# Kim Woojin shooting



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

I can’t stop watching this video! 

https://youtu.be/8ujKH6hRFOI

I think this is an example of a hybrid between angular and linear draw techniques. If you watch his stabilizer, and his draw forearm it’s a fairly angular draw cycle. However, his shoulder alignment stays pretty linear and square to the target from his set up position on. I would argue this is the “easy” version of NTS. I shoot NtS, but this is what I would like my form to look like. Compact, simple, and so balanced and easy. Love it! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ksarcher (May 22, 2002)

The "floppy" front weight seems to work for him!!!


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Yeah my dampers are pretty floppy too. Seems to cut down my limb flutter, but I wonder what a stiffer damper would feel like. I’m running 6 oz out front and 4 on rah of my side rods. Shooting 42.5# OtF. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Gregjlongbow said:


> I can’t stop watching this video!
> 
> https://youtu.be/8ujKH6hRFOI
> 
> ...


He does seem to draw to the outside of his face and I think his draw hand is similar to NTS. His shoulder alignment doesn't stay linear/square to the target however, if I understand what you are saying. See here where his stabilizer is pointed toward the left and his shoulders are rotated so that they are aligned far to the right similar to the famous Ms. Park video where she is shooting at target #2 but her shoulders are aligned with target #8.


----------



## AR720 (Jun 28, 2016)

Seattlepop said:


> He does seem to draw to the outside of his face and I think his draw hand is similar to NTS. His shoulder alignment doesn't stay linear/square to the target however, if I understand what you are saying. See here where his stabilizer is pointed toward the left and his shoulders are rotated so that they are aligned far to the right similar to the famous Ms. Park video where she is shooting at target #2 but her shoulders are aligned with target #8.
> 
> 
> View attachment 6502179


Triggered response in 3...2...1...


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I don't think many people here who makes a distinction between NTS and non-NTS understand the meaning of "linear". But that's just my personal opinion.


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

What is moving for the final bit of Expansion? 
I'd normally look for string movement against chest guard, but I don't see that. Draw elbow movement, Or bow arm straightening,... I can't quite figure it out. At least no on my phone.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

OCBrent said:


> What is moving for the final bit of Expansion?
> I'd normally look for string movement against chest guard, but I don't see that. Draw elbow movement, Or bow arm straightening,... I can't quite figure it out. At least no on my phone.


This might help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7kx-aDWXks


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

Seattlepop said:


> This might help:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7kx-aDWXks


Thanks. I can't pick out anything on the draw side. I don't see string movement relative to his chest guard or shirt, and I don't see the string squishing into his face more. 
I don't see an "Oh Jin" type bow arm straightening, but I "think" I saw his bow arm move out a bit a couple times in the previous video, so maybe a subtle "Heretic Archer" type expansion? I'm not sure. But certainly a beautiful balanced shot.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

OCBrent said:


> Thanks. I can't pick out anything on the draw side. I don't see string movement relative to his chest guard or shirt, and I don't see the string squishing into his face more.
> I don't see an "Oh Jin" type bow arm straightening, but I "think" I saw his bow arm move out a bit a couple times in the previous video, so maybe a subtle "Heretic Archer" type expansion? I'm not sure. But certainly a beautiful balanced shot.


Yeah I don’t see it either, but that’s probably why he’s so consistent. Small moves! Very controlled! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tooold (Jul 26, 2015)

I agree. I think his technique, no matter how you categorise it, is as near to perfection as you can get. Interesting to note that Brady Ellison recently stated that he though Kim is the greatest archer ever. In terms of results and technique, I couldn't agree more. I never tire of watching him.
I think if I ran an archery school, I would have film of him shooting and instruct my students to "do it like Kim".


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

theminoritydude said:


> I don't think many people here who makes a distinction between NTS and non-NTS understand the meaning of "linear". But that's just my personal opinion.


Its a good opinion, in my opinion.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Seattlepop said:


> He does seem to draw to the outside of his face and I think his draw hand is similar to NTS. His shoulder alignment doesn't stay linear/square to the target however, if I understand what you are saying. See here where his stabilizer is pointed toward the left and his shoulders are rotated so that they are aligned far to the right similar to the famous Ms. Park video where she is shooting at target #2 but her shoulders are aligned with target #8.
> 
> 
> View attachment 6502179


When you watch his stabilizer during his drawing motion, the only motion his stabilizer makes is vertical. There is no discernible movement of his stabilizer moving horizontal. The best I can tell, is that he sets his alignment with the target, and draws the string back to his anchor. Just a simple motion with seemingly no concern on his part about how he draws.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

erose said:


> When you watch his stabilizer during his drawing motion, the only motion his stabilizer makes is vertical. There is no discernible movement of his stabilizer moving horizontal. The best I can tell, is that he sets his alignment with the target, and draws the string back to his anchor. Just a simple motion with seemingly no concern on his part about how he draws.


I disagree. Look at the third shot on the video. To me it looks like as he anchoring the stabilizer travels about 3” to his right, and up. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

TMD may be correct, (just this once)  that the concept of "linear" is misunderstood. Linear as Chris describes it only has to do with the bow's plane as the archer draws the string. Secondary to that is how and at what point the archer rotates/aligns their shoulders to form the "triangle". This, imho, is largely where "linear" and "NTS" diverge because one style requires the string to be drawn to the outside of the face and the other directly to the face. This affects how you execute the shoulder rotation resulting in your scapula aligned to the right of the target line. Proper shoulder alignment, again imho, is a zillion times more important than how you get there.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Seattlepop said:


> TMD may be correct, (just this once) .


Imma open that Dom Pérignon.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Gregjlongbow said:


> I disagree. Look at the third shot on the video. To me it looks like as he anchoring the stabilizer travels about 3” to his right, and up.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I seen only one shot out of all of these that showed any horizontal movement of the stabilizer during draw. You know what his draw reminds me of, is someone who has been blankbaling all day, and is ready to go home. When I watched this video, what I see is an archer, who doesn't care how he gets to anchor. He only cares what happens after he gets to anchor. There is no linear draw, no angular draw; just a draw to anchor.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

erose said:


> I seen only one shot out of all of these that showed any horizontal movement of the stabilizer during draw. You know what his draw reminds me of, is someone who has been blankbaling all day, and is ready to go home. When I watched this video, what I see is an archer, who doesn't care how he gets to anchor. He only cares what happens after he gets to anchor. There is no linear draw, no angular draw; just a draw to anchor.


That’s fair. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Greg,

Thanks for posting that video. I've been struggling some lately with my clicker, and there was something that I saw in that video that got me thinking about my shot; and after some practicing that last night, my shot feels a lot better at least with blank baling. Going to shoot targets today to see what happens.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

erose said:


> Greg,
> 
> Thanks for posting that video. I've been struggling some lately with my clicker, and there was something that I saw in that video that got me thinking about my shot; and after some practicing that last night, my shot feels a lot better at least with blank baling. Going to shoot targets today to see what happens.


You may send my coaching fee via PayPal. Glad you liked it! Glad it helped! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Seattlepop said:


> TMD may be correct, (just this once)  that the concept of "linear" is misunderstood. Linear as Chris describes it only has to do with the bow's plane as the archer draws the string. Secondary to that is how and at what point the archer rotates/aligns their shoulders to form the "triangle". This, imho, is largely where "linear" and "NTS" diverge because one style requires the string to be drawn to the outside of the face and the other directly to the face. This affects how you execute the shoulder rotation resulting in your scapula aligned to the right of the target line. Proper shoulder alignment, again imho, is a zillion times more important than how you get there.


Well I’m going to go out on a limb here, and comment. Although I may be in the group that doesn’t understand. 

A plane that is drawn between any two points is “linear”, and weather you are pointing the arrow at the target when you draw or to the left of the target when you draw (for right handed NTS) the plane of the draw is linear. The only element that could be considered “non-linear” is the alignment of your body in relation to that line of force, and from what angle the force is being applied on the string and the riser. So when I say he is non-linear, or less-linear I am referring to the angular force applied on the string from his body angle at draw. I don’t know if Chris would agree with that, but that’s the only way I can describe it. 

For me it is the small move his stabilizer makes, and the orientation of his draw elbow-forearm-wrist-hand while he is drawing that gives me the sense that he is actually using an angular draw rather than a linear draw. My eyes could be playing tricks on me though, and of course I’m not an expert. 

What do you guys think of that explanation? Be nice. 

Greg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Kim Woojin does not shoot NTS or angular. 


Chris


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

See guys! Like I said. He does not shoot NTS or angular. 

It must just be the way I’m looking at it then. Still fantastic shooting to watch! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WDWILHELM (Jul 2, 2009)

Greg,
I am not a student of NTS and what little I know of the system is based on posts from this forum. Check out 1:45>1:48, 2:14>2:16, and 2:40>2:42 from the video below. This gentleman reaches full draw, then, with the point under the clicker and under full load of the draw, rotates his shoulder to bring his draw hand into anchor. I understand that this 2" to 3" movement as being the angular movement. I could be wrong, but this is how I understand angular vs linear within this forum. It is about how you get to anchor and shoulder alignment, not the ending shoulder alignment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOpXdMXtHyA

I hope this helps.

Wyndell


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Depending on how one sees it, they are all angular and linear. The only meaningful difference is the active use of the drawing arm biceps. It’s really that simple.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Gregjlongbow said:


> Well I’m going to go out on a limb here, and comment. Although I may be in the group that doesn’t understand.
> 
> A plane that is drawn between any two points is “linear”, and weather you are pointing the arrow at the target when you draw or to the left of the target when you draw (for right handed NTS) the plane of the draw is linear. The only element that could be considered “non-linear” is the alignment of your body in relation to that line of force, and from what angle the force is being applied on the string and the riser. So when I say he is non-linear, or less-linear I am referring to the angular force applied on the string from his body angle at draw. I don’t know if Chris would agree with that, but that’s the only way I can describe it.
> 
> ...


With the bow in isolation, that would be correct. However I believe our discussion around linear regarding drawing form includes the target line. In other words, drawing the bow in plane and parallel to the target line so that the target, bow hand, draw hand form a straight line from the time you hook the string until you are at anchor. 

Here is another variation on the theme and my personal favorite. Notice that he hooks the string at an angle, not in a straight line between his bow hand and elbow. But also notice that he hooks the string with his wrist cupped. I'm assuming he does this in order to keep his bow on plane with the target line. He then flattens his wrist as he draws, aligns his shoulders by rotating his upper torso/shoulders, and finishes it off with a rise in his draw elbow. The way he rotates his shoulders into alignment is how I have always interpreted NTS "stepping into the bow". Oh Kyo Moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EokvHXnE7rY

Here is another example of a cupped wrist at hooking which keeps the bow on plane with the target line from the beginning of the shot. Her elbow is out, but if viewed from the side her bow hand, string hand and elbow would form a straight line. As she rotates her shoulders and draws, the bow stays on plane with the target line. 







Screen capture from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=162s&v=PiX5g7zjbWE&app=desktop


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> See here where his stabilizer is pointed toward the left and his shoulders are rotated so that they are aligned far to the right similar to the famous Ms. Park video where she is shooting at target #2 but her shoulders are aligned with target #8.


Physically impossible. Try standing on the shooting line and bow arm aim at your target directly in front of you, and then please align your shoulders to the target 6 targets to your right. So bow arm is inline to target 2, and your shoulders are aligned to target 8, 6 targets to the right. 

You really need to understand camera perspective. Here is a video of Mrs Park shooting at a target in front of her. Please see that her shoulders are not aligned way right another 6 targets down the line. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3and4vWkW4s

and please show AR720 that she does not coil.....


Chris


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> Physically impossible. Try standing on the shooting line and bow arm aim at your target directly in front of you, and then please align your shoulders to the target 6 targets to your right. *So bow arm is inline to target 2*, and your shoulders are aligned to target 8, 6 targets to the right.
> 
> You really need to understand camera perspective. Here is a video of Mrs Park shooting at a target in front of her. Please see that her shoulders are not aligned way right another 6 targets down the line.
> 
> ...


A basic understanding of the "triangle" should be sufficient to grasp the concept that shoulders are turned due to the front shoulder moving forward and the rear shoulder moving back. 

I fail to understand why this is a problem for you. Some form more of a triangle than others, but with rare exception they all do it. It in no way precludes shooting "linear" style. Compound archers will often form more of a trapezoid shape, but recurve archers are better served by the more efficient triangle. Does this look familiar? Line A-B forms the target line and A-C forms shoulder alignment to the right of the target line. 









Shoulder alignment: Your link shows Ms. Park from behind the shooting line and her front shoulder and bow arm are obscured, so not much help. Interesting choice. 

I'll show this photo of Ms. Park one more time. Imagine a yard stick placed across her back at the scapula. Do you seriously not see the yard stick pointing toward target #8? 

I really want to emphasize that nothing in this discussion invalidates the linear form you teach. Nor does in invalidate NTS or any other style, since they all seem to end up in the same place.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

A little point I’d like to add: That triangle everyone is always talking about is actually not a true triangle. A true force triangle is formed by two rigid linkages in compression and one linkage in tension, and since it is in tension, it’s rigidity is a non-issue. The bowarm, upper and lower, and shoulders may look like one side of a triangle, but it is not. These separate linkages form a somewhat straight line due to at least 4 points of moment force placed at their joints, and these moment forces are considerably high in magnitude. I’ve said this before: while it relieves the archer from having to use too much force, it is by no means critical to align. If anyone felt any relief on the bow arm shoulder from aligning, that relief came from the opposite shoulder, which now takes one extra burden to pull through the clicker. There is an optimal balance somewhere, and it takes a little experimentation to find it.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Seattlepop said:


> A basic understanding of the "triangle" should be sufficient to grasp the concept that shoulders are turned due to the front shoulder moving forward and the rear shoulder moving back.
> 
> I fail to understand why this is a problem for you. Some form more of a triangle than others, but with rare exception they all do it. It in no way precludes shooting "linear" style. Compound archers will often form more of a trapezoid shape, but recurve archers are better served by the more efficient triangle. Does this look familiar? Line A-B forms the target line and A-C forms shoulder alignment to the right of the target line.
> 
> ...


Just as a comment on camera oddities, the next arrow from Ms. Park seems to show her shoulders pointing toward at least target #12, so surely there must be some camera visual distortion at work here ....


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

This discussion reminds me of golf instructors who teach swing theory and forget that there is an actual real life game to be played.

Brady's interview of late, where he mentions finding internal balance and feeling and making minute last second adjustments is easily the most practical shooting theory I've read in a decade.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Didn't mean to spark a huge debate. However, I do feel like my shoulders are aligned in tangent to the line of the target. 

Please don't rail on my form. It's working pretty well right now, and I don't want to mess with it too much. 

I would have to say that both visually, and from what I feel my shoulders are aligned one, possibly two targets to the right while my arrow goes to the target just to the right of the line. I'm shooting on 89 A if you can't tell. 

https://youtu.be/K3c_UTNC0_k

Now I'm not saying that everyone is like this, or that you have to be like to have good alignment but I do think my right shoulder creates a tangent line to the line of the arrow/target. 

To relate this back to the original post, I think Kim Woojin is able to reduce the angle of his draw elbow to the point where he is relatively flat to the target. So, it is not as noticeably in tangent to the line of the arrow/target. 

I really just think he's marvelous, and I want to shoot like him. That was the original intent of this post. 

Greg


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Please don't rail on my form. It's working pretty well right now, and I don't want to mess with it too much.


I often think that one of the advantages I had when I started shooting OR was very few sets of eyes on my technique. That allowed me to really focus on what I thought the issues were, and not be distracted by someone else's bias. Yes, you do give up experience in some cases, but I believe that the experience of others can just as easily lead a person down the wrong path FOR THEM. Especially if the person offering guidance hasn't worked with that archer for very long and hasn't seen their progression through different changes in form.

I would put listening to your own body at the top of the list of importance when it comes to developing your shot. A mature archer (regardless of age) will understand this and although they may try different techniques or tweak the one they use, ultimately they will allow their own internal feelings to guide the way.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> I often think that one of the advantages I had when I started shooting OR was very few sets of eyes on my technique. That allowed me to really focus on what I thought the issues were, and not be distracted by someone else's bias. Yes, you do give up experience in some cases, but I believe that the experience of others can just as easily lead a person down the wrong path FOR THEM. Especially if the person offering guidance hasn't worked with that archer for very long and hasn't seen their progression through different changes in form.
> 
> I would put listening to your own body at the top of the list of importance when it comes to developing your shot. A mature archer (regardless of age) will understand this and although they may try different techniques or tweak the one they use, ultimately they will allow their own internal feelings to guide the way.


Was that a nice way of saying that my form looks like crap? Lol! I agree with you John. 

Greg


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Really hard to resist, I could not... 

TMD is right, there is not such a thing like a triangle, but a possible infinite number of them in the same space, with forces balanced to many joints.
And, the most common shooting form is a trapezious, and an infinite number of them, as majority of archers can't fit in any of the possible triangles. 
And, many irregular other forms, and infinite number of them, have been used successlly (Yamamoto's short forearm, for instance).
And, while in compound it si easy to re-adjust balance to the line of the target at full draw as of the few pounds involved, in recurve with many pounds to manage, forces are very difficult to re-distribute to the line, specifically if you have a big brest in the middle.
Finally, consistency comes from efficiency, and for sure moving around the bow during the traction is against both, independently from tringles, trapezios or other geometric forms. .


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gregjlongbow said:


> Was that a nice way of saying that my form looks like crap? Lol! I agree with you John.
> 
> Greg


LOL Not at all Greg. I encourage my students to experiment with different "triangles and trapezoids" as Vittorio puts it, and figure out the best way for their body to handle the load. Ultimately, to reach one's competitive potential, they will need to be shooting 80-90% of their maximum draw weight. To do that and still maintain relaxed focus, your body has to be in a strong position to begin with. Some techniques that are forced on archers by coaches might work for some archers, but not all archers. Finding the proper technique for an individual must be a collaborative effort that combines the experience of the coach with the feedback of the archer.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> LOL Not at all Greg. I encourage my students to experiment with different "triangles and trapezoids" as Vittorio puts it, and figure out the best way for their body to handle the load. Ultimately, to reach one's competitive potential, they will need to be shooting 80-90% of their maximum draw weight. To do that and still maintain relaxed focus, your body has to be in a strong position to begin with. Some techniques that are forced on archers by coaches might work for some archers, but not all archers. Finding the proper technique for an individual must be a collaborative effort that combines the experience of the coach with the feedback of the archer.


Well said! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gregjlongbow said:


> I can’t stop watching this video!
> 
> https://youtu.be/8ujKH6hRFOI
> 
> ...


The guy yawning in the background at 0:56 is priceless. 

I always wonder how the Korean men get by with holding so long when the women shoot so fast. There has to be an explanation for that.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> The guy yawning in the background at 0:56 is priceless.
> 
> I always wonder how the Korean men get by with holding so long when the women shoot so fast. There has to be an explanation for that.


Women know when to let go.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Seattlepop said:


> Women know when to let go.


I definitely have a problem with letting go. Once I’m in that sweet spot I just want to sit there and enjoy the strong hold instead of continuing to expand through the clicker and execute. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> Women know when to let go.


LOL. Very true.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gregjlongbow said:


> I definitely have a problem with letting go. Once I’m in that sweet spot I just want to sit there and enjoy the strong hold instead of continuing to expand through the clicker and execute.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This was perhaps my single biggest issue when competing with the OR. At the peak of my fitness, I could hold 52# all day and the aperture never wavered. I would fall in love with that steady sight picture and just stop moving.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

limbwalker said:


> This was perhaps my single biggest issue when competing with the OR. At the peak of my fitness, I could hold 52# all day and the aperture never wavered. I would fall in love with that steady sight picture and just stop moving.


Yep! I’m flattered and impressed with myself that we have the same problem! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Ok last two cents on whether Kim is angular at any point in his draw. 



















This is the image comparison that gives me the visual impression of an angular draw. 

And really I don’t care necessarily how we define it, or what it really is. What I think is remarkable is that it does seem to me very different than the other top Korean men like: Oh, Im, Lee Woo Seok, Lee Seungyun etc. for whatever reason Kim’s draw is sooo much more appealing to me, and feels more like what I do. I get a sympathetic motor feeling when I watch him that I don’t get when I watch the others. I think it’s the lack of bicep engagement/slightly outside of his face that contributes. This could just be because he makes it look so easy that it feels good to watch. But that’s really all I was getting at with this post. 

Glad for the discussion! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Seattlepop said:


> I fail to understand why this is a problem for you.


What you fail to see is one,

The triangle of the bow shoulders and the arrow/ draw arm still both point to the same target. No matter the target is 5 feet away or 70 meters. The triangle - both sides point to ONE target. The target you are aiming at. Your bow shoulders dont point 40 yards to the right. 

And what you fail to see in that video, she is shooting exactly the same shot over and over, emptying her quiver of arrows, the camera rotates around her. There is one shot exactly behind her that shows her bow shoulders pointing exactly at target 2. The later shots are skewd by the camera angle. That is the last thing you cant comprehend. Her shoulders are not pointed to target 8. It is physically impossible to get your shoulders to point at target 8 or 12, while shooting at target 2 on a fita field.

And that is why you are finally on my ignore list.

Chris


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)




----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Ignore list? For this?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> Ignore list? For this?


It's just geometry after all. 

Chris, (when you eventually see this) PM me - I would be happy to discuss what you think is our problem. Seriously. 

Fred


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> This discussion reminds me of golf instructors who teach swing theory and forget that there is an actual real life game to be played.
> 
> Brady's interview of late, where he mentions finding internal balance and feeling and making minute last second adjustments is easily the most practical shooting theory I've read in a decade.


AGREE on both points, John. I also thought Brady's interview was just pure gold in its succinct insight - I immediately put it out on the bat signal of our club.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

lksseven said:


> AGREE on both points, John. I also thought Brady's interview was just pure gold in its succinct insight - I immediately put it out on the bat signal of our club.


He's always cut through the nonsense and focused in on the (few) things that really matter. All the best shooters I know do the same. Part of being a world class archer is knowing what matters and what doesn't. I call it "Archery I.Q." and Brady's is extremely high.


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

A triangle may look stable when it is a *RIGID* supporting structure. 

There is no clear advantage on triangle form when performing a linear expansion (while maintaining the draw line).


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> He's always cut through the nonsense and focused in on the (few) things that really matter. All the best shooters I know do the same. Part of being a world class archer is knowing what matters and what doesn't. I call it "Archery I.Q." and Brady's is extremely high.


He's got the gift to see and describe the essence of a thing. I asked him 4 years ago how he determined how much weight to put on his stabilizers, and his reply, "I keep hanging on weight till it feels right", was damn near a Philosophy of Life in less than ten words.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

chang said:


> A triangle may look stable when it is a *RIGID* supporting structure.
> 
> There is no clear advantage on triangle form when performing a linear expansion (while maintaining the draw line).


Certainly nobody could ever prove a practical advantage. I would only say when you look at the physics of the angles, and the way muscles resist forces at joints, a triangle is the shape with the fewest angles/joints, and I would argue that makes it more stable than any other shape in a vacuum. Also, when considering the way a muscle resists a force at a joint, the closer an angle/joint is to 90 degrees the harder the muscle will have to work to resist the load on the moving arm of the pair of lines. The closer it is to 180 degrees or 0 degrees the less work work the muscle will have to do. The triangle in terms of shooting puts the most difficult angle to manage (the angle opposite the longest side of the triangle) on your back which is stronger than your shoulders and elbows. At least that is the idea. Of course with people shooting results may vary. But basically a triangle just takes out one of the angles, and to me that “feels” more stable. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

lksseven said:


> AGREE on both points, John. I also thought Brady's interview was just pure gold in its succinct insight - I immediately put it out on the bat signal of our club.


I don’t disagree with this at all. I would only add that what we value in Brady, and I think what you are describing here, is that “it” factor. That certain something that comes naturally, and is where your “talent” is stored. It’s the subconscious. The special something we should all learn to tap into. It’s 100% a good thing. 

However, and I say this as a former professional singer too, that talent factor can be easily lost. We can forget the trigger, we can lose the feeling, we can get the yipps, and lose our mojo. If you don’t have an extremely well engineered technique you won’t know how to fix it, and you will suffer. It happened to me in my singing technique, it happened to Tiger Woods with his golf swing. When you lose the magic, and you realize that you’ve been relying on that to get your arrows in the middle, or sing the high note correctly, or drive the green on a par 5, you might not have anything to fall back on if and when the magic is gone. 

It happened to me, and it’s not a fun feeling. Something that was once so easy, and natural becomes completely foreign and nebulous. 

So for me, this is one of the reasons I get so nerdy about technique, and form. It helps me know exactly what I’m doing and when. So that when the day comes that it doesn’t feel right anymore, I can have something that anchors me, and I can regain my bearings. 

But I agree that you have to figure what makes you special too, and learn to tap into that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

lksseven said:


> AGREE on both points, John. I also thought Brady's interview was just pure gold in its succinct insight - I immediately put it out on the bat signal of our club.


You wouldn’t mind lighting up that bat signal here too for those of us who failed to google it?


----------



## stevebster (Feb 5, 2018)

when was this interview posted? not sure I caught it.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

stevebster said:


> when was this interview posted? not sure I caught it.


On YouTube search Brady Ellison Shoot Like Me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

Gregjlongbow said:


> Certainly nobody could ever prove a practical advantage. I would only say when you look at the physics of the angles, and the way muscles resist forces at joints, a triangle is the shape with the fewest angles/joints, and I would argue that makes it more stable than any other shape in a vacuum. Also, when considering the way a muscle resists a force at a joint, the closer an angle/joint is to 90 degrees the harder the muscle will have to work to resist the load on the moving arm of the pair of lines. The closer it is to 180 degrees or 0 degrees the less work work the muscle will have to do. The triangle in terms of shooting puts the most difficult angle to manage (the angle opposite the longest side of the triangle) on your back which is stronger than your shoulders and elbows. At least that is the idea. Of course with people shooting results may vary. But basically a triangle just takes out one of the angles, and to me that “feels” more stable.


There are several joints in this so called straight line. and during expansion, it still need your muscle control to keep it "straight", while the other side increase the pulling force. Otherwise the triangle pointing will change direction. 

To me, It is a more un-symmetical form of movement for the body to execute.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

chang said:


> There are several joints in this so called straight line. and during expansion, it still need your muscle control to keep it "straight", while the other side increase the pulling force. Otherwise the triangle pointing will change direction.
> 
> To me, It is a more un-symmetical form of movement for the body to execute.


Yes that’s true. Muscles at the joints and around the frame are constantly opposing forces of collapse.


----------



## yegon (Aug 15, 2017)

the straighter the line the less muscle tension is needed to keep it straight - basic simple machines - lever physics - its demonstrated by many coaches by pushing on the shooters bow hand and sting elbow to show how important the straight line is

I have never heard any coach saying or writing that alignment is not important

also the bow hand and the plane of the bow have to be at an angle to allow for string clearance - so I cant see how they both could be pointing at the same spot 70m away


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Well ultimately, if you are strong enough, and you practice enough you can shoot without getting close to being in line and probably shoot good scores. My coach has his elbow sticking way out to the right of his string, and he shoots pretty high scores. 

I agree with you though.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Poetry in motion: Go to 1:42 and watch How Ms. Chang raises the bow and rotates her shoulders. Smoooooth. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNctMiTJUjg&t=117s


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

liquidator4711 said:


> You wouldn’t mind lighting up that bat signal here too for those of us who failed to google it?


https://worldarchery.org/news/158956/archery-101-how-brady-ellison-develops-his-shooting-technique


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

Thank you!


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

yegon said:


> the straighter the line the less muscle tension is needed to keep it straight - basic simple machines - lever physics - its demonstrated by many coaches by pushing on the shooters bow hand and sting elbow to show how important the straight line is


If it is a triangle, then there is an angle exist between draw line and the support line. even the support line is perfectly straight, but keeping it straight is not simple pushing forward. 

and the straighter the one side, would just make another side far less bone support optimal. 

Our upper body can do much strong move, if the support or movement are symmetrical. and I believe there shall be a balance.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

I agree that we all need to find our own balance, and feel the shot. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

This coach describes it as "The Wedge". The whole video is good, but for our (ok, my) discussion, go to 7:12 and see how the most efficient angles have the shoulders and bow arm aligned away (in this video graphic to the left) from the draw line. Yes, good coaches will explain how they need to accommodate specific archer's needs and abilities. Not everyone can physically accomplish this nor is this a thread about what makes a good coach. I think we have been talking about the Koreans and what is common among all but the rare exceptions. In doing so, we have to include the concept of bio-mechanical efficiency which the Koreans have mastered. The "triangle" or "wedge" are teaching tools, no more. Someone probably looked at Korean form (and no doubt other's) and said "Oh, that kinda makes a triangle, let's use that as a teaching tool". Or in this case, "The Wedge".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pCejcb6DAI


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Seattlepop said:


> This coach describes it as "The Wedge". The whole video is good, but for our (ok, my) discussion, go to 7:12 and see how the most efficient angles have the shoulders and bow arm aligned away (in this video graphic to the left) from the draw line. Yes, good coaches will explain how they need to accommodate specific archer's needs and abilities. Not everyone can physically accomplish this nor is this a thread about what makes a good coach. I think we have been talking about the Koreans and what is common among all but the rare exceptions. In doing so, we have to include the concept of bio-mechanical efficiency which the Koreans have mastered. The "triangle" or "wedge" are teaching tools, no more. Someone probably looked at Korean form (and no doubt other's) and said "Oh, that kinda makes a triangle, let's use that as a teaching tool". Or in this case, "The Wedge".
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pCejcb6DAI


Agree. 

I liked the Wedge videos. I like Brady's descriptions of what's going on with his shot execution relying on balance and subconscious process. I like much of what Chris describes as linear draw. I like much of Vittorio's the Heretic Archer form process.

I remember Bruce Lee answering the question of "what is your style? What is 'the Way' ?", and he replied "'There is no "way". There is only me. I try to understand multiple styles/systems (of martial arts) and take the best from each and incorporate it into my own solution." Bingo.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

lksseven said:


> Agree.
> 
> I liked the Wedge videos. I like Brady's descriptions of what's going on with his shot execution relying on balance and subconscious process. I like much of what Chris describes as linear draw. I like much of Vittorio's the Heretic Archer form process.
> 
> I remember Bruce Lee answering the question of "what is your style? What is 'the Way' ?", and he replied "'There is no "way". There is only me. I try to understand multiple styles/systems (of martial arts) and take the best from each and incorporate it into my own solution." Bingo.


Nice. I like what Arnold Palmer said when asked how he draws or fades the ball. "I just think it". Maybe I'll start thinking "X" and see if it helps.


----------

