# Reactive Shooting



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

The subconscious is an "aid" to the conscious activity and not a replacement for conscious activity, or, IOW, an autopilot function in lieu of consciousness. All aiming is done consciously from the moment we decide to hit that certain mark, and the mass collaborator, our subconscious, is good at presenting and organizing within our brain those many and multiple inputs, but our reasoning of those inputs will always be done consciously. Reasoning, like target acquisition and range estimation are higher functions of our brain, not lesser, where the subconscious is responsible for things. 

As the neural pathways created out of repetitive tasking become more efficient and faster, all that data collaboration and tasking from our subconscious and conscious don't require recall - so we don't always remember the action or notice the action taken. Hence, we can drive for miles and never remember seeing the road, but all along, our conscious mind was still at work. That's my take on "reactive", "natural", "instinctive", "etc"....


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Sanford: I agree. The problem is the semantics which is why I think the debate goes on and on, but again I agree - reasoning of inputs will be done consciously. i.e. when I think "I'm thirsty", I will consciously walk into the kitchen, grab a glass and pour myself some water. However the finer details of the biomechanics of walking, reaching and grabbing a cup, and knowing at what angle to hold the water jug and when to stop pouring, are motor patterns that have become unconscious due to constant repetition and learning from error (correct me if I'm wrong but I believe this moves from the cerebellum to the basal ganglia at some point). Likewise with archery, I think in "instinctive" shooting various ranges are learned due to trial and error. Even if I shoot without calculating the relation between arrow point and target, if I've never shot a bow before, the arrow won't likely go exactly where I want it to - that becomes learned after time.

I don't want to pretend I'm a neuroscientist, I just think many people go into it without any sort of basic understanding of it, though you seem to have a grasp (you obviously might know a lot more than I think, just haven't read you talk about it).
So I guess what I'm getting at is: when you're shooting at an animal, do you "think" about where to aim, attempt to estimate distance in a calculated manner, etc? Or do you just "know" when a target is in range without calculating, and simply pick a hair to aim at and shoot at it? Or, does it depend on the distance of the animal (i.e. +/- 10 yards equals "point and click", +/-25 yards equals calculation)?
Similarly, with hitting some sort of moving target (squirrel, bird, plate, etc) - do you calculate or do you "point and click"?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

write a paper? This is simple stuff.

Instinctive shooting is simply aiming at a subconscious level (I don't like the term "unconscious" because to me that implies sleep or coma, i know it doesn't always mean that, but still - I think subconscious is a much better term).

I think that there are two ways one can arive at shooting instinctive - one can be the Byron Ferguson approach - where you start as a gap shooter of sorts - though not quite as complex and mechanical as gap shooters like Ranger B and then over time you relegate the aim to the subconscious.

This is very similar to driving a car - when you first learn to drive you are consciously trying to line up the care in your lane - you are consciously trying to apply the right pressure to the gas or brake when needed, etc... - eventually all of this becomes relegated to the subconscious - to the point that you can drive your car for miles and not even remember doing it - you can drive while having an intense conversation with a passanger or listening to an intense converation on the radio - and if a deer jumps out you automatically hit the brake - there is no conscious thought involved at all.

The other way that one can shoot instinctive is to allow the subconscious to do the aiming right from the start - by doing nothing more than looking at what you want to hit and shooting - this is done by basketball players, baseball players, etc... - there is nothing that they do to "aim" - the mechanics of the aim is all done at a subconscious level and always was.

This is not complex at all - our Creator gave us an amazing computer that sits on our shoulders and we will never know exactly how it works - but we do know it does - and that is good enough.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Ole Sanford is a master at stating the obvious - obviously you have to consciously want to hit the target and look at it - as I have said numerous times - the MECHANICS of the aim are done at a subconscious level when instinctive shooting


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Sharp: I agree with what you say, I just wish there was a simpler way to put it . Again, various ways of defining the terms come into play, but I agree with you.

Even with basketball or baseball players, and baseball players, though, there is learning involved (though I would agree the aiming is subconscious by your definition). There's no real way to learn how to "point" a ball before you throw it, but through learning correct technique, practicing this technique consciously until it becomes "natural", and through much practice (learning to judge what various forces are required through seeing various distances [known or not], by trial and error - i.e. 3-point line requires x force, free throw line requires y force), one becomes quite efficient at this. The analogical difference between "instinctive" basketball throwing and "gap" throwing would be simply shooting vs pointing a finger in the air, calculating how far the hoop is, using the ball to somehow aim, etc (wouldn't work in this scenario obviously). All these things go back to developing correct motor patterns developing as a child, though this happens largely at an automatic, purely subconscious level (we see major movement efficiency issues if this is interrupted during development).
*Edit* Didn't see your last comment - I think what I said supports that though - mechanics of the aim are done subconsciously.

Correct me if I'm wrong but based on studies of skill development, a good approach to this would be learning form and technique and practicing these over and over until it became more automatic, shooting at various targets from known distances to get an idea of where your arrow is landing, and after a period of repeating this cycle, shooting at random targets at unknown distances in various scenarios (i.e. moving target, stump shooting, etc). Would you agree, or is your approach different?

Indeed our Creator gave us an amazing device, but it's far more complex than the most intelligent of scientists understand. A paper would be fun to write if I had a reason to, as this is something I'm legitimately interested in and it would knock down a required assignment, but as such I don't have anything like that this semester. The actual neuroscience of what neural circuit does what isn't exactly simple, and it would settle some of the debate as to what is "conscious" vs "unconscious".

My original question though: what do you do in the situations I've described? I'm looking for some "gap" shooter input here too - do you ever switch into "instinctive" mode? I just don't see how one would be able to consciously calculate aiming at something moving that they don't have much opportunity to shoot (stringwalkers for instance). I've heard some say they shoot "instinctively" at close ranges, but longer ranges they haven't had much experience with, it becomes more calculating.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

CFGuy said:


> I don't want to pretend I'm a neuroscientist, I just think many people go into it without any sort of basic understanding of it, though you seem to have a grasp (you obviously might know a lot more than I think, just haven't read you talk about it).
> So I guess what I'm getting at is: when you're shooting at an animal, do you "think" about where to aim, attempt to estimate distance in a calculated manner, etc? Or do you just "know" when a target is in range without calculating, and simply pick a hair to aim at and shoot at it? Or, does it depend on the distance of the animal (i.e. +/- 10 yards equals "point and click", +/-25 yards equals calculation)?
> Similarly, with hitting some sort of moving target (squirrel, bird, plate, etc) - do you calculate or do you "point and click"?


Nope, no neuroscience, just the basic stuff you get in college on the workings of the mind, which ain't much in the end if it ain't your end goal  I think anytime anyone walks up to a target, they would be lying if they said they didn't do the mental math BEFORE they ever raised their bow. Whether that's sizing up against known objects, length of pathways, distance to known objects, etc.... That part is done the same just as they consciously decided to shoot - if not, why would they ever be on this board saying they don't ethically shoot past a certain distance? 

One can't say they are unaware of distance but have a distance limit - need a conscious processor between your shoulders to make that statement workable, otherwise, you wouldn't know the limit, only your subconscious would  No? IOW, some folks just erroneously tag a sight, formal or informal, with distance estimation. Distance estimation is done BEFORE you raise your bow or shoot, so how you aim is irrelevant to that aspect. How you compute the gap for the distance is just practice - the more practice at given distances the less reference needed after you raise the bow, sighted or not - in archery terms, that's called a sight picture.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

CFGuy said:


> Sharp: I agree with what you say, I just wish there was a simpler way to put it . Again, various ways of defining the terms come into play, but I agree with you.
> 
> Even with basketball or baseball players, and baseball players, though, there is learning involved (though I would agree the aiming is subconscious by your definition). There's no real way to learn how to "point" a ball before you throw it, but through learning correct technique, practicing this technique consciously until it becomes "natural", and through much practice (learning to judge what various forces are required through seeing various distances [known or not], by trial and error - i.e. 3-point line requires x force, free throw line requires y force), one becomes quite efficient at this. The analogical difference between "instinctive" basketball throwing and "gap" throwing would be simply shooting vs pointing a finger in the air, calculating how far the hoop is, using the ball to somehow aim, etc (wouldn't work in this scenario obviously). All these things go back to developing correct motor patterns developing as a child, though this happens largely at an automatic, purely subconscious level (we see major movement efficiency issues if this is interrupted during development).
> *Edit* Didn't see your last comment - I think what I said supports that though - mechanics of the aim are done subconsciously.
> ...


Point and shoot methods work great if the target is close enough and the target or projectile pattern is big enough. I think any "gap shooter" can point and shoot at point blank range. The more precisely you need to shoot, the less effective "instinctive shooting" becomes compared to more methodical aiming methods. Just look at shotgunning. Skeet shooters mostly shoulder and shoot without calculated aiming. The target is close and their shot pattern large. That works. Turkey shoots take a very different type of shooting. Small targets, long range and tight patterns. They aim. Shotgun slugs? Most people prefer to use sights with that. There is no pattern and point and shoot becomes very ineffective very quickly with single projectile weapons like a shotgun and slug. Just some stuff for you to think about and maybe a presentation vehicle that most people would quickly grasp.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

CF guy - the way I began and still shoot is to just shoot at random distances and random targets - I have several different types of targets and I set them up throughout my yard and just shoot at different distances and different targets - sort of like stump shooting - except my targets have a score ring that tells me for sure how close or far from the mark I was. In the last few years I have been shooting a 300 round once a week or so - that is 60 shots in ends of 5 arrows at a target that is 20 yards away - the reason I do this is to keep track of my score and if it is going down - I know then that something is wrong with my form and I have to work on it.

I think we would agree that a person can really only do one thing well at a time at a conscious level - while at a subconscious level we can do a great many things at the same time - pehaps thousands. If I have an issue with my shooting - I consciously work on it - if I notice that my arrows are all going left - that means that I am dropping my bow arm and have poor follow through - so I will consciously work on not dropping my bow arm - if my arrows are going to the right - that usually means that I am doing something wrong with my release (collapsing or losing back tension) and I will consciously work on that till the issue is resolved.

But I never consciously do anything different in how I aim - I look at the spot and keep looking at it - that is my aiming method.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

CF guy - the way I began and still shoot is to just shoot at random distances and random targets - I have several different types of targets and I set them up throughout my yard and just shoot at different distances and different targets - sort of like stump shooting - except my targets have a score ring that tells me for sure how close or far from the mark I was. In the last few years I have been shooting a 300 round once a week or so - that is 60 shots in ends of 5 arrows at a target that is 20 yards away - the reason I do this is to keep track of my score and if it is going down - I know then that something is wrong with my form and I have to work on it.

I think we would agree that a person can really only do one thing well at a time at a conscious level - while at a subconscious level we can do a great many things at the same time - pehaps thousands. If I have an issue with my shooting - I consciously work on it - if I notice that my arrows are all going left - that means that I am dropping my bow arm and have poor follow through - so I will consciously work on not dropping my bow arm - if my arrows are going to the right - that usually means that I am doing something wrong with my release (collapsing or losing back tension) and I will consciously work on that till the issue is resolved.

But I never consciously do anything different in how I aim - I look at the spot and keep looking at it - that is my aiming method.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

CFGuy said:


> My original question though: what do you do in the situations I've described? I'm looking for some "gap" shooter input here too - do you ever switch into "instinctive" mode? I just don't see how one would be able to consciously calculate aiming at something moving that they don't have much opportunity to shoot (stringwalkers for instance). I've heard some say they shoot "instinctively" at close ranges, but longer ranges they haven't had much experience with, it becomes more calculating.


Sight Picture. Even your best sighted shooters don't hold pin/aperture to point on target - it's more subconscious in activity. In archery, direct aiming is counterproductive, very much so. The sighting mechanism, formal or otherwise, is just a refinement tools of the sight picture. The sight picture is what is ingrained in the archer's head. For those who shoot primarily at close range and where trajectory is fairly close acting, they memorize the sight picture, the point of where releasing the arrow is triggered, but instinctive shooters and gap shooters are pretty much dealing with the same thing - an ingrained sight picture.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Sanford said:


> Sight Picture. Even your best sighted shooters don't hold pin/aperture to point on target - it's more subconscious in activity. In archery, direct aiming is counterproductive, very much so. The sighting mechanism, formal or otherwise, is just a refinement tools of the sight picture. The sight picture is what is ingrained in the archer's head. For those who shoot primarily at close range and where trajectory is fairly close acting, they memorize the sight picture, the point of where releasing the arrow is triggered, but instinctive shooters and gap shooters are pretty much dealing with the same thing - an ingrained sight picture.


Well put. I totally agree.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

RW, it's like you said in the other thread. It's all in what the archer wants to call what he sees in front of his face if we all have the same "stuff" in front of our faces. All the actions are the same, just the terms are not universal, with a smidgeon of folks getting over into outright BS on the description.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

The funny thing is, I agree with what everyone has said so far.

Sanford: Well put, I agree. Regarding range estimation, I also agree - I think what differentiates certain types of "aiming" archers is that they may not know how to quickly and subconsciously range estimate a moving target. I think it all again comes down to what has been practiced and created as a motor pattern.

Sharp: Thanks, that makes sense.

Robert: Good analogy! I've thought of something similar but it had to do with rifles and was more difficult to articulate. Do you think both methods could be effectively utilized? i.e. could closer ranges become more "instinctive", and further ranges take more estimation and aiming, without messing up your technique or motor patterns?

And something completely off topic - do you guys shoot 3 under or split? I'm trying to figure out methods of aiming and string pulling for myself in this process although it is largely conceptual.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

CFGuy said:


> Robert: Good analogy! I've thought of something similar but it had to do with rifles and was more difficult to articulate. Do you think both methods could be effectively utilized? i.e. could closer ranges become more "instinctive", and further ranges take more estimation and aiming, without messing up your technique or motor patterns?


You can do both without one interfering with the other. Since you mentioned rifles, think about this....

A novice rifleman can have a dickens of a time even finding his target in a scope. A veteran rifleman will have the crosshairs pretty close to where he wants as soon as his weapon is shouldered and he first peers through the scope. He could fire without more precise aiming and would be close and maybe even hit his mark sometimes just by shouldering and pointing. Of course the crosshairs are there for a reason and make precision shooting on a reliable basis possible. But at close range with a large enough target he could be fairly certain of a hit just by shouldering and firing "instinctively".


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

this is deep will I still be a gap shooter when you are done?


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

I shoot split finger mostly but three under if I want to get on quickly with a new bow or if I am shooting moving targets. It doesn't hurt to have a few tricks in your bag.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Most hunters I know carry a range finder with them. Many claim to shoot instinctive. If they do, why the hell do they need a range finder????


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Back to the Jimmy references again, what is it with that???





sharpbroadhead said:


> write a paper? This is simple stuff.
> 
> Instinctive shooting is simply aiming at a subconscious level (I don't like the term "unconscious" because to me that implies sleep or coma, i know it doesn't always mean that, but still - I think subconscious is a much better term).
> 
> ...


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Shooting a bow properly and accurately is a learned skill (just like shooting a basketball or throughing a baseball - first try probably was not so good). It takes lots of proper repetition to have repeatable accuracy. After enough repetition it becomes second nature - the sight picture is known and if it is 'off' then the mind can make small corrections. Where this debate gets off track seems to be the point at which one quits thinking about the corrections and lets thier shot go without thinking about the corrections. There is one common denominator for both and that is form. The bow has to be drawn the same length, set at the same attitude, released consistantly etc. or the mind will never have a chance with too many variables. Confidence will be lost and accuracy will suffer.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Bigjono said:


> Most hunters I know carry a range finder with them. Many claim to shoot instinctive. If they do, why the hell do they need a range finder????


What I've found really peculiar is when someone that says they don't judge yardage also weighs in with a statement that they wouldn't take a shot past some arbitrary number of yards. The obvious question, of course would be "How the heck do you know if its past that distance if you don't judge yardage?". Maybe the rangefinder is to check before they shoot.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

CFGuy dont bother with the paper I posted a while back somebody who is an Archer and lectures in Nurosciences on Instinctive aiming and Sharp/Forest called him an idiot.

It wasnt all that long ago where Sharp was also claiming he shot Subconsciously from the moment he started learning to shoot, how is that even possible as you would never improve without some kind of conscious (corrective) input, a very heated argument about how any aiming method is first learned at a conscious level and then transferred to unconscious and even then you will still need a level of conscious input to make the shot.

I feel the line between Gap and Instinct is very fine, unless your in the process of learning Gap where it requires a higher level of conscious/visual input untill its properly ingrained and I dont know for sure but I feel the top level shooters in both Gap and Instinct are likely quite close in the balance of conscious/unconscious input during the shot sequence.

One of the main arguments about Instinctive aiming is not seeing the arrow, I believe this is possible as it is something we do in everyday life, we dont register on a conscious level everything we see (our brain would have information overload) everybody sees the arrow but not everybody will register it on a conscious level, Im guessing the arrow is still used in aiming calculations/adjustments but just not registered at quite the same level as Gap shooter would do.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> What I wanted to ask was: when shooting competitive matches, at targets that don't move and with a relatively long time limit, it seems (from what I have read anyway) that gap shooting and conscious aiming seems to take the trophy (exceptions to this of course). What about when it comes to hunting? Does anyone find their shooting becomes less conscious, and they don't estimate range or consciously "count" how far above they should aim?
> Also, what about shooting a moving target? I know when I used to skeet shoot more often, I wouldn't be intentionally estimating range, or really "aiming" - after a while I knew how far I was supposed to lead depending on how fast and what direction a disk was moving, and there was a certain point where a shot "felt" right in my head and I pulled the trigger.
> I've seen quite a few videos of people shooting moving targets (i.e. Byron Ferguson shooting plates out of the air), and they don't have a ton of time to react, nevermind range estimate.


Based on what you're asking and talking about...tell me the differences you see between these archers and compare their technique to how how someone shoots a basketball or throws a ball.

Which archer most resembles when a person is relying more on hand and eye coordination as when someone throws a ball or shooting a basketball and why?

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)




----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> CFGuy dont bother with the paper I posted a while back somebody who is an Archer and lectures in Nurosciences on Instinctive aiming and Sharp/Forest called him an idiot.
> 
> It wasnt all that long ago where Sharp was also claiming he shot Subconsciously from the moment he started learning to shoot, how is that even possible as you would never improve without some kind of conscious corrective input, a very heated argument about how any aiming method is first learned at a conscious level and then transferred to unconscious and you will still need a level of conscious input to make the shot (Im glad to apoint that in some posts he seems to have changed his view slightly).
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Does anyone find their shooting becomes less conscious, and they don't estimate range or consciously "count" how far above they should aim?
> 
> Thoughts?



As a Gap tourney shooter when Im shooting IFAA 3Ds under 40yards I dont really estimate distance (unless its a tricky shot and need to double check my gut feeling) mostly I just know by experience/feel. The shots past that distance its good practice to estimate distance but I always take a gut feeling estimate first and than just confirm if Im right/wrong, I seem to be right more often than Im wrong, except when I miss lol


CFGuy Im reading Thinking fast and slow by Daniel Kahneman, a great read :thumbs_up


----------



## dragonheart II (Aug 20, 2010)

If you had to shoot an intruder in your home, would you want a recurve/longbow or a compound with sights. Hunting can give you situations that are less than ideal. The ability to shoot based on trained "instinctive" reactive shooting out of habit can give you a "leg up" in the hunting woods. Most hunters now days set up the static situation, hunting from treestands over feeding area. This allows for the archer to have time to shoot in an "ideal" situation. Adrenaline is the variable in a hunting situation that can influence the archers shot no matter how they shoot. For me, shooting out of habit without significant thought is helpful in the moment of truth. I missed several deer when I first started bowhunting with compound and sights. Trying to line this and that up was not for me. On the other hand I have shot in the 540's on field rounds with pins and a release in an ideal static enviroment with time to spare for each arrow shot.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

dragonheart II said:


> If you had to shoot an intruder in your home, would you want a recurve/longbow or a compound with sights. Hunting can give you situations that are less than ideal. The ability to shoot based on trained "instinctive" reactive shooting out of habit can give you a "leg up" in the hunting woods. Most hunters now days set up the static situation, hunting from treestands over feeding area. This allows for the archer to have time to shoot in an "ideal" situation. Adrenaline is the variable in a hunting situation that can influence the archers shot no matter how they shoot. For me, shooting out of habit without significant thought is helpful in the moment of truth. I missed several deer when I first started bowhunting with compound and sights. Trying to line this and that up was not for me. On the other hand I have shot in the 540's on field rounds with pins and a release in an ideal static enviroment with time to spare for each arrow shot.


There are also a lot of hunting situations where precision shooting will do a lot more for you than fast shooting, although any aiming technique that doesn't involve pun sights can be very quick and "instinctive" if an archer gets the practice necessary. Like learning how to strop a razor, learn to do it with precision and the speed will come with practice.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Bigjono - once again you are in the dark about what is going on and what has been discussed in the past - the "Jimmy Reference" is in reference to his video and explanation of how to gap - this video:






Jimmy's method of gap shooting is different and much more complex and mechanical from what Byron Fergeson talks about in his book


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

CF, I don't know if this helps or hurts your research for your paper, but I shoot a bow much like I shoot a pistol or a shotgun: I basically just spot my target and... shoot it.

There's a little more to it than that, with all three: the top of the slide or barrel, or the tip of my arrow all come into the very bottom of my peripheral vision; without that, I may as well be shooting blindfolded.

And we're also talking about a developed skill: for instance, with the pistol, I started out using sights in the conventional "target shooter" fashion, and used 'em for years - essentially, until I (1) discovered that in a gotta-shoot-right-&*%$#$-now situation, I shot as well or better without even finding the rear sight, let alone the front. Shotguns I learned to shoot by form... with hundreds of hours of drills, thousands of rounds, and a lot of... errr... _individual training_ wink if I botched a drill.

What started out purely as a tactical skill has come in pretty handy now that I'm reaching an age where I might or might not be able to see a front sight anymore...

With pistols, I'm good for center-mass out to about 100; with shotguns, until the shot lands in the dirt. But remember, we're talking forty years of excellent (and very demanding) coaching and drills, and thousands of cases of ammunition. 

And while I KNOW that with any life-form appropriate to the application of pistol or shotgun I'll get clean kills at those ranges, if I want or need finer accuracy than just "dead", yes I do need a good rifle, preferably with a good scope.


With a bow, I'm currently pretty happy with my groups out to about 40 - but I don't initiate hunting shots past about 20 without a sight; simply not consistant enough yet.

So basically, over the years I applied the same sort of mindset to archery: form, form, form, and then form; focus on the target, and shoot until I start making progress.

There are a lot of archers around here on AT that are a lot better than I; given some of the comments relating firearms to archery, I just wanted to comment on how I relate the two...


--------------



Robert Williams said:


> What I've found really peculiar is when someone that says they don't judge yardage also weighs in with a statement that they wouldn't take a shot past some arbitrary number of yards. The obvious question, of course would be "How the heck do you know if its past that distance if you don't judge yardage?". Maybe the rangefinder is to check before they shoot.


Robert, I say (and mean) that a lot, and I've never owned a rangefinder - even for learning to shoot .30 cal thousand yard, let alone for archery. I learned range determination the old fashioned way: take a WAG, state your "guesstimation" to a witness, and pace it off, or set your scope-dope and trigger 'er off - or let the arrow fly. The accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the estimate is then pretty apparent to all... and we learned pretty quickly in order to avoid getting a permanent embarrassed blush. My archery buddies and I still play that game every time we get the chance; we shoot KD for awhile, then we shoot unknowns, and call all the ranges before we release.

I simply am not that great an archer; I've spent far more time with firearms than bows, just because it was required. But experience also tells me that in a few tens of thousands more arrows, I might improve some.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Dave

Great post

Matt


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

Matt;

Thank you, Sir. 

I have no idea what anyone else does, or can do; all I can speak to is what I do, and what's worked for me.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Josolddavfe - you need to use the barrel of the pistol to shoot accurately - not all pistol shooters do - some actually shoot pistols instinctively - or rather aim them at a subconscious level - what is this guy lining up - can he see the barrel of the pistol?






so much for this statement applying to everyone: "There's a little more to it than that, with all three: the top of the slide or barrel, or the tip of my arrow all come into the very bottom of my peripheral vision; without that, I may as well be shooting blindfolded."


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Bob Munden rocks


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

I think pointing and shooting without a visual alignment of arrows or barrels is damned effective on small aspirins at three feet, large balloons at 8 feet and small garden sheds at 15 yards. I don't think anyone wants to dispute this fact.

In competitions where accuracy at more than point blank range matters as much as speed you'll notice all the quick guns take the time to visually align their guns. None of them win by shooting from the hip even though it saves precious fractions of seconds. 

You will virtually always be closer to your mark when you flick on a laser pointer if you have it out in front if you where you can see the "barrel" than you will behind your back or at your hip. It's easy and safe to test this anywhere.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> I think pointing and shooting without a visual alignment of arrows or barrels is damned effective on small aspirins at three feet, large balloons at 8 feet and small garden sheds at 15 yards. I don't think anyone wants to dispute this fact.
> 
> In competitions where accuracy at more than point blank range matters as much as speed you'll notice all the quick guns take the time to visually align their guns. None of them win by shooting from the hip even though it saves precious fractions of seconds.
> 
> You will virtually always be closer to your mark when you flick on a laser pointer if you have it out in front if you where you can see the "barrel" than you will behind your back or at your hip. It's easy and safe to test this anywhere.


It makes my heart so happy that someone like yourself has come to understand that Instinctive Aiming does in fact exist as a unique and specific way to aim and how much more difficult it is to use it and be as accurate as the other barebow aiming techniques under most typical situations archers are confronted with....especially in tournaments.

This is the exact reason why I ALWAYS try to teach new archers or those struggling with their current aiming technique that there are OTHER barebow aiming techniques that may be better suited for their specific goals, abilities and personality.

There is NOT only one way a Traditional bow should or can be shot....even if the Trad police say there isn't.

An archer is NOT cheating just because they choose to consciously use the arrow as an aiming reference.

It is actually wise and smart to learn to use the arrow as an aiming reference if an archer is struggling with their accuracy with Instinctive Aiming...especially when it's the arrow that the archer is trying to hit the target with.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

oh - here comes this crap again - whoever said that there is only one way to shoot a bow - or that gap shooting is cheating? These strawman arguments are ridiculous. I have been to soooo many traditional archery tournaments and I have never been to one where gap shooting was banned or considered cheating - so who these "trad police" are that think gap shooting is cheating I would like to know.

I teach people to shoot the way I shoot - if somone wants to shoot a different way - then I refer them to someone who shoots like they want to shoot.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> oh - here comes this crap again - whoever said that there is only one way to shoot a bow - or that gap shooting is cheating?


LOL...no strawman...these are real people. You read about it all the time...where an archer gets a snide comment from someone saying their cheating if their not aiming totally Instinctively. I bet if you ask Steve Morley, Robert Williams, Jimmy Blackmon or a few others if they have ever heard anything like that...they would tell you they have.

I personally have never had any comments like that made to me because I Gap when I win 3D shoots...BUT...I know others have.

I personally think it's happening less and less....especially with even more people understanding what true Instinctive Aiming is and how there really is nothing wrong with using the arrow in their periphial vision to aim with.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

typical - you have never heard that - but you repeat it over and over again

Anyone who would say that gap shooting is cheating is an idiot and not worthy of even mentioning. I know lots of instinctive shooters and I have never heard one say any such thing, I have been to numerous all trad 3d shoots and never saw a rule against it, etc...

it is a strawman used to try and make instinctive shooters look bad


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It makes my heart so happy that someone like yourself has come to understand that Instinctive Aiming does in fact exist as a unique and specific way to aim and how much more difficult it is to use it and be as accurate as the other barebow aiming techniques under most typical situations archers are confronted with....especially in tournaments.


Of course someone can just point and shoot. You can do that blindfolded. Thing is..... Why stick an arrow under your eye just so you can shoot without looking at it if its pure "feel"? It's pretty well accepted that a high anchor isn't the best for consistent form. Somewhere under the chin is exceptionally good for form. Why do instinctive shooters want an arrow up where they can't help but see down it if they don't reference it? Especially when they could be much more consistent in all other aspects of the shot with an under the chin anchor?

In surprised that with all your teaching you haven't put the 2 + 2 together. No conscious aiming and an anchor that gives outstanding alignment. The only downside is that you can't look down your arrow very effectively because there is a HUGE gap between the arrow and target. But since you don't use your arrow to aim, you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain. 

Don't say I never gave you anything.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> typical - you have never heard that - but you repeat it over and over again


Typical sharp response.

You twist words and/or lack reading comprehension.

I said no one has personally told me I'm cheating...BUT... I have been told and read where others have...but since you have never heard it or read it from others...you rather say I'm lying and making up strawman to some how make Instinctive shooters look bad.

LOL...you're to much sharp. If nothing else...you're at least entertaining.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

sharpbroadhead said:


> typical - you have never heard that - but you repeat it over and over again
> 
> Anyone who would say that gap shooting is cheating is an idiot and not worthy of even mentioning. I know lots of instinctive shooters and I have never heard one say any such thing, I have been to numerous all trad 3d shoots and never saw a rule against it, etc...
> 
> it is a strawman used to try and make instinctive shooters look bad


One shoot I used to go to tried to propose an "instinctive" class. No gap shooting allowed. I asked them how they were going to be able to enforce that rule. The rest of the discussion got really stupid from there.

Instinctive shooters aren't bad guys. Sore losers, on the other hand ........


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Of course someone can just point and shoot. You can do that blindfolded. Thing is..... Why stick an arrow under your eye just so you can shoot without looking at it if its pure "feel"? Why do instinctive shooters want an arrow up where they can't help but see down it if they don't reference it? Especially when they could be much more consistent in all other aspects of the shot with an under the chin anchor?


Exactly...sharp shoots 3 Under and I've shown in pictures that he has provided that his arrow tip is very close to being within his direct line of sight when he shoots around 25 - 30yrds. 



Robert Williams said:


> In surprised that with all your teaching you haven't put the 2 + 2 together.


I see you're still making lame inaccurate assumptions. Some things never change.



Robert Williams said:


> But since you don't use your arrow to aim, you've got nothing to lose and everything to gain.


Who doesn't use their arrow to aim with?



Robert Williams said:


> Don't say I never gave you anything.


Sorry...you still haven't given me anything...at least anything of value.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> One shoot I used to go to tried to propose an "instinctive" class. No gap shooting allowed. I asked them how they were going to be able to enforce that rule. The rest of the discussion got really stupid from there.
> 
> Instinctive shooters aren't bad guys. Sore losers, on the other hand ........


Hey sharp....their's your strawman....LOL

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Williams said:


> I asked them how they were going to be able to enforce that rule. The rest of the discussion got really stupid from there.


Given some of the stuff you have seen here, lately, you do realize that your first mistake was talking to them and assuming a different outcome from the discussion ?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

BlackWolf - you are unreal - Jimmy Blackmon dispelled your stupid theory several times now - I shoot three under - so does Jimmy - When Jimmy and I both shot at the Indoor Nationals - Jimmy had to shoot an arrow that was very heavy and very long out of a very light bow to get his point on at 20 yards - as did all of them except me. My arrows were going over 70fps faster than there and I had no overhang past the riser - these guys had 7 inches hanging past the riser to keep the arrow in the line of sight - your theory shows how ignorant you are and how all of your "studing" about sports means nothing


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Who doesn't use their arrow to aim with.


 That's the million dollar question it? So what's the answer?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...no strawman...these are real people. You read about it all the time...where an archer gets a snide comment from someone saying their cheating if their not aiming totally Instinctively. I bet if you ask Steve Morley, Robert Williams, Jimmy Blackmon or a few others if they have ever heard anything like that...they would tell you they have.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Ive posted here several times about the fun I had in the late 90s, I was branded a cheat in Longbow div because I didnt shoot Instinctive, funny but at the time I was instinctive only evidence was my scores (I was winning Nationals by good 100 points and outshooting Recurves) and they didnt like the fact I wasnt shooting a Hill style Longbow, it was said to my face and behind my back although it was all within the rules and only really died down when a couple of other Longbows started shooting similar high scores, I guess people then figured those scores were possible.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> BlackWolf - you are unreal - Jimmy Blackmon dispelled your stupid theory several times now -


LOL...nope.

I guess a picture is worth a 1000 words...so here you go.

Go ahead and try to convince us that your arrow tip is no where near your direct line of sight to the target.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> That's the million dollar question it? So what's the answer?


Study this video Robert...and you'll have your answer.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Ive posted here several times about the fun I had in the late 90s, I was branded a cheat in Longbow div because I didnt shoot Instinctive, funny but at the time I was instinctive only evidence was my scores (I was winning Nationals by good 100 points and outshooting Recurves) and they didnt like the fact I wasnt shooting a Hill style Longbow, it was said to my face and behind my back although it was all within the rules and only really died down when a couple of other Longbows started shooting similar high scores, I guess people then figured those scores were possible.


Hey sharp....LOOK...another strawman. Gee...sharp...I guess I wasn't making this stuff up.

Get a clue!

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> BlackWolf your theory shows how ignorant you are and how all of your "studing" about sports means nothing


Sharp I just think this kind of "your ignorant" name calling is not required, cant you just not agree in a civil manner?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

yes it is - worth a thousand words - the arrow is nor more in my line of sight by shooting three under than it is in the line of sight of the "master" of instinctive shooting himself shooting split!


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

steve morley said:


> Ive posted here several times about the fun I had in the late 90s, I was branded a cheat in Longbow div because I didnt shoot Instinctive, funny but at the time I was instinctive only evidence was my scores (I was winning Nationals by good 100 points and outshooting Recurves) and they didnt like the fact I wasnt shooting a Hill style Longbow, it was said to my face and behind my back although it was all within the rules and only really died down when a couple of other Longbows started shooting similar high scores, I guess people then figured those scores were possible.


That's where the discussion with the braintrusts i mentioned earlier ended up, for all intents and purposes. If you shot "too good" they wanted to disqualify you for gapping. Their theory was that if you used the arrow point as a "sight" then it was like having a sight on your bow and you needed to shoot in a different class from "pure instinctive shooters". And my response to them was that they would have to disqualify everyone with an arrow in their sight window at full draw because everyone that did had a sight in their bow. That ruffled feathers a bit for some reason.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> View attachment 1493363
> 
> 
> yes it is - worth a thousand words - the arrow is nor more in my line of sight by shooting three under than it is in the line of sight of the "master" of instinctive shooting himself shooting split!


Actually your arrow is closer...but I'm not surprised you don't claim to see that.,,but you STILL haven't proven that your arrow tip is no where near your direct line of sight as the picture represents I posted above of you shows.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Study this video Robert...and you'll have your answer.
> 
> Ray :shade:


How about we just skip the drama and you just tell us YOUR answer. Who doesn't?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> That's where the discussion with the braintrusts i mentioned earlier ended up, for all intents and purposes. If you shot "too good" they wanted to disqualify you for gapping. Their theory was that if you used the arrow point as a "sight" then it was like having a sight on your bow and you needed to shoot in a different class from "pure instinctive shooters". And my response to them was that they would have to disqualify everyone with an arrow in their sight window at full draw because everyone that did had a sight in their bow. That ruffled feathers a bit for some reason.


Looky, looky sharp....even more evidence about the 'strawman' you claim I made up in fact exists.

Why am I not surprised you're not man enough to say you were wrong with my claim???

Eat 'em and weep! LOL Or just pretend you don't see those posts like you pretend not to see your arrow at all.

Like I've said before...I truly believe you think you're aiming Instinctively based on what you believe Instinctive Aiming is. It just doesn't fit the defintion that truly seperates what is involved with True Instinctive Aiming when a person compares it to an archer using Gap at a lower level of conscious awareness.

In all honesty...there is a chance you don't 'see' your arrow but it's postioning near or within your direct line of sight, you're admitance to not being able to even hit close to a lazer target in total darkness and the time you hold anchor...really makes it difficult to believe you don't consciously see the arrow at least at some level of conscious awareness.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - ok - slowly for the expert here - if Jimmy and I both anchor at the same location and in order for his arrow tip to be in the direct line of sight of a 20 yard target he has to shoot an arrow that is flying less than 150 fps and hangs over his bow by almost 7 inches - how is it that my arrow traveling at 214 fps with only an inch or so of overhang (just enough for save broadhead clearance) can also be in the direct line of sight of the target?

Jimmy himself said that with an arrow traveling as fast as mine and with as little overhang as mine - my "point on" would likey be past 50 yards - yet you claim it is 20 yards - give me a break - you are no better than that troll Logos

and anyone looking at the photo of me and Asbel can see that there is virtually no difference in the relationship of the arrow to our eyes - go have fun and play with Logos you two can both compare your "studies" and brilliant minds and expert status - oh - are you going to whine to a mod now that I called you out again?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

obviosly anyone shooting any bow - the arrow is in the line of sight of the shooter even when Aspirin buster shoots the bow from behind his back - the arrow is in his direct line of sight - otherwise the arrow would not go where he is looking - HELLO - guess you missed that chapter in your studies of expert status on everything archery!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> How about we just skip the drama and you just tell us YOUR answer. Who doesn't?


The only drama is being created by you.

I'm sharing the evidence with you. Kassai is NOT using the arrow to aim with in these shots.

Yet you still haven't answered my question above in a previous post.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> LOL - ok - slowly for the expert here - if Jimmy and I both anchor at the same location and in order for his arrow tip to be in the direct line of sight of a 20 yard target he has to shoot an arrow that is flying less than 150 fps and hangs over his bow by almost 7 inches - how is it that my arrow traveling at 214 fps with only an inch or so of overhang (just enough for save broadhead clearance) can also be in the direct line of sight of the target?


Facial structure and draw length also play a roll in that but I'm not surprised you don't know that or are asking how it's possible.



sharpbroadhead said:


> yet you claim it is 20 yards - give me a break -


LOL...again..you twist words to suit your opinions. I NEVER said your POD was 20yrds. I said that your arrow tip was very close to be within your direct line of sight at 25 -30yrds. as the picture represents and shows. Your POD is somewhere closer to 30yrds. give or take a few yards, IMO.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> obviosly anyone shooting any bow - the arrow is in the line of sight of the shooter even when Aspirin buster shoots the bow from behind his back - the arrow is in his direct line of sight - otherwise the arrow would not go where he is looking - HELLO - guess you missed that chapter in your studies of expert status on everything archery!


LOL...there's a difference between an arrow BEING in an archer's direct line of sight and being pointed towards his direct line of sight to the target.

The stuff you make up...please.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Sharp my experience with the Pinnacle, 35# Kaya Tropics wound all the way in (I guess around 40# at my draw) using 28" carbon express with 180g up front I managed to get a 30y point on, for 20y I gapped off riser window as it was exactly in the middle and found it very easy to settle into a relaxed sight picture, great riser for 3D shooting and a shame WA3D banned it.

A lot easier to gap or shoot split vision for 3D from something like a Pinnacle with small riser window compared to my 25" ILF riser which I use for Field rounds


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> The only drama is being created by you.
> 
> I'm sharing the evidence with you. Kassai is NOT using the arrow to aim with in these shots.
> 
> ...


Which was posted so you could dodge the very question you, yourself asked, but refuse to answer. I can only deduce that a straight answer in that is something you intend to avoid at all costs. "Who doesn't use their arrow to aim?" You'll ask someone else that question but won't go on record with an answer. That's telling.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Sharp my experience with the Pinnacle, 35# Kaya Tropics wound all the way in (I guess around 40# at my draw) using 28" carbon express with 180g up front I managed to get a 30y point on, for 20y I gapped off riser window as it was exactly in the middle and found it very easy to settle into a relaxed sight picture, great riser for 3D shooting and a shame WA3D banned it.


Say it's not true! That must be impossible because sharp says it is.

Thanks for sharing that, Steve! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Which was posted so you could dodge the very question you, yourself asked, but refuse to answer. I can only deduce that a straight answer in that is something you intend to avoid at all costs. "Who doesn't use their arrow to aim?" You'll ask someone else that question but won't go on record with an answer. That's telling.


Are you really that blind? Naw...you're ego must be blocking your view.

You asked who isn't using the arrow to aim with and I provide a video and than say that Kassai is not using it...and than you say I'm dodging the question. You're funny Robert.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Damn, Ray. It was a simple question you asked, right? Who doesn't use their arrow to aim? What's wrong? Don't have an answer? Surely YOU have an answer, if anyone in the whole world does. Go ahead. Your question, you answer it. 

Or just admit you don't know. That's cool, too.

Wait. Your answer is that Kassai doesn't use his arrow to aim? Anyone else? What about instinctive shooters?


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Josolddavfe - you need to use the barrel of the pistol to shoot accurately - not all pistol shooters do - some actually shoot pistols instinctively - or rather aim them at a subconscious level - what is this guy lining up - can he see the barrel of the pistol?...
> 
> so much for this statement applying to *everyone*: "There's a little more to it than that, with all three: the top of the slide or barrel, or the tip of my arrow all come into the very bottom of my peripheral vision; without that, I may as well be shooting blindfolded."


Sharpie, you're absolutely right; as I said earlier, not everyone shoots the way I do; as far as I know, it's just me, and a few others who were taught by the same instructors at the same courses. And I have seen some absolutely amazing shooting done by people employing postions and form that completely preclude any possiblity of using their gunsights; Munden is just one of many out there who are far better shooters than I. 

Like sayin', all I was trying (poorly) to address was the earlier side-topic of firearm shooters who don't use gunsights as such being automatically limited to point-blank range, or "trick" shooting, and my own personal experiences with that (as my firearms training is more under the heading of practical/combat training).


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Ok. You don't want to go there so lets talk about Kassai. He draws about the same way everyone else does, points the arrow and hits very slow rather large had lobbed targets at about 8 feet. Lets face reality. You don't have to aim vet well to hit a target that large at point blank range. That's point and shoot thing works very well on running deer at 3 yards or less, no doubt about it. I'd like to see how that "aimless shooting" works on more realistic targets at more realistic ranges, but alas, I've never seen the exhibition showmen doing that. Pity.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

jusoldave said:


> Sharpie, you're absolutely right; as I said earlier, not everyone shoots the way I do; as far as I know, it's just me, and a few others who were taught by the same instructors at the same courses. And I have seen some absolutely amazing shooting done by people employing postions and form that completely preclude any possiblity of using their gunsights; Munden is just one of many out there who are far better shooters than I.
> 
> Like sayin', all I was trying (poorly) to address was the earlier side-topic of firearm shooters who don't use gunsights as such being automatically limited to point-blank range, and my own personal experiences with that.


Exactly. Its a point blank technique. Munn's (and Kassai's) videos are amazing because of his speed; not because they can shoot balloons or large round matts at point blank range from the hip. A 12" diameter target at 8 feet is equivalent to a seven foot diameter target at 20 yards. It's called "trick shooting" for a reason. Except for the speed, there isn't any serious challenge in hitting those targets just by pointing in their direction. 

I think these techniques are very effective for kill shots on running deer at 3 yards but a whole lot less on any deer standing or running at 20 yards. 

Just sayin'


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Your answer is that Kassai doesn't use his arrow to aim? Anyone else? What about instinctive shooters?


LOL...I answered you're question...but thats not enough for you...LOL...no wonder why you have issues.

By the way...Kassai is aiming Totally Instinctively if you haven't noticed. He's NOT using Point of Aim or Gap. He's relying on a reflex response that is initiated by what he consciously sees regarding the target. He's NOT setting a gap or picking out out his secondary point of aim. If you also notice...most of his arrows are near the center of those 'huge' discs...LOL :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert,

Just because you lack nearly any athletic ability...doesn't mean you have to belittle those that do.

Jealousy...is a poor excuse for your behavior!

How many times did you get hit the head playing dodge ball growing up?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Robert,
> 
> Just because you lack nearly any athletic ability...doesn't mean you have to belittle those that do.
> 
> ...


Ray, I was shooting a soccer ball that I'd kick with blunts all over a field when I was 12. It's not hard to do at point blank range. I was "practicing" for rabbits but the pesky rabbits didn't give me shots at point blank range. Like I said, what was impressive was the speed, not the accuracy. 

Now try to have a discussion without the juvenile personal insults for a change. Try discussing the topic, not the people discussing the topic.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

steve morley said:


> Sharp my experience with the Pinnacle, 35# Kaya Tropics wound all the way in (I guess around 40# at my draw) using 28" carbon express with 180g up front I managed to get a 30y point on, for 20y I gapped off riser window as it was exactly in the middle and found it very easy to settle into a relaxed sight picture, great riser for 3D shooting and a shame WA3D banned it.
> 
> A lot easier to gap or shoot split vision for 3D from something like a Pinnacle with small riser window compared to my 25" ILF riser which I use for Field rounds


Why would they ban a riser? Too easy to use it for a sight picture?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Now try to have a discussion without the juvenile personal insults for a change. Try discussing the topic, not the people discussing the topic.


If YOU do NOT like it...than do NOT be the first to cast the first stone!

There is NO need to make any of this personal.

Just share the facts and keep the condensending, belittling, snide and scarcastic comments to yourself if you don't like it.

There's a reason why these threads often turn to crap...because a few of you start it and than cry when it's thrown right back at ya.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Robert Williams said:


> Ray, I was shooting a soccer ball that I'd kick with blunts all over a field when I was 12. It's not hard to do at point blank range. I was "practicing" for rabbits but the pesky rabbits didn't give me shots at point blank range. Like I said, what was impressive was the speed, not the accuracy.
> 
> Now try to have a discussion without the juvenile personal insults for a change. Try discussing the topic, not the people discussing the topic.


Unfortunately, some people get stuck at the emotional age of 15. That's just the way it is......some things (and people) never change.

As you said before......some are better ignored.

:amen:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Logos said:


> Unfortunately, some people get stuck at the emotional age of 15. That's just the way it is......some things (and people) never change.
> 
> As you said before......some are better ignored.
> 
> :amen:


Yep.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Why would they ban a riser? Too easy to use it for a sight picture?


No they wanted to ban metal Risers in Instinctive div to have wood only bows so they banned all ILF attachment systems.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Check out this great video.

Some people want to belittle it and make it sound like there was never any real use for it or how it's not really practicle or how there is no following for it.

You be the judge.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> If YOU do NOT like it...than do NOT be the first to cast the first stone!
> 
> There is NO need to make any of this personal.
> 
> ...


Not for nothing but I always leave your personal shortcomings, real or imagined, out of our discussions. I don't know why you are the way you are but no matter because YOU aren't the topic. You can't be taken seriously when all you have as a response to someone's statements are silly personal insults. Think about it.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Check out this great video.
> 
> Some people want to belittle it and make it sound like there was never any real use for it or how it's not really practicle or how there is no following for it.
> 
> ...


Who belittled THAT video? Or any video? It proves that point and shoot techniques work very well on generously sized targets at very close range. And the guy doing the shooting also shows that it can be very, very quick. 

But that's not what most of us need for either hunting or target shooting even if it would be an invaluable skill to have after the zombie apocalypse.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Check out this great video.
> 
> Some people want to belittle it and make it sound like there was never any real use for it or how it's not really practicle or how there is no following for it.
> 
> ...


I judge it bad ass. Can I learn this in Santa Cruz CA?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> By the way...Kassai is aiming Totally Instinctively if you haven't noticed.


Yes, he never learned it. He could do it from the day he was born. 



Actually, what he's doing is, of course, not "instinctive," but simply natural point and shoot, like Ed McGivern used to do with the revolver.

Trick shots. Learned and practiced intensely.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Not for nothing but I always leave your personal shortcomings, real or imagined, out of our discussions. I don't know why you are the way you are but no matter because YOU aren't the topic. You can't be taken seriously when all you have as a response to someone's statements are silly personal insults. Think about it.


LOL...you can pretend to act so innocent...but there are a few of us that know you all to well from dealing with you in the past to know...you're far from innocent.

Heck...you're personal short cumming help motivate you to start you're own website. At least there you could try and control people from expressing their opinions.

I find it highly entertaining that after all this time...you have decided to emerge from your little cyber whole in the wall to come play with us.

Is you're website really that boring for you that you feel the need to bless us with your presence?

As far as I'm concerned...I'm happy to see ya. I thought you might be dead or something.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

OK I looked at the vid - cool stuff but how can you say he doesn't use the arrow to aim - unless his eyes are closed or he is blind he is using the arrow the aim - I take guys like sharp at their word that they aren't "Looking" at the arrow but, they are absolutely using it to aim with - it is right freaking there.

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> Yes, he never learned it. He could do it from the day he was born.


He's definitely become a natural at shooting a bow and arrow...LOL

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Matt_Potter said:


> OK I looked at the vid - cool stuff but how can you say he doesn't use the arrow to aim - unless his eyes are closed or he is blind he is using the arrow the aim - I take guys like sharp at their word that they aren't "Looking" at the arrow but, they are absolutely using it to aim with - it is right freaking there.
> 
> Matt


I noticed that, too, but didn't want to get into that one again. It's like a ********. Touch it and it just clings to you. Munn's hip shooting was different. And, man, that guy is fast.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> OK I looked at the vid - cool stuff but how can you say he doesn't use the arrow to aim - unless his eyes are closed or he is blind he is using the arrow the aim - I take guys like sharp at their word that they aren't "Looking" at the arrow but, they are absolutely using it to aim with - it is right freaking there.
> 
> Matt


Maybe it's a case of using it, but not knowing he's using it. I know that there have been times that I was focusing on the target so much that i didn't even realize that there was a twig directly between me and it. After the shot, somebody asked me if I was using the twig as something to aim at, and I could only respond, "What twig?". The twig was within the realm of the conscious mind, from the terms that the conscious mind _could_ perceive it, and yet I was oblivious to its presence. I think the situation fits. Biologically, it's impossible for his eyes not to see it, but through his focus of attention, he doesn't notice it, even if his subconscious learned training uses it as part of a sight picture to trigger the shot.

The brain is good at filtering things out, to make sense of what is importance. For example, listening to a conversation in a busy room, with lots of conversations... My brain is really good at it, though it sometimes gets distracted by somebody else's interesting conversation, and then I come back to the person who's talking at me, and I have no idea what they've been saying for the last minute, and have to try to fake it


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...you can pretend to act so innocent...but there are a few of us that know you all to well from dealing with you in the past to know...you're far from innocent.
> 
> Heck...you're personal short cumming help motivate you to start you're own website. At least there you could try and control people from expressing their opinions.
> 
> ...


Forgot what the topic was, didn't you? . 

Hint: (it isn't me or any other contributor here).


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt,

Does a quaterback use the football to aim with?

Does the basketball player use the basketball to aim with?

Does a pitcher use the baseball to aim with?

No...they are relying on hand and eye coordination...that involves the mind consciously picking the target and making the decision to shoot or throw while allowing proprioception and muscle/motor memory to execute the shot. It's a reflex action rather than one that is consciously/analytically calculated for every movement or body position to nearest fraction of an inch.

Kassai is simply pointing his bow arm at the target and NOT consciously setting his gap NOR picking a secondary aiming reference to use. The movement is fast and fluid with little to no time to consciously set gaps.

I hope that helps.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Great video of Kassai, lot of his display shooting is done close range (I assume for safety and good viewing) I have seen him do 30y shots at gallop. Lukas Novotny from Saluki bows another great Horse archer was in Tibet with Redbow shooting 100y targets a few weeks ago.

Robert Horse archery is a growing sport in its own right, although not used today this type of archery has been used in war and hunting for thousands of years, good to see the skills still being kept alive, just because we have no practical application today doesnt mean those skills should be lost.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...you can pretend to act so innocent...but there are a few of us that know you all to well from dealing with you in the past to know...you're far from innocent.
> 
> Heck...you're personal short cumming help motivate you to start you're own website. At least there you could try and control people from expressing their opinions.
> 
> Ray


No, Black Wolf--you're in the wrong.

You get to a point in a debate where you revert to 15-year-old level and say things like:



> *Just because you lack nearly any athletic ability...doesn't mean you have to belittle those that do.
> 
> Jealousy...is a poor excuse for your behavior!
> 
> How many times did you get hit the head playing dodge ball growing up?*


See? That sounds like an ignorant schoolyard bully. It's personal and stupid. You can do it here safely, but in real life it would get you punched in the nose.

And it does not make people respect you......not good people, anyway.

Think about it.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> Maybe it's a case of using it, but not knowing he's using it. I know that there have been times that I was focusing on the target so much that i didn't even realize that there was a twig directly between me and it. After the shot, somebody asked me if I was using the twig as something to aim at, and I could only respond, "What twig?". The twig was within the realm of the conscious mind, from the terms that the conscious mind _could_ perceive it, and yet I was oblivious to its presence. I think the situation fits. Biologically, it's impossible for his eyes not to see it, but through his focus of attention, he doesn't notice it, even if his subconscious learned training uses it as part of a sight picture to trigger the shot.
> 
> The brain is good at filtering things out, to make sense of what is importance. For example, listening to a conversation in a busy room, with lots of conversations... My brain is really good at it, though it sometimes gets distracted by somebody else's interesting conversation, and then I come back to the person who's talking at me, and I have no idea what they've been saying for the last minute, and have to try to fake it


I think that is spot on. That's why I see nothing but good coming out of analyzing one's aiming so that it can be deliberately and consciously done with precision when wanted or needed. Being able to do it consciously doesn't prevent you from doing it out of reflex when you need to.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> You can do it here safely, but in real life it would get you punched in the nose.


You can pretend to be innocent too, Logos...but in your short existence here...you've already shown your true colors.

I categorize you right down there with sharp and Robert as far as people who intiate this crap than cry about it.

And as far as getting punched in the nose in person...I've confronted people like you...and have NEVER gotten punched in the nose or anywhere else by someone like you :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> OK I looked at the vid - cool stuff but how can you say he doesn't use the arrow to aim - unless his eyes are closed or he is blind he is using the arrow the aim - I take guys like sharp at their word that they aren't "Looking" at the arrow but, they are absolutely using it to aim with - it is right freaking there.
> 
> Matt


No, he's not using anything except a knowledge of where the arrow will go.

You develop a "feel" for the bow and you know by the way you are holding it where the arrow will go.

It's the same thing as Ed McGivern used to do with a revolver.

He could put 5 shots on a playing card at 15 feet in less than half of one second. Think about that speed.

You do it by feel.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

steve morley said:


> Great video of Kassai, lot of his display shooting is done close range (I assume for safety and good viewing) I have seen him do 30y shots at gallop. Lukas Novotny from Saluki bows another great Horse archer was in Tibet with Redbow shooting 100y targets a few weeks ago.
> 
> Robert Horse archery is a growing sport in its own right, although not used today this type of archery has been used in war and hunting for thousands of years, good to see the skills still being kept alive, just because we have no practical application today doesnt mean those skills should be lost.


I think it's very cool indeed and see no reason why it shouldn't be a growing sport. My point, which you apparently missed completely, is that horse bow shooting is not evidence that "point and shoot" techniques are a good technique for any other target sport or even for bowhunting. It has nothing to do with how cool or challenging horse bow competition is.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Great video of Kassai, lot of his display shooting is done close range (I assume for safety and good viewing) I have seen him do 30y shots at gallop. Lukas Novotny from Saluki bows another great Horse archer was in Tibet with Redbow shooting 100y targets a few weeks ago.
> 
> Robert Horse archery is a growing sport in its own right, although not used today this type of archery has been used in war and hunting for thousands of years, good to see the skills still being kept alive, just because we have no practical application today doesnt mean those skills should be lost.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

And it can be ALOT of fun. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Sharp my experience with the Pinnacle, 35# Kaya Tropics wound all the way in (I guess around 40# at my draw) using 28" carbon express with 180g up front I managed to get a 30y point on, for 20y I gapped off riser window as it was exactly in the middle and found it very easy to settle into a relaxed sight picture, great riser for 3D shooting and a shame WA3D banned it.
> 
> A lot easier to gap or shoot split vision for 3D from something like a Pinnacle with small riser window compared to my 25" ILF riser which I use for Field rounds


Hey, Steve. After Florida, you will never use your riser window again!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Being able to do it consciously doesn't prevent you from doing it out of reflex when you need to.


Well said, and works the other way round also.




itbeso said:


> Hey, Steve. After Florida, you will never use your riser window again!


We will see, shooting Longbow with logs and split finger might need a little riser help, we can start a whole new thread/debate, _"does he see/use the riser window"_ lol


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> is that horse bow shooting is not evidence that "point and shoot" techniques are a good technique for any other target sport or even for bowhunting.


The same technique can also apply to rabbits, pheasants and any other fast moving target.

Not many if any people are saying this technique is good in most typical 3D tournaments or NFAA 300 type rounds...which is why it would be so impressive to some people if an archer actually won a tournament shooting like that!

What people are saying...is Instinctive Aiming does in FACT exists...and has specific advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

steve morley said:


> Well said, and works the other way round also.


I agree completely


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Well said, and works the other way round also.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> The same technique can also apply to rabbits, pheasants and any other fast moving target.
> 
> Not many if any people are saying this technique is good in most typical 3D tournaments or NFAA 300 type rounds...which is why it would be so impressive to some people if an archer actually won a tournament shooting like that!
> 
> ...


Yes. Large targets, close range, and. Fast shooting. That's where it works best. I've said that several times, myself, so I don't know why you are arguing a point of agreement.

If someone wants to shoot moving targets practice shooting moving targets. If they want to shoot still targets with great accuracy, practice that. The same techniques don't work best for both though. I think we both can agree on that and yet. The arguments. Always the arguments. Even when the point is in agreement.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Yes. Large targets, close range, and. Fast shooting. That's where it works best. I've said that several times, myself, so I don't know why you are arguing a point if agreement.


Rabbits, birds, asprins, aerial targets and the kill zone of a running deer are NOT necessarily small targets.

YOU said that it was NOT evidence for bowhunting...and I was again proving where you are wrong.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Yes. Large targets, close range, and. Fast shooting. That's where it works best.


Yes for me it works best from inside the barn..................I can hit any of the walls with amazing speed and accuracy :set1_rolf2:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

There is a new form archery sport that is getting some interest where Instinctive Aiming will be able to show it's effectiveness.

Here's the website.

http://wvbowhunt.tripod.com/ID19.html

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Same technique used here.......natural point and shoot. Nothing instinctive about it, just a lot of practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOv-LT-F_-A


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Yes for me it works best from inside the barn..................I can hit any of the walls with amazing speed and accuracy :set1_rolf2:


Me too...but there are guys that are alot better than us that can hit much smaller targets :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> Same technique used here.......*natural* point and shoot.


LOL...natural...did you just use the word 'natural' to describe an aiming technique?

Please let me remind you of the 2nd. definition to instinct you were trying to point out in an earlier thread about an aiming technique.

2 : a natural ability

So an archer with a natural ability to point and shoot is using their instincts based by your own use of the word now.

Too funny! Glad you're finally on board with us!

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...natural...did you just use the word 'natural' to describe an aiming technique?
> 
> Please let me remind you of the 2nd. definition to instinct you were trying to point out in an earlier thread about an aiming technique.
> 
> ...


No, the natural point and shoot method simply means "natural." It's as natural as pointing your finger, but it must be learned and practiced.

I have found it can be learned fairly quickly with handguns......the bow, (as one can obviously see by the videos) is more complex and takes longer.

But it's obviously not an instinctive skill.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> OK I looked at the vid - cool stuff but how can you say he doesn't use the arrow to aim - unless his eyes are closed or he is blind he is using the arrow the aim - I take guys like sharp at their word that they aren't "Looking" at the arrow but, they are absolutely using it to aim with - it is right freaking there.
> 
> Matt



Just because you're not personally capable of doing something does not in any way mean that I'm incapable too. In this case you would look smarter with ya mouth closed.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Robert Williams said:


> Not for nothing but I always leave your personal shortcomings, real or imagined, out of our discussions. I don't know why you are the way you are but no matter because YOU aren't the topic. You can't be taken seriously when all you have as a response to someone's statements are silly personal insults. Think about it.




NOT FOR NOTHING? Maybe I do have some reading issues.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> No, the natural point and shoot method simply means "natural." It's as natural as pointing your finger, but it must be learned and practiced.
> 
> I have found it can be learned fairly quickly with handguns......the bow, (as one can obviously see by the videos) is more complex and takes longer.
> 
> But it's obviously not an instinctive skill.


LOL...by definition it is!

I love the way you try and dance around the merry go round.

The 2nd. definition says 'natural ability'. It says NOTHING about it not being learned or developed.

It is as simply as it states....a natural abilty to point a weapon at a target with the intent to hit it...is an instinct as it applies to the words 2nd. definition while it has nothing to do with it's first definition or the one taught to most of us in grade school regarding an innate behavior.

2 definitions. 2 meanings....which is very common that a word will have multiple meanings and definitions.

To be able to accurately shoot a bow and arrow is 'an ability'. You and I claim it can be a natural ability...therefore if it's a 'natural ability'...than it follows the definition you chose to use.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> And as far as getting punched in the nose in person...I've confronted people like you...and have NEVER gotten punched in the nose...
> Ray :shade:


Oh no......you don't get off that easy (by changing the subject, as is your way).

The point is that you don't walk up to people in public and say: (As you did here):


> *Just because you lack nearly any athletic ability...doesn't mean you have to belittle those that do.
> 
> Jealousy...is a poor excuse for your behavior!
> 
> How many times did you get hit the head playing dodge ball growing up?*


You don't do it in person, but you do it on the internet. Why?

It's easy to talk bully talk on the internet......not so easy when you're looking the other person in the eye.

Such behavior causes people to walk away in embarrassment. You're talking like a 15-year-old when you do that.

When you get the urge to do it......just say no.

We'll all get along better.

:amen:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...by definition it is!
> 
> I love the way you try and dance around the merry go round.


And I love the way you LOL every time you're cornered.

The smoke screen isn't working for you any more.

:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> And I love the way you LOL every time you're cornered.
> 
> The smoke screen isn't working for you any more.
> 
> :wink:


LOL...I'm not the one cornered. You're the one throwing the smoke screens and not addressing the specific evidence being shared with you.

You've been blantantly and openly caught with your foot in your mouth...AGAIN.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> NOT FOR NOTHING? Maybe I do have some reading issues.


I think he's saying that in a normal debate, Black Wolf tends to escalate to name calling and other juvenile insults (like "you must have been hit in the head with a soccer ball") when he's losing the debate.

He did that with me just the other day, so I know.

(Post #335 in the "Is this Gap Shooting" thread-- "timid little pompous fool.")

Just for the record.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> The point is that you don't walk up to people in public and say: (As you did here):


LOL...than you do NOT know me like you think you know everything and can't possibly be wrong on some subject.

I most certainly would if I was having a discussion with someone who was clearly unathletic and belittling some athlete because that athlete could do something they could not.

You're darn right I would call you or anyone out who was acting disrespectful or jealous for no other reason than your low self esteem.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Ray. I'm not sure what your argument ended up being but whatever it is, you win. 

Cheers!


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> You're darn right I would call you or anyone out who was acting disrespectful or jealous for no other reason than your low self esteem.
> 
> Ray


(Large Yawn.)

Want to get back to topic?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy,

Based on what you're asking and talking about...tell me the differences you see between these archers and compare their technique to how how someone shoots a basketball or throws a ball.

Which archer most resembles when a person is relying more on hand and eye coordination as when someone throws a ball or shooting a basketball and why?

Ray :shade:


This one?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Or this one?


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Just because you're not personally capable of doing something does not in any way mean that I'm incapable too. In this case you would look smarter with ya mouth closed.


The eye of the beholder, I guess.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Just because you're not personally capable of doing something does not in any way mean that I'm incapable too. In this case you would look smarter with ya mouth closed.


Gosh your a bright one forest I guess I'll just go stand in the corner with my mouth shut now - don't know what your issue is with me but more often that not when you attack me you just show your ignorance.

I am more than capable of shooting in this style I have won several state belt buckles doing it - I just don't choose to now as there are more accurate methods out there. If you really think he isn't using his arrow as a reference point you should go down in your basement (assuming your house has one which I doubt) extinguish all the lights and try and shoot a lazer dot on a target. I have done this and you can't hit crap if you can't see your bow - so clearly you are using your bow arm for a reference - heck it is hard to stand straight much less shoot with a total lack of reference points. I have never questioned you or sharp when you say you don't look at your bow but, if you think you don't use it to aim you are flat our wrong.

If I cared enough I would track down a quote from your hero sharp where he admits this to be exactly the case.

So please crawl back under your rock and keep your mouth shut you will look much much less ignorant.

Matt


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> OK I looked at the vid - cool stuff but how can you say he doesn't use the arrow to aim - unless his eyes are closed or he is blind he is using the arrow the aim - I take guys like sharp at their word that they aren't "Looking" at the arrow but, they are absolutely using it to aim with - it is right freaking there.
> 
> Matt




Well,mr potter,this is the statement that I commented about. You don't have a clue what anyone sees or does not see. I don't care if you are a beltbuckle,you still can't make an absolute statement that someone has to be useing the arrow to aim just because it's there under their nose. That's a dumb argument that goes on all the time and the only thing I can gather from it is that some people just don't get the picture. Maybe you can visualize the target at the end of the arrow as itbeso and gary does,but I failed to grasp it. No shame to me because I don't see the same picture they do. I tried it because I believe it would work well but in my case I had a mental block. I just don't need another method of shooting. The way I've always done it works fine for my purposes. I believe it's the same for those of you who don't know how to shoot instinctively. No shame on you, I understand that you are unable to see the picture the same way as I do.
But I might add mr potter, that you have not exactly associated yourself with the best company in the last couple of days. The troll that has come here to stir up a stink obviously is not getting satisfaction from the other site or was maybe chased off by his own tribe. Don't know,don't care,but I went over there and did a little reading. Not impressed,but I did notice your presence there.

BTW,mr flipflop, in the first statement you say the 'he', whomever 'he' is in this case, is absolutely useing the arrow to 'aim'. Then you turn around and say it's the bow or bow arm. I don't remember any of us saying that the bow or bow arm is not visible to us during the shot,nor that it's not being used by the subconcious to make the shot.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

This is how instinctive archery is done if one is not looking at or using the arrow to aim???? I don't know??? That's what's being told as such, so no wonder the confusion.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> OK I looked at the vid - cool stuff but how can you say he doesn't use the arrow to aim - unless his eyes are closed or he is blind he is using the arrow the aim - I take guys like sharp at their word that they aren't "Looking" at the arrow but, they are absolutely using it to aim with - it is right freaking there.
> 
> Matt


Matt,

Does a quaterback use the football to aim with?

Does the basketball player use the basketball to aim with?

Does a pitcher use the baseball to aim with?

No...they are relying on hand and eye coordination...that involves the mind consciously picking the target and making the decision to shoot or throw while allowing proprioception and muscle/motor memory to execute the shot. It's a reflex action rather than one that is consciously/analytically calculated for every movement or body position to nearest fraction of an inch.

Kassai is simply pointing his bow arm at the target and NOT consciously setting his gap NOR picking a secondary aiming reference to use. The movement is fast and fluid with little to no time to consciously set gaps.

Do you recognize the differences?

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> This is how instinctive archery is done if one is not looking at or using the arrow to aim???? I don't know??? That's what's being told as such, so no wonder the confusion.
> 
> View attachment 1493594


EXACTLY!

There's Instinctive Aiming...and than there's Gap Aiming at a lower level of conscious awareness. This is what people are confusing at NOT understanding.

The speed of execution DOES play a roll in this.

The closer the arrow is within the archer's direct line of vision and the longer the archer holds anchor and adjusts their sight picture...the greater the conscious mind has to either see the aiming reference and/or use it to some degree or another.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> The closer the arrow is within the archer's direct line of vision and the longer the archer holds anchor and adjusts their sight picture...the greater the conscious mind has to either see the aiming reference and/or use it to some degree or another.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Or, in the alternative, the more someone is going to question your motive for setting up a full aim but claim you don't see the aim. It's not calling folks liars, just being real.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Or, in the alternative, the more someone is going to question your motive for setting up a full aim but claim you don't see the aim. It's not calling folks liars, just being real.


Ultimately...here's where the problem lies within knowing for sure.

The human mind is an amazing creation...and ultimately...it's the archer that knows for sure or not. Some archers can be confusing the fact that they are only focused on the target and there is no way the conscious mind can be also aware of the arrow in their sight picture. The fact is....in more circumstances than not...they are aware of it....but it's just at a low level of conscious awareness just as someone driving down the road is aware of the lines in the road even though they are not looking at them...and the lines are usually much further from the eye than the arrow is to an archer's eye.

It's a simple case of misunderstanding, not researching it enough or just plain stubborness for one reason or another....BUT...I don't rule out the possibility for everyone.

Ray :shade:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

As someone with some athletic ability , I concur that I aim "instinctively" a lot but in reality it just means that I am not consciously using the arrow as a reference point ... 

... but the one thing I am sure of is that this is now the most impotent archery place on the internet ... The continued multi quoting is sooooo very draining and dull ...

I have just discovered how to use the ignore feature ...

giddyyyuppp !


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

It all was clarified when the gappers were claiming that they use the same gap for 30 yards as they do for 15 yards - even though a bow with an arrow travelling 200 fps would drop over 20 inches if you zeroed it in at 15 yards and shot 30 yards - then they claimed that they can see and hold a difference in gaps as small as 1/8"! 

All these guys that are saying nobody really shoots instinctive and everyone is actually a gap shooter have it just the opposite - the reality is that these guys who claim to be gap shooters are actually shooting instinctive - their subconscious is doing the mechanics of aiming that bow - there is no way in hell that one could use the same gap for two distances that would result in more than 20 inches of drop if you used a sight and the same sight for both distances.

I think the issue is that some people are just too proud to face the fact that they are actually not doing this - that it is an amazing gift that God gave us - this ability to just look at something and shoot and actually hit it - these guys want to take credit and claim that they are somehow so amazing that they are lining up everything, calculating the distance, triangulating the arc of the arrow, seeing the extremely small gaps with their big fat arrows, etc... - all at a conscious level - because they are amazing guys - it is not this wonderous gift of the subconscious - the supercomputer that God gave us - it is them - they are soooooo smart and soooooo goood that they do it all by themselves.

I will take the humble approach, I know that I suck at judging distances, I know that I could never see a 1/8" gap with my big fat arrows and certainly never consciously hold it, I know that the only thing I am doing is concentrating on what I want to hit - and this amazing gift that God gave us all is perfoming all the necessary mechanics of aiming that bow. My part was to find and perfect a form that was consistent - that took and takes practice - but the aim - that is all done by the grace of God via the subconscious part of my brain that He gave me and all of us.

These guys claiming that they use the same gap for 15 and 30 yards are OBVIOUSLY just roughly lining things up for the shot - the actually aiming - you know the part and mechancis that make up for that 20 inch difference noted above - is done at a subconscious level - it has to be - or these guys who use the same gap for 15 yards and 30 yards would be the worst shots on the planet!

There are some people who just love to be in control all the time - at least to think that they are in control. They have major issues surrendering the shot to the subconscious - so they invent things that they think they are doing - such as shooting the same gap for 15 yards as for 30 yards - and in their minds they can say that they are controlling the shot - they are to proud to admit that it is simply the amazing gift of God that is doing it - the subconscious.

Whatever - there is no point in going round and round - I will state what I believe when it comes up for the sake of new guys - but I am not going to go round and round - that incredible comment that appears to be backed up by all the gap shooters here - that the gap is the same for a 30 yard shot as it is for a 15 yard shot - speaks volumes to anyone who really thinks about it - and if one cannot figure it out - there is nothing I can do or say - it is like trying to teach algebra to a 6 year old - it just ain't gonna happen - they are not capable of understanding it.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> This is how instinctive archery is done if one is not looking at or using the arrow to aim???? I don't know??? That's what's being told as such, so no wonder the confusion.
> 
> View attachment 1493594



That's how it's done by that person. Not everyone. I don't let the arrow get that close to my eye nor the string to my nose. I'm skeered.
Am I the only one who can see that those eyes are not looking at the arrow but focused on something else probably a lot farther away. Looks obvious to me.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

benofthehood said:


> As someone with some athletic ability , I concur that I aim "instinctively" a lot but in reality it just means that I am not consciously using the arrow as a reference point ...
> 
> ... but the one thing I am sure of is that this is now the most impotent archery place on the internet ... The continued multi quoting is sooooo very draining and dull ...
> 
> ...


Click - it is a beautiful thing

Matt


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

:wave:


benofthehood said:


> As someone with some athletic ability , I concur that I aim "instinctively" a lot but in reality it just means that I am not consciously using the arrow as a reference point ...
> 
> ... but the one thing I am sure of is that this is now the most impotent archery place on the internet ... The continued multi quoting is sooooo very draining and dull ...
> 
> ...




:set1_rolf2: Goodbye


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

of course it is obvious that he is not looking down the arrow - he doesn't do that - he is focused on the target - but they don't want to see or admit that - just like they claim that there is some vast difference in the relationship of the arrow to my eye as there is to fred asbell - check it out - wow - huge difference there - hey:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - beneofthehood - said:

"As someone with some athletic ability , I concur that I aim "instinctively" a lot but in reality it just means that I am not consciously using the arrow as a reference point"


HELLO - if you are not consciously using the arrow as a reference to aim - then you are BY DEFINITION shooting instinctive - this is hysterical!

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary:

Main Entry: in·stinct
Pronunciation: in-sti(k)t
Function: noun
1 : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
2 :* behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level *

Hello????


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

amazing


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

next we will have BlackWolf drawing some imaginary lines on the photo of Welch to tell us where he is looking


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Ummm Ken ... I thought I was agreeing with you ..... More so that I am sure people will tell me that I am not aiming " instinctively " evn though I am not paying any attention to the arrow etc etc .....

But have at it .....

This place is just wierd.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

sharpbroadhead said:


> It all was clarified when the gappers were claiming that they use the same gap for 30 yards as they do for 15 yards - even though a bow with an arrow travelling 200 fps would drop over 20 inches if you zeroed it in at 15 yards and shot 30 yards - then they claimed that they can see and hold a difference in gaps as small as 1/8"!
> 
> All these guys that are saying nobody really shoots instinctive and everyone is actually a gap shooter have it just the opposite - the reality is that these guys who claim to be gap shooters are actually shooting instinctive - their subconscious is doing the mechanics of aiming that bow - there is no way in hell that one could use the same gap for two distances that would result in more than 20 inches of drop if you used a sight and the same sight for both distances.
> 
> ...




POST OF THE DAY. Heck maybe even the whole year.
Looks like we are getting very close to proving that there are no 'gap shooters'. Just control freaks who like to think they are actually setting some 'gap' and then focusing their attention elsewhere to actually make the shot.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

sharpbroadhead said:


> LOL - beneofthehood - said:
> 
> "As someone with some athletic ability , I concur that I aim "instinctively" a lot but in reality it just means that I am not consciously using the arrow as a reference point"
> 
> ...




I don't know. Hysterical or sad? Kinda sad that this many people aren't even aware of the reality and prefer to go on kidding themselves.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)




----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

benofthehood said:


> Ummm Ken ... I thought I was agreeing with you ..... More so that I am sure people will tell me that I am not aiming " instinctively " evn though I am not paying any attention to the arrow etc etc .....
> 
> But have at it .....
> 
> This place is just wierd.


Yeah. It's everyone else. For sure.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> View attachment 1493686



I'm sure that will help but I could suggest other ways to keep from shooting your nose.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

sharpbroadhead said:


> next we will have BlackWolf drawing some imaginary lines on the photo of Welch to tell us where he is looking


You had to suggest that, didn't you.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)




----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

FORESTGUMP said:


> POST OF THE DAY. Heck maybe even the whole year.
> Looks like we are getting very close to proving that there are no 'gap shooters'. Just control freaks who like to think they are actually setting some 'gap' and then focusing their attention elsewhere to actually make the shot.


I'm down with that. No sights = "instinctive". Just like the good old days. Problem solved.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> As someone with some athletic ability , I concur that I aim "instinctively" a lot but in reality it just means that I am not consciously using the arrow as a reference point ...
> 
> ... but the one thing I am sure of is that this is now the most impotent archery place on the internet ... The continued multi quoting is sooooo very draining and dull ...
> 
> ...



Ben,Ben,Ben. 'In reality', I don't think sharpbroadhead meant his comment as you apparently took it. I think it was the bending over cut and run tone of your post that triggered his response. You shoot instinctive but seeming to be apologetic at the same time. Nothing to apologize for,if you know how to do it you are obviously among the elite few around here.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> View attachment 1493690



That's not what I was going to suggest but you are hardly recognizable in the photo with your head hidden.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Nicely played Mr Potter


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> Nicely played Mr Potter



That's funny stuff right ther. Duh,I did read your post. And reread it too. That's why I was attempting to be nice and take a shot at clearing up the confusion. Looks like I missed.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> next we will have BlackWolf drawing some imaginary lines on the photo of Welch to tell us where he is looking


I can if you want.

It's very easy to do.

All a person needs is a picture of the archer's dominant eye, the bow and arrow and the target all in the same picture.

Here's the hard part...LOL...you than draw a line from the dominant eye to what the archer is looking at...which in most cases is the target...and than you can see what the archer may be using within their direct line of sight as an aiming reference. Heck...this is something my grandson can do.

Ray :shade:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Yeah Forest it was a bit harsh but tongue in cheek too ... so i deleted it ........ apols .


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> Nicely played Mr Potter



What was nice? Him bending over behind some guy like he's sniffing his rearend? Strange sense of humor.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

FGump ... No one said Australians are normal .......


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

There's an old saying where I come from, " it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt". Well there are a couple on here that continually remove any shred of doubt that's for sure.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

I shot a lot if pool in the pool leagues at a 6 rating. Of course you look at your object ball while you are shooting. You don't focus on either the cuestick or the cue ball. You absolutely use the stick as a reference for aiming, though. Funny we don't have instinctive arguments among pool players because that is another sport where you shoot by aiming with a stick lined up somewhere under the master eye and used for an aiming reference even when you're not "looking at the stick". Just thought I'd throw that out there to try to give this thread a chance to get back on topic.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> that is another sport where you shoot by aiming with a stick lined up somewhere under the master eye and used for an aiming reference even when you're not "looking at the stick".


That's a fairly good analogy for how some archers line up their arrow and consciously use it at a lowel level of awareness as they concentrate more on the target...BUT...it's NOT the same as how a True Instinctive archer aims or how every archer uses the arrow...IF that is what you're trying to imply? Just throwing that out there too :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> That's a fairly good analogy for how some archers line up their arrow and consciously use it at a lowel level of awareness as they concentrate more on the target...BUT...it's NOT the same as how a True Instinctive archer aims or how every archer uses the arrow...IF that is what you're trying to imply? Just throwing that out there too :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Well, if you say they don't use the arrow lined up under the eye if they're true instinctive, then that's that. I wonder why they line it up under their eye if the visual cue has no bearing on how they're directing their arrow toward the target. Pure coincidence I suppose.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Looks like we are getting very close to proving that there are no 'gap shooters'. Just control freaks who like to think they are actually setting some 'gap' and then focusing their attention elsewhere to actually make the shot.


That was profound and thought provoking.

We need more of that here!

:amen:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

I'm wondering (after analyzing many posts here): do a lot of people drink alcoholic beverages or perhaps other substances while posting here?

Because things are getting more and more bizarre.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Friends don't let friends post drunk. MADD. Mothers Against Drunk Drivel.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Yup!

:teeth:


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Ther whole gap at the end of the arrow is what OSB seems to be missing with his constant 15 and 30 yards cannot be the same... Let me try to explain it... a fraction of an inch gap at the tip of my arrow at 15 yards... might be 12"s at the target yet that same fractional gap at the end of my arrow at 30 yards might be 30+"s at the target but it is still the same gap I use. My gap at the end of my arrow is the same at 4 yards and 40 yards, but the actual distance of the gap at the target is vastly different. my gap at 20 yards is 1 full inch at the tip of the arrow... but at the target it is huge. Hope that explains it a bit better.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

rsarns - you guys can dig and dig - but grant and others said that the gap is the same for 15 yards as it is for 30 yards - if whatever they are using for the gap is the same for those two distances - then they are not gap shooting - because there has to be a difference to make up for the 20 inches of drop between those two distances. Hope that helps you understand.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

OSB... read... I explained it. Grant uses the same technique I do for Gapping. If 1/4 at the tip of my arrow is 10 inches at the target at 15 yards (guessing), then at 30 yards that 1/4 at the tip of my arrow is really 40+ inches... cut a 1/4 hole in paper and hold it at arms length,, look at 15 yards and 30 yards the gap at the target is a big difference, but the gap at the arrow tip is the same. When I sight in (rough sighting) my rifle, i zero the scope at 25 yards, and that puts me close at 100 yards... ballistics.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

rsarns said:


> OSB... read... I explained it. Grant uses the same technique I do for Gapping. If 1/4 at the tip of my arrow is 10 inches at the target at 15 yards (guessing), then at 30 yards that 1/4 at the tip of my arrow is really 40+ inches... cut a 1/4 hole in paper and hold it at arms length,, look at 15 yards and 30 yards the gap at the target is a big difference, but the gap at the arrow tip is the same. When I sight in (rough sighting) my rifle, i zero the scope at 25 yards, and that puts me close at 100 yards... ballistics.


Here's why I don't get it. Grant states he has a 45 yard point-on. That means you have to gap low at 15. And at 30. But if its the same "low" gap, and, in your estimation it equates to, say, 10 inches at 15 but 40+ at 40, how could that work? 10 inches low at 15 and nearly three times as low at 30? The closer you get to point-on, the smaller the gap at the target should be. I'm not questioning what you see or think you see but trying to understand how the ballistic parabola can fit into this aiming scheme?????


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Maybe I am way off here... but when the arrow starts its ballistic flight it starts low, rises to the top of its arc and then falls to where it stops. back when I shot open class, my 4 yard had the same sight mark on my scope as my 45 did with that particular bow... If I could draw lines like Black wolf I'd try to show it better.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

I keep thinking about this. With a rifle zero of 25 and 100, the bullet crosses the sight plane on its way up at 25 and on the way down at 100. The sights would shoot somewhat low less than 25 and somewhat high from 25 to 99 yards. That's standard ballistics and follows standard models. 

If your gap equates to a "pin" position, its simply not possible as far as I can see for one pin to cover 15 yards at the velocities we shoot. And gapping "at the bow" does seem to be the same as marking the riser with a makeshift pin, for all intents and purposes, so its a real puzzle to try to figure out a way this can truly work as explained.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Actually, all projectiles start dropping immediately. Gravity is a law.

They rise, of course, if pointed upward.

Basic ballistics.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

rsarns said:


> Maybe I am way off here... but when the arrow starts its ballistic flight it starts low, rises to the top of its arc and then falls to where it stops. back when I shot open class, my 4 yard had the same sight mark on my scope as my 45 did with that particular bow... If I could draw lines like Black wolf I'd try to show it better.


That's right. Shoot 5 yards with the 50 pin. But that pin or gap eouldnt work for 10 or 15 or 30 or any other distance except 50 where the arc once again intersects on the way down. See the logical conundrum of one-pin. Shooting a linear range outside of zero?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)




----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Logos said:


> Actually, all projectiles start dropping immediately. Gravity is a law.
> 
> They rise, of course, if pointed upward.
> 
> Basic ballistics.


If that is true, then why is the tip of my arrow pointed into the dirt at 20 yards?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Logos said:


> Actually, all projectiles start dropping immediately. Gravity is a law.
> 
> They rise, of course, if pointed upward.
> 
> Basic ballistics.


good place to start is with the standard trajectory calculation for an arrow in a frictionless world. The calculation is based on Newton's laws of motion which relate acceleration, velocity, and time to


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> If that is true, then why is the tip of my arrow pointed into the dirt at 20 yards?


It's true (it's a law of physics, don't blame me) and I can't comment about your arrow since I don't know its angle of departure.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

rsarns said:


> If that is true, then why is the tip of my arrow pointed into the dirt at 20 yards?


Parallax. Your line of sight is not the same as the trajectory of the arrow. Your line of sight is always straight and the flight of an arrow perpendicular to gravity never is straight. 

Your arrow starts its flight shooting under your aim point and crosses that point for your first zero, continues the parabolic curve upward till it peaks and starts falling to cross the line of sight one last time at your second zero.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Best way to see if it works... try it.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Robert Williams said:


> Parallax.


That it is!


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

rsarns said:


> That it is!


Not paradox, of course.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

rsarns said:


> If that is true, then why is the tip of my arrow pointed into the dirt at 20 yards?


There's a difference in what an archer perceives where the arrow is pointing at in their sight picture and what the arrow is actually pointing at.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

rsarns said:


> OSB... read... I explained it. Grant uses the same technique I do for Gapping. If 1/4 at the tip of my arrow is 10 inches at the target at 15 yards (guessing), then at 30 yards that 1/4 at the tip of my arrow is really 40+ inches... cut a 1/4 hole in paper and hold it at arms length,, look at 15 yards and 30 yards the gap at the target is a big difference, but the gap at the arrow tip is the same. When I sight in (rough sighting) my rifle, i zero the scope at 25 yards, and that puts me close at 100 yards... ballistics.


You are trying to compare the ballistics of a bullet that is travelling at thousands of feet per second to the ballistics of an arrow that is travelling at 200 fps? I guess if that makes your theory work.

Here is an archery ballistics calculator - it clearly shows that if you zero in a 200 fps arrow at 15 yards and shoot it 30 yards that arrow will be over 20 inches low - http://www.outdoorsden.com/archery/archbal.asp


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I will repeat this post for rsarns



sharpbroadhead said:


> It all was clarified when the gappers were claiming that they use the same gap for 30 yards as they do for 15 yards - even though a bow with an arrow travelling 200 fps would drop over 20 inches if you zeroed it in at 15 yards and shot 30 yards - then they claimed that they can see and hold a difference in gaps as small as 1/8"!
> 
> All these guys that are saying nobody really shoots instinctive and everyone is actually a gap shooter have it just the opposite - the reality is that these guys who claim to be gap shooters are actually shooting instinctive - their subconscious is doing the mechanics of aiming that bow - there is no way in hell that one could use the same gap for two distances that would result in more than 20 inches of drop if you used a sight and the same sight for both distances.
> 
> ...


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Sharp... my arrow is zero'd at 45... and just so happens the 4 and 40 are the same gap at my arrow tip also.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

if you put a sight on your bow and sighted it in at 40 yards and your arrow was travelling at 200 fps you would be over 6 inches high if you shot the forty yard sight at 4 yards - these are undeniable ballistics and expose that you are really not aiming the way you keep telling yourself you are - see post above.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Yur right sharp I shoot instinctively... I am done.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Well, if you say they don't use the arrow lined up under the eye if they're true instinctive, then that's that. I wonder why they line it up under their eye if the visual cue has no bearing on how they're directing their arrow toward the target. Pure coincidence I suppose.


An archer can start off learning one of the other barebow aiming techniques that more or less needs the arrow somewhere below the eye and than later on learn how to aim Instinctively. 

This is the approach I took because I wanted lo learn any aiming technique that would give me an advantage to hit any target I wanted...which is why I can now aim Totally Instinctively, Gap/Gapstinctive, Split Vision and Point of Aim.

The fact is NOT every archer needs to have the arrow directly below their eye. Some archers...like many Native Americans used a floating anchor.

It really all depends upon the archer's goals and abilities.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> if you put a sight on your bow and sighted it in at 40 yards and your arrow was travelling at 200 fps you would be over 6 inches high if you shot the forty yard sight at 4 yards - these are undeniable ballistics and expose that you are really not aiming the way you keep telling yourself you are - see post above.


A sight is mounted above the arrow and at the same level as your eyesight. Big difference in visualization of arrow point, which is below your line of sight. Here, all bets are off on having a universal reference for close/far zeros as everyone does not have the same face structure, arrow length, etc... A mounted sight at the bow is about the same relation to eye and target for all.

Are you still working off that book on unchanging trajectory for elevation change


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

rsarns said:


> Maybe I am way off here... but when the arrow starts its ballistic flight it starts low, rises to the top of its arc and then falls to where it stops. back when I shot open class, my 4 yard had the same sight mark on my scope as my 45 did with that particular bow... If I could draw lines like Black wolf I'd try to show it better.


Ren, no lines needed. If you were dealing with people that knew anything about archery you could have an intelligent conversation. While I see my gaps different than you and gary there are some things that are common knowledge in the archery world. Trolls like Logos and Robert wouldn't know any of this because their knowledge is limited to what they have boned up on in the last few days. While I don't see it in my gaps, it is common knowledge in the archery world that freestyle archers shoot their short yardages for a much longer mark than what the yardage actually is. For example, on a freestyle sight tape, 5 yds is usually shot for about 25 yards, 4 yds is shot for about 35 yds, 3 yds is shot for about 45 yds, 2 yds for about 55 yds, etc.Of course those numbers are influenced by peep height , arrow speed, how far the scope extends in front of the bow, etc.. If you see your gaps in that manner, you're lucky. Mine are wider. While we are talking about gaps, I can't wait for next years competitions so we can put an end to all this instinctive vs gap or stringwalking bs. Why would anyone argue with sharp about how he aims? He thinks he aims instinctively so let him think that. Any intelligent person knows that you have to learn that method of shooting. I have no problem with him saying what he does as he obviously believes it in his heart. What Sharp doesn't realize that there is a new breed of recurve shooters coming to town and the old standards of what was good are no longer valid.Forewarned is forearmed Sharp, You really need to get a better aiming system.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

What is willfully being missed here with all these "experts" is that the bow has to be held differently for a 15 yard shot and a 30 yard shot - the sights example is just to illustrate the point.

If you took a 200 fps bow and set it up in a hooter shooter shooting machine and got it to hit the bullseye at 15 yards and left it in the hooter shooter set up for the 15 yard shot and then moved the target back to 30 yards and shot it - the arrow would be over 20 inches low - *20 inches!* This is no small amount - this is *HUGE*

So no matter what these guys claim about where a sight is lined up on a bow - where you anchor - if you gap at the target or somehwhere else.... - *THE BOW HAS TO BE HELD IN DIFFERENT POSITION TO MAKE THESE TWO SHOTS *(15 yards and 30 yards) *ACCURATELY!*

*To claim that they use the same gap for these two distances is IMPOSSIBLE - the bow HAS TO BE HELD IN A DIFFERENT POSITION!* And if these guys cannot perceive that differnet position with their "gap" method - this proves that they are actually changing the position of the bow at a subconscious level and they are not aiming the way they think they are aiming.

Case closed - no matter how much they try and twist this around - it is a simple fact that if the bow was held in the same position for a 15 yard shot as for a 30 yard shot - the 30 yard shot would be over 20 inches low! So if they think that their gap is the same (meaning that they are holding the bow in the same position) - they are dreaming - they are not - or they would be the worst shots in the world.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

itbeso - btw - I have shot against and beat gap shooters, stringwalkers, etc... - so I don't know what your point is - I can kill deer and shoot with the best of them - I don't need a new aiming system - if a guy stringwalking beats me by a few points so be it - I am not going to change the way I shoot just to gain a point or two - which likely would not happen anyhow - to use your words: "It is common knowledge in the archery world" that aiming is a very small part of the shot! - I am surprised that someone with your vast knowledge and expert status does not know this!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Sharp you know Ive said this before that I set my gap and let the subconscious keep the shot on target and help fine tune the aim BUT I still have some awareness of the sight picture/arrow it is not quite the same level as when Ive shoot instinctive method. A term know as Gapinstinctive so nobody is ashamed of anything, blending the best parts of two aiming methods seems very logical.

I also have another theory as to why people like myself can shoot 15 to 30 yards with same basic gap, it is a trick of our eyes where the target size changes with distance but allows us to see the same sight picture, an optical illusion so to speak, just an idea of what might be happening and have no proof/understanding of this either way.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sharpy, let me illustrate it with a picture. It's a really bad picture, and as such, I maintain all copyrights... 

I'm tempted to get into things that are not really necessary, but picture is probably best.

you are correct in describing the relative drop, and if you were launching the arrow horizontally, or even if you weren't, though it changes the gravitational pull vector relative to the initial velocity, but anyway, yes, it would look a lot like this, and if your eye were at the initial launch point, the gaps at distance A would never be the same as distance B.









However, consider that with our short distances compared to a rifle, the eye is significantly higher than the launch of the arrow (unless you're string walking for really close distances), and we have this scenario, in which case the arrow launches significantly upward relative to the perspective of the eye, and at a certain range, as it turns downward, travels fairly parallel with the direction we look to see it. If you were shooting horizontally, where the target is at the same elevation as the arrow before the shot, the arrow will make an arc, and will be rising until it's about halfway there, and then falling beyond that. When the arrow is approaching and leaving the top of the trajectory, is moving the most slowly in the vertical plane, and as such, is traveling relatively flat. 









Does that make more sense when it's drawn out? It does to me.


What they're saying is that with the arrow a particular distance from the eye, moving at about 200 fps, distance 'A' and distance 'B' come out to roughly 15 and 30 yards respectively, (or whatever the value) and because the distance between those distances is the top of the arc, the arrow isn't actually moving much up or down, and as such, will stay within a fairly tight window, so you can use the same gap for A&B (at the bow, not at the target), because it crosses the same line of sight, and everything in between will be pretty close, though a little high. There will still be a place for the subconscious to make those small corrections (and it can still be the subconscious that sets the sight window to begin with) but the geometry of it, no matter how you do it, isn't that ludicrous.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> Ren, no lines needed. If you were dealing with people that knew anything about archery you could have an intelligent conversation. While I see my gaps different than you and gary there are some things that are common knowledge in the archery world. Trolls like Logos and Robert wouldn't know any of this because their knowledge is limited to what they have boned up on in the last few days. While I don't see it in my gaps, it is common knowledge in the archery world that freestyle archers shoot their short yardages for a much longer mark than what the yardage actually is. For example, on a freestyle sight tape, 5 yds is usually shot for about 25 yards, 4 yds is shot for about 35 yds, 3 yds is shot for about 45 yds, 2 yds for about 55 yds, etc.Of course those numbers are influenced by peep height , arrow speed, how far the scope extends in front of the bow, etc.. If you see your gaps in that manner, you're lucky. Mine are wider. While we are talking about gaps, I can't wait for next years competitions so we can put an end to all this instinctive vs gap or stringwalking bs. Why would anyone argue with sharp about how he aims? He thinks he aims instinctively so let him think that. Any intelligent person knows that you have to learn that method of shooting. I have no problem with him saying what he does as he obviously believes it in his heart. What Sharp doesn't realize that there is a new breed of recurve shooters coming to town and the old standards of what was good are no longer valid.Forewarned is forearmed Sharp, You really need to get a better aiming system.


I've probably fletched more arrows than you've shot, You're one of those special kids who's willingness to talk **** about something is inversely proportional to what you actually know about it. You sound like FG's soulmate.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Nicely explained Barneyslayer


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

steve morley said:


> I also have another theory as to why people like myself can shoot 15 to 30 yards with same basic gap, it is a trick of our eyes where the target size changes with distance but allows us to see the same sight picture, an optical illusion so to speak, just an idea of what might be happening and have no proof/understanding of this either way.


I think you hit the nail on the head. It's really not possible to have the same physical gap but it could be possible to have the same perceived gap. The proof is if it actually eliminates those pesky high and low misses. I suspect it won't but that doesn't mean it won't help at least some if you like it and find it simple to use. There's value in simplicity, alone. I'm still interested in seeing what you think over the long run. 

I've been shooting for over 40 years, now and I don't think my perception is going to go along with the program but if it works for you, then its a neat trick to have up your sleeve.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Thanks everyone ... it's been fun, but the real world of Neuro medicine is calling ...


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> I've probably fletched more arrows than you've shot, You're one of those special kids who's willingness to talk **** about something is inversely proportional to what you actually know about it. You sound like FG's soulmate.


Robert, you've fletched more arrows than I've shot and I forgot more, last week, about archery than you know. I know it gets lonely in the back of that archery shop clamping those Bitzenbergers, but really, did you have to invent a talk buddy, LOgos, and bring him on here. Shame, Robert, shame!


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> Sharpy, let me illustrate it with a picture. It's a really bad picture, and as such, I maintain all copyrights...
> 
> I'm tempted to get into things that are not really necessary, but picture is probably best.
> 
> ...


Between 15 and 30 yards. Is 20 to 30 inches of arch. Even if you've sighted so that the peak is right in the middle at 22.5 yards and cut the arch in half, you've still got 10 to 15 to account for. Nowhere would there be a 15 yard flat spot in the arrow flight. 

Remember that bows with sights and guns with scopes all have the eye significantly above the arrow or barrel. Projectiles are projectiles and ballistics. Are ballistics. The variations are drag and velocity but gravity doesn't change and affects ballistics the same way for all projectiles. 

Another thing that can't compute is the theory that with a point on of around 45 yards, you will have the parabolic apex at 22.5 (halfway between 15 and 30). Hats not possible because the rate of fall increases geometrically with time in travel. The apex for a 45 yard zero should be a little over 2/3 of the distance, maybe 33 yards. So the "flat line" for the very brief distance you've got it would be there, not halfway between 15 and 30. If you are point on at 35, you'll have a flight apex at around 25 yards, though.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> Robert, you've fletched more arrows than I've shot and I forgot more, last week, about archery than you know. I know it gets lonely in the back of that archery shop clamping those Bitzenbergers, but really, did you have to invent a talk buddy, LOgos, and bring him on here. Shame, Robert, shame!


There you go again. The less you know about something or someone, the more you flap your gums about it. Oh we'll. your problem, not mine, so carry on.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

wow - no they are drawing pics to try and make the case that a gap shooter can hold the same gap at 15 and 30 yards - meaning - that they are holding the bow in the same position for both shots - which would mean that the 30 yard shot would be 20 inches low - all these drawings all these lines of sight - etc... mean nothing if the archer claims to be using the same gap for these two distances


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Think about this...IF an archer can perceive not to see the arrow...even though it's near or in the archer's direct line of sight...it can than be very possible that some archers perceive similar or the same gaps for different yardages.

Just something to consider.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

wow - now we can perceive not to see an arrow - LOL - and these are the ArcheryTalk experts speaking - just something to consider.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I stand by this post




sharpbroadhead said:


> It all was clarified when the gappers were claiming that they use the same gap for 30 yards as they do for 15 yards - even though a bow with an arrow travelling 200 fps would drop over 20 inches if you zeroed it in at 15 yards and shot 30 yards - then they claimed that they can see and hold a difference in gaps as small as 1/8"!
> 
> All these guys that are saying nobody really shoots instinctive and everyone is actually a gap shooter have it just the opposite - the reality is that these guys who claim to be gap shooters are actually shooting instinctive - their subconscious is doing the mechanics of aiming that bow - there is no way in hell that one could use the same gap for two distances that would result in more than 20 inches of drop if you used a sight and the same sight for both distances.
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

sharpbroadhead said:


> wow - no they are drawing pics to try and make the case that a gap shooter can hold the same gap at 15 and 30 yards - meaning - that they are holding the bow in the same position for both shots - which would mean that the 30 yard shot would be 20 inches low - all these drawings all these lines of sight - etc... mean nothing if the archer claims to be using the same gap for these two distances


Using the same gap for two distances is legitimately possible. Using the same gap over a 15 yard span not so possible. Unless it is, as Steve theorized, a perceived gap. Actually, I was thinking about diagramming the parabolic curve over (5 yards and shooting a line of sight across it to show its not nearly flat over that distance, but to what point? If someone subscribes to that and it works for them, I don't want to bust their bubble. It just doesn't work as explained to me. I'm guessing that Barney is right and subconscious adjustments are necessary but they're probably not really minor. A 20 inch window is a lot to account for even if you could bracket it right in the middle of your targeted range.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Think about this...IF an archer can perceive not to see the arrow...even though it's near or in the archer's direct line of sight...it can than be very possible that some archers perceive similar or the same gaps for different yardages.
> 
> Just something to consider.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Agreed. Contrary to the popular axiom, perception isn't reality but its still perception. And I can't account.for someone else's any more than you can. We can only guess.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Regardless of the point on, if the arc ends and begins at the same height, unless you're getting some serious drag, so that it's moving a lot slower at the target end (and maybe it is), the apex should be pretty near the center. If you're aiming up or down, in an absolute vertical vector, you maybe don't have an apex, but you set the new 'vertical' vector as perpendicular to the line of sight to the target, it should be pretty close to center.

I'm not vouching for 15/35 yards as point A or B. With my anchor, I'm probably peaking relative to my gaps at the bow at about 10 yards or so. I haven't actually measured it.

I'm working from physics I haven't really done seriously in many years, so forgive me, but.....

I did a spreadsheet, based on D=1/2at^2








What you need to consider is that for when the apex is happening, relative to the line of sight, the vertical travel of the arrow is minimal. The maximum vertical travel on a horizontal trajectory happens at the beginning and end of the shot. If you consider the sheer drop of the arrow calculated from a horizontally launched arrow, yes, at 30 yards, it is falling quickly, and it is much farther than it was at 15. However, keep in mind, that if you're actually shooting an arrow horizontally, the eye is looking down, so relative to the line of sight, it hasn't dropped nearly as much.

Also, consider that if we actually are launching the arrow in an even arc, purely as an example, that halfway there (or a little past that if you factor in air resistance, it the horizontal travel will in fact slow with drag), at the apex, the vertical travel is going upward, and then _slows_ as it approaches the apex, becomes zero at the apex, and then accelerates downward after the apex at roughly the same rate it slowed upward at the approach of the apex. This roughly translates the same relative to line of sight if you substituted the line of sight for the horizontal plane.

So, in other words, the rise in the arrow before the apex is then negated on the fall after the apex, (it has to waste rise and drop going both ways) so you get effectively twice the distance for the same amount of vertical drop, which is minimized since the center of that drop is zero'd. We're not actually dropping at the rate we'd be dropping if we were concerned about if it was a pure vertical drop from a horizontal launch that started with a vertical velocity of zero. We started with a vertical velocity component UP, and as it approaches the apex, it _slows_. At the apex, the arrow is moving perfectly horizontal, by definition, and has a vertical velocity of nada. 

So, if we had an arrow traveling at 200 fps (and we say it doesn't slow down, just for simplicity's sake, for the 13 1/3 yards it would travel on both sides of the apex, be it actual trajectory, or relative to line of sight, we're looking at 1.92 inches of total vertical travel. With 26 2/3 yards of apex, 7.68 inches of vertical travel. With 40 yards straddling the apex, 17.28 inches of vertical travel. If the actual trajectory doesn't have a horizontal line between the end and beginning points (you're shooting up or down), the difference relative to line of sight becomes even smaller, as the gravitational forces affect the curve of the trajectory less.

See what I'm getting at? If I screwed my math up, I apologize, and please point out where I missed something.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Sharp I dont really care if you believe this is possible or not but when people say youre not able to shoot without seeing the arrow and you get pretty upset, well youre doing exactly the same in this thread and acting no better than the people saying you must be seeing the arrow, it is obvious you have no serious interest in listening to what people are saying here, so why are you even posting?


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> Regardless of the point on, if the arc ends and begins at the same height, unless you're getting some serious drag, so that it's moving a lot slower at the target end (and maybe it is), the apex should be pretty near the center.


That isn't correct. The apex can't be near the center in a horizontal launch. Vertical, yes, but horizontal, no. 

Barney, because the effect of gravity is geometric instead if linear, the apex of any non-powered projectile path reaches apex well past the center point. If you had a ballistics chart, you would see that it would go up in a gentle curve and descend in a much steeper one. Because the effect is cumulative, the rate of fall escalates. Think about throwing a rock. The high point will be close to 2/3 of the total distance travelled. It's the same for stones, arrows, bullets; any projectile.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> wow - now we can perceive not to see an arrow - LOL - and these are the ArcheryTalk experts speaking - just something to consider.


LOL...yes...you claim to not consciously see your arrow even when I've shown within your own picture that it is within or very close to your direct line of sight to the target.

It's no more impossible for YOU to claim you do NOT consciously see or use the arrow to adjust your aim than it is for someone to say that their gaps look to be the same at different distances.

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Using the same gap for two distances is legitimately possible. Using the same gap over a 15 yard span not so possible. Unless it is, as Steve theorized, a perceived gap. Actually, I was thinking about diagramming the parabolic curve over (5 yards and shooting a line of sight across it to show its not nearly flat over that distance, but to what point? If someone subscribes to that and it works for them, I don't want to bust their bubble. It just doesn't work as explained to me. I'm guessing that Barney is right and subconscious adjustments are necessary but they're probably not really minor. A 20 inch window is a lot to account for even if you could bracket it right in the middle of your targeted range.


In the immortal word of Robert Williams" There you go again, the less you know about something, the more you flap your gums about it". This is a classic case in point!!!


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> In the immortal word of Robert Williams" There you go again, the less you know about something, the more you flap your gums about it". This is a classic case in point!!!


One of us knows something about ballistics. Guess which one? Hint: not you.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> acting no better than the people saying you must be seeing the arrow,


Really, Steve? Acting no better? Maybe your post wasn't directed at me...because I've never said that he 'must' be but I have indicated that I think he most likely is based on the evidence I saw.

Is pointing out an archer's direct line of sight and showing how close the arrow is to that direct line of sight using eveidence to express an opinion really that out of line in your opinion?

I've stated to sharp...it is my opinion based on some of his testimony, opinions, pictures and videos...that I do not believe he isn't consciously aware or seeing his arrow at some level of conscious awareness...which I can NOT prove what he perceives, thinks he sees or doesn't see.

I've NEVER called him a liar. I've only expressed my doubts based on the evidence.

I think sharp or anyone else has a right to challenge whether or not an archer perceives the same gap for different distances based on ballistic evidence.

What I do NOT approve of when challenged they go totally defensive, act like victims or start making snide comments. If they start that crap...they should expect to have it thrown right back at 'em.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

P.s. to Barney. You do have to factor in the drag you mentioned, which had considerable effect and moves the apex even farther, especially compared to bullet trajectories. Bullets have much higher mass to drag surface than arrows do.

And as you look at that chart also remember that velocities are vastly higher for firearms as shown on the chart. With time in travel being a very important factor, a 200 fps arrow would have a similar trajectory over 50 yards as a .22 rifle at 1400 fps would have over.350 yards without even adding in the drag n its a pretty extreme parabolic arch.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> wow - now we can perceive not to see an arrow - LOL - and these are the ArcheryTalk experts speaking - just something to consider.



Hmmm an idea/theory has been put forward, people are debating with own ideas and theories and unlike you without implying expert status or stupidity, this is the way the normal life works to making advancements in this world, just something to consider. So you would rather try and make people look stupid than find a rational answer to a question, Im kinda glad youre a rare breed or we would all still be in the stone age scatching our hairy arses.


Ray I was thinking more of the Leathwall days when people would throw these instinct doesnt exist statements in with the sole intention of seeing mayhem follow, sharp by implying expert status or stupidity just wants to see chaos unfold and has no intention of adding anything constructive to the thread. 

When I dropped this idea into the thread I made it clear it was just an idea, I wasnt claiming this was actually happening or that I had any understanding of its workings, just something that might explain how people can precieve the same visual gap for 15 to 30 yards


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Back to the same stuff again - I guess these guys have never been watching a TV show, football game or news broadcast that they were totally focused on and then had their wife ask them a question and they did not hear it at all - did they not hear it - how could they not hear it - she said it plenty loud enough and she was in the room with them? They must be liars and must have actually heard her - but are just ignoring her - right?

Or - how about the simple explanation that makes the most sense and is true - thta their focus and concentration was on the TV and everything else was filtered or blocked out and that is they did not hear their wife - this happens to us on a regular basis - but somehow to say that one is totally focused on the spot that they want to hit that they don't see anything else - oh - suddenly then that is impossible.

Regarding my comments - unlike the people claiming that we instinctive shooters are liars and actually do see and use the arrow at a conscious level to aim - my comments are based on exactly what was said. When a guy like grant and all these other gappers say that they use the same gap for a 15 yard shot and a 30 yard shot - I can prove that this is impossible by ballistics - they may THINK that they are using the same gap - but it is not possible - because if the exact same gap was used for a 15 yard shot as for a 30 yard shot - the arrow would be over 20 inches off the mark - this is an undeniable fact.

Now steve says it might be a "perceived" gap - and I can agree with this - and this "perceived gap" is proof that they are actually aiming the bow at a subconscious level - because what they consciously perceive is not reality - though - a "deceived gap" would be a better phrase than a "perceived gap".

Oh - and regarding that silly comment about "Perceiving the arrow not to be there" - please take the time to look up the word perceive - you cannot perceive something to not be there.


per·ceive
   [per-seev] Show IPA 

verb (used with object), per·ceived, per·ceiv·ing. 
1. to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses: I perceived an object looming through the mist. 

2. to recognize, discern, envision, or understand: I perceive a note of sarcasm in your voice. This is a nice idea but I perceive difficulties in putting it into practice. 


But someone who has dedicated thier life to study and is an expert on all things sports related including the subconscious and concious mind - should have known that - shouldn't they? 

oh - and btw - I have never claimed expert status on anything other than how I shoot


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Thank you for a slightly more constructive input into the thread.

Today I did any experiment, two 40cm Field faces on top of each other, this helped make the gap easier to see, at 15 yards it the bottom of second face, I maintained that gap back to 30 yards and no arrows were dropping out, My idea is that as we move back the target gets smaller so although were putting the same place it is fact a decreasing gap due to the optical illusion. I was thinking tomorrow I would also put a sight on the bow, still Gap but also take a mental note to see if the sight has moved in relation to riser/target


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

steve morley said:


> Thank you for a slightly more constructive input into the thread.
> 
> Today I did any experiment, two 40cm Field faces on top of each other, this helped make the gap easier to see, at 15 yards it the bottom of second face, I maintained that gap back to 30 yards and no arrows were dropping out, My idea is that as we move back the target gets smaller so although were putting the same place it is fact a decreasing gap due to the optical illusion. I was thinking tomorrow I would also put a sight on the bow, still Gap but also take a mental note to see if the sight has moved in relation to riser/target


The sight is a good idea but I think you would actually have to use the pin as a sight to iron it out. If your perception of the gap at the riser can change as the targets get farther and smaller, then perception of pin placement could parallel that. But no matter because it would still be more testing of a theory and that's always good regardless of the outcome. A simple bit of tape on your riser marking your gap "hard" would be a very simple way to this quick and easy. Just an idea for you.

Another thing that would be interesting would be to shoot a challenging 3d field with a rangefinder. Guess how far. Shoot it and then check the distance and see if you don't miss high or low when you are wrong about the distance like you normally would. That's supposed to be the real value of this methodology - elimination of high/low misses with a single aiming point at any distance 15 to 30. If it only works when you perceive the distance right, its no different than anything else except maybe simpler that some methods.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

CFGuy said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Regarding instinctive vs. gap shooting - I honestly want to write a neuro paper on this, and if I had a class in university that allowed me to do that at the moment I would, and settle (at least semantically) the circular debate of conscious learning becoming unconscious motor patterns, peripheral vision influence, and the various parts of the brain that are involved (but no neuro this semester unfortunately). In short, I don't want this to become another heated discussion (though I'm sure there will be debate).
> 
> ...


Well...if your going to write a paper on the subject,perhaps (IMHO)...it would be more advantageous and meaningful to use the word non-conscious instead of unconscious to start with since we aren't sleep learning or being placed in some type of trance state while shooting the bows.....( just saying...:wink::wink: ) unless of course you are introducing those aspect...


Perhaps you could introduce a few real world variables along with a time factor with this (longer vs shorter wait times )...of visual acuity and depth perception and how these 3 things interact and can effect scoring provided you are doing a feild study with subjects having those traits while shooting those methods.This is of course your interested in that aspect of it...however I think it could get pretty time consuming and lengthy though........

Sigh.........

As you can see from all of the bickering here on the subject..the easily stepped in trap of arguing the semantics of the various styles,is futile and a waste of valuable time. That won't ever change since everyone has their own opinion on it.......

I wish you luck with this if you elect to go through with it..and would love to see your results.

Mac


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - "non-conscious"

lets see - 


*un*-
a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, giving negative or opposite force in adjectives and their derivative adverbs and nouns ( unfair; unfairly; unfairness; unfelt; unseen; unfitting; unformed; unheard-of; un-get-at-able ), and less freely used in certain other nouns ( unrest; unemployment ). 

*non*-
a prefix meaning “not,” freely used as an English formative, usually with a simple negative force as implying mere negation *or absence of something (rather than the opposite or reverse of it*, as often expressed by un-1 ): nonadherence; noninterference; nonpayment; nonprofessional . 

if one had to choose between only these two prefixes - "un" would be better - as the prefix "non" means the absence of consciousness. Where as "un" means the opposite force

but there is one prefix that is perfect and clear:

*sub*-
prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin ( subject; subtract; subvert; subsidy ); on this model, freely attached to elements of any origin and used with the meaning “under,” “below,” “beneath” ( subalpine; substratum ), “slightly,” “imperfectly,” “nearly” ( subcolumnar; subtropical ), “secondary,” “subordinate” ( subcommittee; subplot ). 

note how perfectly the prefix sub fits - it is below the conscious level - or "nearly" conscious, or "secondary" consciousness - etc... it does not imply sleep or coma - it states exactly what it is - it is below the conscious level.

Words mean things and so do prefixes


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

MAC 11700 said:


> As you can see from all of the bickering here on the subject..the easily stepped in trap of arguing the semantics of the various styles,is futile and a waste of valuable time. That won't ever change since everyone has their own opinion on it.......


Instinctive vs gap is a parallel to the shotgunning dichotomy of swing through (instinctive) vs sustained lead (gap). Shotgunners, however, seem to be able to maintain civil, adult and rational conversations about it. It's probably because it is a genuine sport where your ability to shoot well is more important than having the most impressive or edifying aiming philosophy and methodology. So they can discuss their various technique details without tripping over their egos. (For the most part, anyway). 

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=235229


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> *sub*-
> prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin ( subject; subtract; subvert; subsidy ); on this model, freely attached to elements of any origin and used with the meaning *“under,” “below,” “beneath” ( subalpine; substratum ), “slightly,” “imperfectly,” “nearly” ( subcolumnar; subtropical ), “secondary,” “subordinate” *( subcommittee; subplot ).
> 
> note how perfectly the prefix sub fits - it is below the conscious level - or "nearly" conscious, or "secondary" consciousness - etc... it does not imply sleep or coma - it states exactly what it is - it is below the conscious level.
> ...


Notice how *"inferior"* it is to your conscious. Again, your subconscious is a "part" of your conscious ("attached to"), and it cannot do anything your conscious cannot do and do better other than help manage data for the conscious to use. "Secondary" to the conscious. All of us use our sub to help manage our primary, but anyone claiming to operate solely off of sub is claiming they operate better without their primary functions.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> please take the time to look up the word perceive - you cannot perceive something to not be there.


LOL...I wouldn't expect anything more from you. I don't claim to be an expert in vocabulary...and therefore did not use the word correctly..but this is basically what was meant.

Do you or do you not...recognize or understand that you believe you are aiming Instinctively without consciously seeing or consciously useing the arrow within your sight picture as you adjust your aim?

Ooooh wait...let me rephrase that for you :wink:

Is your perception of your aiming technique one that believes you do NOT consciously see your arrow within your sight picture or anywhere near the target when you're aiming?

See a person can have a perception of what thier aiming technique is and can still be wrong...and on the other hand they can be right...but whatever their perception of their aiming technique is...it's basically what they personally understand and/or believe they are doing or not doing based on they have been taught or learned.

No lying there and have NEVER claimed that sharp has been lying. Just another pathetic martyr attitude.

This semantics game is nothing but smoke and mirrors for those not making any effort to broaden their knowledge on this subject.



sharpbroadhead said:


> But someone who has dedicated thier life to study and is an expert on all things sports related including the subconscious and concious mind - should have known that - shouldn't they?


LOL...just as someone dedicated their life to study and is an expert on all things funeral related including the subconscious and conscious mind - should have known that - shouldn't they? LOL 

Oh...and by the way sharp...if you don't like your career being used scarcastically or in a belittling manner...don't bring mine up if want to keep crying foul.



sharpbroadhead said:


> oh - and btw - I have never claimed expert status on anything other than how I shoot


Me neither. Just because my job and research are directly related to Sport's Science...does not necessarily make me an expert. I've never claimed to be an expert just because I choose to share my background on this subject with people. It's up to the individual to decide if I'm more educated or could be considered an expert in this area.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> wow - now we can perceive not to see an arrow - LOL - and these are the ArcheryTalk experts speaking - just something to consider.


Yes, I was just thinking the same thing......while chuckling.

:thumbs_up


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Instinctive vs gap is a parallel to the shotgunning dichotomy of swing through (instinctive) vs sustained lead (gap). Shotgunners, however, seem to be able to maintain civil, adult and rational conversations about it. It's probably because it is a genuine sport where your ability to shoot well is more important than having the most impressive or edifying aiming philosophy and methodology. So they can discuss their various technique details without tripping over their egos. (For the most part, anyway).
> 
> http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=235229


Robert, as usual you have to try to get in your not so subtle putdowns of people here on the trad forum. Why don't you leave the subject of archery to people who know something about it and go back over to guntalk.com so you can have some civil, adult conversations with boors like yourself. Leave! Nobody here likes you and don't forget, this is an archery site. Nobody gives a damn about shotgunning or bullet ballistics here.I know you have probably killed one or maybe two animals with your guns but if you were interested in how to do it with a bow, you could have come on here and just asked instead of bursting on here with your pompous attitude.Robert, Guntalk.com---now!


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

I do believe that it's possible that some who post here could be troubled by tunnel vision.

Thus they actually do see only the target, just as they claim.

When one considers all the other possibilities for various kinds of vision disturbances and pathologies......it's easy to see why there are so many opinions about aiming and so many bizarre names for how people aim.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> I do believe that it's possible that some who post here could be troubled by tunnel vision.
> 
> Thus they actually do see only the target, just as they claim.
> 
> When one considers all the other possibilities for various kinds of vision disturbances and pathologies......it's easy to see why there are so many opinions about aiming and so many bizarre names for how people aim.


Logos, I won't begin to tell Sharp what he sees or doesn't see. Speaking for myself, with my eyes open, I have about a 5' field of vision at 30" in front of my eye. I guess that is why it is so hard for some of us to believe that Sharp is not seeing the arrow in his field of vision.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> Robert, as usual you have to try to get in your not so subtle putdowns of people here on the trad forum. Why don't you leave the subject of archery to people who know something about it and go back over to guntalk.com so you can have some civil, adult conversations with boors like yourself. Leave! Nobody here likes you and don't forget, this is an archery site. Nobody gives a damn about shotgunning or bullet ballistics here.I know you have probably killed one or maybe two animals with your guns but if you were interested in how to do it with a bow, you could have come on here and just asked instead of bursting on here with your pompous attitude.Robert, Guntalk.com---now!


I was talking about specific behaviors, not specific people. Unless you self identify by those behaviors, neither you nor anyone else need feel put down. Read the link and you may notice personal insults and name- calling in their discussion noteworthy only by their absence. 

Throw a rock into a pack of dogs and the one that yelps is the one you hit.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> I was talking about specific behaviors, not specific people. Unless you self identify by those behaviors, neither you nor anyone else need feel put down. Read the link and you may notice personal insults and name- calling in their discussion noteworthy only by their absence.
> 
> Throw a rock into a pack of dogs and the one that yelps is the one you hit.


Guntalk.Com, Please.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> ...note how perfectly the prefix sub fits - it is below the conscious level - or "nearly" conscious, or "secondary" consciousness - etc... it does not imply sleep or coma - it states exactly what it is - it is below the conscious level.


If it's below consciousness it's not conscious......therefore it's unconscious.

Not conscious......by any definition--is unconscious.

All this struggling......I feel sorry for the toilers.

The word you are searching for so desperately is subliminal. 

But you're still wrong about the aiming--it's all conscious, even if you don't realize it.

:amen:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Logos, I won't begin to tell Sharp what he sees or doesn't see. Speaking for myself, with my eyes open, I have about a 5' field of vision at 30" in front of my eye. I guess that is why it is so hard for some of us to believe that Sharp is not seeing the arrow in his field of vision.


You also say you invented gap shooting and that you can shoot a bow as fast and accurately as anyone in the world.

So why would I take seriously what you SAY you can see?

Or anything you say?

You are rich only with insults. You are motivated only to attack. You are wise only in doing harm. You constantly call others trolls, but it appears that this is merely what the psychologists call "projection."

For your own and everyone's good here, please tone it down.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Robert, as usual you have to try to get in your not so subtle putdowns of people here on the trad forum. Why don't you leave the subject of archery to people who know something about it and go back over to guntalk.com so you can have some civil, adult conversations with boors like yourself.* Leave! Nobody here likes you *and don't forget, this is an archery site. *Nobody gives a damn about shotgunning or bullet ballistics here.*


Nobody gives a damn about shotgunning or bullet ballistics here?

Actually, if you would read "Shooting the Stickbow" you would know that lessons learned from firearms experience transfer well over to archery.

Itbeso! PLEASE stop attacking people......you drive people away from this site with your venom.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Williams said:


> P.s. to Barney. You do have to factor in the drag you mentioned, which had considerable effect and moves the apex even farther, especially compared to bullet trajectories. Bullets have much higher mass to drag surface than arrows do.
> 
> And as you look at that chart also remember that velocities are vastly higher for firearms as shown on the chart. With time in travel being a very important factor, a 200 fps arrow would have a similar trajectory over 50 yards as a .22 rifle at 1400 fps would have over.350 yards without even adding in the drag n its a pretty extreme parabolic arch.


No argument there. doesn't change what I'm getting at. BTW, are you the same Robert Williams involved in the Maya shoot? If so, I look forward to possibly meeting you, a Best Bud Forever of ray


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Logos said:


> Nobody gives a damn about shotgunning or bullet ballistics here?
> 
> Actually, if you would read "Shooting the Stickbow" you would know that lessons learned from firearms experience transfer well over to archery.
> 
> Itbeso! PLEASE stop attacking people......you drive people away from this site with your venom.


More bluster than venom. Venom has potency. Bluster doesn't.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> No argument there. doesn't change what I'm getting at. BTW, are you the same Robert Williams involved in the Maya shoot? If so, I look forward to possibly meeting you, a Best Bud Forever of ray


I'm not involved in the Maya shoot but clearly am BFF with Ray, LOL. I'd look forward to meeting you, too. Maybe well go to the same shoot sometime. I'll buy you a beer.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> wow - now we can perceive not to see an arrow - LOL - and these are the ArcheryTalk experts speaking - just something to consider.


Sharpy,

I think ray is simply acknowledging that what you experience is possible. You claim that you don't see the arrow, right? It's biologically impossible for your eyes to not see the arrow, but you don't perceive the arrow. Correct? It would be really cool if we, once in awhile, tried to understand what somebody else was saying before trying to disprove it.

Similarly, you can knock me for drawing a picture, but it appeared to me, based on what you're saying about ballistics, that you might be missing the point they were making. After all, if some very established gap shooters, like Steve, have said that the gaps they used at multiple distances in fact work, are you claiming that they're wrong based on a theory? They've tried it. You haven't. You can't because you refuse to even notice. I simply tried to draw it out conceptually. I'm not claiming that it validates their data at particular distances.

Robert,

I don't think the point on distance has anything to do with it. That is simply the distance where the line between the eye and the end of the shaft intersect the trajectory the second time (the first being the actual launch). Given the same speed, mass, and drag coefficient, the apex, referenced to the perspective the eye, will remain the same. Point on distance, given a longer or shorter shaft, will change.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Williams said:


> I'm not involved in the Maya shoot but clearly am BFF with Ray, LOL. I'd look forward to meeting you, too. Maybe well go to the same shoot sometime. I'll buy you a beer.


I will hold you to that, if you let me return the favor, but it's got to be after the shooting is done. I'm a little bit of a prude about that


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> You are trying to compare the ballistics of a bullet that is travelling at thousands of feet per second to the ballistics of an arrow that is travelling at 200 fps? I guess if that makes your theory work.
> 
> Here is an archery ballistics calculator - it clearly shows that if you zero in a 200 fps arrow at 15 yards and shoot it 30 yards that arrow will be over 20 inches low - http://www.outdoorsden.com/archery/archbal.asp


That data matches mine more or less. I entered my own data, at 197 fps 432 gn arrow, instead of our generic 200 fps arrow, and got similar results.

Did you notice that in my second really poor drawing, that the arc is going up initially, so that the drop calculations would move outward from the apex, and that the line of sight representing that theoretical gap actually aims downward, such that even when it's dropping, it can still be above the line of sight with that gap?

I'm not validating anybody's experience with a certain distance for a certain gap range, but it rather, for some stupid reason, it's important to me that people understand the concept, and that the calculator you're referencing is giving you accurate data for a given situation, but that it's not being applied to the same situation that we're talking about. Even with a rifle, while it may differ from unit to unit, and depend on the height of the scope or rear sight, relative to the perspective of the shooter's eye, the bullet, if they could see it, will appear to rise until give or take 100 yards or so. If it did peak at 100 yards, and somebody sighted in at say, 200 yards, it would hit a little high at 100 yards. _It would also be dead nuts on at a distance between 0 and 100 yards, perhaps, say 60._. Point blank, the bullet will be low by the difference of the line of sight of the scope/sighting system, and the barrel.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Barney - it is biologically impossible for you to not hear your wife while you are watching TV - yet you don't always hear her do you? Why not? Because you are focused on the thing you are watching and your focus is so intent on that thing -that you filter or block out other things - same thing with instinctive shooting - our focus is on what we want to hit - everything else is filtered out.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Ren for thousands of years most people truely believed the earth was flat. But they never got in their boat to see the droping off point. So until some of these Joe duckbutters get in the boat and go look for themselves their never going to understand. Good luck with your gap shooting. And for you nonbelievers get in the boat and go look!!!
Gary


rsarns said:


> Sharp... my arrow is zero'd at 45... and just so happens the 4 and 40 are the same gap at my arrow tip also.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Back to the same stuff again - I guess these guys have never been watching a TV show, football game or news broadcast that they were totally focused on and then had their wife ask them a question and they did not hear it at all - did they not hear it - how could they not hear it - she said it plenty loud enough and she was in the room with them? They must be liars and must have actually heard her - but are just ignoring her - right?


Sharp, I think you'd get in less arguments when you realize that people are agreeing with you. Surely, not everyone, all the time, but it does happen


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Barney - it is biologically impossible for you to not hear your wife while you are watching TV - yet you don't always hear her do you? Why not? Because you are focused on the thing you are watching and your focus is so intent on that thing -that you filter or block out other things - same thing with instinctive shooting - our focus is on what we want to hit - everything else is filtered out.


_Exactly_. You are absolutely right. That's what we're saying. But I don't watch TV. All that time is spent going around in circles here


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> *it is biologically impossible for you to not hear your wife while you are watching TV - yet you don't always hear her do you? Why not? Because you are focused on the thing you are watching and your focus is so intent on that thing -that you filter or block out other things - same thing with instinctive shooting - our focus is on what we want to hit - everything else is filtered out.*


Ok, then you should call it "Filtered Shooting" rather than "Instinctive," right?

Or.....maybe "Focused Shooting."

Gets to the point where all these contrived names don't really mean much.

:deadhorse


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> You also say you invented gap shooting and that you can shoot a bow as fast and accurately as anyone in the world.
> 
> So why would I take seriously what you SAY you can see?
> 
> ...


Actually, Robert, err, I mean Logos,err, i mean-----------I think you two (or one and the same) are the only people who I have called trolls and with good reason, with all of your put downs and insults to people on these threads. But now that you have gotten a dose of it yourself(ves), you are crying victim. Reminds me of someone else on this forum. And, yes I am going to say it again, If you can't talk archery then go to guntalk.com or wherever your genteel friends congregate. You seem to have fun with my statement that I could shoot as fast and accurate as anyone in the world, but when called out on it you disappeared. Either put up or shut up.And I know you have no idea what a gap system is so I won't go there. Guntalk.com, Logos or Robert or whatever your name is


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

That's nothing but nonsense, Itbeso.

I don't even know Robert and I'm certainly not somebody's false identity......shall we get a moderator to check and so inform you?

And if you want to take back your statements about inventing the gap system or that you can shoot as quickly and accurately as anyone in the world.....I'll stop having fun with them.

:amen:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> That's nothing but nonsense, Itbeso.
> 
> I don't even know Robert and I'm certainly not somebody's false identity......shall we get a moderator to check and so inform you?
> 
> ...


How does one go about backing up anything over the internet? That was meant as a serious question and not a smart assed one.As far as having fun with my claims, I think you have come to realize that you were in way over your head on that debate but if you can control the put downs to others I will let you off the hook.:teeth: Now, if you can get Robert to play nice, we can go back to having a good time on here.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Logos said:


> I do believe that it's possible that some who post here could be troubled by tunnel vision.
> 
> Thus they actually do see only the target, just as they claim.
> 
> When one considers all the other possibilities for various kinds of vision disturbances and pathologies......it's easy to see why there are so many opinions about aiming and so many bizarre names for how people aim.



LOL, that's a good one!!!! Your first sentence. We do have a few here who seem to be troubled but tunnel vision might be the least of it.

This thread makes me glad to be a true instinctive shooter. Totally uncomplicated,look and shoot. Or is that noncomplicated,or subcomplicated or even overcomplicated??? Damn,who knows? Maybe some of the newbie gurus will know which is right.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> How does one go about backing up anything over the internet? That was meant as a serious question and not a smart assed one.As far as having fun with my claims, I think you have come to realize that you were in way over your head on that debate but if you can control the put downs to others I will let you off the hook.:teeth: Now, if you can get Robert to play nice, we can go back to having a good time on here.


I always play nice. I think the echoes of your own blustering just get you confused. If you try to remember that the topic is aiming instead of "you this and you that and you blah blah blah", it might help. Just sayin'.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Logos said:


> Ok, then you should call it "Filtered Shooting" rather than "Instinctive," right?
> 
> Or.....maybe "Focused Shooting."
> 
> ...


You're so good at stirring the pot. Were you ever a cook?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Logos said:


> Ok, then you should call it "Filtered Shooting" rather than "Instinctive," right?
> 
> Or.....maybe "Focused Shooting."
> 
> ...



That's a good reason to accept the commonly used "instinctive" and move on. But those who don't understand the process will never let it die.
Just because they can't do it they try to explain it away with thousands of words.:BrownBear:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Logos said:


> That's nothing but nonsense, Itbeso.
> 
> I don't even know Robert and I'm certainly not somebody's false identity......shall we get a moderator to check and so inform you?
> 
> ...


RUH-ROH!!! And here we were thinking no one would be smart enough to figure out that we are the same person. Quick! Argue with me and call me names to throw him off the trail!!!


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks for all the relevant responses guys, interesting to hear the varying takes on what each person does. Unfortunately it turned into a 9 page semantic battle (to be honest I don't give a flying monkey butt whether or not it should be called "filtered" instead of instinctive - I think that kind of thing is annoyingly nitpicky and as per the secondary definition of "instinctive", it does work), but good effort nonetheless .

Happy shooting.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> That's a good reason to accept the commonly used "instinctive" and move on. But those who don't understand the process will never let it die.
> Just because they can't do it they try to explain it away with thousands of words.:BrownBear:


Yeah, well.....since "Instinctive" is clearly an ill-chosen word (since it is actually learned and not instinctive) I'll choose to call it natural point and shoot and leave it at that.........and continue to "just do it."

I've never been one to do stuff just because all the other kids are doing it or use the cool, "in" terms.

:banana:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

CFGuy said:


> Thanks for all the relevant responses guys, interesting to hear the varying takes on what each person does. Unfortunately it turned into a 9 page semantic battle (to be honest I don't give a flying monkey butt whether or not it should be called "filtered" instead of instinctive - I think that kind of thing is annoyingly nitpicky and as per the secondary definition of "instinctive", it does work), but good effort nonetheless .
> 
> Happy shooting.


I'd go for subliminal if you need a fancy handle.

:teeth:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

CFGuy said:


> Thanks for all the relevant responses guys, interesting to hear the varying takes on what each person does. Unfortunately it turned into a 9 page semantic battle (to be honest I don't give a flying monkey butt whether or not it should be called "filtered" instead of instinctive - I think that kind of thing is annoyingly nitpicky and as per the secondary definition of "instinctive", it does work), but good effort nonetheless .
> 
> Happy shooting.


I'd go for subliminal if you need a fancy handle.

:teeth:


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

I just read this thread and want to show actual photos of arrow impact at various distances. These were shot out of one of my bows I'm hunting with this year. The bow is [email protected] 29. It's a vintage target recurve equipped with a dacron string shooting arrows that are 440 grs. Arrow speed is probably between 160-170 fps. The bow has a 27-28 yard point on distance. I shot arrows starting at 5 yards and moved back 5 yards on each shot. I held the point directly on the spot I wanted to hit because I wanted to see precisely how high or low the arrows impacted at that distance relative the to point being on the target. Here's the pics...


















This bow is setup to have a short point on for hunting. If I held the point on the center of the chest at each distance it shows the impact point relative to my line of sight/point. At 5 yards they hit about 5 inches high, at 10 yards it's about 6-8 inches high. Fifteen yards is the peak of the arc and hits about 10-12 inches high. The arrows begin to drop back down and at 20 yards they are impacting the same as the 5 yard hold, about 4-5 inches high. At 25 yards they are maybe an inch above the mark and at thirty they have dropped below my line of sight/point on and hit about 3-4" low. 

What does this tell me? Well, I know at about 14-18 yards I have to hold the tip about 10" below what I intend to hit. At 5 and 20 I have the same relative hold and have to place the point about 4-5" below the mark. Realistically I can use the same hold for 10 yards as well because there's only a couple inch variation from 5. From 22-27 yards I can hold on the lower two thirds of a deers chest and I know they will impact the heart/lungs. And at thirty I simply have to hold on the upper two thirds of the chest to impact within the vitals of the deer.

As I said, this is with a relatively slow bow. I've done this with a faster bow I own, too. That bow has a 30 yard point on and shoots about 200 fps. I can put the point on the center of the chest and never have the arrows hit more than 8" high. Makes for a really simple setup because the hold is virtually the same from 0-30 yards and I basically never have to take the tip off the body of the animal. 

Just thought I'd inject some actual data with pictures. Take what you will from it.

Chris


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Nice job Str8 you got in the boat! But i think your deer need bigger horns
Gary


Str8 Shooter said:


> I just read this thread and want to show actual photos of arrow impact at various distances. These were shot out of one of my bows I'm hunting with this year. The bow is [email protected] 29. It's a vintage target recurve equipped with a dacron string shooting arrows that are 440 grs. Arrow speed is probably between 160-170 fps. The bow has a 27-28 yard point on distance. I shot arrows starting at 5 yards and moved back 5 yards on each shot. I held the point directly on the spot I wanted to hit because I wanted to see precisely how high or low the arrows impacted at that distance relative the to point being on the target. Here's the pics...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Sharpy,
> 
> I think ray is simply acknowledging that what you experience is possible. You claim that you don't see the arrow, right? It's biologically impossible for your eyes to not see the arrow, but you don't perceive the arrow. Correct? It would be really cool if we, once in awhile, tried to understand what somebody else was saying before trying to disprove it.
> 
> Similarly, you can knock me for drawing a picture, but it appeared to me, based on what you're saying about ballistics, that you might be missing the point they were making. After all, if some very established gap shooters, like Steve, have said that the gaps they used at multiple distances in fact work, are you claiming that they're wrong based on a theory? They've tried it. You haven't. You can't because you refuse to even notice. I simply tried to draw it out conceptually. I'm not claiming that it validates their data at particular distances.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

I must have misunderstood what the boat was supposed to be. I'm point on at 30 and if I hold on the deer's brisket ill hit somewhere between that and the spine from 15 to 30. I just don't think of that as "about the same gap" and expect much more precise placement from my shots. 

I guess I am already in that boat except that I'm conscious of the "fine adjustments" needed to adjust for distances shorter than 30 and don't really consider them to be minor. 

Maybe it's all about expectations. I'm still struggling with my current setup to drop my group an inch and a half. On an NFAA 20 yard target I tend to quickly blow out the top of the gold and bottom of the red and don't feel that's good enough because it's "iffy" on a squirrel. 

And on deer, I don't want to hit them somewhere in the chest. I want to hit them right behind the front leg and about 5 inches up their chest. That gives me a few inches I can be off high and a few inches low and still have a short and bright red blood trail. 

I think I misunderstood what "about the same" really meant.


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

Right! I'd love to put a big buck down but I want to fill my freezer so I'm practicing on the hornless targets. Gotta practice on what you intend to shoot... yeah, that sounds good... 

The other bow I'm hunting with is a 46 pound string follow Hill style longbow. With 4-420 gr. arrows, full length, I have a 20 yard point on. Dacron string, not fast. From 0-20 I don't have to hold more than 4" below the target. From 20-25 yards I have 8" drop (about 1.5" per yard). Past 30 they sink like rocks but I don't care. I don't intend on shooting past maybe 22 yards for hunting, by choice not because I can't, so the drop is unimportant. That bow is just ridiculously quiet and forgiving. Should be perfect for my purposes. 

The only way the 20" drop thing would affect gapping, Ken, is if the bow was shot perfectly parallel from the ground and the arrow, at launch, was directly in line with your line of sight at launch. Than the arrow would begin dropping imediately. The theory doesn't apply to normal shooting, though, because the arrow is launched at an upward angle from below the line of sight. It does cross it twice and and the drop is compensated by the upward angle at launch.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Right! I'd love to put a big buck down but I want to fill my freezer so I'm practicing on the hornless targets. Gotta practice on what you intend to shoot... yeah, that sounds good...
> 
> The other bow I'm hunting with is a 46 pound string follow Hill style longbow. With 4-420 gr. arrows, full length, I have a 20 yard point on. Dacron string, not fast. From 0-20 I don't have to hold more than 4" below the target. From 20-25 yards I have 8" drop (about 1.5" per yard). Past 30 they sink like rocks but I don't care. I don't intend on shooting past maybe 22 yards for hunting, by choice not because I can't, so the drop is unimportant. That bow is just ridiculously quiet and forgiving. Should be perfect for my purposes.
> 
> The only way the 20" drop thing would affect gapping, Ken, is if the bow was shot perfectly parallel from the ground and the arrow, at launch, was directly in line with your line of sight at launch. Than the arrow would begin dropping imediately. The theory doesn't apply to normal shooting, though, because the arrow is launched at an upward angle from below the line of sight. It does cross it twice and and the drop is compensated by the upward angle at launch.


Exactly. Even if the arrow peaked in the middle if the 15 to 30 range with its 20 inch drop, there is still a 10 inch range you can be off with the wrong distance estimation. If you hold for a 20 in the center of the kill when it turned out to be 30, what happens? You miss the deer completely underneath it. Even at 190 fps. 

I'm wide open to a fix for that problem but the only one I know is to get the distance right. Screw it up and you miss.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Here is an archery ballistics calculator - it clearly shows that if you zero in a 200 fps arrow at 15 yards and shoot it 30 yards that arrow will be over 20 inches low - http://www.outdoorsden.com/archery/archbal.asp


Sharpy,

Please consider what I'm saying first, and think about it, before dismissing it. I have a lot of respect for you as a guy who deals with common sense, takes the straight forward approach, and is so far as I can tell, totally honest about what you see, think, and experience. You don't pull punches. But, just hold them back for a little bit.

A key point in this is you need to understand how the ballistics calculator is working. When you zero in at 15 yards, the calculator is assuming a horizontal shot where you are hitting at 15 yards. In other words, an arc where it starts at 0, goes up, has an apex in the absolute vertical vector about 7.5 yards, and then goes down. At 15 yards, you are significantly beyond the apex.

Consider this arc, same data, 200 fps, generated by your calculator with a 'zero' distance of 45 yards...









The arrow starts at 0, and by the time it hits 15 yards, is 21.1 inches above the start point, it hits the apex (not surprisingly, about halfway there, at 23 yards, more or less.) At the apex, the highest that arrow is going to go, when it is not traveling up or down, it will be 23.9 inches higher than it started, and 2.8 inches higher than it was at 15 yards. After that point, it begins falling again, and by the time it hits 30 yards, it's down to 21.5. The rate in drop is exponential, (as the rate in rise is inversely exponential) so that beyond that, it drops much more, and by 45 yards, is back to 0.

So, in this instance, we travel from 15-30 yards where the arrow is within a 2.8 inch window. According to your own calculator, the idea of an arrow flying relatively flat from 15-30 yards is entirely plausible.

However, I think there's more to it than that, and I don't think that point in itself is enough, because...

For the line of sight to actually line up with this window with the numbers we're using, it would have to be 21 inches above the launch point of the arrow, which is not likely, unless you're anchoring from the chest and gapping off of the limbs 

However, consider what would be the deviation on a 30 yard arc, if the line of sight started 3.7 inches above the launch point, (more realistic) and ran parallel to the start and end points of an arc..

Your calculator produces...









Note, where that line of sight would intersect the arc, you've got the first intersection at eye height (3.7 inches) at about 3 yards, an apex of 10.3 inches at 15 yards (6.6 inches higher than our theoretical 'gap reference'), and a following intersection of the gap reference slightly beyond 27 yards. If you adjusted your gap reference between the high and low, it would be +/- 3.3 inches, with 1 'pin' between, 3 and 27 yards... Not too shabby eh? Surely, an instinctive shooter would learn adjustments to compensate, and do better than this, but a subconsciously learned basic sight picture would be of great use if most of the shots were within this range, would it not?

Still, I'm not satisfied that this is all there is to it. As Steve pointed out, a given spacing at the bow equates to a far greater difference in drop as distance increases. If the tip of the arrow is 30" away from the eye, simple trigonometry tells us that at a 1/4" difference in gap (at the tip of the arrow, which is farther than the riser, usually) difference would equate to 3 inches at 10 yards, but 9 inches at 30 yards, 18 at 60 yards, etc.

What's more, if you can bring yourself to go back to my second illustration, notice that if you choose to look at a curve with a shorter zero point in the trajectory calculator, and the trajectory does not go above the level of the eye, the resulting line of sight for a given gap that would be near and slightly below the apex _relative to the eye_ would look kind of like this.









It is not only farther than the absolute apex referenced to vertical, but is aiming _down_, and the higher vantage point makes the apex relative to the line of sight _farther_, it extends the range, accommodating additional drop with distance, matching, albeit in a linear fashion as opposed to exponentially, with its own. Note: Point A is higher than Point B, and yet is on the same line of sight from the perspective of the eye. And what do we do to compensate to bring it back to level to shoot horizontally? We adjust _up_, subsequently countering for the drop you're talking about. So, you will have your additional drop, but it will be compensated for when the archer adjusts to compensate for the perspective's angle of viewing.

I hope this helps put us on the same page, or close. I'm not a good teacher, and describing this as clearly as I can has been a chore, more than I can really justify considering the stuff I should be doing instead.

I want to make clear, I haven't had the experience of my 15 yard gap being the same as my 30, but that's with my individual anchor/face/finger hold. I certainly wouldn't say that it can't happen for anybody else. I certainly won't say it will be true for _you_. I'm just saying that it can be plausible, and every argument I've heard to the contrary seems to be missing something fundamental about the physics of it. Not claiming that I've got it nailed entirely, but I'm confident that I've got at least some kind of handle on how a parabola works. While in the engineering program, physics was one thing I actually passed and enjoyed. No genius, but I did better than half of them 

Regardless, please at least give it 10 minutes of consideration. You might find it interesting too 

I want to get a match stick, some masking tape, and a pencil, and figure it out for myself, if only for reference. Steve is already going to do the same. If I can find the space, I'd like to do a couple long exposure pictures with lighted nocks to measure some real trajectories, because as I'm sure you'll agree, calculators only go so far. As Robert mentioned, I would expect to see a slightly greater drop slope on the falling side of the apex due to diminishing horizontal velocity caused by air resistance. I'd be happy to do the calculations, if I knew how, but I'd have to know drag coefficients, as well as be brushed up on calculus, and I have to admit, that's just beyond me right now.

I look forward to seeing what Steve comes up with, and will share what I've got when I've got it.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Here's the pics...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Super. Hey, funny, I think that resembles some theoreticals we were talking about 

Nice shooting, by the way!


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> Sharpy,
> 
> Please consider what I'm saying first, and think about it, before dismissing it. I have a lot of respect for you as a guy who deals with common sense, takes the straight forward approach, and is so far as I can tell, totally honest about what you see, think, and experience. You don't pull punches. But, just hold them back for a little bit.
> 
> ...


Actually, that sounds very close to spot on at 200 fps or so. If you always aim with a pin set for exactly 22.5 yards, and hold dead nuts dead center and font mind missing by 3 or 4 inches either high or low on an otherwise perfect shot it would get you in the ballpark from 15 to 30. It'll have you somewhere within the three ring most times on an NFAA 40 Cm target and in the "kill" on a McKenzie deer from about 18 to 27 yards. Just make sure you don't add an inch or two of shooting error to that 3-1/2 inch margin of aiming error because then you're blowing shots like crazy. 

Which brings back another topic near and dear to my heart. Increasing velocity to reduce the distance errors. 

Lots of people are shooting heavy arrows at 160 to maybe 180 fps and their window of forgiveness shrinks substantially compared to 200 fps. With my 3d setup shooting around 218 shots to 30 on deer size targets are pretty simple. At 170 fps, the scores on unmarked yardage shoots go wasn't down. 

Anyway, Barney, thanks for doing that analysis. It should be food for thought. I'd even recommend starting a new thread with it because some may not see it in this one.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Williams said:


> Actually, that sounds very close to spot on at 200 fps or so. If you always aim with a pin set for exactly 22.5 yards, and hold dead nuts dead center and font mind missing by 3 or 4 inches either high or low on an otherwise perfect shot it would get you in the ballpark from 15 to 30. It'll have you somewhere within the three ring most times on an NFAA 40 Cm target and in the "kill" on a McKenzie deer from about 18 to 27 yards. Just make sure you don't add an inch or two of shooting error to that 3-1/2 inch margin of aiming error because then you're blowing shots like crazy.


It seems to be a common thread, in that when you actually break down so that we're talking about the same thing, most of us don't actually disagree much 

I did a rough pin set out of bamboo slivers, and it looks like this...








Not exactly precision work, but it worked out, from top to bottom, 10-20-25. My yard ends at 27, and I was in a hurry, so this isn't exactly something to use as a baseline, and as we know, results will vary based on blah blah blah....

Between 10 and 25, there was the progression you'd expect with most 'normal' setups. As I got closer than 10, it started to come back down, so that at 5 yards, my 20 yard pin was spot on. At 3 yards, my 25 yard pin matched.

Interesting point with chasing speed. Str8's 'slow' bow with a point on of 28 yards makes a whole lot of sense in that context of what we'd usually consider realistic hunting distances. Somebody else was trying to beat that sense into my head awhile back. Maybe it's time to pay attention again.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Uh-Oh, you just took Trad Magic and turned it into Scientific Data............well done by the way.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> It seems to be a common thread, in that when you actually break down so that we're talking about the same thing, most of us don't actually disagree much
> 
> I did a rough pin set out of bamboo slivers, and it looks like this...
> View attachment 1494501
> ...


My " slow bow " is point on at 30, which makes a lot of shots very simple. Just went out and shot the only 4 hunting arrows I've got with field points on. 2 from 20and 2 from 30 into my 40 cm target and licked the gold with both 30 shots. Just outside the gold on the 20's. 

I think I'll just work with that until hunting season is over.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

centershot said:


> Uh-Oh, you just took Trad Magic and turned it into Scientific Data............well done by the way.


It's a heck if a lot easier to understand that way.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Str8 Shooter said:


> The only way the 20" drop thing would affect gapping, Ken, is if the bow was shot perfectly parallel from the ground and the arrow, at launch, was directly in line with your line of sight at launch. Than the arrow would begin dropping imediately. The theory doesn't apply to normal shooting, though, because the arrow is launched at an upward angle from below the line of sight. It does cross it twice and and the drop is compensated by the upward angle at launch.


that was way more concise than my attempt. you get kudos!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> that was way more concise than my attempt. you get kudos!


I'll second that :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

If you base the learning of how to shoot a stickbow from an internet website, you are in deep trouble. If you have read this thread, then you know this already. Speck


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Oh, there's a wealth of information and experience and a little B.S. I think you just have to study it all, test it against your own experience and judgement.......and develop your own way and see how it works.

May work different for you than others.

:thumb:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> LOL - "non-conscious"
> 
> lets see -
> 
> ...


Ken..your refusal to actually learn anything about this subject or even how to use a dictionary properly is comical.

By your own printed definition..there is no subconscious..since there is nothing below consciousness. All conscious thought is the lowest and slowest of all things that take place within the physical human mind. Everything else that takes place is done on a higher level.

If you ever bothered to actually go about learning and really understanding what is taking place in the mind..you would realize this.

Look up the word non-conscious...this is the appropriate word to use when describing everything else except consciousness..



> • NONCONSCIOUS (adjective)
> The adjective NONCONSCIOUS has 2 senses:
> 
> 1. concerning mental functioning that is not represented in consciousness
> ...


Even your beloved Mirriam's says this...



> Definition of NONCONSCIOUS
> : not conscious <nonconscious psychic processes—A. A. Brill>


So..if it's not a conscious process...it is a non-conscious one..get it..

Mac


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Subliminal.

:amen:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - nothing below the conscious level - nope - nothing at all - I am going to tell all the archery experts, olympic medalists, coaches, shooting experts, martial arts experts, quarterbacks, etc.... - that there is nothing below the conscious level that goes on - when the quarterback throws the football to the running back - every detail of that throw is at a conscious level - he consciously calculates and triangulates exactly where to throw the ball so that the ball and the receiver can meet at a close enough distance that the reciever can catch the ball - and amazingly he does this without a calculator - he then calculates exactly how hard he has to throw that ball and the exact time to release it so that the trajectory will place the ball at the location he calculated and triangulated and times it exactly to the speed and zig zags of the receiver so that it gets that at the exact right time - and he did this all in a few seconds! Did you know that all high school quarterbacks are math prodigies? They do all this at a conscious level - because after all - nothing goes on in their brains below the conscious level - HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SOMETHING SO RIDICULOUS? But this guy is studies the brain!


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Does this guy even have a clue how complex the math would be for a quarterback to get a ball to a running receiver - but he did this all at a conscious level - because there is nothing below the conscious level - LOL - it's not the heat its the ....tupidty!


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

The QB, of course, is not looking along an arrow poised on a bow.

I've done both. It's different......and it's conscious.

:amen:


----------



## dragonheart II (Aug 20, 2010)

Just thought I would throw in a random photo to lighten the mood. The boar was real close when I shot him, that helps no matter how you aim and are under the "throws of adrenaline" that only the hunting archer knows.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Nice one mate ...... a fine hog ... don't know about those straight limb Hills style bows but ... apparently they have a tone of handshock and are innaccurate as all get out ...


----------



## dragonheart II (Aug 20, 2010)

benofthehood said:


> Nice one mate ...... a fine hog ... don't know about those straight limb Hills style bows but ... apparently they have a tone of handshock and are innaccurate as all get out ...


 :wink:


----------



## dragonheart II (Aug 20, 2010)

I did not look at the arrow when I shot the pig. I looked at the spot I wanted the broadhead to impact. Hope that does not start a sh*t storm, but I ate pork for awile. LOL! enjoy the sport.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Let he who hath no sin be the first to smite the horse again!!

:amen:

:banana:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Nice pig!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> They do all this at a conscious level - because after all - nothing goes on in their brains below the conscious level - HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SOMETHING SO RIDICULOUS? But this guy is studies the brain!


Maybe you should read his post again, he didnt say the (nonconsciuos or subconscious) didnt exist he was pointing out that your earlier post actually said that, I think we all understand the Olympic medalists etc are using laymans terms in their books and its really no big deal. 

Once again you dont like what somebody said and you imply theyre an stupid idiot sending the thread into another 5 page argument, why cant you say "I dont agree" and leave it at that without all the snide comments.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Conscious activity centered around the motor cortex and the sub basal ganglia operate at around 5 Hz. Activity from the Extra Pyramidial System work at a higher frequency of around 11 to 13 Hz. Just thought I'd throw that one into the mix.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Psychologists make a living trying to fix all the things the subconscious sabotages in people. Target panic and buck fever, phobias, anxiety and fight or flight responses are good examples of what our subconscious does for us. 

What we are talking about most times when "we don't have to think about the shot" are actually motor skills. "Autonomous Motor Skills" to be precise. There are three stages: cognitive phase, associative phase, and autonomous phase. If you've trained for months or years and literally don't gave to apply conscious thought to any part of the shot sequence, you are using motor skills operating in the highly developed autonomous phase. 

You shoot consciously. But it's your motor skills developed over time that take care of the details and keep you from having to cognitively execute all the things required to make the shot. 

Throwing a football? Motor skills; Catching a baseball; motor skills. Instinctive shooting, if at all like throwing, would be consciously aiming. (You consciously pick your spot) and then directing your arrow to the target and executing the shot with your autonomous motor skills. And if you shoot enough, this happens for you regardless of the aiming methodology you developed and refined through your practice over time. 

Motor skills controlled by the motor cortex and subconscious thought shouldn't be confused. The subconscious can certainly affect your performance in a sport. When you "choke" under pressure, you can thank your subconscious. You sure don't do that consciously. Shooting is a conscious thing, thank God. The world would be a much more dangerous place if it wasn't. 

Think "autonomous motor skills" instead of "subconscious shooting". That would be a more concise and scientific approach to these discussions. My personal opinion is that you shoot your best and are "in the groove" when your subconscious is snoozing and not busy tossing obstacles in your way. You feel good, confident and in control and the worry wart subconscious always looking out for your best psychological interests isn't shooting you in the foot. That's just my take on it, though, and maybe a bit of a fresh perspective on these discussions, so chime in with cheers and jeers as you will. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_skill#section_3


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Robert Williams said:


> are actually motor skills. "Autonomous Motor Skills" to be precise.
> 
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_skill#section_3


 Autonomous ..... don't you mean Autonomic


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Yewselfbow said:


> Autonomous ..... don't you mean Autonomic


Yeah. That. My subconscious screwed me up on that.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Sharp, that's not true. You do hear her and you know exactly what she said but your brain just stores it for you. A bit like sight pictures, they are stored for you so you have the gap when you need it. Shooting dozens of arrows a day for years will ingrained that which I am guessing is why guys like you and RW can do it so well at your favoured distances. Guys that shoot once or twice a week and still try and do that are the kind you see at Compton spraying arrows everywhere but still thinking they can hunt like that.






sharpbroadhead said:


> Barney - it is biologically impossible for you to not hear your wife while you are watching TV - yet you don't always hear her do you? Why not? Because you are focused on the thing you are watching and your focus is so intent on that thing -that you filter or block out other things - same thing with instinctive shooting - our focus is on what we want to hit - everything else is filtered out.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - oh boy - really - did you consciously hear her or not - obviously not - end of story - case closed - the point is that when we are focused on something - other things can be blocked out or filtered out by the subconscious - like your wife talking to you while you are focused on a TV program - or the arrow when you are focused on the target, etc...

Want proof - think about the first time you purchased a new car - did you notice how all of a sudden you seem to see that same car, same color, etc... almost everytime you drive or go somewhere? Did the market suddenly on the day you bought your car get flooded with the same model and color? Hardly - those cars were there all along - but you did not consciously notice them - your subconscious saw them - but filtered them out - there was no reason to bring them to your conscious attention - at least as that specific car and color. But, after you bought that car and you are thinking about it a lot - suddenly that is a cue to your subconscious - and now everytime it sees one - it brings it to your conscious attention.

Our subconscious filters out soooo many things and only brings to the conscious attention that which is deemed necessary. When you drive - you "see" every tree on the side of the road, you "see" every little thing laying on the side of the road - but only certain things catch your conscious attention - the rest are filtered out. You see every car and truck in your field of view - you see what color they are, what make and model they are, etc.... - but that is all filtered out and only what is necessary is brought to your conscious attention.

If your subconscious did not filter out all these things we would be in sensory overload and overwhelmed and unable to function at all.

when an instinctive shooter says that he does not see the arrow - he does not see it at a conscious level - it is filtered out becuase his focus is intent on one thing - the target - just like when you are watching a football game or the news and your wife talks to you while you are watching it and you don't hear here - your focus is on the TV show and the rest is filtered out - or if you like - "stored" - where it is stored I don't know becuase I cannot ever bring it back - If I am watching something and my wife says something to me - I don't ever remember her saying it - she can even remind me - and say - "I told you to do this or that" and I will say: "when?" and she will remind me when I was watching this or that show - and I still don't recall it - so if it is "stored" it isn't doing much good because I cannot recall it even if I try.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Anybody who says they don't see the arrow when aiming just has really poor peripheral vision.

:deadhorse

I do approve of the new ideas that have been surfacing.

With new terms like "subliminal" and "autonomic" entering the discussion, maybe the old and clearly ill-chosen "instinctive" and "subconscious" will begin to phase out.

:amen:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

The humidty again - according to the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary -

here are the defintions as pertaining to this discussion:

Main Entry: *non·con·scious*
Pronunciation: ()nän-kän-chs
Function: adjective
: not conscious <nonconscious psychic processes -- A. A. Brill> 

Main Entry: *un·con·scious*
Pronunciation: n-kän-chs
Function: adjective
1 : not marked by conscious thought, sensation, or feeling <unconscious motivation>
2 : of or relating to the unconscious
3 : having lost consciousness <was unconscious for three days> 

Main Entry: *sub·con·scious*
Pronunciation: sb-kän-chs, sb-
Function: adjective
1 : existing in the mind but not immediately available to consciousness : affecting thought, feeling, and behavior without entering awareness <subconscious motives> <a subconscious reflex>
2 : imperfectly conscious : partially but not fully aware <the persistence of subconscious dream activity for several minutes after waking -- Psychological Abstracts> 


Main Entry: *sub·lim·i·nal*
Pronunciation: ()sb-lim-n-l, sb-
Function: adjective
1 : inadequate to produce a sensation or a perception
2 : existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness <the subliminal mind> <subliminal advertising> 

Main Entry: *au·to·nom·ic*
Pronunciation: t--näm-ik
Function: adjective
1 a : acting or occurring involuntarily <autonomic reflexes> b : relating to, affecting, or controlled by the autonomic nervous system <autonomic ganglia> <autonomic dysfunction>
2 : having an effect upon tissue supplied by the autonomic nervous system <autonomic drugs> 

Main Entry: *in·stinct*
Pronunciation: in-sti(k)t
Function: noun
1 : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason
2 : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level 


now lets examine each as it relates to aiming a bow:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Sub-conscience aiming: Any method that doesn't make you feel guilty or require you to fess up during confession.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

*nonconsciouis *- means unconscious - or an unconscious psychic process - I don't think we aim our bows when we are unconcious or with some psychic process - so that term is out!

*unconscious* This term really does not apply either - if you carefully read each definition - the only one that comes close is the first - but that is explained as an unconcious motivation - sort of something that we do, but we don't know why we do it - that really does not apply to aiming a bow - so that term is out!

*subconscious* The first definition of this term does apply to archery - a "subconscious reflex" - the subconscious mind lining up the bow and aiming it almsot as a reflex - in a behavior that does not enter the conscious mind - that is why instinctive shooters cannot describe how they aim - and why some, like Howard Hill had such difficulty with it - and came up with ideas like "split vision" to try and describe a process that he was not consciously aware of.

*subliminal* this again is similar to unconscious - things that effect our behavior that we are not aware of - this is not how we aim a bow - we consciously desire to aim the bow and hit the target - it is just that the mechanics of the aiming are done at a level that we are not consciously aware of - so this term is out!

*autonomic* This is involuntary actions - a sneeze - the kick you give when the doctor taps your knee with his rubber hammer, the pulling away from a hot object, - etc... - this is not relevant to aiming a bow - so this term is out!

*Instinct* - here is the perfect term - the 2nd definition describes EXACTLY how the instinctive archer aims his bow: *behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level *

So all these basement scholars and "experts" can play word games all they want - but the oldtimers were right when they labled instinctive shooting "instinctive" It is the best term to describe this method of aiming a bow and anyone who actually aims this way knows it.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

You can't have a subconscious reflex ... and a reflex isn't autonomic Read Sampson Wright :Applied Physiology


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yewselfbow - you take that up with the folks at Merriam-Webster - I am sure you know much more than they do - they might even higher you to correct their definitions of words


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Yewselfbow - you take that up with the folks at Merriam-Webster - I am sure you know much more than they do - they might even higher you to correct their definitions of words


So sharp, how do you believe a subconscious reflex occurs? 

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> So all these basement scholars and "experts" can play word games all they want - but the oldtimers were right when they labled instinctive shooting "instinctive" It is the best term to describe this method of aiming a bow and anyone who actually aims this way knows it.


As the term nonconsciouss and unconscious was first developed by the Nueoligist and Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud he said that the unconscious mind included repressed feelings, automatic skills, subliminal perceptions, thoughts, habits, and automatic reactions.

All the years on these forums you have to have the most offensive writing style Ive ever come across, if somebody doesnt agree with you you call them so called experts i.e idiots. Maybe you want to call Freud and idiot also.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

A dictionary is only a half-a** word usage reference even when you work it right, from the word to the definition. It's a reference, not a textbook. 

If you work it backwards, e.g., apply the definition of an action to a word so you can use that word, you get garbage. That same definitional phrase you used, or described action in this discussion, will fit many things having different words associated with them and all of these words cannot possibly define you the way you want. 

IOW, the instinct is definitely below the consciousness of the organism but everything below the consciousness of an organism is not an instinct.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

steve morley said:


> Maybe you should read his post again, he didnt say the (nonconsciuos or subconscious) didnt exist he was pointing out that your earlier post actually said that, I think we all understand the Olympic medalists etc are using laymans terms in their books and its really no big deal.
> 
> Once again you dont like what somebody said and you imply they're an stupid idiot sending the thread into another 5 page argument, why cant you say "I don't agree" and leave it at that without all the snide comments.



Bingo.....and... his intentional slam is so typically childish ..

He's so wrapped up in proving he is right...and everyone else is wrong...he can't see he stepped off into his own stinking pile of manure...not to mention hijacking the OP's thread even more...

Here's another shining example...Check the link...http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/subconscious reflex...it just keeps getting more comical by the second with him..and now he wants to talk Freud...lol...lol...




> Though laypersons commonly assume "subconscious" to be psychoanalytic term, this is not in fact the case. _Sigmund Freud had explicitly condemned the word as long ago as 1915: "We shall also be right in rejecting the term 'subconsciousness' as incorrect and misleading"._[4] In later publications his objections were made clear:“	"If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically – to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness – or qualitatively – to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. _He is probably not clear about any of it_. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious."


 emphasis is mine on this for illustrative purposes only 

It's amazing...he's better than David Copperfield...I wonder what he will try to pull out of his hat on the next one...




Mac


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Sanford said:


> IOW, the instinct is definitely below the conscious of the organism but everything below the conscious of an organism is not an instinct.


That is spot-on. There are a lot if things that go on below the conscious level but to call all of them "instinctive" wouldn't be correct unless we want to completely rework the semantics if "instinct". 

Psychologists are all over the place on this stuff, too, though. They can't seem to agree on what all the operations of the mind are or what part of the mind controls them with major disagreements on the nature of "unconscious" and "subconscious". It's no wonder a bunch of bow hunters would argue or disagree about the right labels for different aspects of our mind's activities since even psychologists can't line up on all this stuff.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert,

.......


GREAT POST!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Bigjono said:


> Sharp, that's not true. You do hear her and you know exactly what she said but your brain just stores it for you.


I don't know. I'm willing to believe that his brain stores it for him, but that it's in the recycle bin, and sometimes it's a hassle to pull things out of the recycle bin. Easier to just let the collectors take it and wait until the next mandate...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Logos said:


> Anybody who says they don't see the arrow when aiming just has really poor peripheral vision.


If you mean by see, that their eyes pick up the reflected light, and it makes it to the visual processing parts of the brain, I believe you're right.

However, sometimes when people say , "See", they really mean that the didn't notice it. Like, i didn't see the car keys right in front of me on my desk. If you're not looking directly at something, the eye has very poor resolution on the retina outside of the fovea. Very sensitive to movement, and capable of picking up very broad detail, but not a lot. The only way we see large areas in any detail is by moving our eyes, like a scanner, and then we construct the picture in our heads. If you're not keeping the whole 'picture' in mind, and you let the objects fall away from your focus of attention, they can be very easy not to notice.

Now, you might argue with them, and point out that they did in fact see the the keys, but they just didn't notice them. I wouldn't, because I'd know what they mean, as would most people.

Kind of like instinctive shooting. It may only qualify in the last part of the last definition that you provided, but as common speech, it works fine. Those who wish to elaborate more specifically what they mean by that are free to do so.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

lol Sigmund Frued - has exactly what to do with aiming a bow or how the brain works in relation to sports and physical actions? Not to mention that much of his theories have long been discredited - though Bill Clinton went a long way in trying to prove the cigar theory!

I find it hilarious that archery talk members no know more about the meaning of words than the editors of Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary - remember that post about how I believe that the gappers are just toooooo proud to admit that they are actually not aiming - that it is the amazing gift of the Subconscious that God gave us all that is doing it - well that pride is shining through once again - as they hammer on their keyboards and bodly proclaim that they know more about the meaning of words than Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary.

This forum must have the smartest people on the planet - experts in everything.

Sorry - but when it comes to the definition of words - I will trust Merriam-Webster any day over the guys arguing against it.

Not to mention how some when they are being exposed as wrong - now try to say that I am hijacking the thread - the thread is about all of this - and God forbid - I actually look works up in a dictionary and show what they mean - that must hurt when you apply wrong meanings to words.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Williams said:


> That is spot-on. There are a lot if things that go on below the conscious level but to call all of them "instinctive" wouldn't be correct unless we want to completely rework the semantics if "instinct".
> It's no wonder a bunch of bow hunters would argue or disagree about the right labels for different aspects of our mind's activities since even psychologists can't line up on all this stuff.


So true. I've proposed a glossary, for the sake of discussion. 

First two entries I'd suggest is *Visually Assisted Instinctive*, or *Just Plain Instinctive* _a la Sharpy_ (he looks at a spot, and that's all that he's aware of what he's doing, and that's good enough to qualify. he may be using the sight picture, or he may not, but either way, he doesn't know if he is or isn't. Probably describes what most of us do when we call it Instictive. 

Second would be *Totally Proprioceptive Instinctive*, *a la Ray*, in which the shooting is entirely, or at least heavily, hand-eye coordination. Sighting down the arrow is not necessary, very little time spent at anchor, very little or no 'pre-sighting', pretty much a fluid motion akin to throwing a football.

These could also just be called Sharpy Instinctive and Ray Instinctive, for our purposes.

We could have a third called *Non-Exisiting Instinctive*, meaning that since you have to learn how to shoot, it's not innate biologically to the species, and that the user is completely hung up on one use of the word "Instinctive" and implies some sort of monopoly. Proponents of that could claim that they shoot this method, but I would suggest refraining from telling others what method they really like, if only for reasons of politeness.

But, from debates I've seen on it, it pretty much boils down to these three, and I think at least the first two are valid, if only because it's become part of our lexicon. I'd be okay acknowledging the third. But I'd insist that the first two be included simply because they do have a meaning, even if some people don't like how it came into being.

One could say that an Orthopedist isn't really a doctor who fixes bones, because really, the root of it literally means one who straightens the child, but... That would be kind of stupid, no? I think it's valid to say that a term might be poorly derived, in somebody's opinion, but once a word has a meaning, it exists. Language evolves.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> lol Sigmund Frued - has exactly what to do with aiming a bow or how the brain works in relation to sports and physical actions? Not to mention that much of his theories have long been discredited - though Bill Clinton went a long way in trying to prove the cigar theory!
> 
> I find it hilarious that archery talk members no know more about the meaning of words than the editors of Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary - remember that post about how I believe that the gappers are just toooooo proud to admit that they are actually not aiming - that it is the amazing gift of the Subconscious that God gave us all that is doing it - well that pride is shining through once again - as they hammer on their keyboards and bodly proclaim that they know more about the meaning of words than Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary.
> 
> ...


Sharp, I think that you've got a point, to a point, in that commonly used layperson definitions need to be understood, or at least acknowledged. At the same time, you can't use them as proof to argue against scientific terms. Is the goal to be understood, or to be right?

I'm not a fan of Freud, nor of Cigars, for that matter, but that's just my personal preference.

I can't recall the posts verbatim, but I think most who gap said that they used the method to set the initial elevation, and then focused on the target, letting what we laypeople call the subconscious handle the shot execution.

Are you talking about something else, and if so, can you provide specifics?


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> If you mean by see, that their eyes pick up the reflected light, and it makes it to the visual processing parts of the brain, I believe you're right.
> 
> However, sometimes when people say , "See", they really mean that the didn't notice it. Like, i didn't see the car keys right in front of me on my desk. If you're not looking directly at something, the eye has very poor resolution on the retina outside of the fovea. Very sensitive to movement, and capable of picking up very broad detail, but not a lot. The only way we see large areas in any detail is by moving our eyes, like a scanner, and then we construct the picture in our heads. If you're not keeping the whole 'picture' in mind, and you let the objects fall away from your focus of attention, they can be very easy not to notice.
> 
> ...


Unless someone has a very serious visual impairment they would, in fact, see the arrow. They may not think they notice it and may, in fact, not pay attention to it, but it is something they see at some level. I don't remember seeing the white lines on the road when I drive about 99 percent of the time but I know I do see them and that they do act as alignment guides for steering and that they help even when I "don't see them". That's why they are there. 

Our brains are wired to be quite good at seeing where lines are pointing. We can usually tell if a painting is hanging crooked without a level or studying the distance if each corner to the ceiling. We can tell with a glance where someone else is looking. There is no doubt in my mind that this mechanism of our mind tells us where our arrow is pointed when we draw. We may not and usually don't stare at our arrow. Our focus can be and should be on our target. But the eyes see what we are doing and we orient the arrow based on visual cues and our motor skills. It's hand-eye coordination. The hand and the eye work together on this. 

It's interesting enough to generate endless discussion and debate and its all so nebulous and perception so personal that I'm not sure anyone is necessarily "wrong" about their take on it. 

Can you shoot an arrow in front of your face without seeing it? Well, kinda you can.... And sorta you can't. Semantics.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Robert for the billionth time - when you are watching tv and someone talks to you and you do not hear them - why is that? It is becuase you are focused on the TV and have blocked out everything else - THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ALL OF US - the same thing happens when an instinctive shooter is so focused on his spot - he does not see the arrow anymore than you hear the person talking to you when you are focused on the TV - done deal - you can claim all you want -but your claims go against common sense and personal experiences shared by virtually everyone - EVERYONE at one time or another has been so focused on a particular thing or task that they do not see or hear something else that they otherwise would have seen or heard - the same thing happens with the instinctive shooter and the arrow - his focus and concentration is on the spot he wants to hit - nothing else.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Barney - I am not trying to apply meanings to words that are not there - I am not trying to use laymen's terms over "scientific" terms - I have used and shown the definition of terms right from the Merriam Webster's Medical Dictionary - a scientific dictionary - not a laymen's dictionary.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Proprioception. I don't believe this is operative in shooting in any Major way. It is a mechanism that tells us where one part of our body is IN RELATION TO another part of the body. It doesn't help us orient any part of our body to a foreign object. It can let you touch your nose in the dark but can't help you touch anyone else's nose in the dark. You have to see their nose. Then gand-eye coordination and motor skills accomplish the task. 

Proprioception could be used to shoot our own foot but not anyone else's, LOL.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Robert for the billionth time - when you are watching tv and someone talks to you and you do not hear them - why is that? It is becuase you are focused on the TV and have blocked out everything else - THIS HAS HAPPENED TO ALL OF US - the same thing happens when an instinctive shooter is so focused on his spot - he does not see the arrow anymore than you hear the person talking to you when you are focused on the TV - done deal - you can claim all you want -but your claims go against common sense and personal experiences shared by virtually everyone - EVERYONE at one time or another has been so focused on a particular thing or task that they do not see or hear something else that they otherwise would have seen or heard - the same thing happens with the instinctive shooter and the arrow - his focus and concentration is on the spot he wants to hit - nothing else.


If I was watching a football game on TV. I might very well not see the woman walking in front of it. Unless she was wearing a wet tee shirt. I'd actually "see " both of them since they are in my direct line of vision and not concealed. But my mind would process one and not push it to the conscious level while it would process the other and......schwiiiiing. Right to the center of attention.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Sharp, tell you what. I even know I "see" the arrow and that it tells me where it's pointing and yet, I've accidentally shot broadheads and arrows with no points on them by accident. I do see the alignment. But I'm not paying enough attention to know for sure what kind of arrowhead I have on (or one at all). 

Seeing and not seeing at the same time.

Oh yes... I've accidentally shot OTHER PEOPLE's arrows before when I got one mixed up in my quiver. A different colored arrow no less, LOL.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert. Next time you don't hear your wife because you were focused one the game and not her, refer her to Merriam and call it instinct.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Sorry - but when it comes to the definition of words - I will trust Merriam-Webster any day over the guys arguing against it.


You do that Ken


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Sanford said:


> Robert. Next time you don't hear your wife because you were focused one the game and not her, refer her to Merriam and call it instinct.


Maybe I won't feel her hitting me with the rolling pin, either, LOL.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Proprioception. I don't believe this is operative in shooting in any Major way. It is a mechanism that tells us where one part of our body is IN RELATION TO another part of the body. It doesn't help us orient any part of our body to a foreign object. It can let you touch your nose in the dark but can't help you touch anyone else's nose in the dark. You have to see their nose. Then gand-eye coordination and motor skills accomplish the task.


This is a perfect example of someone trying to understand proprioception with a limited understanding of what actually is involved.

Proprioception IS involved with being able to touch our finger to our nose while blindfolfed...but it ALSO lets us know if are arms are pointing in front of us, raised over our heads or pointing away from the sides of our bodies...which comes into play when shooting a bow and arrow.

The words 'proprioception' and 'kinesthesia' are often interchanged or included together to help explain hand and eye coordination.

In order for a True Instinctive shot to take place it involves the conscious mind triggering a reflex action based on what the archer is trying to hit by using proprioception, kinesthesia and motor/muscle memory. Again...the archer is ONLY consciously focusing on the target. They are NOT consciously setting or adjusting gaps in their sight picture or picking out a secondary aiming reference. There's a reason why coaches and those educated in Sports Science use the references of throwing a baseball, shooting a basketball or throwing a football to help explain what True Instinctive Aiming is like.

It is NOT the same thing as any of the other barebow aiming techniques. What some people are calling Instinctive Aiming is really no different than just Gap Aiming at a lower level of conscious awareness. There is a difference...if people would just set aside their egos and research it more thoroughly.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

I hope this thread never ends. If I pay close attention to all these smartasses,I'll either be the smartest sob around or the dumbest.:noidea: YET.
Well,not really, since I only stop in once in a while to see who has posted the stupidest bs. So far I only see one poster even remotely close to qualified to comment on all the brain stuff and he doesn't say much. For the rest,even doing the dance makes ya look a bit stupid. But don't stop,cheap entertainment is hard to come by.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> In order for a True Instinctive shot to take place it involves the conscious mind triggering a *reflex action *based on what the archer is trying to hit by using proprioception,
> 
> Ray :shade:


Is it a reflex Ray?, isn't a reflex, a motor response to a stimulus without the involvement of the CNS .... I'd call it a conditioned Engram


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> This is a perfect example of someone trying to understand proprioception with a limited understanding of what actually is involved.
> 
> Proprioception IS involved with being able to touch our finger to our nose while blindfolfed...but it ALSO lets us know if are arms are pointing in front of us, raised over our heads or pointing away from the sides of our bodies...which comes into play when shooting a bow and arrow.
> 
> ...


Wow. Lots of tangential stuff there but the fact of the matter is that proprioception, by definition, has only to do with you knowing where the parts of your own body are by a sort of internal GPS. We all have it. It's not a special skill and is not the mechanism that we use to align an arrow to a target. You latched onto this a long time ago and never let go. I remember when you first dug that word up and thought you found the magic bullet but you really should think it through again. 

It is handy for scratching our asses, which is something everyone can do without "using the force". But it's not handy for aiming a bow, which only conditioned motor skills and hand-EYE coordination can accomplish. No "eye" necessary with proprioception but absolutely necessary for aiming and shooting anything. 

While proprioception is critical to shooting as it is too brushing our teeth, writing and walking, it is not the magic that is behind instinctive shooting any more than for sighted shooting. 

For the purposes of discussing the key to instinctive shooting, its a red herring no matter how cool the word sounds. 

If anyone cares, here's proprioception. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I hope this thread never ends. If I pay close attention to all these smartasses,I'll either be the smartest sob around or the dumbest.:noidea: YET.
> Well,not really, since I only stop in once in a while to see who has posted the stupidest bs. So far I only see one poster even remotely close to qualified to comment on all the brain stuff and he doesn't say much. For the rest,even doing the dance makes ya look a bit stupid. But don't stop,cheap entertainment is hard to come by.


Don't worry. It won't end. Even if its locked and dead and buried forever, it will be reincarnated. It can never really die.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I dont think Ive ever seen so many insults so freely thrown into a thread, some of you should be ashamed. ZERO respect for another persons opinion AT is going down the toilet,


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> Is it a reflex Ray?, isn't a reflex, a motor response to a stimulus without the involvement of the CNS .... I'd call it a conditioned Engram


You're right. I used the word poorly. 

IMO...a better way to describe it would be a reaction or a response to an archer trying to hit a target....and your term works too :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

I should think everyone would be EXHAUSTED by now.

Anyhow, I know my story and I'm stickin' to it. No instinctive. No subconscious.

I say let everybody think what they want to think about aiming, even though, intuitively, most of us can subconsciously see in our peripheral vision and subliminally feel in our autonomic systems that the other guy is obviously and clearly dead wrong--and a jerk, to boot.

But.....we still love each other.

:kiss:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Williams said:


> Proprioception. I don't believe this is operative in shooting in any Major way. It is a mechanism that tells us where one part of our body is IN RELATION TO another part of the body. It doesn't help us orient any part of our body to a foreign object.


I'd argue, though not vehemently, that if you know where your body is, you know where the arrow is pointed. That's how I shoot when I shoot with my eyes closed. Admittedly, I'm not very good at it yet 

If you want to substitute a better word that better describes what I mean, that's fine with me.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> I'd argue, though not vehemently, that if you know where your body is, you know where the arrow is pointed. That's how I shoot when I shoot with my eyes closed. Admittedly, I'm not very good at it yet
> 
> If you want to substitute a better word that better describes what I mean, that's fine with me.


Yeah, but it doesn't help you know where the target is. Hand/eye coordination has to make the connection there. Can't do it without proprioception but proprioception isn't the key element. Since it is just as important for shooting with sights walking down a hall, its not a defining characteristic. Like I said before. It's a bit of a red herring. Somewhat related but not key.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Williams said:


> Yeah, but it doesn't help you know where the target is. Hand/eye coordination has to make the connection there. Can't do it without proprioception but proprioception isn't the key element. Since it is just as important for shooting with sights walking down a hall, its not a defining characteristic. Like I said before. It's a bit of a red herring. Somewhat related but not key.


Okay, add hand-eye coordination, or whatever the best name is for it, in there. I'm good with that


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> Okay, add hand-eye coordination, or whatever the best name is for it, in there. I'm good with that


Cool. That's really the key element. You see it. Your hands coordinate to hit it. And because you know where your hands are, you don't have to look at them in order to move them. That's where proprioception comes in. Without it, you wouldn't be able to move right because you wouldn't know where your body parts were without looking at them. Not really specific to. "Instinctive shooting".

Considering proprioception to be the key to instinctive shooting is a lot like saying addition is the key to understanding geometry. It's a basic function of math and you need math but its not really the key to geometry.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Can't do it without proprioception but proprioception isn't the key element.[\QUOTE]
> 
> It isn't THE key element but it is one of the key elements as I have always stated. The difference between a True Instinctive shooter is that they rely on it more unconsciously/subconsciously than an archer consciously and analytically thinking about and adjusting their gaps.
> 
> ...


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

"Everything that(those) guy(s) just said is b---s---". My Cousin Vinny


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> It isn't THE key element but it is one of the key elements as I have always stated. The difference between a True Instinctive shooter is that they rely on it more unconsciously/subconsciously than an archer consciously and analytically thinking about and adjusting their gaps.


Ray, an instinctive shooter can't rely in proprioception more unconsciously/subconsciously than any other archer because proprioception is 100% unconscious/subconscious for everyone. Not just instinctive shooters. 

I don't know how else to explain it to you. It's the awareness of self that we all use for virtually all movement. It's not specific to aiming or shooting or anything else. It's just another operation of our nervous system that keeps us from upright when we try to walk. (Among other things).


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Guys all good shooters shoot instinctive/subconsciously when I am shooting yes I see the tip it is right there in my face but it is blurred out and not a focus at all - my sole focus is the spot I hold the spot and pull till the shot goes off. 

Dave Cousins shoots the same way as do the Oly shooters - the Oly guys shoot apertures that are so large they are just centering the spot and letting the mind do the rest. 

It works so who cares what it is called

Matt


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Matt_Potter said:


> Guys all good shooters shoot instinctive/subconsciously when I am shooting yes I see the tip it is right there in my face but it is blurred out and not a focus at all - my sole focus is the spot I hold the spot and pull till the shot goes off.
> 
> Dave Cousins shoots the same way as do the Oly shooters - the Oly guys shoot apertures that are so large they are just centering the spot and letting the mind do the rest.
> 
> ...


Matt if all good shooters shoot instinctively/subconsciously, then its not special. Are you sure you want to go there?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Ray, an instinctive shooter can't rely in proprioception more unconsciously/subconsciously than any other archer because proprioception is 100% unconscious/subconscious for everyone.


I don't know how else I can explain it to you so you can finally understand it so this won't be for you...this we be for anyone who's truly opening to learning something.

When an archer aims Totally Instinctively they trust or put faith into their proprioceptive, kinesthesia and motor/muscle memory as opposed to a Gap shooter, who doesn't trust those abilities and consciously makes adjustments to their aim at some level of conscious awareness.

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> lol Sigmund Frued - has exactly what to do with aiming a bow or how the brain works in relation to sports and physical actions? Not to mention that much of his theories have long been discredited - though Bill Clinton went a long way in trying to prove the cigar theory!
> 
> I find it hilarious that archery talk members no know more about the meaning of words than the editors of Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary - remember that post about how I believe that the gappers are just toooooo proud to admit that they are actually not aiming - that it is the amazing gift of the Subconscious that God gave us all that is doing it - well that pride is shining through once again - as they hammer on their keyboards and bodly proclaim that they know more about the meaning of words than Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary.
> 
> ...


Ken:

1...You've not proven anything except how comical you can be.

2...Your complete lack of understanding that there are more than just 1 dictionary to use and that one must use them properly Then you try to discredit others when shown Merriam's does not have the final say in what is and what isn't reality... even though I pointed this out in the link I provided that they aren't consistent with their definitions..and usage.

3...Your complete lack of understanding how the human mind works,what parts control what,and even what parts are actually physically present in the mind. You have even gone so far in the past..to call the tools used by every major hospital and research facility in the world..."Gizmo's" and try to discredit them.

4...Your total ignorance of what a metaphor is and how it is applicable to this topic.This to me is totally ludicrous when ever trying to have an adult conversation with you on this topic.

You feel justified in bring up things and using them to your advantage when electing to put someone down ...then cry foul and that others are at fault and not understanding you...Most of us and understand you Ken..and how you do things on this forum...and it is very easy to see your woeful ignorance in the subject...BTW...this thread is not yours to change into a different discussion at will..it belongs to the OP...so when you elected to take this off in a different direction as you did ..that is hijacking the thread..


Continue on Ken...ignorance on your part is bliss

Mac


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - Mac looked up the word ignorance and used it as many times as he could in this attack - childish beyond belief. Whenever one does not agree with Mac - they are "ignorant", have a "complete lack of understanding", are in a state of "total ignorance", have "woeful ignorance", etc...

gee if that post does not qualify as a personal attack - I don't know what does! And he still is trying to say I hijacked a thread - a thread about the very subject we are discussion - I wonder who is really the ignorant person here!


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Robert Williams said:


> Matt if all good shooters shoot instinctively/subconsciously, then its not special. Are you sure you want to go there?


Robert

Getting to the point that you have your shot so ingrained that you can totally surrender to the shot is a hard place to get to and something I work at every day - I think it is pretty rare but just cause you aren't thinking about aiming doesn't mean you are doing it well - LOL


----------



## tmark (Oct 21, 2006)

I'm a newcomer here and don't have much standing to say it, but I gotta say it anyway ... there are some old hands here screwing up a perfectly good thread with their bickering. STFU. Please .

Now for the reason this interests me.
Typically I go out to the yard after dinner to shoot rounds. As the days have been getting shorter I've been shooting at dusk. Two weeks ago I stayed out late enough and the sky was dark enough that there was no natural light. The target (an NFAA blue face) was lit enough that I could make out the white center but really truly and I'm not exaggerating I could not form a sight picture. And my groups tightened up. Not a little bit. A lot. I'm a novice at this and typically I'd be shooting 8 inch groups at best. The groups shot in the dark were averaging between 3 and 5 inches from 20 yards.

Anyway, I stumbled across this thread this evening and despite the bickering pretty much read it front to back, thinking all the time about shooting in the dark and wondering if it was a fluke, or whether there was something else going on. So I went back out half an hour ago and shot rounds, first with the yard light on so I could get a sight picture, and then with it off so I'd be shooting in the dark. And damned if the groups didn't tighten up again. A lot!

So maybe it is a fluke. Maybe I have more and better night vision than I believe I do. Maybe removing the sight picture takes the mind out of the game and lets body memory take over. Don't really know and I guess my point is, for all you folks so certain about your truths, you probably don't really know either.

Respect, T


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

tmark said:


> Maybe removing the sight picture takes the mind out of the game and lets body memory take over.


What it does is cause most archers to increase their concentration on the target because objects within their sight picture are more out of focus and harder to see or less distracting so you have to trust your proprioceptive, kinesthesia and motor/muscle memory more to be accurate with the aim rather than consciously trying to adjust the aiming references.

Ray :shade: 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

tmark said:


> I'm a newcomer here and don't have much standing to say it, but I gotta say it anyway ... there are some old hands here screwing up a perfectly good thread with their bickering. STFU. Please .
> 
> Now for the reason this interests me.
> Typically I go out to the yard after dinner to shoot rounds. As the days have been getting shorter I've been shooting at dusk. Two weeks ago I stayed out late enough and the sky was dark enough that there was no natural light. The target (an NFAA blue face) was lit enough that I could make out the white center but really truly and I'm not exaggerating I could not form a sight picture. And my groups tightened up. Not a little bit. A lot. I'm a novice at this and typically I'd be shooting 8 inch groups at best. The groups shot in the dark were averaging between 3 and 5 inches from 20 yards.
> ...


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

btw- muscle memory cannot aim the bow - it can only give you proper and consistent form - the actual aim is not muscle memory - or whatever term you would like to use


----------



## tmark (Oct 21, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> If you want to try something fun - light a candle in a dark room with a backstop and shoot the wick off - you would be amazed how often you can do this


What? And light the bloody barn on fire!


----------



## tmark (Oct 21, 2006)

And you're right; there was ambient light ...


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

sharpbroadhead said:


> btw- muscle memory cannot aim the bow - it can only give you proper and consistent form - the actual aim is not muscle memory - or whatever term you would like to use




The aim takes place between the ears.:wink:

tmark, you were forced to focus more intently on the spot you wanted to hit. It's the key to shooting instinctively. Probably didn't hurt anything that the sight picture was not as clear as you would normally see it either. You didn't see the bow or 'sight picture' because your eyes were completely focused on the spot. Good for you.


----------



## tmark (Oct 21, 2006)

FORESTGUMP said:


> The aim takes place between the ears.:wink:
> 
> tmark, you were forced to focus more intently on the spot you wanted to hit. It's the key to shooting instinctively. Probably didn't hurt anything that the sight picture was not as clear as you would normally see it either. You didn't see the bow or 'sight picture' because your eyes were completely focused on the spot. Good for you.


Trick will be to transfer the "feel" of it to fully lighted conditions ... cuz it sure does feel different ... more relaxed, more natural ...


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

How about this, though? All together for a hug.

:grouphug:


----------



## tuckerdog (Sep 28, 2010)

I dont know what the hubbub is all about?!?! My grandad started me out on a bear grizzly recurve. I had to be able to hold the bow for thirty seconds without shakeing and hit a saucer sized paper plate at 15 yds everytime before I was allowed to go deer hunting. I see the target concentrate on where the arrow has to go and put it there. Practice makes permanent. practice, practice, practice form concentration follow thru


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I can't say for sure Sean can - but we are hoping - he still has a long road to recovery


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> btw- muscle memory cannot aim the bow - it can only give you proper and consistent form - the actual aim is not muscle memory - or whatever term you would like to use


So how does a pitcher accurately throw a ball or quaterback pass a football?

Is muscle/motor memory involved with their ability to accurately throw their projectiles and hit a target?

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

tmark said:


> Trick will be to transfer the "feel" of it to fully lighted conditions ... cuz it sure does feel different ... more relaxed, more natural ...



No,that should not be a big problem. For one you can spend more time shooting at that time of day. Also,now that you have made the great discovery you should look for ways to sharpen your focusing skills. Some people have used 'burn a hole' as a way to explain the level of focus needed. I prefer to keep things a little simpler and look for the smallest detail to focus on. If there is nothing there I use my imagination. Could be a fly or mosquito that I need to really look for. Look hard as if he was actually there. Might be a spot of some kind on the target face that you use for practice. After a while you won't have to pay so much attention to the focus part. Just look at it and shoot it.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> So how does a pitcher accurately throw a ball or quaterback pass a football?
> 
> Is muscle/motor memory involved with their ability to accurately throw their projectiles and hit a target?
> 
> Ray :shade:


Open his eyes and look. Look good and close where he wants that ball to go. Also known as focus.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

The 100,000 pitches he threw growing up don't hurt either


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

tuckerdog said:


> I dont know what the hubbub is all about?!?! My grandad started me out on a bear grizzly recurve. I had to be able to hold the bow for thirty seconds without shakeing and hit a saucer sized paper plate at 15 yds everytime before I was allowed to go deer hunting. I see the target concentrate on where the arrow has to go and put it there. Practice makes permanent. practice, practice, practice form concentration follow thru


Well bub  the hubbub seems to be that there are many,many people who don't know what you and I know to be true. Some say they know but then spend an awful lot of time here trying to explain it away and questioning all the possible details that they can dream up. I think that when a person knows what we know,there's really not much to explain.
And then there are the control freaks who obviously believe that they can and must have control of all the minor details and be able to describe to each other what their brains are doing in order to perform one of lifes simplest functions.
For those who shoot competively I see the need to pay special attention to details,but, if I remember correctly,this thread started with a question about instinctive shooting.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Heck, I thought all that was needed was a little ambient light, or nightlight, so his subconscious can see .


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> The 100,000 pitches he threw growing up don't hurt either



Very true.:thumbs_up


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> The 100,000 pitches he threw growing up don't hurt either


Plus all those rocks he threw at birds and squirrels and beehives and school windows and other breakable things.

:thumb:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Robert Williams said:


> Ray, an instinctive shooter can't rely in proprioception more unconsciously/subconsciously than any other archer because proprioception is 100% unconscious/subconscious for everyone. Not just instinctive shooters.
> 
> I don't know how else to explain it to you. It's the awareness of self that we all use for virtually all movement. It's not specific to aiming or shooting or anything else. It's just another operation of our nervous system that keeps us from upright when we try to walk. (Among other things).


You know, Robert, this is Deja Vu. Sharpy and Ray used to get into stuff like this before you came here, not disagreeing, but pretending to. You guys should have a pyramid


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Doctor Banner, put down that scepter!

I just realized, Logos is masterminded this whole thing. Things were getting pretty calm, relatively, and then... BAM! Watch out if he tries to tap you on the heart!


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

This reminded me of this thread, actually - I think that this made more sense than most of the comments in this thread or the debates for that matter:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> You know, Robert, this is Deja Vu. Sharpy and Ray used to get into stuff like this before you came here, not disagreeing, but pretending to. You guys should have a pyramid


Which one of them was right?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BarneySlayer said:


> Doctor Banner, put down that scepter!
> 
> I just realized, Logos is masterminded this whole thing. Things were getting pretty calm, relatively, and then... BAM! Watch out if he tries to tap you on the heart!


I just tapped the beehive a little with a stick and then got out of the way.

:boink:

But......once these things go on for a few (ten or so) pages I lose interest. Basically, everybody says the same thing over and over again.

Good thing we all know there's no real animosity.

:kiss:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Open his eyes and look. Look good and close where he wants that ball to go. Also known as focus.


Partially correct. The eyes do you have to look and focus on the target...BUT...how does that translate into muscle and joint movement to shoot the arrow into the target?

An archer can't JUST will their arrow into the target by JUST looking at it :wink: They have to do something more.

There's much more to it than JUST looking at a target...and when and if you ever decide to research what's truly involved...you may finally begin to understand what truly seperates a True Instinctive shooter with an archer who is consciously setting gaps or adjusting their sight picture at a low level of conscious awareness.

There IS a difference...and the differences can be better understood when you understand how a pitcher throws a baseball accurately.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Partially correct. The eyes do you have to look and focus on the target...BUT...how does that translate into muscle and joint movement to shoot the arrow into the target?
> 
> An archer can't JUST will their arrow into the target by JUST looking at it :wink: They have to do something more.
> 
> ...




I don't remember the first question which I answered with 'open his eyes and look'. But the answer to this new question is easy. The shooters brain collects the information provided by his eyes, processes it and directs the muscles into position to make the shot.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> The shooters brain collects the information provided by his eyes, processes it and directs the muscles into position to make the shot.


How does the brain process it differently for an Instinctive shooter when compared to a Gap shooter?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> How does the brain process it differently for an Instinctive shooter when compared to a Gap shooter?
> 
> Ray :shade:


It doesn't once you have set the shot up and committed to it the process is exactly the same no matter what process you used to set up the shot 

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> It doesn't once you have set the shot up and committed to it the process is exactly the same no matter what process you used to set up the shot


You touched on exactly where the difference exist.

One archer SETS up the shot by holding anchor and adjusting their sight picture...where as the True Instinctive archer does NOT set up the shot other than triggering the muscles to respond similar to how a baseball player throws a ball.

Just as with a baseball player...there is no stopping the arm mid way through the throw to make sure it's lined up or in the position it needs to be. There is no second guessing or even low levels of conscious awareness adjusting the sight picture. The shot was was fully commited the moment the archer decide to move the bow into position just as a pitcher commits to using their arm to throw a ball.

In most if not all cases...the moment an archer holds anchor to adjust their sight picture...there is SOME level of conscious awareness being used to line something up rather than trusting the muscles to be on target the moment the bow arm and draw arm are in or near the positions they need to be....AND...the closer the archer's aiming reference/references are to their DIRECT line of vision...the harder...if not impossible it becomes...for the archer to not consciously recognize them at some level of conscious awarness.

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

okay..i haven't responded to this thread simply because i sorta figured that i already knew what it was gonna turn into from page 1...but just to give you folks a 2nd tank of gas (so to speak)..i figured i'd post this lil vid of me snap-shoot'in ***** style..it was only from about 12yds away but..my bow was canted at close to a 45 and take note of my stringhand..and it's kinda hard to tell from the cam angle but..my stringhand never even came close to touching my face or hitting anything that could be considered an anchor point..and once things went in motion?..they stayed in motion until elvis left the building! :laugh:

and i might add that's it's a valued skill i still practice every now and then as..i've done enough stalking to know exactly how much time i don't have to effectively get an accurately shot arrow off at close range whenever i jump a buck! :laugh:

so enjoy and Happy Shooting! L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Disagree with you - the instinctive guy has set up the shot and committed to it before he even drew the bow - the other guy just takes a little more time before he commits. The brain process is the same. I'm not talking about gross aiming I am talking about fine aiming that your subconscious does it is all the same. 

Matt

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> the instinctive guy has set up the shot and committed to it before he even drew the bow -


So explain the steps a True Instinctive shooter takes to set up the shot...and you're claiming those steps and how they are executed are NO different than any other barebow archer?

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> You touched on exactly where the difference exist.
> 
> One archer SETS up the shot by holding anchor and adjusting their sight picture...where as the True Instinctive archer does NOT set up the shot other than triggering the muscles to respond similar to how a baseball player throws a ball.


I think one of the unnecessary words of contention here is 'True'. It implies that one is more legitimately 'Instinctive', which is more of a description due to common use anyway, albeit, in my opinion, totally legitimate. If we simply went with SharpStintive and RayStinctive, I think that most here would know what we were talking about.

Is it possible to choose a less charged word to describe aiming based purely on muscle memory and hand-eye coordination, versus that which relies to some or a greater degree on trained sight picture that the shooter doesn't realize is being used? 

Not to pick on Sharpy, but he is the most common opponent in many of these things, but I think he might have less contention with an alternative, separate category/pole of Instinctive if it didn't imply that what he was doing is somehow a 'False Instinctive'.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Disagree with you - the instinctive guy has set up the shot and committed to it before he even drew the bow - the other guy just takes a little more time before he commits. The brain process is the same. I'm not talking about gross aiming I am talking about fine aiming that your subconscious does it is all the same.
> 
> Matt
> 
> Matt


Not that I'm claiming right or wrong, but a really good coach told me, in any type of shooting, that as soon as you draw, you're committed to the shot. That doesn't mean that you can't abort, but the whole shot sequence is a countdown, of sorts. If things go wrong through that sequence, you assuming you're trying to do your best shooting, better just let down and start over.

I think that every shooter, regardless of aiming system, eventually surrenders the shot to the trained response. However, if you want that to qualify as instinctive, the term fails to serve a purpose. Perhaps instinctive shooting is overly broad, and it should be terms instinctive aiming. In the broad sense, the instinctive aiming execution involves no explicit knowledge of referencing the target to any part of the sight picture, whether or not the actual shot process uses these references unbeknownst to the shooter.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> I think one of the unnecessary words of contention here is 'True'. It implies that one is more legitimately 'Instinctive', which is more of a description due to common use anyway, albeit, in my opinion, totally legitimate.


The reason why I use the word True in my description with what I believe Instinctive Aiming actually involves is because what some people people think is Instinctive Aiming is really no different than what many experienced Gap shooters already do...AND...some of these same people believe an archer can do the same thing using sights.



BarneySlayer said:


> Is it possible to choose a less charged word to describe aiming based purely on muscle memory and hand-eye coordination, versus that which relies to some or a greater degree on trained sight picture that the shooter doesn't realize is being used?


Many have already have named it something different. I call it Gapstinctive while others call it Instinctagap.

It's my primary aiming technique...and know the difference when I'm aiming that way and when I am aiming Totally Instinctively.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Many of already have named it something different. I call it Gapstinctive while others call it Instinctagap.
> 
> It's my primary aiming technique...and know the difference when I'm aiming that way and when I am aiming Totally Instinctively.
> 
> ...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> I think that every shooter, regardless of aiming system, eventually surrenders the shot to the trained response.


ABSOLUTELY!!!! :thumbs_up

Key word...EVENTUALLY.

Ray :shade:


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> When a shooter's aiming process involves visual cues, I don't know that it makes it less automatic in their process.


I pretty much agree...but how an archer responds to those visual cues is what makes the difference. The difference is like a pitcher executing the throw in one fluid motion or stopping midway thtough the throw to make sure the arm is lined up the way they think it should be.



BarneySlayer said:


> Personally, I like Sharpstinctive and Raystinctive


Please no...LOL I really don't want to be associated with it because I feel I'm not the one who made up the term. I'm just try to help explain the differences that do in fact exist.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I pretty much agree...but how an archer responds to those visual cues is what makes the difference. The difference is like a pitcher executing the throw in one fluid motion or stopping midway thtough the throw to make sure the arm is lined up the way they think it should be.
> 
> Please no...LOL I really don't want to be associated with it because I feel I'm not the one who made up the term. I'm just try to help explain the differences that do in fact exist.
> 
> ...


Ray...what seems to work for me in getting the differences across to folks is using "throwing a frisbee" as an example..

they seem to gain and understanding quicker when i explain that..

No matter how much i throw a frisbee?..on any given day that i decide to do such it's takes me a few "practice throws"...but in short order?..

i can knock a beer can off a tailgate on a windy day with one.

then they understand..which is why i also stress the importance of taking a few practice shots before heading out into the deer woods.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> Ray...what seems to work for me in getting the differences across to folks is using "throwing a frisbee" as an example..
> 
> they seem to gain and understanding quicker when i explain that..


That's awesome. I would think using the baseball, football or basketball comparison would work too but for some reason or another people really aren't making the connection as hard as I may try to get them to understand.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Ray...what seems to work for me in getting the differences across to folks is using "throwing a frisbee" as an example.
> 
> i can knock a beer can off a tailgate on a windy day with one.


But can you do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0HMPLfT_co


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> but for some reason or another people really aren't making the connection as hard as I may try to get them to understand.
> 
> Ray


If no mistake have you made, yet losing you are... a different game you should play.
--Yoda


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> That's awesome. I would think using the baseball, football or basketball comparison would work too but for some reason or another people really aren't making the connection as hard as I may try to get them to understand.
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


well with a football?..folks typically associate such with "aiming at a moving spot"..and with a baseball?..maybe there's just too many "other body parts involved and in motion"...but with a fribee?..like archery..it's all done with a the flick of a wrist with gobs of ARCH from all angles to take into mental consideration...especially on a windy day..as a young person i usta spend hours upon hours playing catch with myself throwing it into the wind..the lowly benefits of an "only child" i guess. :laugh:

But watching what things do while in-flight became somewhat of an obsession with me...mainly cause i also hated having to bend over when i missed! LOL!...but to this day i can nail a coworker in the back of the head with the plastic lid off a coffee can! :laugh:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> If no mistake have you made, yet losing you are... a different game you should play.
> --Yoda


LOL

The only people who have lost anything are the one's unwilling to learn anything new.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Nail on the head there Matt 



QUOTE=Matt_Potter;1065475584]Disagree with you - the instinctive guy has set up the shot and committed to it before he even drew the bow - the other guy just takes a little more time before he commits. The brain process is the same. I'm not talking about gross aiming I am talking about fine aiming that your subconscious does it is all the same. 

Matt

Matt[/QUOTE]


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

With a football you kick it you don't throw it, hence the word FOOT. And it takes 100's of hours of practice to know how much you need to put on the kick to get the yardage you want, nothing instinctive at all.




QUOTE=JINKSTER;1065476155]well with a football?..folks typically associate such with "aiming at a moving spot"..and with a baseball?..maybe there's just too many "other body parts involved and in motion"...but with a fribee?..like archery..it's all done with a the flick of a wrist with gobs of ARCH from all angles to take into mental consideration...especially on a windy day..as a young person i usta spend hours upon hours playing catch with myself throwing it into the wind..the lowly benefits of an "only child" i guess. :laugh:

But watching what things do while in-flight became somewhat of an obsession with me...mainly cause i also hated having to bend over when i missed! LOL!...but to this day i can nail a coworker in the back of the head with the plastic lid off a coffee can! :laugh:[/QUOTE]


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> With a football you kick it you don't throw it, hence the word FOOT. And it takes 100's of hours of practice to know how much you need to put on the kick to get the yardage you want, nothing instinctive at all.


I suspect he was talking about American football, Jono.

The ball has pointed ends and spin is imparted when you throw it......yes, I said throw it.

Americans.....you just never know what crazy things they may come up with!

:teeth:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> How does the brain process it differently for an Instinctive shooter when compared to a Gap shooter?
> 
> Ray :shade:



They are getting easier,I KNOW you can do better.

Ready for this??? When that 'gap shooter' moves his focus from the arrow to the spot he wants it to hit,,,,, ya know it already don't ya? Oh well, the brain takes over and compensates for the concious error made while 'gapping'.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> They are getting easier,I KNOW you can do better.


I am trying to make it easy for ya...because I honestly don't think you can do any better.



FORESTGUMP said:


> Ready for this??? When that 'gap shooter' moves his focus from the arrow to the spot he wants it to hit,,,,, ya know it already don't ya? Oh well, the brain takes over and compensates for the concious error made while 'gapping'.


Yet...that 'gap shooter' wasn't shooting Totally Instinctively from start to finish now were they?

If a sight shooter moves his focus from their aiming reference to the target...they are changing their focus...and therefore aren't totally focused on just the target from beginning to end.

By golly...you're starting to get it...maybe :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## bfoot (Dec 30, 2009)

CFGuy said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Regarding instinctive vs. gap shooting - I honestly want to write a neuro paper on this, and if I had a class in university that allowed me to do that at the moment I would, and settle (at least semantically) the circular debate of conscious learning becoming unconscious motor patterns, peripheral vision influence, and the various parts of the brain that are involved (but no neuro this semester unfortunately). In short, I don't want this to become another heated discussion (though I'm sure there will be debate).
> 
> ...


Being a Zen Buddhist for the last 30 or so years, I do believe that when "you" are not there, the bow will shoot accurately. "You" being the personality. This is why there is target panic and why great athletes consistently state that when they are in the "zone" everything becomes effortless and they feel they are a passive observer. As poor a shot as I am, usually when I shoot I know immediately whether it will hit the bulls eye and most can relate to this. Although Byron Ferguson states he does not agree with the premise of "Zen and the Art of Archery", having read both, it is semantics, they both say the same thing. I am also a Psychologist and understand the intellectual draw of the neurology of this and it would be interesting, subjectively, when you are absent, it is effortless.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I am trying to make it easy for ya...because I honestly don't think you can do any better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL. Nope that's all I got, but no matter since it's pretty much been determined that most of the so called 'gap shooters' are kidding themselves by believing they set some gap and then shift the focus to the target and the subconcious takes over. Remember that I had not realised that until recently when each and every one of them admitted to shifting the focus AFTER setting the 'gap'. If the "gap' is correct or not is no longer important at that point. The subconcious fixes it anyway while the shooter may be totally unaware that it's happening.
And, the form of 'true' instinctive you describe is really just snap shooting. Don't believe me,just watch Jinks video.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> it's pretty much been determined that most of the so called 'gap shooters' are kidding themselves by believing they set some gap and then shift the focus to the target and the subconcious takes over. Remember that I had not realised that until recently when each and every one of them admitted to shifting the focus AFTER setting the 'gap'. If the "gap' is correct or not is no longer important at that point. The subconcious fixes it anyway while the shooter may be totally unaware that it's happening.


By golly...you're getting it...but what's crazy is that your explaining the differences yet are NOT acknowledging that they are different. 

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

If you are trying to hit a target you are aiming. How anyone does it is their business. If you think your method is best that's good and how well you are able to place your arrows when you shoot is how good you are. Pick your stle and pick your type of shooting and do what you think works best and deal with the results however good or bad they are. And suddenly there's nothing to argue about. Suddenly, its just a bunch of archers shooting the best way they know how to shoot. 

Seems simple, huh?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> LOL. Nope that's all I got, but no matter since it's pretty much been determined that most of the so called 'gap shooters' are kidding themselves by believing they set some gap and then shift the focus to the target and the subconcious takes over. Remember that I had not realised that until recently when each and every one of them admitted to shifting the focus AFTER setting the 'gap'. If the "gap' is correct or not is no longer important at that point. The subconcious fixes it anyway while the shooter may be totally unaware that it's happening.
> And, the form of 'true' instinctive you describe is really just snap shooting. Don't believe me,just watch Jinks video.


Yep, and the gap between my sight aperture and the target is pretty much the same thing, a lot of instinctive sight picture. See, there's no archer out there who would be able to hold a bow steady enough to maintain a "fixed" relationship of any sight. Even the freestyle compound shooters understand that their sight picture is always floating, so there is no way to set a "fixed gap" either and expect it to hold steady while you switch focus - it's never steady. 

Easy test - mount a laser to your bow and see if you can hold it within a circle of any desirable size for target work at 20 yards- impossible. Back up and it gets way worse.

What one can do is set their sighting reference up within their sight picture first, and then work with that sighting reference as it moves around - that's the really amazing part of our brain, that a person who can hold a sight reference, where at 90 yards a few thousands of an inch variance at the sight is way off their mark at the target, yet they can continually hit their mark. That is the subconscious and instinctual at play for all archers, sighted or not, recognizing and timing the sight picture. Some just want to dis-aggregate this aspect as being only related to a few "who get it", when in fact, it's already gotten by the majority who explain it back but not in simple minded enough terms as "pick a hair" or "burn a hole", it seems.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> How anyone does it is their business.


Absolutely....especially if they want to keep it to themselves...BUT...like I've always said...getting it right is really only important in teaching and learning.

Just because a person discusses the details involved with the different aiming techniques or the advantages and disadvantages of them under specific circumstances does NOT mean the person is trying to lesson another archer's achievements!

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Absolutely....especially if they want to keep it to themselves...BUT...like I've always said...getting it right is really only important in teaching and learning.
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Lots of self styled teachers with lots of systems and theories. As with anything else, caveat emptor.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

:jeez: 400 posts,probably 80% of them arguing over stuff that really doesn't matter too much in the real world anyway, and suddenly it all comes down to this. All of you agree with me in the end? COOL.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

The football posts were the most interesting.

:thumb:

By the way, Forest......I never agreed with you.

"Instinctive" should be renamed "Natural Point and Shoot."

"Subconscious" should be renamed "Subliminal."

:wink:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> They are getting easier,I KNOW you can do better.
> 
> Ready for this??? When that 'gap shooter' moves his focus from the arrow to the spot he wants it to hit,,,,, ya know it already don't ya? Oh well, the brain takes over and compensates for the concious error made while 'gapping'.


Forest, you still don't get it. I've explained the gap system till I was blue in the face. With the gap you don't transfer your focus to what you want to hit, you look at the gap until the arrow is gone. You will never get the concept because you are so used to picking a point, even to the point of sometimes calling it instinctive because everyone knows that you so called instinctive guys are just looking down your arrow at a spot on the ground, right sharpie


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Logos said:


> The football posts were the most interesting.
> 
> :thumb:
> 
> ...


But, is natural really accurate? I mean, it's not like animals shoot a bow. It's pretty much a man-made phenomenon....


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Logos said:


> This discussion is immortal and will always rise again.


Apparently. Can't talk about differences without some sort of childish bickering ensuing. Thanks to all who gave legitimate input and things to think about (and that did happen even amongst the bickering ).


----------

