# Really? Ya think?



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Just wanted to throw something out for discussion that I've been thinking a great deal about lately. This has been motivated by several PM questions I've received as well as the "Define This Firing Process" topic. 

Here goes, 

Ok, as archers, we've all heard this statement; Archery is 90% mental, 10% physical. First, I completely agree with the premise of this philosophy. Do I agree with the numbers? I don't know, what the numbers are really isn't an issue for me. What this philosophy is saying is; archery is a great deal more mental than physical. On that I would bet that even all of the members of the I&A forum could agree. (Impossible sometimes happens.) :teeth: 

So let's not get bogged down on the numbers, ok? Let's just agree that archery is more a mental endeavor than physical and leave it at that. Can we? 

Before Roger Bannister ran a sub four minute mile it was said to be impossible, that belief once proven to be false led to countless people breaking that record. Before Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs in a season it was said to be impossible. Then the experts said that the record might never be broken. It's now been exceeded by several players. On another front, Henry Ford was said to be "crazy." He believed the impossible, he believed that an engine could be built that ran on eight cylinders. He finally succeeded in building such an engine against all odds. There are countless examples in human history of people proving the experts or pundits wrong. They accomplished the impossible. 

*So what about archery? It's a mental game right? Didn't we agree on that earlier? Can it not be said that those who excel in the sport of archery then are masters of breaking (impossible) mental barriers?*

Think about it this. There is really very, very little "advanced" archery (mental) information available. One or two authors have pretty much dominated the "thinking" of the archery community for many years. Why is it so easy to believe their theories? Why do so many people feed at that trough? Are they any more right about their commonly held theories than the people that said it was impossible to run a sub four minute mile? *Granted, their theories may have helped many people excel in their archery pursuits,* but the bigger question exists; did those who followed these theories advance to an uncommon level of expertise because of them? Did they? 

Taking it one step further, sometimes ancient psychological theories come into play in archery discussions that tend to limit the thinking of the perspective archer. An example might be the idea that the conscious mind can only focus on one thing at a time. *This could be a valid theory.* However, given the capabilities of the human mind to shift gears several times per second how can it not be said that an archer who is aiming and releasing at the same time doesn't have the capability of focusing on two things at the same time within the spectrum that allows them to maintain optimum performance? 

The whole question I'm trying to resolve is this; why is it so easy to believe the (very) few people that have shaped archery's mental game over the last couple of decades? When has an active shooter, someone who is "doing it" and "done it" shaped any kind of valid movement toward excellence in archery *thinking* during the last three or four decades? I'd say George Ryals may come as close to filling those shoes as anyone. Even at that, I believe there are HUGE gaps in the amount of *real* archery knowledge that is focused on mental excellence!

To summarize, why has the mental side of archery been so dominated (often to the detriment of excellence) by so few?

Personally, the more I shoot, the more I adopt a "question everything" approach. As well as a "believe what they say is impossible" philosophy. Oddly, the more I believe in these two simple ideas the better it seems I shoot. Weird. 

Just some thoughts. Might motivate a discussion, may help someone. :cheers:


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

To me, this basically boils down to the question of whether we consider this notion of "core principles" (being developed and discussed elsewhere) to be immutable *law* or mutable, but perhaps only strongly suggested, *guidelines*. This topic isn't confined to archery, BTW - there is controversy about this in probably every sport or other activities involving motor skills like music and so forth. It's even a central notion in science.

That's really the meat of the question, I think: do we follow the "old knowledge" to the letter or not? And if not, how far do we "stray"?

I'll just jump to the punchline and give my POV: To me, the most productive approach is somewhere in the middle. We don't want to reinvent the wheel, but if an idea is come up with to improve upon the wheel - say someone introduces the notion of the tire - we should probably feel free to depart from the "old knowledge" as necessary to test the idea. If the idea bears fruit, we can then revise and update what we previously thought and the end result is an improved "new knowledge".

That's just a fancy way of saying that the most optimal approach to "core principles" is to neither ignore them nor take them as incontrovertible, immutable law. The middle road - treat them as guidlines - seems to me to be the right approach.

My 02,

LS


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Good thoughts unclejane. And I'd say you may be more right than me.......

My shooting philosophy/style actually is more like "get out on the ragged edge and hang there" than it is middle of the road. I'm not making a joke by saying that either. That's really what I think. I have massive trust in my ability to make a good shot. Maybe that is the source of much of my skepticism of a lot of the commonly held theories. I don't know.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

The simple answer may just be that it has been dominated by so few because only a select few:
Know and have experience on the subject
Actually did the work of writing the books (and got them published)

Being there are extremely few people writing about it, there is little if any debate (no one has written a book saying they are wrong and why).
If there is no debate, everyone assumes they are correct. (and they very well may be)
When there is no debate, there is no reason to write another book about it.
It will likely remain that way until someone puts forth the effort to study the subject enough to draw logical conclusions, and puts that into writing and/or video, gets it published, and people start buying it


That said, at least in some other sports, there is debate as to whether you can consciously focus on more than one thing at a time. So there is a possibility for debate there. So there IS some information to study and perhaps come up with alternate philosophies...someone just has to jump in and do it.
Of course if that person was a world champion/record holder, the book might actually sell.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

Lazarus said:


> Good thoughts unclejane. And I'd say you may be more right than me.......
> 
> My shooting philosophy/style actually is more like "get out on the ragged edge and hang there" than it is middle of the road. I'm not making a joke by saying that either. That's really what I think. I have massive trust in my ability to make a good shot. Maybe that is the source of much of my skepticism of a lot of the commonly held theories. I don't know.


Yep, I'd say that bears mainly on the question of the latitude we grant ourselves to "interpret" or otherwise "stray", I guess you could say, from the "core principles" or the "old knowledge". I'm most heavily familiar with this from my musical career, but I'm already encountering it in archery. 

Again, no messing around and I'll get right to the punchline on my POV: I'm a core-principles-first-but-when-they're-exhausted-do-my-own-thing type of person in general. That is, if there is a set of core principles in an activity, I take them very seriously at the start. But if they don't work for me, I then give myself permission to deviate from them as necessary. 

For example in archery, I conform to the preexisting "core principle" (mainly from oly recurve but also in vogue on compound) of pulling all the way through the shot and doing so with back tension (because it works for me), but I already deviate into a pretty unpopular area with the release aid. I use a tension-style RA with a safety, probably considered a pretty fringe style of release. Even when I shot a hinge, I only used my Honey Do, which also has a safety. Still pretty fringe.

So basically, I follow the rules unless/until their benefit is outweighed by going down another route and pursuing another option.....

LS


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

Mahly said:


> The simple answer may just be that it has been dominated by so few because only a select few:
> Know and have experience on the subject
> Actually did the work of writing the books (and got them published)


Agree. Though another possibility could be that those few really got it right the first time. So any further discussion of their findings is probably only repetition and therefore there's just not much more to say about the principles they've established. Again, I offer that as just a possibility, not stating it as a truth.

Another possibility still, is that the compound simply doesn't have the pedagogical history yet that, say, the oly recurve has. The compound bow is only as old as I am; that's not a huge span of time to build a large body of "core principles" for a sport as popular and disciplined as compound archery. We're only just now working out the various methods various shooters use and are just discovering all the different ways we can shoot these things. 

However, the pedagogy of the Oly recurve is very well established since it's been around for far far longer. So the "core principles" of shooting Oly recurve tend to be both larger in scope and more well established....

LS


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

I couldn't say because I've never read any archery books or had any formal coaching. I watch and listen, and talk to other guys that shoot very well. I can say that you'll get a different answer to almost every question regarding the mental approach, most of them being closely related to the self-discipline, and confidence concepts. Remarkably, that's where I've found the most improvement in my shooting.

Knowing where I'm coming from, you would certainly understand.


----------



## darton3d (Oct 16, 2009)

I think the reason you don't see more books on the mental side is because the masses don't want to read about it. It is too much work to change your mind set, it is much easier and cool to "buy" improvement by purchasing new equipment. It is much more interesting to read about new equipment or some new tuning method. Changing form is easier to accomplish and understand than changing your mental approach. Besides, often the less you think, the better you shoot. The mind is a terrible thing. 

My personal approach is to read everything I can get my hands on, study it, try as much as I can and use what WORKS FOR ME. I don't care what works for someone else or what they think is correct or incorrect. Some of the things that work for me are contrary to what is popular with some "experts". I don't care, it works for me. I believe in trying different things and making changes just to see what happens. Think for yourself and think outside the norm. It's not what you know, but what you can figure out. Just my take on it.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Lazarus said:


> Just wanted to throw something out for discussion that I've been thinking a great deal about lately. This has been motivated by several PM questions I've received as well as the "Define This Firing Process" topic.
> 
> Here goes,
> 
> ...


I personally have thought this way in every aspect of my personal and professional life and I've done quite well as a result in both. As you mentioned there are actually very few that have published anything about the mental aspects of archery excellence, and even they focus mostly on the physical rather than the mental. In fact, archery in general has had very little source material available, mental or physical. Yet there are so many that have bought into the thinking of so few it makes you wonder if the general archery population hasn't put itself into such a narrow minded perspective that it has actually held itself back. Archery Talk is probably the largest single source of archery related material in the world, yet hasn't it also fallen victim to the same narrow minded thinking by the "flock" that continues to carry on the same old message? And add to this that shooting is no longer a requirement for being an expert on the internet, you only compound the problem. Just try and suggest something that isn't in line with the "common" wisdom and you will be beat down by the "flock". If anyone doubts this all they have to do is use the search engine.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

darton 3D. I believe you are spot on about the glitz of buying your shooting ability vs the reality of working for it. 

I also believe you are spot on about reading. Unfortunately nobody reads any more. Except for three sentence blurbs on the internet or twitter feeds. 

Your last paragraph pretty much describes my approach to the T. And when I'm listening to someone or reading what they have to say, if they start throwing popular archery buzzwords around (like dynamic, subconsciously, static, that sort of thing) I usually mentally disconnect. That's not their problem, it's mine.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

EPLC said:


> I personally have thought this way in every aspect of my personal and professional life and I've done quite well as a result in both. As you mentioned there are actually very few that have published anything about the mental aspects of archery excellence, and even they focus mostly on the physical rather than the mental. In fact, archery in general has had very little source material available, mental or physical. Yet there are so many that have bought into the thinking of so few it makes you wonder if the general archery population hasn't put itself into such a narrow minded perspective that it has actually held itself back. Archery Talk is probably the largest single source of archery related material in the world, yet hasn't it also fallen victim to the same narrow minded thinking by the "flock" that continues to carry on the same old message? And add to this that shooting is no longer a requirement for being an expert on the internet, you only compound the problem. Just try and suggest something that isn't in line with the "common" wisdom and you will be beat down by the "flock". If anyone doubts this all they have to do is use the search engine.


I agree completely with this response EPLC. Not pointing fingers, not singling anyone out. Not slinging mud. But it's reality. 

Archery participation is at an all time high across the board. Shooters are far more accurate and advanced in their technique than ever before. But there is a huge void (as I mentioned earlier) in getting the quality information out. That is really odd too considering we have so many venues in which to share info.


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

What have you read that you disagree with? I'm well-read on the subject and there is almost nothing I've read about mental training that I would disagree with at all.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

darton3d said:


> I think the reason you don't see more books on the mental side is because the masses don't want to read about it.
> .


And we have a winner..... If anyone Terry Wunderle is about it for pushing the mental side of archery.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

shootist said:


> What have you read that you disagree with? I'm well-read on the subject and there is almost nothing I've read about mental training that I would disagree with at all.


When it comes to specifics I'd personally rather talk about things that work rather than what others do that may or may not. Pointing fingers here gets one in trouble too. 

I agree, there is some really good "mental training" material out there. There just isn't any that comes from archery people. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Do you have some material you recommend?


----------



## shootist (Aug 28, 2003)

Lazarus said:


> When it comes to specifics I'd personally rather talk about things that work rather than what others do that may or may not. Pointing fingers here gets one in trouble too.
> 
> I agree, there is some really good "mental training" material out there. There just isn't any that comes from archery people. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Do you have some material you recommend?


The best, simplest and easiest to follow material I've ever seen is actually an old Robinhood Videos VHS called "The Mental Game" and it features Jay Barrs. It is a simple form of the things I've read in countless non-archery mental training books and since it is a video, you don't even have to read it. He has some cool anecdotes in there as well that make it entertaining. I would definitely recommend this. I've not read Terry Wunderle's book, but I expect I'd like it, since I like Terry and his teachings. "With Winning In Mind" certainly isn't specific to archery, but it is specific to winning. One I read a number of years ago was called "The Advanced Archer-How To Stay Calm at the Center", and according to amazon, it was written by Thomas Whitney and Vishnu Karmakar. 

But, back to that video, I'd highly recommend it. It might be hard to find a VCR to watch it, but in my opinion, it is great information. Early on, it talks about Rick Mckinney telling a group that just went through a mental training class at the Olympic Training Center that he wasn't afraid of any of them ever beating him. He went on to say that we go through these classes, and you all go back home and do what you always have done. Then he said "if you do what you always do, you'll get what you always got." He said this shocked everybody, as he was talking to the best Olympic archers in the US. But then Jay said that he realized that they hadn't really beaten him. That is when Jay decided he was going to try it, but more to prove Rick wrong than anything else. As the story goes, Jay goes on to win the individual Olympic gold medal in 1988. I might have a couple small details wrong in that introduction story, but that is pretty close. Then, throughout the video, they go through the things that can be done to achieve the necessary level of mental training.

If anybody on here has seen this video, please feel free to elaborate. I'm curious if others were as motivated by it as I was.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Shootist. It's funny you mention Rick McKinney. Because this topic was actually motivated by a discussion I had with him a month or two ago. Of course he is big on the mental game. But I remember during that conversation he solidified something that darton3d talked about earlier. Rick said, "don't try to talk mental game with archers, they don't want to talk about it, all they want to talk about is equipment." That's my paraphrase but it's pretty close. When he talks though, I'm listening. But I don't always take his advice, like starting this topic.  If you can get a hand on a copy of Ricks book "The Confident Shot" it has a really good section about the mental game. 

I believe you're mention of Terry Wunderle material might be exception to my mention earlier that there was very little good archery "mental" material out there. I haven't read his book but I know it's spoken highly of. I also believe that MJ Rogers is somewhat of a protege of Terry and MJ has really helped some people excel at a very high level. However I don't believe MJ puts anything in print or video. 

Thanks for your recommendations. :cheers:


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

although many sports are far more physically based than archery's requirements, to dismiss, or even lessen the mental element in them because of their physical demands is juvenile. in my younger years, I was involved in speed skating, to a level that didn't quite get me into any national competition, but very close to qualifying for it a couple times. the physicality of the sport is beyond most people's imagination, believe me.... and the mental element is just as important in the considerably more physical sports, as in archery. 

as far as EPLC's post,......to me, I think it is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

ron w said:


> although many sports are far more physically based than archery's requirements, to dismiss, or even lessen the mental element in them because of their physical demands is juvenile. in my younger years, I was involved in speed skating, to a level that didn't quite get me into any national competition, but very close to qualifying for it a couple times. the physicality of the sport is beyond most people's imagination, believe me.... and the mental element is just as important in the considerably more physical sports, as in archery.
> 
> as far as EPLC's post,......to me, I think it is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.


I think there has been a misunderstanding. I certainly didn't mean to dismiss or lessen the mental element of any other sport. That wasn't the point of my OP at all. I was just thinking out loud how there is very little good "advanced" archery material out there. And some of what is passed off as such isn't advanced at all. 

As far as the last comment, as I said earlier I agreed with EPLC's post, that's just my opinion. Not sure there was a need to snipe at him. He has an opinion, it's not any more or less valid than yours. I do disagree that it was the pot calling the kettle black by the way. But I don't intend for this discussion to take the direction of pots calling kettles black. *Or* another discussion of why "the pro's" don't post here anymore, (opinions vary on that.) That's not really welcome on this topic. Cool? 

:cheers:


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

we cannot forget "With Winning in Mind" by Lanny basham. not directed at archery, but certainly directed at applying the mental element to what you're doing.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

^ totally agree with that ron. Great resource, but as you noted it's not archery related. Funniest thing, same conversation as I mentioned earlier with R. McKinney, tells you how people differ. He said.......everybody likes Lanny Basshams stuff, you know, when I was shooting full time if someone had recommended that book to me and I read it I would have hated it! I would not have responded well to that at all. 

Just proof........it takes all kinds.


----------



## jelmore (Sep 24, 2013)

After you develop solid form- Winning in anything is ALL about CONFIDENCE, any doubt interferes with performance. These guys win because they believe they can win, they have NO doubt. The competitor part of their personality is the most arrogant SOB around. Archery is about 2% physical and 98% mental, the only motion is drawing the bow, the rest of the time NOT moving is the goal and all the equipment involved promotes non movement. It's hard to gain confidence by reading about it and it's hard to succeed without confidence.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

mentioned earlier in this thread, that about the length of time compounds have been around in respect to the lack of documented fundamentals compared to the "Oly' recurve. much, if not most of what we do have on this issue, is taken from the recurve, in general. having learned to shoot in the years when it was still very common to see recurves on the spot line, all that I know now about the use of a compound, was common knowledge, back then already. I haven't really ever posted anything at all in the recent years of my being on this forum, that I didn't know back then and anything posted about any hand and or wrist or finger relaxation, is not in least bit, any sort of "modern knowledge" or "technique",....it all existed back in mid 70's,...every bit of it. 
I think this is my biggest frustration about discussions that get started on this forum. everyone seems to think that what they know now, is completely different that what was known then and they certainly have let me know that, clearly. the irony is that there really isn't anything anyone has posted on the subject of fundamentals and release executions that hasn't been around since compounds were invented. 
what is missing is the understanding that the fundamentals involved and the shot process involved, is the same for a recurve, and these parameters are exactly what brought around the development of the compound.


----------



## snowshovler (Oct 15, 2011)

The mental side is tough because it is all us and there is nothing to place blame upon. We cannot say the bow /stab/arrow/release/technique.... is crap. We must be honest with ourselves and see we are what gets into our own way.e must also learn how to win. Winning doesn't just happen and winning is hard. Once we learn how to win it becomes easier. Basham's books are excellent. Look to other sports and activities for learning about the mental side of things


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

ron, there's about three different directions I could go with a response to your post above. But I don't believe any of them would really accomplish anything. With all due respect it almost makes me wonder if you really read the OP. 

If you did read it, I guess you are saying that you disagree? Is that it? That's ok if you do! I'm just wanting to clarify. *Please understand the OP was about the "mental" side of the game. Not release techniques or types of bows, not any technique or equipment for that matter.*


----------



## subconsciously (Aug 22, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> Just proof........it takes all kinds.


It does not take all kinds. It only takes one kind. We just have all kinds.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

subconsciously said:


> It does not take all kinds. It only takes one kind. We just have all kinds.


Interesting, so you're saying that since Rick McKinney said he wouldn't respond well to Lanny Basshams material, but another really high level shooter did, there is something wrong with one of them? 

I'm unclear in what you're saying. Really unclear.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

ron w said:


> mentioned earlier in this thread, that about the length of time compounds have been around in respect to the lack of documented fundamentals compared to the "Oly' recurve. much, if not most of what we do have on this issue, is taken from the recurve, in general. having learned to shoot in the years when it was still very common to see recurves on the spot line, all that I know now about the use of a compound, was common knowledge, back then already. I haven't really ever posted anything at all in the recent years of my being on this forum, that I didn't know back then and anything posted about any hand and or wrist or finger relaxation, is not in least bit, any sort of "modern knowledge" or "technique",....it all existed back in mid 70's,...every bit of it.
> I think this is my biggest frustration about discussions that get started on this forum. everyone seems to think that what they know now, is completely different that what was known then and they certainly have let me know that, clearly. the irony is that there really isn't anything anyone has posted on the subject of fundamentals and release executions that hasn't been around since compounds were invented.
> what is missing is the understanding that the fundamentals involved and the shot process involved, is the same for a recurve, and these parameters are exactly what brought around the development of the compound.


Actually, that's a good point, IMO. Again, an analogy with music can bring it out, specifically the invention of the electric bass guitar (which was finally made practical in the 50's by Leo Fender, but I don't recall who actually invented it). When it first started to be used widely, it was played primarily by guitarists. Not surprisingly, the early pedagogy of the bass borrowed heavily from that of the electric (and even classical) guitar. It was literally a "bass guitar" in every sense of the word.

So I think Ron has a point that the "foundation" of the compound is possibly still the same as the recurve (I can personally attest to many of the techniques I used on Oly recurve being also successful for me on compound).

However, and going back again to music, what has happened in the last 60 or 70 years is that the bass guitar has finally started to get a unique identity, both pedagogically and methodologically, separate from the electric guitar. In fact, it now has the beginning of a set of best practices specifically for it that differ somewhat from the guitar - one prominent example is the innovation of the fretless bass, which requires an altogether unique technique to play well.

So, at this point, my question would be: has anything similar happened with the compound? In terms of best practices/core fundamentals, has the compound innovated anything lately over and above what it has inherited from Oly recurve? Is the compound taught differently enough from the recurve these days to have its own pedagogy? Is it now or isn't it a separate identity from the Oly recurve in terms of "core fundamentals" nowadays?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I know that by and large I use mostly the same shot routine when I drag out my Oly recurve for fun as I use on my compound, but there are definite differences as well.... 

Maybe that's the topic of another thread?

LS


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

I'd love to find a new mental approach, because what I've read just hasn't clicked for me. I still care way too much and don't trust my shot enough to score like I know I can score. 

Are you offering any clinical trials? I'll be your first patient.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

I think, for the discussion at hand, what techniques we use, and how old they are is best left to another thread.
Even looking at subconscious firing engines and/or aiming isn't what I see as the main topic at hand.
Learning how to not beat ourselves I think would be a boon to us all.
It's not about what you shoot or how, it's more about how to put it together, and keep it together when it matters.
How it works for other sports likely differs slightly (I would think games like golf, shooting games and Darts would come close).
I always was faster in a race than in practice.
I wish I could say the same for archery tournaments.
Maybe if archery was more popular there would be more written specifically for us. Maybe even challenges to conventional wisdom and even <gasp> new ways of doing things.
Until that day, were pretty much stuck reading what is already out there, and trying to learn from the guys that make it look easy.
It MIGHT just be nothing more than not taking it all THAT seriously.
Example, a guy like Reo has won vegas a few times, set world records, has enough gold medals to start a smelting operation. I've heard his take on dealing with pressure as "it's just another shoot. If I win, great! If not, no big deal"
You watch him on the line, and more often than not, if he makes a bad shot, there isn't a big reaction. He just lets it go.... That or he has the worlds best poker face LOL.
With the competition level there is today, I don't think they (pros) walk in knowing they are going to win. They plan on it, but it's not the end of the world if they don't.
If nothing else, they simply know how to get out of their own way, and shoot like they do at home.
Be it acclimation, or just realizing it isn't the end of the universe if they lose. It doesn't affect them as much.
Learn to do that, and you could make a few bucks writing a book to tell the rest of us how to do that.


----------



## subconsciously (Aug 22, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> Just wanted to throw something out for discussion that I've been thinking a great deal about lately. This has been motivated by several PM questions I've received as well as the "Define This Firing Process" topic.
> 
> Here goes,
> 
> ...


I beleive you answered your own question. We "think". We think therefore we are. 

Our thinking should be systematic, logical and goal oriented. 

It is our "thinking" that makes us human. It is also our thinking which gives us our shortcomings. It is not only our thoughts of belief but also of disbelief. We question ourselves and our abilities. A confident archer is a successful archer. Even if he does not win. 

There is a lot of mental guidance out there. It may not say "Archery" on the cover or talk about sports, but it's there. 

Just by reading through the posts on this forum I can say there is way to much "over thinking" a process which is relatively simple. We just need to quit over analyzing and over thinking it. 

It's just a game. Somebody has to lose, but it doesn't necessarily mean the guy in 2nd place. 

A mans perception is his reality. 

I'm out.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Mahly said:


> I think, for the discussion at hand, what techniques we use, and how old they are is best left to another thread.
> Even looking at subconscious firing engines and/or aiming isn't what I see as the main topic at hand.
> Learning how to not beat ourselves I think would be a boon to us all.
> It's not about what you shoot or how, it's more about how to put it together, and keep it together when it matters.
> ...


.............


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

subconsciously said:


> I beleive you answered your own question. We "think". We think therefore we are.
> 
> Our thinking should be systematic, logical and goal oriented.
> 
> ...


....................


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Ned250 said:


> Are you offering any clinical trials? I'll be your first patient.


I'm not certain I'm qualified.  But I can help you get that pinky dropped down. :wink:

Lots of interesting opinions on the "mental" side. Not sure I agree with a couple of them but that's the glory of this place. You can hear other peoples opinions and expand your thinking............if you're open to the fact that you don't know it all. :cheers:


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

nobody "knows it all",.... but that's not to say that somebody might have a better grasp than others.


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Mahly said:


> I think, for the discussion at hand, what techniques we use, and how old they are is best left to another thread.
> Even looking at subconscious firing engines and/or aiming isn't what I see as the main topic at hand.
> Learning how to not beat ourselves I think would be a boon to us all.
> It's not about what you shoot or how, it's more about how to put it together, and keep it together when it matters.
> ...


You touched on my biggest hurdle... I care A LOT. The bolded says it all, IMO.

I am an intense person - one of those all or nothing types; I'm going 100mph or 0mph. I know what I'm capable of shooting, but when it comes time to perform, I get really amped up about it because I want to win so much. I don't know how to turn that intensity off.

Its funny you mentioned running..... that's my other passion and I've always said it's the polar opposite approach from archery. You need to run relaxed, but you also need that killer intensity to really be able to perform. I wish I knew how to translate that over to archery.

I have very little to add to this discussion other than to tell you how to NOT play the archery mental game.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

I think being able to keep everything working correctly, with that intensity is the key. There is always going to be a difference in your mental state from practice to competition. Far from the popular belief here, my opinion is that you have to learn to shoot with heightened awareness rather than think you can just let things happen subconciously. At least when you are starting out, that is. 

My experience has shown that the brain goes ito panic mode when something isn't working just right, (usually caused by tension) and then you end up trying to self-diagnose during the shoot. Knowing what is happening, while it is happening is your best chance to correct it immediately, rather than after you've dropped a few points.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

I think the difference, is that they (the pros) have a very deep understanding that once the arrow leaves the bow, they can't get upset with what they can't control. 
that "expressionless face" is the perfect picture of this axiom. 
it's matter of "ownership"....they are simply more willing to own what they shot, than others.
what happens at the target is completely dependent on what happens at the bow. where the arrow has landed, is already known and no surprise, when it lands.


----------



## rohpenguins (Dec 2, 2012)

I really enjoyed Wunderlee's book on the mental game and I applied a good bit to how I approach things and it really helped, but I also realize that with my personality type there were processes that I would not be able to apply effectively. In my opinion you have to find a mental process that fits who you are. I can adapt things to fit but I can't change who I am and how I process things. There have been some really good posts to this thread so far.


----------



## snowshovler (Oct 15, 2011)

Shooting well is a process. If we are worried about the outcome we are not focused upon the process which pretty much guarantees the outcome will not be what we are hoping for. We also don't train with pressure so when it arrives it is a new experience we must adjust to. How often do you hear of someone shooting 59x and dropping the last one thus missing out on a perfect score. The first 59 had the potential to screw up the perfect score yet we put all of the pressure on the last arrow when the other 59 are just as important to perfection. Every arrow is the last arrow guaranteeing perfection and if we believe this then all arrows are also the first in a string of arrows. The score you have shot is irrelevant it has happened and you cannot change this. The score 2 arrows from now is irrelevant because it depends upon the arrow we are about to release. When we believe the only arrow which matters is the one we are in the process of releasing they all become equally important and no arrow is different.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Good stuff. 

Totally applicable to this topic, archery, and this forum.


----------



## subconsciously (Aug 22, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> Good stuff.
> 
> Totally applicable to this topic, archery, and this forum.
> 
> View attachment 2188177


I like that. Explains why I don't come here for archery advice.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

subconsciously said:


> I like that. Explains why I don't come here for archery advice.


Do any of us really? I think some do, but it seems more come here to give it.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

cbrunson said:


> Do any of us really? I think some do, but it seems more come here to give it.


I don't. Neither to get advice or give it. 

I come here for one reason. It keeps me out of a mental box. Even thoughts, ideas, and responses that I disagree with make me think. I don't mind stretching my brain if someone elses thinking intrigues me.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

As an afterthought to the above.........and I sure don't come here to try to tear down people who may shoot better than me. When I see that it really puzzles me.


----------



## scootershooter1 (May 6, 2013)

Laz your last two posts are, I believe, why this forum was created. Unlike what it is becoming as of late, sadly......You are spot on as usual my friend


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

a lot of what people interpret as "advice", is simply people discussing how they see the subject matter of the thread's content. when some says what they do or how something works for them, people immediately get defensive and think they are being told what to....that is nowhere near the intention of the many various posts that are being made.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

For me I feel like I am 90% done with actually approaching my shooting potential, I do believe that I can still improve but I have spent years perfecting my form and execution. 

The mental part to me is the tricky part because until you show up to a competition and actually produce a score that puts you in the position where you get to take a pressure shot to actually win the tournament you don't know if you have the mental ability to get it done. For me what I have done is chosen to watch the really good shooters and how they score and I try and get to that level by myself and then when I go to a bow shoot I then get to try and do it in competition. To me this is the natural progression of becoming a solid shooter, you have to be willing to show up and then give a honest effort with 100% commitment to a game plan and then on the way home you do some self reflecting and weeding out the bad thoughts and decisions.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

Being afraid to fail is to me one of the biggest problems for guys, I shot my first weekend as a semi pro asa shooter this weekend in fort benning and I failed. Sure I wanted to be in the top 10 and you know what it didn't happen, I think I finished something like 46th. The fact is that I actually shot well and only had a couple shots that hit left or right, I had a good time with the guys telling some stories and meeting new people. I actually was a little nervous on the first 4 targets on saturday and I did a few let downs and took some deep breaths and then shot a good solid shot.

So what that my yardage judging was just off enough that I didn't score well, so what that I failed. I am going to work on my yardage and the next time I show up I will pay my entry fee and shoot my shots with 100% confidence that it is going to hit dead on or slightly high just like it is supposed to.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

Padgett said:


> For me I feel like I am 90% done with actually approaching my shooting potential, I do believe that I can still improve but I have spent years perfecting my form and execution.
> 
> The mental part to me is the tricky part because until you show up to a competition and actually produce a score that puts you in the position where you get to take a pressure shot to actually win the tournament you don't know if you have the mental ability to get it done. For me what I have done is chosen to watch the really good shooters and how they score and I try and get to that level by myself and then when I go to a bow shoot I then get to try and do it in competition. To me this is the natural progression of becoming a solid shooter, you have to be willing to show up and then give a honest effort with 100% commitment to a game plan and then on the way home you do some self reflecting and weeding out the bad thoughts and decisions.



You know, Dan Gable, a former wrestling coach at Iowa State University, used to recruit the student body to attend the practices of his elite wrestlers to simulate "competition" conditions I think the best way to train the mental part of competition is to compete, and compete, and then compete some more. That's not advice, that's out of my sports psych text books.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

To the OP's original thought, I think there are a number of mental aspects that aren't truly sport or task specific. I mean, the same mental processes used to make that perfect shot are the same as those needed to perform a free-throw, the perfect golf swing, or any sports skill. In my sports/exercise psych classes we never really talked about the mental training of specific sports, IMO because it's not the skill but the individual the mental training effects. Not to get all religious and spiritual, but I think there is something to the Buddhist monk "being in the moment" mantra. Everything practiced until it becomes automatic, second nature, and maybe that's where the pros have it over the rest of us... The commitment to make it truly second nature. I'm not a hunter, but I imagine it (second nature) being the difference between thinking about taking down prey and having already loosed the shot. 

Back to the point, maybe one reason there isn't a whole lot of archery specific mental writings is because many of the mental aspects aren't archery specific, and the pool of participants, participants who can write about the subject, is much smaller then that of golf or basketball or any other sports skill 

I'm horrible at archery, but I think the mental game is transcendent over all of life's activities.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

ShootingBlind said:


> You know, Dan Gable, a former wrestling coach at Iowa State University, used to recruit the student body to attend the practices of his elite wrestlers to simulate "competition" conditions I think the best way to train the mental part of competition is to compete, and compete, and then compete some more. That's not advice, that's out of my sports psych text books.


Doesn't really have to be a audience... I remember Terry and Vic Wunderle and Vic's first Olympics. The stories abound. Radio blaring. Terry throwing tin cans and yelling. And then Vic was on the line shooting at virtually every event he could get to.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

SonnyThomas said:


> Doesn't really have to be a audience... I remember Terry and Vic Wunderle and Vic's first Olympics. The stories abound. Radio blaring. Terry throwing tin cans and yelling. And then Vic was on the line shooting at virtually every event he could get to.



Very true. It's a "practice like you play" approach... [Most] anybody can do it when it's calm, the "winners" can do it anytime. It (the distractions) are the training tool many people need yet very few people use.


----------

