, it didn't end well for him. I'm just giving an opinion on a topic like everybody else, you can take it or leave it because that's all it is, my personal opinion. I don't think I need to prove my knowledge or experience to anybody here. 

I see no point in posting as you and Jinks have openly trashed world renowned Olympic Coach so what chance do I have. I'm just not willing to waste my time trying to explain something to somebody who's not listening and just want's it for ammo to stir the pot.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grapplemonkey said:


> There isn't only one way... there are ways to shorten the learning curve though.


I completely agree!!! :thumbs_up especially when they apply to an archer's G.A.P. profile...Just saying :wink:



grapplemonkey said:


> There are more normal people that gifted ones who can get away with breaking rules. Not an argument Ray.


I didn't know there were any rules except in competition...but I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> Forest ... "Don't use your feet to shoot ..."
> I agree and shamed that Howard Hill, Asbell and Pope wasted so much paper printing chapters on *stance* in their books ... They were all so full of it ....
> Must have just hated trees ........
> 
> ...



LOL, do you mean Howard Hill the snap shooter, with the Asbell form?

Yep, if they wrote chapters on foot placement they sure hoodooed somebody. Go watch the lion video and see if you think he's concerned about his feet.
Schultz yaps about anchor and then when he shoots he's nowhere an anchor point.
People write stuff to sell books, it may or may not be the gospel all the time.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Just too busy but doesn't mean I cannot do it.
> 
> View attachment 1950793
> 
> ...


You and the wife really can shoot. Why didn't you post the shot of shooting ariel targets? Never doubted you.
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> LOL, do you mean Howard Hill the snap shooter, with the Asbell form?
> 
> Yep, if they wrote chapters on foot placement they sure hoodooed somebody. Go watch the lion video and see if you think he's concerned about his feet.
> Schultz yaps about anchor and then when he shoots he's nowhere an anchor point.
> People write stuff to sell books, it may or may not be the gospel all the time.


Yep, then it get reprinted as the gospel on here? And if you doubt it you have poor reading comprehension. Lol.
Dan


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

So you now discredit Hill and Schulz ... Based on a few video clips ?

No worries then , I bow to your superior knowledge of such gentleman .

Keep at it champ ... 

I would slightly suggest that if you think Hill is a snap shooter and has form that relates to Asbell then you are obviously seeing things that are not there or just lack an understanding of archery.

But have at it .

You don't need my help in looking any more foolish.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

DDSHOOTER said:


> You and the wife really can shoot. Why didn't you post the shot of shooting ariel targets? Never doubted you.
> Dan



Thanks, dont tell my wife but that's not my wife :wink:

The lady is Urte Paulus from Austria, she is several times 3D World/Euro champ and Austria's team national coach for several years, we did that shooting demo at European 3D's, Archers are a tough crowd to impress :wink:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> I seem to remember a former member that kept demanding proof of certain members qualifications/knowledge, it didn't end well for him. I'm just giving an opinion on a topic like everybody else, you can take it or leave it because that's all it is, my personal opinion. I don't think I need to prove my knowledge or experience to anybody here.
> 
> I see no point in posting as you and Jinks have openly trashed world renowned Olympic Coach so what chance do I have. I'm just not willing to waste my time trying to explain something to somebody who's not listening and just want's it for ammo to stir the pot.


I thought I was very respectful in my post that you quoted. I must have been wrong and I don't remember asking anyone for any proof of qualifications/knowledge. Some people spend a lot of time talking about the details of alignment and I simply don't believe what they are saying.
Would you care to explain it? I have looked at many shooters of all styles and it doesn't look like bone on bone alignment to me and I'm pretty sure it's not anatomically possible. So why continue to promote something as gospel when it's not even possible?
Please tell me which renowned coach I have trashed. My memory must be getting really bad.

Mr. Morley, instinctive shooting IS possible and you know it. We all modify our technique to suit our own needs and sometimes adjust to the situation at the moment. I know I don't need to explain that to you. But Sir, if you are going to preach 'proper form' or 'proper alignment' you should be prepared to discuss those things in an adult manner. Do you disagree with that?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Yep, then it get reprinted as the gospel on here? And if you doubt it you have poor reading comprehension. Lol.
> Dan


Could you clarify that? Were you agreeing with my post? I certainly agree with the point you seem to be making, just not sure if I'm understanding it correctly.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Thanks, dont tell my wife but that's not my wife :wink:
> 
> The lady is Urte Paulus from Austria, she is several times 3D World/Euro champ and Austria's team national coach for several years, we did that shooting demo at European 3D's, Archers are a tough crowd to impress :wink:


Ok, I won't tell. 
Dan


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> So you now discredit Hill and Schulz ... Based on a few video clips ?
> 
> No worries then , I bow to your superior knowledge of such gentleman .
> 
> ...


Bud, you're a funny man but, are you aware of the number of comedians already out of work? Come on, really? May I assume that you have not watched the videos? 
I'm finding it hard to believe you can't see the things I spoke of. Now, I'm well aware that many things are subject to interpretation and I have no idea what your interpretation of snap shooting is, but for me it's pretty much releasing as soon as the shooters fingers touch his anchor or at least somewhere near anchor in some cases. How hard is that to understand? It has been discussed to death right here in this forum.
I apologize if my posts are hard for you to understand. I just don't know how to make it any clearer for you.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Ok I feel I'm going to regret this.

It's difficult to express accurately in a post so I will give you this link to the GB Olympic Coach, his section on *"Draw and Alignment"* the whole segment is worth watching but 2.49 and 6.07min kinda nails it and how it was explained and taught to me by Coach Kim.

http://www.archerygb.org/support/operations/coaches/coaching_videos.php


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Could you clarify that? Were you agreeing with my post? I certainly agree with the point you seem to be making, just not sure if I'm understanding it correctly.


That would be the yep part. You can't always believe what you read all the time. Really not mean for you. Not digging just agreeing. Go figure?
Dan


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> So you now discredit Hill and Schulz ... Based on a few video clips ?
> 
> No worries then , I bow to your superior knowledge of such gentleman .
> 
> ...



Mr. benofthehood, I couldn't stand it, I had to revisit this one. You are certainly unaware that Mr. Hill is pretty much my hero. The fact that he won so many competitions and killed so many animals using a shooting method very similar to my own is a feather in my cap. His method is exactly what many people say is not possible to be accurate with. And you think I have discredited him? Lol, wake up and smell reality Sir. Those guys are my hero's. They actually prove everything I say so why on earth would I discredit them? Have you ever read my post about anchor. I do believe it's important but, in certain circumstances it's entirely possible to be quite accurate without being so picky about it. Now, go and watch Mr. Schultz shooting the aerial targets and watch his string hand closely.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> That would be the yep part. You can't always believe what you read all the time. Really not mean for you. Not digging just agreeing. Go figure?
> Dan


Yep, go figure but, thanks anyway.:thumbs_up


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> Ok I feel I'm going to regret this.
> 
> It's difficult to express accurately in a post so I will give you this link to the GB Olympic Coach, his section on *"Draw and Alignment"* the whole segment is worth watching but 2.49 and 6.07min kinda nails it and how it was explained and taught to me by Coach Kim.
> 
> http://www.archerygb.org/support/operations/coaches/coaching_videos.php


Well, I will look at it and I don't guarantee that I will agree with it. I hope that doesn't cause any regret. BRB


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> Ok I feel I'm going to regret this.
> 
> It's difficult to express accurately in a post so I will give you this link to the GB Olympic Coach, his section on *"Draw and Alignment"* the whole segment is worth watching but 2.49 and 6.07min kinda nails it and how it was explained and taught to me by Coach Kim.
> 
> http://www.archerygb.org/support/operations/coaches/coaching_videos.php


OK, I'm back and I did study a couple of those videos. The chick was pretty easy on the eyes so it took me a little longer. What I saw was the same thing that we had discussed a few pages back. Olympic style training. We agreed earlier that the alignment that some people here talk a lot about is easier to get close to for a shooter anchoring under their chin with the string practically centering their face. For a side of face anchor, which is what most people here are using, it's not so easy and maybe even impossible. I don't want to recover the same ground but, I can see absolutely no reason for anyone to promote that idea in this forum where most anchor on the side of the face. 
I believe these people know that what they are promoting is not really bone on bone nor even proper alignment by Olympic standards. They just call it 'proper' when in fact it's not even close. Possibly just a figure of speech.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Mr. benofthehood, I couldn't stand it, I had to revisit this one. You are certainly unaware that Mr. Hill is pretty much my hero. The fact that he won so many competitions and killed so many animals using a shooting method very similar to my own is a feather in my cap. His method is exactly what many people say is not possible to be accurate with. And you think I have discredited him? Lol, wake up and smell reality Sir. Those guys are my hero's. They actually prove everything I say so why on earth would I discredit them? Have you ever read my post about anchor. I do believe it's important but, in certain circumstances it's entirely possible to be quite accurate without being so picky about it. Now, go and watch Mr. Schultz shooting the aerial targets and watch his string hand closely.


This may be for another thread...
But if you think either of gents was capable of any of the feats they accomplished without grounding themselves in a rigid regimen of form practice then you are deluding yourself. I to am an avid student of both gents and am convinced they were able to produce such amazing shooting because their foundations were rock solid. Much akin as to you suggesting that their writings are not factual based on the small amount of footage , I would suggest that you are applying exactly the same ...
Generally in life as in archery , It is only with knowing the basics that you can break the rules and still be consistent.

I have not seen anyone suggest that one cannot be accurate with such form . It is not Asbell form FYI ... 

But it is you champ who suggested they hoodwinked people with their writings ...

I have corresponded with Mr Schulz ... Enlightening to say the least .

Have you read Straight Shooting by Schulz?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I believe these people know that what they are promoting is not really bone on bone nor even proper alignment by Olympic standards. They just call it 'proper' when in fact it's not even close. Possibly just a figure of speech.


I'll have to disagree with you then, I've had Coaching from one of the top Korean Coach's and some more regular coaching Estonia's National Olympic Coach, both have informed me I'm inside the bow bow and have good alignment, under the chin is easier but side of the face anchor is possible to get good bone on bone alignment. I more inclined to trust their judgment over yours as I've worked with them directly.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Funny?....Levity?...I call it small minded psycho-babble aimed at the essence, heart and soul of the preferred style of many who no longer bother coming here for just that reason...my hats off to Matt Potter and Rick Barbee...although their styles are a bit too disciplined for what it is I seek from archery at least they step to the plate and participate in the "First Shot" event we stage here....meanwhile all the keyboard pro's are far to preoccupied cutting down others who "do".
> 
> Let's see whatcha got hotshots?....yes...I'm calling you out...and don't think I didn't take notice that some of those disciplined form shooters refrained from participating in the "Sitting down, butt on ground, legs straight out in front of you" first shot that was called...I wonder why? :laugh:


Speaking of participation, we missed your participation in the on-line tournament we held here last year. I'd also like to invite you to participate in one or more of our 300 round threads. Here's one that shows my shooting. http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2242307 Show us how you do over 60 arrows at 20 yards. 

Sitting on your butt with your legs straight out in front? Why would you take that shot again? You missed didn't you? Have you practiced the shot since? Is that really something you would do when hunting? I did notice Matt's entries. I think he's about the only one hitting anything, isn't he?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

MGF

believe me when I say I'm in your corner on the form thing ;-). But no I wasn't the only guy hitting stuff there was and is some pretty good shooting going on. 

As to the validity of a sitting on your but shot? My opinion is if you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to "make" the shot you really don't have a shot and should pass. An opinion learned the hard way. 

However I think there is real value in practicing any shot that takes you out of your comfort zone. For me the challenge is can I maintain my basic form and control in a shooting scenario dictated by someone else. 

Last night I was shooting with my 14 year old daughter she is shooting well and is very comfortable in those 15-30 yard ranges. So we backed up to 40 ;-)

She loved it and wants me to teach her how to aim off the riser so she can have an aim point for shots over 50 yards.

I haven't played on the last few shots of the day - due to time constrains - bears are out and about and I'd rather be hunting.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I wish we had bears...or pigs...or something. LOL

Matt, I know you weren't the only one hitting but you sure were hitting! LOL


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Mo0se said:


> I'm all over the place because of what I've witnessed...I'm observant I suppose. I've observed Bills videos and I'm well aware of his technique. He keeps going back to that because it's familiar. Progress isn't easy. I figures it was relevant because it's something he has self admitted in the past.


Okay...here we go folks and put on your Big Boy pants cause welcome too....

*"GET REAL TIME"*

with your truthful host Bill Jinks! :laugh:

so brace yourselves folks as the gloves are coming off an in the name of fair play?...I'm going to start out by beating myself up a little here as follows...

*"GET REAL" Point#1:* In an all encompassing, historical hindsight sort of way?...Moose is correct here...I "was" (and have been) "all over the place"....it started out about 4 years ago when I almost died from a 10 year long relapse into opiate addiction....and as part of my recovery?...I decided to get back into archery...(hey...it helped and worked before and I stayed clean for 16 years along with working a program)....but my 20 year old 80# wheel bow was more than my 51 year old, now diabetic body could endure...so I bought a 60# wheel bow...and decked it out big time only to grow bored of it within 6 months...then simultaneously drug out my old 54# Bob Lee TD Hunter and found these "Traditional Forums" and thought..."Cool!...Back to Having Fun Again!" 

And I was all in and all about it...3 years ago...first I went through several sets of limbs constantly going down in weight because folks here told me I had to be able to control my bow and that I was over-bowed and that I needed to hold solid and dead still at anchor for at least a few seconds...and hungering for more?...I signed up for a 2-day Clinic...with an extremely well known and accomplished coach...I might add at this point that when I announced doing so here?...I got a lot of kudos from others but what I also got?...was a PM of concern...from one of our very vocal members (who used to be) here and our resident champion of "Aiming Instinctively"...and this "PM of concern" came as a shock and surprise to me because I was almost always getting flammed by this very character with whatever and whenever I posted...but in that PM?....he expressed to me that I was making a huge mistake taking that class because he felt that what was being taught there was not a good fit for my preferences (insert "G.A.P." here) and goals as an instinctive archer...I ignored it and attended the clinic anyways....and glad I did...it was money well spent....worth every penny....and I learned a lot....

about a method of shooting a stick bow that *"I PERSONALLY"*.....despise....most times...other times?...I actually still practice it too this very day (here and there when the mood strikes)...because as much as I don't care for shooting a stick bow in this fashion?...it does help...because my preferred method of shooting is very quickly executed....and when I find myself getting out of shape or squirrely with my preferred method?...I drop back to a lower poundage bow and slow way down to analyze, correct and "re-ingrain" things so to speak....other than that?...I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a plastic spork than use the point of my arrows as a crude sight pin and if I wanted to shoot pinned out wheelbow like groups out to distances of 40yds and beyond?...I'd shoot a pin out wheelbow. :laugh:

But I don't do either of these things....because it was the act of screwing a rack of 3 pins on my 32# Excel a couple years back (after attending the clinic) that escorted me into a level of target panic I never want to revisit again...a time that saw my entire body going into a convulsive state of a snot blowing impossible release and struggling to keep my arrows on TWO (2) bales at a distance of 15yds...and every shot taken was like a re-occurring nightmare...today?...I actually get compliments on my shooting and can't remember having so much fun with a stick bow since I was a kid...because I relax and aim instinctively...and never stop motion from the time my draw begins as I feel for the moment of release and just allow it to happen as I draw through the shot and?...I also placed Fun First and yes....accuracy 2nd...hey...it works for me. 

*"GET REAL" Point#2:* Some need to realize that not all archers seek the same goals...nor have the same abilities (insert "Eye/Hand Coordination" here)...nor have the same personalities as far as "Fun VS Discipline" goes.


*"GET REAL" Point#3:* In the "First Shot" events?...I see some lesser skilled archers having a blast....smiling, laughing, talking and having huge fun...meanwhile I've noticed some extremely skilled archers who never crack a smile let alone laugh or chat or even remotely come close to appearing that they are having fun...almost seeming as though it were something "they had to do" as opposed to something they couldn't wait to get home from work to participate in...this speaks volumes to me.

*"GET REAL" Point#4:* Despite my "Calling out/Hotshot" remarks?...this was intended as a mirror so to speak....and yes...a rebuttal...because I feel I've been on the condescending end of the stick for quite a while here and have graciously accepted plenty of shots fired across my bow here....but at the end of the day?...my point is...I have no axe to grind with those who address their archery in a different way than I but shouldn't that street named "Respect" run both ways?

I'm an old man folks...and despite my best efforts to do right by my body?...not in the greatest of health...so I'm not in this for a "Name In Lights" comeback...but I am trying to do my best to make what's left of my years happy, fun-filled, relaxed and enjoyable ones...and was very happy to be shooting groups like the ones originally posted...does this mean I have nothing to offer the newcomer?...must it always be highly disciplined step-by-step form for everyone?

In my 3 years here?...I've watched this forum go through a major change...when I first started participating here?...I'd say there were a good 25-30% of the archers in the traditional forum who shot instinctively...the scales were already imbalanced and heavily biased towards...buy the book...step-by-step...strict guidelines towards "shooting for points"...at that time?...a proposal was made that we divide the trad forum into two forums...one for competitive target shooters and one for practical hunting accuracy...and it was shot down...today?...it seems instinctive archers participating on this forum number in the low single digits percentage wise...I find this sad...which I think is a driving force behind why I shoot and post the way I do.

All I got...sorry if I offended anyone....have a great weekend...and please...somebody....call a "First Shot" today! 

Peace, Out, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Just so you know Bill I'm not pickin on ya


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

GREAT POST, BILL!!!!! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

People need to also realize that even though some archers miss their primary target with the Shot of the Day but where they hit would have been a kill shot on a deer...which for some archers...meets their GOALS!!!

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

So Bill you don't know me or my personality yet some how I'm not having fun?? I'm doing it because I have too?? 

You know it's funny I've been around shooters of one sort or another since I could walk. I've worked as a hunting guide and outfitter and I've been lucky enough to shot with and against some of the best archers the country. You know what?? Pretty much universally the guys that had the most fun were the ones hitting what they were aiming at. The bitter pissed off guys tend to be the ones who didn't do the work yet somehow feel they should hit the mark - osmosis through the key board is the expectation I guess. 

The funnest shooting I have done is at Trad worlds everyone is laughing and joking and having a great time. If you make a good shot the first guy to congratulate you is the guy your competing with. Do we want to win?? absolutely!!! But not at the expense of having a blast with a bunch of like minded folks.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> GREAT POST, BILL!!!!! :thumbs_up
> 
> Ray :shade:


Yes, bill, one of your best.


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

Have you considered Bill that in your 3 years on the forum you have influenced it?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Mo0se said:


> Just so you know Bill I'm not pickin on ya


It's all good Moose....and btw...you've put yourself out there posting vids and I admire that and your highly disciplined form/skill level...btw...speaking of "it's all good"?...I was speaking with Kyle last week and he expressed an interest in getting involved in a venue of shooting that involves more than the slow...one shot per target 3D pace...he was asking me if there was anywhere within driving range that we could go do a lot of shooting such as 900rds...and there is..."Brevard Archers"....where we could participate in field, hunter and 900rds so we can actually get a full days worth of shooting in so?...something tells me we'll be traveling north one month soon to do just that...sounds like fun to me...I never shot field archery with a stick bow...probably a great reason to give the 30# Polar and the VAP's a good exercise!...not sure I'll wind up going back twice and don't tell anybody but I really dug Mr. Barbee's 50yd first shot call last week! :laugh:



BLACK WOLF said:


> GREAT POST, BILL!!!!! :thumbs_up
> 
> Ray :shade:


Thanks Ray!...thought you'd enjoy it. 



BLACK WOLF said:


> People need to also realize that even though some archers miss their primary target with the Shot of the Day but where they hit would have been a kill shot on a deer...which for some archers...meets their GOALS!!!
> 
> Ray :shade:


Ray....we need to start Happy Archers .com where anything and everything goes! :laugh:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> Ray....we need to start Happy Archers .com where anything and everything goes! :laugh:


LOL...LOVE IT!!! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> So Bill you don't know me or my personality yet some how I'm not having fun?? I'm doing it because I have too??
> 
> You know it's funny I've been around shooters of one sort or another since I could walk. I've worked as a hunting guide and outfitter and I've been lucky enough to shot with and against some of the best archers the country. You know what?? Pretty much universally the guys that had the most fun were the ones hitting what they were aiming at. The bitter pissed off guys tend to be the ones who didn't do the work yet somehow feel they should hit the mark - osmosis through the key board is the expectation I guess.
> 
> The funnest shooting I have done is at Trad worlds everyone is laughing and joking and having a great time. If you make a good shot the first guy to congratulate you is the guy your competing with. Do we want to win?? absolutely!!! But not at the expense of having a blast with a bunch of like minded folks.


I never mentioned your name Matt....but since you asked?...yes....it did seem to me you weren't having very much fun...but yes...you shot lights out and I appreciate it (as I feel certain other do as well) that you typically participate...it's a pleasure to witness your skills...I believe I even embedded one or two of those vids for you and honored to do so...and yes...I would love to have your skills...the problem?...I'm not willing to invest the effort it takes to aquire them...but not because I'm lazy...(and I think those who've witnessed my efforts, trials and struggles realize that by now)...but more because...

1. I'm not willing to risk revisiting acute TP again and?...

2. I find instinctive/snap a more pleasurable, relaxing and mind clearing style for me.



BarneySlayer said:


> Yes, bill, one of your best.


Thank you Barney. :thumbs_up



4nolz said:


> Have you considered Bill that in your 3 years on the forum you have influenced it?


No...I haven't...but now that you mention it?...I'm sure I probably have....I just pray it was in a positive fashion but also know that no matter what I post?...it will be spun negative by at least a few...so?...I guess me nabbing that sweet green mini-14 off you is a no-go now hugh? 

Oh well...you can please some of the people some of the time....now about someone making that "First Shot" call?...

cause I would really like to stop posting and get shooting sometime today! :laugh:

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Bill I think if you stuck with one bow and one shooting style for more than 5min you could be quite good, not only in but outside of your back yard. :thumbs_up


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> I'll have to disagree with you then, I've had Coaching from one of the top Korean Coach's and some more regular coaching Estonia's National Olympic Coach, both have informed me I'm inside the bow bow and have good alignment, under the chin is easier but side of the face anchor is possible to get good bone on bone alignment. I more inclined to trust their judgment over yours as I've worked with them directly.



Hey, I'm good with that. If you prefer to believe a fallacy that's your business. The day that I see you guys shooting with your bow arm locked and a straight line through both shoulders and your bow arm all the way to your hand, I will jump on the wagon with you. But as soon as you bend that elbow slightly, ya just lost the bone on bone alignment. Until then,:icon_salut:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Hey, I'm good with that. If you prefer to believe a fallacy that's your business. The day that I see you guys shooting with your bow arm locked and a straight line through both shoulders and your bow arm all the way to your hand, I will jump on the wagon with you. But as soon as you bend that elbow slightly, ya just lost the bone on bone alignment. Until then,:icon_salut:



That so called fallacy has given me great pleasure in my personal shooting standard, a level that put me in competition with other top international shooters around the world, I go to a competition and walk away (regardless of the result) that I shot to my full potential, as an Archer I couldn't ask for more.

I think a lot of Archers don't have dreams of being Olympic or World champion, simply to walk away from practice or a tourney and feel they shot to their full potential.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

steve morley said:


> Bill I think if you stuck with one bow and one shooting style for more than 5min you could be quite good, not only in but outside of your back yard. :thumbs_up


Sounds reasonable.

Jinks, I'm glad that archery has been good therapy for your substance abuse but I'm as old as you so your talking as if it was all over seems kind of depressing. It all reads like an "oh woe is me" kind of a tale. Substance abuse, poor health, old age, target panic. I pray that you some how find the strength and wisdom to make it through these trials and tribulations but does all that really make "good form" and hard work "bad" advice for the beginner trying to to hit the target?

More than once you've mentioned that you think your brand of archery is "good" for hunting. When was the last time you actually went hunting...or killed a critter with your bow?


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> Okay...here we go folks and put on your Big Boy pants cause welcome too....
> 
> *"GET REAL TIME"*
> 
> ...


Great post Bill, love your style...:thumb:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

What is shooting to your 'full' potential?

Some people believe it's shooting the highest possible score within their ABILITIES.

Some archers would shoot better with sights so does that mean they're not shooting to their full potential if they don't use a sight?

Of course not!

For many archers...shooting to their full potential just means shooting within their chosen limitations.

If an archer wants to maximize their score/potential on targets shooting barebow there are easier ways to go about it...such as learning String Walking and utilizing form techniques similar to Olympic archers....but does that fit EVERYONE'S G.A.P. profile???? 

It surely does NOT!

RAY :shade:


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

I will second Matt's post regarding having fun. Last year at worlds I was pleasantly surprised. I expected people; especially the top shooters to be uptight and tight lipped. I found the opposite and made some new friends. All the people I met were helpful and encouraging. I can't wait for this years event! Chatting with Dave Wallace, and Dewayne Martin and Alan Eagleton, Matt Potter, Blacky, Jason Wesbrok, etc I can't think of a funner bunch of guys to shoot with. All of them are great people! After the shoots we all met and had dinner at a Mexican joint. Great memories for sure! Matt wore a smile and no shoes...same with everyone else sans the no shoes. 

Just because people are disciplined when it comes to their shooting doesn't mean they are no fun or don't have fun...even at a high level event. Wish I'd got more time to hang with Matt while we were there.  They are simply keeping their foundations sharp with disciplined practice..putting their time in as it were. It shows with some of the scores that were posted...even though they shot like they didn't care. If that makes sense...


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

I agree with you on that Ray. Everyone has the capability to learn all the different skills needed to shoot successfully but we all have different capacity levels. A pesron can increase it but not everyone wants to challenge themselves. I deal with stuff like this at work everyday... funny how that is.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Challenge can also come in different forms.

Some people like choosing harder techniques to challenge themselves more while others like to compete against other archers utilizing techniques that help them score the highest possible points. Each can be challenging in their own regards...just different.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> For many archers...shooting to their full potential just means shooting within their chosen limitations.
> 
> RAY :shade:


I got as far as I could shooting Longbow/woodies, now I'm shooting Barebow and Stringwalking it's a different game. 

With Longbow and Bowhunter Recurve div I could consistently shoot close to Euro record scores in practice which let me know I would be competitive in those divs, with Stringwalking I'm still a ways behind those top scores but each week I see improvement. It's fun and challenging to learn and build a new shooting style. Barebow is so competitive in Europe I may never get past top 5 ranking but that's not bothering me one bit as it's so enjoyable.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> I got as far as I could shooting Longbow/woodies, now I'm shooting Barebow and Stringwalking it's a different game.


EXACTLY...they each come with their own set of challenges!

Neither is necessarily better or easier than the other...just different.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Challenge can also come in different forms.
> 
> Some people like choosing harder techniques to challenge themselves more while others like to compete against other archers utilizing techniques that help them score the highest possible points. Each can be challenging in their own regards...just different.
> 
> Ray :shade:


True also... but how do we contend with those that say they shoot a certain way because it's easier and down play the effectiveness of another style?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> What is shooting to your 'full' potential?
> 
> Some people believe it's shooting the highest possible score within their ABILITIES.
> 
> ...


Either you hit the target or you don't. How you feel about it just doesn't change it. Let it be known that if I don't hit the target as well as Matt, Steve, Jimmy, Grant, Ben, Dwayne or whomever that it's not because I didn't try. They might just be better at shooting a bow...GAP and all.

But then I am 55 and have had my share of problems and it clears my mind to stare at the target for 20 minutes and devote 20 hundredths of second to making the shot...and did I mention my tough childhood?

Sorry, but as an archer who's trying to get better at actually hitting something, I'd rather hear from the guys that do it, have an opinion about how to do it and are willing to share it.

Come on, are we trying o learn to shoot a bow or make excuses...oh, and I'm short. LOL


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Speaking of throwing myself out there...it's been a while so I shot some today...sick and all. Had fun but you can't tell from my face.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

grapplemonkey said:


> True also... but how do we contend with those that say they shoot a certain way because it's easier and down play the effectiveness of another style?


You mean like *this*?...



MGF said:


> Either you hit the target or you don't. How you feel about it just doesn't change it. Let it be known that if I don't hit the target as well as Matt, Steve, Jimmy, Grant, Ben, Dwayne or whomever that it's not because I didn't try. They might just be better at shooting a bow...GAP and all.
> 
> *But then I am 55 and have had my share of problems and it clears my mind to stare at the target for 20 minutes and devote 20 hundredths of second to making the shot...and did I mention my tough childhood?*
> 
> ...


cause I get to read it all the time...doesn't bother me as much though.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> Either you hit the target or you don't.


There can be targets within a target.

For examples:

The X ring within the 5 ring on a NFAA 300 round. The heart within the kill zone of a deer.

Just because an archer misses the primary target of the X ring and still hits the 5 ring or misses the heart but still hits the kill zone does NOT mean they were ineffective. 

Do you understand that? 

Soooo just because an archer misses the smaller target does not mean their technique is ineffective and doesn't meet their GOALS.

NOT EVERYONE who chooses specific styles or techniques are looking for excuses for shooting less accurate than another archer with a different G.A.P. profile.

Do you understand that?

Ray :shade:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> You mean like *this*?...
> 
> 
> 
> cause I get to read it all the time...doesn't bother me as much though.


Not even remotely close to what I was referring to.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> You mean like *this*?...
> 
> 
> 
> cause I get to read it all the time...doesn't bother me as much though.


I didn't say anything about any "style". Am I not telling enough of my hard luck story, or what?

Come on, I'll post the results of shooting from my butt with my legs straight out if you post a 300 round. Afterwards, we can argue about who has the best excuses for their shooting, ok?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> There can be targets within a target.
> 
> For examples:
> 
> ...


As a long former time "measurement" guy I'm going to guess and say that I understand the relationship between actual performance, target performance and performance requirements at least as well as you.

So what you're really saying is that some archers want to miss? LOL I finally get it. Their goal is to miss and their ability makes it easy and their personality gives them a pass. Got it!


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> There can be targets within a target.
> 
> For examples:
> 
> ...


Bad comparison in trying to relate target archery to hunting Ray. The object in hunting is to take game. Highest scoring for target archery. Really bad comparison for the subject at hand.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Ray

Have you spent much time hunting whitetails from a tree stand? Or turkeys from the ground?? 

Those kill zones are pretty darn small.


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

Redwood In Oakland hills ?





wseward said:


> Let me see now...today I could get on BART and go into the city to pay to shoot indoors at 20 yards like a robot...over and over again...while I listen to others babble above the HVAC fan?
> 
> NAAAH!
> 
> More like...go for a epic bike ride, then a epic hike...to allow for epic shooting at various distances, listening to the birds and the wind in the trees.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grapplemonkey said:


> Bad comparison in trying to relate target archery to hunting Ray. The object in hunting is to take game. Highest scoring for target archery. Really bad comparison for the subject at hand.


It's the PERFECT comparison...BECAUSE...we have someone giving Jinkster a hard time for missing his target...when his style and technique isn't all about hitting exactly what he's aiming at like the precision of a highly skilled target archer.

Even though he didn't hit the target he was close enough to fulfill his GOALS. 

To succeed in competition you have to hit exactly what you aim at more times than not to win.

In bowhunting...you don't necessarily need to hit EXACTLY what you aim at. It just needs to be close enough and within the kill zone to succeed.

The kill zone on a deer is larger than a 5 ring on a paper target.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Have you spent much time hunting whitetails from a tree stand? Or turkeys from the ground??
> 
> Those kill zones are pretty darn small.


I have...and those kill zones are pretty darn small :wink:

Turkeys are normally shot from 5 to 15yrds. which makes hitting a smaller target quite a bit easier...and when a deer's target zone is really small it's usually because their fairly close to the stand or they're one of those Alabama sized deer :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Ray
> 
> Have you spent much time hunting whitetails from a tree stand? Or turkeys from the ground??
> 
> Those kill zones are pretty darn small.


Not to mention, that "kill zone" accuracy is a myth of epic proportion! Take a guy who can "keep it in the kill zone", and all you have is a guy who is a very poor shot. His form is such that the "kill zone" is just where he can most times suspect his arrow might land, but his form is such that many times it doesn't. He's not in control of his shot at that stage of a shooter, otherwise, he would group much better than a kill zone size. 

The guy who can keep it in the 5-ring 85% of the time is the only real archer who has a chance of staying in the "kill zone" in sub-optimal conditions compared to his line shooting.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> So what you're really saying is that some archers want to miss? LOL I finally get it. Their goal is to miss and their ability makes it easy and their personality gives them a pass. Got it!


LOL....HELLO??? No, I don't think you'll EVER get it!

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Not to mention, that "kill zone" accuracy is a myth of epic proportion! Take a guy who can "keep it in the kill zone", and all you have is a guy who is a very poor shot. His form is such that the "kill zone" is just where he can most times know his arrow might land.
> 
> The guy who can keep it in the 5-ring 85% of the time is the only real archer who has a chance of staying in the "kill zone" in sub-optimal conditions compared to his line shooting.


It's NOT a myth.

A successful good bowhunter does NOT need to score 255 to be amoung the 'elite' of the only real archers who have a chance of staying in the kill zone of a deer in sub-optimal conditions.

Some of you target archer's act so self righteous as if because you compete and score well in competition it makes you better bowhunters....PAAAALEASE!

The arrogance that keeps spewing here is really ridiculous.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

If you score 255 on level ground, wearing light clothes after a warm up you are shooting some 2's. Those 2's are going to turn into missed or maybe crippled deer when you're dressed heavy, cold, and have been sitting for hours.


Go look at the last thread I started. A 250+ and a 270 on the same target looks like it was shot with a shotgun. Not real good.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> If you score 255 on level ground, wearing light clothes after a warm up you are shooting some 2's. Those 2's are going to turn into missed or maybe crippled deer when you're dressed heavy, cold, and have been sitting for hours.
> 
> 
> Go look at the last thread I started. A 250+ and a 270 on the same target looks like it was shot with a shotgun. Not real good.


I have hunted all my life, just not with bows. I grew up where a pie plate accuracy level was the thing of shotguns and kids, therefore, kids were relegated to shotguns and not rifles. Then, you come on some Trad archery forum and adult hunters are talking about pie plate accuracy from throwing a single arrow as good, or OK to accept. Can we say "mandatory competency testing" is needed to weed out that nonsense, or in the alternative, more ethics in the sport.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> If you score 255 on level ground, wearing light clothes after a warm up you are shooting some 2's.


I've shot plenty of 300 rounds and you do NOT have to shoot 2's to score a 255.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> I have hunted all my life, just not with bows. I grew up where a pie plate accuracy level was the thing of shotguns and kids, therefore, kids were relegated to shotguns and not rifles. Then, you come on some Trad archery forum and adult hunters are talking about pie plate accuracy from throwing a single arrow as good, or OK to accept. Can we say "mandatory competency testing" is needed to weed out that nonsense, or in the alternative, more ethics in the sport.


I'm against mandatory testing because the government already has to much power and is already too far up our shorts. However, we should have the common sense to stop lying to each other (or ourselves) about what constitutes "good" shooting.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I've shot plenty of 300 rounds and you do NOT have to shoot 2's to score a 255.
> 
> Ray :shade:


You don't have to but I'll bet you are.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I know this much:
Shooting only 4s and above will get you a score in the 280 range or better, 3s and above is 250 or better.

-Grant


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It's NOT a myth.
> 
> A successful good bowhunter does NOT need to score 255 to be amoung the 'elite' of the only real archers who have a chance of staying in the kill zone of a deer in sub-optimal conditions.
> 
> ...


Such irony. Do you know why 3d competition started?
Dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Such irony. Do you know why 3d competition started?
> Dan


Tell us Dan...cause I was around when it started and I can't wait to hear this one.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> You don't have to but I'll bet you are.


What do you mean "I'll bet you are"?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

I suppose some of you might assume the top target (3D) shooters do not also hunt. I'm not a top target shooter but I improve my accuracy so my hunting shots are better and my scores get better. It's a win win situation. This whole target vs hunting thing is non sense. Better accuracy never hurt any archer, or animal for that matter. There are far too many G Fred disciples on the 3D course publicly displaying gross inadequacy, and when I think about those same people in the woods hunting it bothers me. Sorry but it's the truth...those same folks while they may be very nice people, have little respect for the game they pursue. Once again...it's observation on my part. Think about what ammunition an anti hunting organization might find useful at such an event? It's embarrassing really.

While I'm on a rant...most people see hunting as a right instead of a privilege...therefore because it's my right to hunt, I am free to practice on live animals until I improve. Do you agree?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

If better accuracy was the only thing that mattered...than many of us should put a sight on our bows, use elevated rests and cushion plungers, use stabilizers...heck we should all use compound bows than.

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with wanting to improve your accuracy and shoot for scores...BUT we don't ALL need to...nor do ALL the guys who would be considered Asbell disciples need to learn any other technique. Some of them definitely should if they're really poor shots and wounding animals...BUT...NOT ALL OF THEM NEED TO!

Ray :shade:


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

I invite you to attend a major 3D archery event Ray...you'd see what I mean. I'm not trying to be difficult just stating what I see. The techniques which they employ are their Achilles tendon. I'm not referring to aiming methods either. Once again, I shoot 3D because it most accurately represents hunting with anatomically correct animals...rather than spots. It's perfect practice for hunting season..in the off season.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Mo0se said:


> I invite you to attend a major 3D archery event Ray...you'd see what I mean.


I've attended more 3D events than I can remember and I have seen what you're talking about...BUT...I don't turn prejudice because of those particular archers...especially when I've been witness to archers, who could effectively use those techniques.



Mo0se said:


> Once again, I shoot 3D because it most accurately represents hunting with anatomically correct animals...rather than spots. It's perfect practice for hunting season..in the off season.


Me too!

Ray :shade:


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

It's not prejudice it's honesty. I wish there were more of the latter.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Ray 

Have you ever thought that you might be the issue here? First you fixated on Ken and his instinctive aiming and for all intents and purposes badgered him until he blew a gasket and got banned. 

With Ken not here to insistently argue with you fixated on this G.A.P. thing - have you noticed then number of really good archers who have just faded away as you ramped up your GAP rhetoric???? Guys who really knew their stuff and were willing to help - they were here a year ago - why did they leave???

Matt


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> Tell us Dan...cause I was around when it started and I can't wait to hear this one.


Bowhunter practice.
Dan


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Mo0se said:


> It's not prejudice it's honesty. I wish there were more of the latter.


Prejudice is applying a thought or opinion on a whole group of archers because of a few.

If a person witnesses archers ineffectively using Asbell techniques at some 3D shoots they've attended and conclude that ALL archers who use those techniques are ineffective bowhunters...than they are being prejudice.

You shouldn't judge ALL based on a few.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt,

Have you ever thought that you might be the issue here? You're CONSTANT accusations based on your poor assumption on what you 'think' is going on is the real root of your problems with me.

If ANYONE has left over such a simple common sense application such as the G.A.P profile...they've got personal issues they need to deal with!!!

Ken's got his own issues. He got banned because of his own choices. No one can make another man do or say anything they don't really want to.

America is raising boys to act like girls. Whining and acting butt hurt over stupid stuff. I'm really sick of all the martyrs, self proclaimed victims and drama queens.

Enough is enough. It's time to man up.

The FACT is...and ALWAYS will be...the internet is a poor form of communication. Things often get twisted and taken out of context...and in most cases it's because someone has a fragile ego.

Archery is NOT rocket science. It's pretty simple and it really isn't any different when it comes to creating gang mentality with attitudes of us vs them.

The us vs them is ridiculous, IMO...which is why the G.A.P. profile makes sooo much sense. It's because it is really nothing more than just common sense. It's recognizing that people have different GOALS, ABILITIES and PERSONALIES and how those can shape the path a person takes pursuing archery. It's basically saying there is NO wrong or right way...except when it comes down to the individual.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

It's kinda hard to judge a Bowhunter by 3D performance or Indoor round, they have no choice on the distance shot, in Bowhunting they may be taking every shot within 10 yards, you just dont know so I keep my opinions and thoughts to myself when I see an Archer shooting horrible at a tourney and they tell me they Bowhunt.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> It's kinda hard to judge a Bowhunter by 3D performance or Indoor round, they have no choice on the distance shot, in Bowhunting they may be taking every shot within 10 yards, you just dont know so I keep my opinions and thoughts to myself when I see an Archer shooting horrible at a tourney and they tell me they Bowhunt.


That's one of the things I admire about you, Steve. You're not judgmental or act jaded in any way towards other archers using different techniques or who may not be shooting as well as you can in competition. You don't look down upon anyone...or at least you're not vocal about it.

IMO...that's a true sign of a champion :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

i take exception to the boys acting like girls. girls have nothing inherent that gives them an excuse to be a ******* any more than a boy does 

i used to be married to one such *******, and it had nothing to do with gender!

i don't think that speaking in descriptive generalities, based on experience, is a bad thing, so long as you leave room for the exception.

snap shooting can work very well, for some people, in some circumstances. i am not one of those people. none of the really good shooters i know or have met, if distance beyond 25 yards or more is required, snap shoot. one of my friends who is a pretty good snap shooter has called it quits, because while she was killing it, and winning tournaments snap shooting her long bow, it was killing her on the long shots, and ultimately, she felt it was holding her back. snap shooting served her fine while she was happy with it. her goals changed. all good. life is learning.

if jinx, or anybody else prefers it, and can do well with it doing what they care about, great. 

not my thing, and if somebody asks my opinion, i will do my best to explain pros and cons of either, or both, as well as my preference. i think that is fine.

i don't have any less respect for somebody who has a different perspective, or preference. still, if somebody tells me something that i disagree with, i feel entitled to let them know why, particularly if i do respect them, because that means i believe they have the capacity to hear it.

i'm not going to argue with a rock. the rock always wins. it stays the same, and i've only gotten older 

p.s., i don't think anybody here is a *******. friction happens. in person, probably less so.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Matt,
> 
> Have you ever thought that you might be the issue here? You're CONSTANT accusations based on your poor assumption on what you 'think' is going on is the real root of your problems with me.
> 
> ...


Ray , not that AT needed much help , but you have pretty much ruined this place .


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> Ray , not that AT needed much help , but you have pretty much ruined this place .


You're exactly one of the guys I'm talking about.

This place isn't ruined. 

This is THE best archery websites out there!!!

This place doesn't just cater to one mindset.

This place invites all types of archery...and archers with different G.A.P.profiles :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> That's one of the things I admire about you, Steve. You're not judgmental or act jaded in any way towards other archers using different techniques or who may not be shooting as well as you can in competition. You don't look down upon anyone...or at least you're not vocal about it.
> 
> IMO...that's a true sign of a champion :thumbs_up
> 
> Ray :shade:


We didn't have many Bowhunters in the UK as it isn't allowed so I didn't run into many Bowhunters, a friend founded the (BBA) British Bowhunters Association and he was a top tourney shooter and arranged hunting trips to Africa and started Bowhunter Awareness courses in the UK and campaigned to restart Bowhunting in UK (Wild Boar and Deer populations are not being controlled by gun hunters alone). 

I have to admit some poor shots I met at tourneys I had an opinion that they shouldn't be Bowhunting at their current skill level, somebody a while back pointed out that they may be keeping to short distance that they're proficient and confident at and this basically changed my opinion on the matter. I give those poor tourney shooters the benefit of the doubt that they respect the game they hunt and don't go beyond their personal skill level.

They have allowed Bowhunting here since last July and would be interested to try but with two small kids and 3 companies to run I just don't have the time available to invest in that side of the sport.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> What do you mean "I'll bet you are"?
> 
> Ray :shade:


I meant that I would expect a 300 round that scored 255 to include one or more 2's.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

benofthehood said:


> Ray , not that AT needed much help , but you have pretty much ruined this place .




Amen


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> America is raising boys to act like girls. Whining and acting butt hurt over stupid stuff. I'm really sick of all the martyrs, self proclaimed victims and drama queens.
> 
> Enough is enough. It's time to man up.
> 
> :


Read that a couple times - even you might see the hilarity of this statement.


----------



## jacibo (Aug 8, 2011)

AMEN X3

Along with a couple others.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> I meant that I would expect a 300 round that scored 255 to include one or more 2's.


Gotchya! :thumbs_up

I wouldn't be 'surprised' if a score of 255 would include one or more 2's also. I just know you can also shoot a 255 and not shoot any 2's or lower. I've done it lots of times.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> I have to admit some poor shots I met at tourneys I had an opinion that they shouldn't be Bowhunting at their current skill level,


I've had those exact same thoughts...and like you...I give most of them the benefit of the doubt...because I don't know them personally.

I understand that people are different and deal with certain stressful circumstances differently. Some archers struggle with TP in competition circumstances while others can deal with Buck Fever while bowhunting.



steve morley said:


> somebody a while back pointed out that they may be keeping to short distance that they're proficient and confident at and this basically changed my opinion on the matter. I give those poor tourney shooters the benefit of the doubt that they respect the game they hunt and don't go beyond their personal skill level.


That's my hope also...but I'm also well aware there are those that shoot past their personal skill level.

Ray :shade:


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Agree with Matt.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Anyone here want to admit that I have that much control over them that I made them do something they didn't want to do? :wink:

I try to only discuss the facts. I don't call people liars. I don't look down upon other archers because of how they shoot or the techniques they use. I don't have a problem debating anyone as long as it's kept respectful and not turned into something personal...but that seems to be a problem for some people. I don't hate anyone here but I do believe that some people should ask more questions before they make accusations based on false assumptions. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

I too agree with Matt.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

I agree w/ Matt also.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> Ray , not that AT needed much help , but you have pretty much ruined this place .




:bs::set1_rolf2: That's not true, well, maybe for those of you who can't handle the truth or wouldn't recognize the truth if it smacked ya upside the head.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want you guys to go away though, you give me a good laugh almost every day. I suppose I would miss that if the few troublemakers went to the fita forum where they should fit in better. I wonder about that one very often, gotta go check that forum out and see why they feel the need to come here and make waves.
The fact is that BlackWolf is right about things and there are a few who can't handle it and won't give up. He would do a great disservice to the forum if he wimped out and let them get away with it. Lol, like the GAP profile thing. Why does that simple rule of thumb bother people so much? It's simply common sense, nothing complicated about it but, it seems to really get under some peoples skin.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I agree with Matt too


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Apparently "GAP" is not what could be considered a "rule of thumb".


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> The fact is that BlackWolf is right about things and there are a few who can't handle it and won't give up. He would do a great disservice to the forum if he wimped out and let them get away with it. Lol, like the GAP profile thing. Why does that simple rule of thumb bother people so much? It's simply common sense, nothing complicated about it but, it seems to really get under some peoples skin.


I don't agree with the GAP profile in that it caters for every possible situation, rank novices can function without it for the first 3-4 weeks of training and maybe then introduced to help them gain some direction, I don't have an issue with Ray using it but he does throw it into almost every thread like a wildcard and I guess some members don't really want it force fed to them all the time.

I wouldn't call it a rule of thumb as it is a term Ray came up with and appears Ray is the only person using it, I've not heard GAP profile used outside of this Forum.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> Apparently "GAP" is not what could be considered a "rule of thumb".


Ok, could you elaborate? Interested to hear more.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Ok, could you elaborate? Interested to hear more.


A system that has no "rules" is nothing but all thumbs!


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> I don't agree with the GAP profile in that it caters for every possible situation, rank novices can function without it for the first 3-4 weeks of training and maybe then introduced to help them gain some direction, I don't have an issue with Ray using it but he does throw it into almost every thread like a wildcard and I guess some members don't really want it force fed to them all the time.
> 
> I wouldn't call it a rule of thumb as it is a term Ray came up with and appears Ray is the only person using it, I've not heard GAP profile used outside of this Forum.



Well, unless I have really poor comprehension, and I'm not exactly known for that, it's usually used where it's needed to highlight the fact that we are not all the same. I always see it coming and it gets pretty funny how the same group responds. It's the same people over and over. The funny part is that it's the same people who seem to have such rigid personalities that cause the 'wildcard' to be played to start with. 
Mr. Morley, I can see that you accept the idea that people are different and don't want or need the same things in life. That really applies to everything. Heck, even my own sons are geared somewhat differently from me. When they were younger they accepted about everything I said as the gospel according to Dad, and that was it. But, as they grew up and developed their own opinions about things, that changed. We should not assume, as some do, that every new person to the forum is automatically an idiot who has no prior experiences with archery or hunting. Most have their own ideas and usually know what they want from the archery experience.

Btw, just for information purposes, Ray didn't actually come up with the term. It just seemed to be a good one for some situations and a crew of guys insist on making it applicable quite often.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

It's obvious some people have personal issues with a term they don't fully understand or are purposely distorting.

The G.A.P. profile accommodates every archer...even rank novices.

It really baffles me how anyone can't or refuses to understand that. It's an even more detailed and accurate approach to helping archers than assuming anyone knows exactly what any given archer's GOALS are.

I repeat things over and over because certain people have turned this into something personal and keep distorting it.

Another fact I keep having to repeat is I did NOT create this term. Itbeso was the brains behind that :wink:

What we have simply going on here is...one group feels every new archer needs to learn to shoot a bow a specific way....regardless of the archer's GOALS.

The other group simply feels there can be a more customized approach to teaching archers rather force feeding them that there is one way or style every new archer should learn first.

Common sense should dictate that a customized approach to teaching is the most accurate way to teach an individual even if it ends up still falling in line with cookie cutter advice that fits the majority of archers.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

The G.A.P. is NOT a free for all without rules.

The rules are based on the individual archer 

Ray :shade:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

I think I'll just go read up on the Star Method.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

grapplemonkey said:


> I think I'll just go read up on the Star Method.


After some research I found out what STAR stands for as it relates to archery. String Type Archery Retriever. In this thread http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/tf/lw/thread2.cfm?forum=23&threadid=242690&messages=5&CATEGORY=1 about 12 posts down the big secret is finally revealed. It's the best method for getting our bows into a tree. Now, if we can just as accurately throw the arrow from said tree it be a win win.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Another fact I keep having to repeat is I did NOT create this term. Itbeso was the brains behind that :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:




Repeat it all you want to (like everything else), but the fact is I coined the insipid "GAP" term. I regret it now, because I'm sure it causes confusion for people who want to learn about gap aiming. But keep beating that old drum still the sticks break.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

LOL...what is so confusing about it???

Ray :shade:


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

Gap is an aiming method, not some imaginary excuse to rule out teaching ordinary archery techniques. 

It's the same word... get it now?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It's obvious some people have personal issues with a term they don't fully understand or are purposely distorting.
> 
> The G.A.P. profile accommodates every archer...even rank novices.
> 
> ...


Of course, common sense isn't so common. "Sweet Dreams" by Marilyn Manson tells the story. 
Ray, I spent thirty five years traveling. Some people think I've been everywhere and while it's not entirely true, I have been around enough to learn that the world is full of strange characters. Some of the people I've met were good for a bunch of laughs, some pretty scary and others that just left me shaking my head. But, it taught me one thing for sure, everyone is not like me. They have their own ideas, experiences, dreams, desires and personalities. The things that contribute to their GAP profile. Even the people here who let that bother them so much have their own GAP.
Now, here's the question. Have you ever wondered if those people actually enjoy the negative attention it gets them? I have a real hard time believing that they can't understand simple common sense, so that only leaves a couple of other possibilities. Just my thoughts.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Arrowwood said:


> Gap is an aiming method, not some imaginary excuse to rule out teaching ordinary archery techniques.
> 
> It's the same word... get it now?


Gap is an aiming method... BUT...G A.P. is NOT!

G.A.P. is also NOT an imaginary excuse to rule out teaching any 'ordinary' archery techniques!

Only those who are NOT very skilled in reading comprehension, making poor assumptions and/or purposely distorting it... are claiming that.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Have you ever wondered if those people actually enjoy the negative attention it gets them? I have a real hard time believing that they can't understand simple common sense, so that only leaves a couple of other possibilities. Just my thoughts.


I don't know any of these individuals personally so I can't say for sure one way or the other...but it does make you wonder.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I don't mind hearing G.A.P talk from Ray as it's not bothering me either way but if it is rubbing you the wrong way then I suggest using the ignore button. 

I just used the ignore button on Forest as his insulting posts have become a little to regular, I'm here to talk Archery and he just seems interested in stirring the pot. We should drop this topic and get back to constructive talks that help people improve their shooting.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> We should drop this topic and get back to constructive talks that help people improve their shooting.


I'm ALL for that!!! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Steve, I believe all AT has turned into is a pot stirring by a few of the locals!!

What happened to wanting to learn and willing to teach...all this has turned into is a GAP this and GAP that...taking every single post and breaking it down like we are bunch of 4 year olds too stupid to understand anything..then winks and thumbs ups..gees...


I'm done....Ken was a saint compared these guys.


Count me out.




Dewayne


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Oh look another World Champ has been run off... wow just wow. Stick around DeWayne! Use the ignore button..I just did. Some of us appreciate your input here. For those who are unaware..go to the person in questions name > View profile> add to ignore list. Poof they are gone.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

vabowdog said:


> What happened to wanting to learn and willing to teach.


It's here...very alive and well!

In fact...that's EXACTLY what the G.A.P. profile is all about!

Unfortunately though....some people refuse to see that because they believe everyone should learn what they believe are the 'best' techniques regardless of the individual.

Than they run off because someone disagrees with them and won't back down...paaalease!!!!

Everyone should be welcome here. Anyone who chooses to leave...leaves of their own free will.

Heck...I even fought to keep Sharp here quite a few times with others through PMs.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

And yes...by all means...please ignore me if you can't handle or refuse to make any effort to understand what I'm trying to say.

Ray :shade:


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

No thanks!!!


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Did you ever consider the fact that many archers up to and including World champs have been the alternative route of shooting? They found it's inconsistencies not conducive with their goals and moved on? Maybe just maybe they've beaten their heads against a door jam until things go black with antiquated methods and ideas? They teach a certain way because it works...for everyone and not just themselves. There is a reason proper form and everything that goes along with it is called proper. People have wasted countless hours and arrows struggling with methods that result in mediocre results at best. That includes myself, should I cant the bow or not cant the bow hold or don't hold at anchor blah blah you need at least 50 lbs to kill deer more blah blah blah. Why should new people have to learn the hard way? There is no more required effort to shoot with proper form and technique than alternative methods that end in disaster because people cannot obtain the accuracy they feel they should. 

Many people quit and give up because of the teachings of G Fred and similar approaches...it is not an elitist attitude to want to save someone an unfathomable amount of time when learning to shoot. Before I hear everyone's goals are different...no, really they are not. Every archer that picks up a bow wants to be the best and most accurate shot they can be.
Simply translated a typical Trad World Champion didn't get there by blind luck, they have exhausted every avenue, technique, equipment nuance etc and just happened to be the most accurate archer in the World on that day. Those who don't compete are not included by choices of their own. It's human nature to always use the path of least resistance...the Champions have found it and for the record they've earned it with a public display of their skill. 

In my opinion if something works...and you've abandoned all other methods there is a reason for it. Not because these World Champs are above anything or anyone, they have learned to work smarter instead of harder. By harder I mean utilizing the same methods getting the same results. Archers cannot "hope" themselves into more accurate shots, they cannot will themselves to be better either. It takes failing to improve...and more importantly the ability to know when you are failing. It's then time to move on.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

If I recollect right....Wasn't it "Itbeso" (Ben Rodgers) that originally came up with the "G.A.P." acronym?...then Ray ran with the ball and oft times threw in a word of his own with that word being "Elitists"?

This is all a shame to me really as I find it sad that some of the most skilled archers here prefer uniformity over diversity while the reason why seems so blatant. 

Oh well...on the bright side?...shooting instead of posting is looking better and better!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Don't blame you Dewayne , think I'm gonna take a break for a few weeks and see is this crap dies down, just no fun being here at the moment I not here to argue or listen to others bicker.

Later guys


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> This is all a shame to me really as I find it sad that some of the most skilled archers here prefer uniformity over diversity while the reason why seems so blatant.


Diversity, what? It's all archery. Yeah, there's uniformity per se in being the most accurate one can with a given piece of equipment. If striving for accuracy is elitism, in a SHOOTING SPORT, then count me in. BTW, my basketball hoop in my driveway has a regulation size hoop, so I'm kinda elitist bout that too!


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Now Steve too..I'm out of this thread.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

:walk: 
:wave3:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Mo0se said:


> Did you ever consider the fact that many archers up to and including World champs have been the alternative route of shooting?


Absolutely...and it is EXACTLY one of the reasons why they should understand what the G.A.P. profile is all about.

Most people, who make the transition to a recurve or longbow are told or convinced that there is really only one 'true' way to shoot these trad bows. Most end up shooting these bows with similar aspects to Asbell's form and end up finding out later that it didn't come any where close to fitting their G.A.P. profile.

The alternative route is just that...an alternative route that some can make work to fulfill their GOALS.



Mo0se said:


> They found it's inconsistencies not conducive with their goals and moved on?


The form itself is not inconsistent...it's the archer trying to implement those aspects of form that are inconsistent. A person can create a shooting machine that copies Asbell's form and that machine will be a tack driver. The problem is....we're not machines and there will be certain aspects of form that will be easier to attain and maintain CONSISTENCY. Once the techniques are basically mastered...the archer needs to decide it fulfills their GOALS under the circumstances they want to shoot within.

Pretty simple concept!



Mo0se said:


> They teach a certain way because it works...for everyone and not just themselves.


Don't you think that if it did in fact work for everyone...everyone would be doing it?

There's more to it than just that!



Mo0se said:


> Why should new people have to learn the hard way?


Who says they have to???

They do NOT have to. No one is saying they have to here. It's a choice! Nothing more...nothing less!

Jinks is a perfect example. He tried Rod Jenkins school and it didn't fit him. Jinks is now enjoying archery far more and shooting better than he has in awhile. 

Does he have the same abilities with a bow that I, Matt or Steve have? Not necessarily...nor does he need to with what he has found makes him happy. His accuracy and style fulfill his G.A.P. profile enough to where he's enjoying archery again.

It's NOT always about becoming the most accurate you can be at whatever cost. Choices are often accompanied with compromises.

Even in competitive target archery...compromises are made in order to fulfill an archer's ABILITIES. 

Trying to achieve the most optimum body positions for some archers is nearly impossible...so compromises are made.

In some cases...some accuracy is compromised so an archer can fulfill other GOALS besides hitting the smallest bullseye as many times as possible.

If everyone was pursuing archery to be as accurate as possible...than we all would be using sights.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

I think we're all trying to be as accurate as possible without a sight.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grapplemonkey said:


> I think we're all trying to be as accurate as possible without a sight.


I definitely wouldn't say...ALL. There are some archers here pursuing traditional archery who are using sights.

The questions than is....who's pursuing to be as accurate as possible aiming Instinctively?

Who's pursuing to be as accurate as possible String Walking?

Who's pursuing to be as accurate as possible shooting from a target line?

Who's pursuing to be as accurate as possible while hunting from the ground crouching and trying to sneak up on an animal?

Who's pursuing to be accurate enough while fulfilling their other GOALS?

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

wow...isn't this fun?...we're having a blast now hugh fellers?


----------



## joeurel (Mar 10, 2014)

I have to admit, I'm having a little trouble understanding your methodology. I have never heard of this methodology for teaching beginners, and I'm not new to archery. I think is may be a little more complicated than you are making it out to be. 

So if I understand you correctly, you teach based on the individuals G.A.P. profile. Again, this is the first time I've heard of this method.
To continue, this G.A.P. profile is base on the individuals goals, ability, and personality. Is there a finite number of these G.A.P. profiles, or is there an infinite number of G.A.P. profiles? And if its the latter, you have to tailor an infinite number of regimens to teach a new archer. Correct? If this is so, rather than being a simple common sense approach it seems to me that it would be quite the opposite. 
This begs the question, if there is more than one correct way to shoot a bow, how many ways are there? As many as there are G.A.P. profiles? And if this is so doesn't that imply that in reality there is no incorrect way to shoot a bow, in which the converse would have to also be true. Any way to shoot a bow is correct. This may be why people are having trouble wrapping their heads around.

It seems to be a method that can neither be quantified, nor qualified. That's kind of where you lost me. Most people have trouble with that sort of thing.

I've been involved in this sport for a long time, and you are the first person I've run into that teaches beginners this way. I would be interested to see what some of your students have achieved.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

vabowdog said:


> Steve, I believe all AT has turned into is a pot stirring by a few of the locals!!
> 
> What happened to wanting to learn and willing to teach...all this has turned into is a GAP this and GAP that...taking every single post and breaking it down like we are bunch of 4 year olds too stupid to understand anything..then winks and thumbs ups..gees...
> 
> ...


Dewayne, I would be ok with Ray changing GAP to NASP. IF he or the other two don't know what that is....... Well it's in all the schools and Wildlife Departments. If Ray and others continue then I am with you on this sight. Done.

Dan


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

You have to have a good base. Jinks shot competitive archery with a cbow and then went Trad. He "had a good fundamental base" to pull from. I agree there's "more than one way to skin a cat", but I believe the fundamentals need to be deeply ingrained in order to "branch out". Speck


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

So instead of Dewayne and Steve sharing their archery prowess, we get Ray and Bill teaching their brand of psychology? This isn't sounding good at all.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

joeurel said:


> I've been involved in this sport for a long time, and you are the first person I've run into that teaches beginners this way. I would be interested to see what some of your students have achieved.


He doesn't have students, just an agenda.

-Grant


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

MGF said:


> So instead of Dewayne and Steve sharing their archery prowess, we get Ray and Bill teaching their brand of psychology? This isn't sounding good at all.



I've got so many on my ignore list, I couldn't tell what was going on. I guess your post says it all---too bad.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

joeurel said:


> I have to admit, I'm having a little trouble understanding your methodology. I have never heard of this methodology for teaching beginners, and I'm not new to archery. I think is may be a little more complicated than you are making it out to be.
> 
> So if I understand you correctly, you teach based on the individuals G.A.P. profile. Again, this is the first time I've heard of this method.
> To continue, this G.A.P. profile is base on the individuals goals, ability, and personality. Is there a finite number of these G.A.P. profiles, or is there an infinite number of G.A.P. profiles? And if its the latter, you have to tailor an infinite number of regimens to teach a new archer. Correct? If this is so, rather than being a simple common sense approach it seems to me that it would be quite the opposite.
> ...


Your right on there. Look up NASP and forget about G.A.P. Here a link.
http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/i_e/archery/NASPCurriculum6-8.pdf
Dan out


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> wow...isn't this fun?...we're having a blast now hugh fellers?


I just want to know who this "Hugh Fellers" is and does he post here, huh ?

This thread is one of the reasons I stopped posting much on AT...maybe Ken was the lucky one after all!


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

Guess I will join ken, Matt, Dewayne, Ben and Steve and back away from the keyboard.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

BLACK WOLF;1070147644
Does he have the same abilities with a bow that I said:


> Sorry but those people you mentioned are in a different league than yourself..but I see you felt qualified to include yourself without earning it at a public event, and run down Bill in the same sentence. I've personally witnessed face to face Matt, Dan, Scot, Dewayne, Alan, Dave, Lonnie..all proven top level shooters but I'm sorry Ray your zeal has gotten way ahead of the knowledge of the facts. Steve has the titles as well. In no way are you more qualified to help others than the aforementioned people. All of them are great, helpful and humble people. You could learn something from that.
> 
> You've earned ignore status congrats!
> 
> I think I need a break from here as well.. Peace to all the good folks still here like JP, Bill, and many others.


----------



## Dewey3 (May 6, 2012)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Dewayne, I would be ok with Ray changing GAP to NASP. IF he or the other two don't know what that is....... Well it's in all the schools and Wildlife Departments. If Ray and others continue then I am with you on this sight. Done.
> 
> Dan


Oh, :devil: 

Hey guys - there are some beginners here (and I include myself in that lot, having just started shooting again after rotator-cuff surgery) who really need advice from knowledgeable and experienced shooters such as yourselves - please reconsider ???!!!


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Including yourself in a group of folks, who on record, are badass with a bow, bad medicine! Speck


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

joeurel said:


> So if I understand you correctly, you teach based on the individuals G.A.P. profile.


Absolutely! It's the same way I approach training my clients. Everyone comes to me with fitness goals...but if I didn't take into account each person's Goals, Abilities and Personality...I would not be as an effective trainer as I am. You don't train a person with fitness goals of becoming a bodybuilder the same way you would train someone to be a long distance runner...or train someone who needs post rehab exercises as someone who has no real health issues.



joeurel said:


> Is there a finite number of these G.A.P. profiles, or is there an infinite number of G.A.P. profiles?


There's definitely a finite number of profiles. Here are just a few examples of different GOALS.

An archer wanting to become an Olympic archer will utilize techniques that are most common with Olympic archers.

An archer wanting to become a world class Field archer will utilize techniques that are most common with world class Field archers.

An archer wanting to become a bowhunter who wants to sneak up on deer and aim Instinctively will utilize techniques that are most common with archers who hunt that way.

It's pretty common sense...isn't it?

Now Abilities play into it where a person may need to make compromises concerning specific form aspects until they find what works best for them.

Personality plays into it because some people are more drawn to certain aspects of style more than others. Some people are more drawn to wanting to shooting Instinctively while others are more drawn to an aiming technique that they feel they have more conscious control over.

If you have any more questions about it...please feel free to ask. I much rather you ask questions like you're doing...rather than making poor assumptions about it like others have.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> You have to have a good base. Jinks shot competitive archery with a cbow and then went Trad. He "had a good fundamental base" to pull from. I agree there's "more than one way to skin a cat", but I believe the fundamentals need to be deeply ingrained in order to "branch out". Speck


This... very much this.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Mo0se said:


> Sorry but those people you mentioned are in a different league than yourself


Do you actually know me? Have you seen me shoot? 

The accusations some people make are astounding!

I never claimed to be in the exact same league as those guys because I've never shot with them...but I do know my own personal abilities.

I also know that I couldn't shoot as well as Jinks does Instinctively...because that is not how I primarily aim....but based on what Jinks has shared about his experiences competing in some archery tournaments I could out score him...which isn't meant to be a put down at all. Based on his videos...I think he's a pretty darn good shot at what he does.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

A good fundamental base is nothing more than having CONSISTENCY!

It could look different from one person to the next. It does NOT need to look EXACTLY like some other archer.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Just consistency? Gosh that makes it sound easy.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> Just consistency? Gosh that makes it sound easy.


Sounding easy and actually being able to do it can be 2 entirely different things.

An archer can't always utilize every biomechanical advantage there is to develop the CONSISTENCY they need to achieve their GOALS.

In most cases compromises are made until the archer discovers the right balance that fulfills their GOALS well enough.

Ray :shade:


----------



## joeurel (Mar 10, 2014)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Absolutely! It's the same way I approach training my clients. Everyone comes to me with fitness goals...but if I didn't take into account each person's Goals, Abilities and Personality...I would not be as an effective trainer as I am. You don't train a person with fitness goals of becoming a bodybuilder the same way you would train someone to be a long distance runner...or train someone who needs post rehab exercises as someone who has no real health issues.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think this methodology would work for us. Here's what I mean. When a new archer shows up at our club, other than hunting, they generally have no idea what disciplines are available to them. They generally just show up and want to learn "how to shoot a bow and arrow". So are you saying, when a new student comes to you, they're required to provide one of these G.A.P. profiles before you engage them? What do you do if they can't or are unable to provide you with this information? I'm pretty sure if I ask any prospective archers what their goals abilities and personality are, I get some pretty funny looks, I'm also pretty sure that some of the fathers of some of the children we teach would probably take a swing at me. We generally have a class of anywhere between eight and twenty, I don't think it would be practical to tailor a program for each individual, especially when they have no idea what's available to them. That, plus the fact that we are all volunteers, and we don't receive any compensation for these classes.
I can see where this might work for a paying client, on an individual basis, that has some experience with a bow and arrow. One on one would be ideal, realistically though, clubs around here wouldn't be able to do this. 
Like I said, this sounds like a method that might be used by a professional coach with an individual paying client, and perhaps that's why it works for you. Really not a practical way to teach beginning archers for us. I guess your method doesn't fit our G.A.P. profile.
We just teach the basics, despite that, we have had some successes. Several we have taught have gone on to win state and sectional championships. We have two shooters that place well at ASA Pro/Ams, and three went to National Indoors this year and did well. Many also hunt, but I'm not able to quantify their success or failure. Pretty small time, but quantifiable none the less.
Again, I'd be interested to hear about what some of your clients have achieved using this method to start them out with.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

joeurel said:


> So are you saying, when a new student comes to you, they're required to provide one of these G.A.P. profiles before you engage them?


Ooooh heaven's NO!!! Most people do have some clue of why their taking up archery though and whatever that is...it can be applicable to how I teach them.



joeurel said:


> What do you do if they can't or are unable to provide you with this information?


Than I'll teach them the easiest techniques to master that fit their body structure. Some people may call it Classic style. 



joeurel said:


> I'm pretty sure if I ask any prospective archers what their goals abilities and personality are, I get some pretty funny looks, I'm also pretty sure that some of the fathers of some of the children we teach would probably take a swing at me.


LOL...you're making it waaaay to complicated :wink: 

If a father takes a swing at you for asking their child what their GOALS are...they have some major personal issues going on!

If a father takes a swing at you for asking their child if they've got pretty good hand and eye coordination or are pretty accurate at throwing balls...they have some major personal issues going on!

If a father takes a swing at you for asking their child if they are more analytical or more emotionally oriented...they have some major personal issues!

If a child can't answer any of those...you can always ask a parent.

By the way...where do you live to be around such violent people? :wink:



joeurel said:


> I don't think it would be practical to tailor a program for each individual, especially when they have no idea what's available to them.


I COMPLETELY agree!!! :thumbs_up 

When most people offer a class...they are usually teaching a specific style and aren't giving as much one on one instruction so it would make no sense to try and meet every person's specific needs...unless the class was really small and the instructor had enough time to do so.



joeurel said:


> I can see where this might work for a paying client, on an individual basis, that has some experience with a bow and arrow. One on one would be ideal, realistically though, clubs around here wouldn't be able to do this. Like I said, this sounds like a method that might be used by a professional coach with an individual paying client, and perhaps that's why it works for you.


You nailed it! :thumbs_up

Most people coming on here looking for advice are individuals and aren't coming here as a group of people...so it's completely realistic to address each person as an individual on this forum.



joeurel said:


> Again, I'd be interested to hear about what some of your clients have achieved using this method to start them out with.


Most have achieved improved accuracy or have developed to be competent bowhunters and/or 3D target archers. To be completely honest...most people I teach seek me out because of what they've heard about me. I don't teach archery classes and I certainly don't teach archers to become Olympic archers.

Ray :shade:


----------



## joeurel (Mar 10, 2014)

thanks, I think I stumbled into- the wrong room here, so I'll take my leave. Actually I live in a very non-violent area of the country. I think you're the one making assumptions now. Most kids around here that come to shoot don't know what their goals are, and their parents don't either. Like I said, I'm clearly in the wrong place.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

joeurel said:


> Actually I live in a very non-violent area of the country. I think you're the one making assumptions now.


Really...you're the one who said you would have fathers taking swings at you if you asked their kid what their Goals, Abilities and Personality were.

Did you not?

Sounds pretty violent to me based on what you said...and not some assumption.



joeurel said:


> Most kids around here that come to shoot don't know what their goals are, and their parents don't either.


Than you go with the only GOAL they obviously have...which is to learn how to shoot a bow.

Why do you feel that you stumbled into the wrong room???

Ray :shade:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Leave it be Ray. He already said he'd be leaving. With you pursuing him like that you seem like you're provoking things... just let it die.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grapplemonkey said:


> Leave it be Ray. He already said he'd be leaving. With you pursuing him like that you seem like you're provoking things... just let it die.


I'm pursuing him because I don't want him to leave. He obviously took something I said the wrong way and I'm making an effort to communicate with him and find out what it was.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

Did this site honesty just loose some of the best ? WOW , maybe a good time to quit digging buddy.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MotherLode said:


> you are well over your head with those guys.


Who are you talking to? Do you know the person you're talking to personally? What's up with all the assumptions if you don't personally know who you're talking to? 

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MotherLode said:


> Did this site honesty just loose some of the best ? WOW , maybe a good time to quit digging buddy.


I reckon the best are off to the fita forum to dig for a while. If you've never been there you should check it out. Everybody is the best.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Empty cans rattle the loudest ...

:wink:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grapplemonkey said:


> Leave it be Ray. He already said he'd be leaving. With you pursuing him like that you seem like you're provoking things... just let it die.



Interesting observation. From here it looked as if that guy came in the door with an agenda. Thought for a minute he was going to take a swing at BlackWolf. Just kidding, people do say some dumb stuff though.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I'm totally lost on where this is going...

I like cheese.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BarneySlayer said:


> I'm totally lost on where this is going...
> 
> I like cheese.



To hell in a hand basket. On about the second page it went down hill like a hog on roller skates. But, as you know, it's not the first knock down drag out that ever took place and won't be the last. It keeps the forum fair and balanced.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

> Now, here's the question. Have you ever wondered if those people actually enjoy the negative attention it gets them? I have a real hard time believing that they can't understand simple common sense, so that only leaves a couple of other possibilities.


Get that from a long look in a mirror?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Have you wondered why the moderators are just letting this one run the course??


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Mate , not sure ...

Entertainment value ?

Shareholders in the G.A.P book ?

Referring on for a university study in narcissism ?

Ps ... That's the best sig line in the world of archery forums ... It actually deserves a big wink for those who see it for what it is ......

But this thread has enough emoticons , winks and smileys to last a lifetime .


----------



## MotherLode (Dec 9, 2005)

Yes I know you , you are what I was in another sport at another time on the internet . Regret will come will come with age , trust me.





BLACK WOLF said:


> Who are you talking to? Do you know the person you're talking to personally? What's up with all the assumptions if you don't personally know who you're talking to?
> 
> Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> Have you wondered why the moderators are just letting this one run the course??


The "touchy feely" stuff is pretty popular these days. It's not so important that 2 + 2 = 4. What's important is how you "feel" about it.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> Have you wondered why the moderators are just letting this one run the course??


I've been wondering that?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MotherLode said:


> Yes I know you , you are what I was in another sport at another time on the internet . Regret will come will come with age , trust me.


That's just amazing how you think you know me...but I really have no clue who you are. What will I regret and why?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

kegan said:


> I've been wondering that?


I figure they are making a point - have you seen a post from anyone other than the terrible trio say "yeah I love that GAP thing". Given the tone of the last 4 pages you would think that the message might be coming across.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

This thread soooo reminds me of this video...LOL! Especially the end of the video :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

Has anyone here ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ?

If so, then you would know that the meaning of life is 42.

That is quantifiable, right?


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Have you wondered why the moderators are just letting this one run the course??


An excuse to shut the Trad board down for good? Wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

High Plains said:


> An excuse to shut the Trad board down for good? Wouldn't surprise me.


My guess is that the mods are so sick of reading this crap that they don't even want to wade in here long enough to shut it down. I sure am and will not be revisiting this thread. Have a good day.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

centershot said:


> My guess is that the mods are so sick of reading this crap that they don't even want to wade in here long enough to shut it down.


Goog point.


----------



## Dewey3 (May 6, 2012)

I'm not going to waste my time on this nonsense anymore - Good-bye.


----------



## Arrowzen (Feb 14, 2014)

Oh come on guys... Just let this thread die!

It's just a bunch of cyclic babble about the same thing being said in every way imaginable.


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

centershot said:


> My guess is that the mods are so sick of reading this crap that they don't even want to wade in here long enough to shut it down. I sure am and will not be revisiting this thread. Have a good day.


 If they let the 2 current threads stay alive, it may not spill out into every other thread. Kind of like a quarantine.


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

this thread was started to get this fight going-like someone yelling "fight" from the back of the playground.As usual both sides took the bait and did the usual.Now move on to the canting thread and get sucked into it again.You are being played.


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

4nolz said:


> this thread was started to get this fight going-like someone yelling "fight" from the back of the playground.As usual both sides took the bait and did the usual.Now move on to the canting thread and get sucked into it again.You are being played.


 What about the "Teaching a kid..." thread? I sense it will be invaded soon. Lol


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

xxxJakkxxx said:


> If they let the 2 current threads stay alive, it may not spill out into every other thread. Kind of like a quarantine.



Might be on to something there. Maybe they wanted to see who in the end would turn tail and run away. No, that can't be right,,, they're probably overwhelmed by the PMs from the crybabies. It happens once in a while and serves a purpose. Oh well. Sorry, but the truth must be defended and in this case truth has different meanings to different people, just like many things in life.
I would suggest to anyone who has no interest to leave it alone and find another thread to get involved in. Common sense?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

xxxJakkxxx said:


> What about the "Teaching a kid..." thread? I sense it will be invaded soon. Lol



I'm in a strange mood today and haven't even read that one. I suspect though that sooner or later,,, it will need some common sense applied. Whacha think?


----------



## xxxJakkxxx (Apr 17, 2014)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I'm in a strange mood today and haven't even read that one. I suspect though that sooner or later,,, it will need some common sense applied. Whacha think?


 It has very little bickering but has had both sides represented before half way through the first page. Only time will tell if it becomes another thread of 17 pages of back and forth, though.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

xxxJakkxxx said:


> It has very little bickering but has had both sides represented before half way through the first page. Only time will tell if it becomes another thread of 17 pages of back and forth, though.



Naaah, both sides definitely not represented. I couldn't stand it any longer, had to look. But hey, I was strong and didn't point out any of the questionable things.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Huh - didn't know that happened until you mentioned it - I had nothing to do with it being deleted - like I said I could care less what you thing but, obviously someone with a delete button cares what you think.

Matt


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Does the G.A.P profile apply if you shoot instinctively but shoot Rage b'heads ?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> Does the G.A.P profile apply if you shoot instinctively but shoot Rage b'heads ?



Say what? 
I gave this some thought and still don't understand it. I figure everybody has goals of some kind, abilities to some degree and a personality of some sort good,bad or indifferent. How it applies to the choices in the question, not sure other than yes, those things apply to just about everyone and every choice they make about their personal lives. Even middle aged, bald, fat guys who buy a red sports car.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Say what?
> I gave this some thought and still don't understand it. I figure everybody has goals of some kind, abilities to some degree and a personality of some sort good,bad or indifferent. How it applies to the choices in the question, not sure other than yes, those things apply to just about everyone and every choice they make about their personal lives. Even middle aged, bald, fat guys who buy a red sports car.


DING DING DING!!!! Forrest wins again :thumbs_up :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> Does the G.A.P profile apply if you shoot instinctively but shoot Rage b'heads ?


ABSOLUTELY! :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

That's gold ... Really , just gold !


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> That's gold ... Really , just gold !


It is...it hit dead center in the gold :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------

