# Define/label this "hinge" firing process if you can....



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Sounds to me very similar to "yielding". But instead of the fingers yielding, more like the hand yielding. 
Sounds like he has found a way to achieve most everything we look for in firing a hinge...even if a little out of the box.
That, or I could have misunderstood. :wink:


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Mahly said:


> Sounds to me very similar to "yielding". But instead of the fingers yielding, more like the hand yielding.
> Sounds like he has found a way to achieve most everything we look for in firing a hinge...even if a little out of the box.
> That, or I could have misunderstood. :wink:


I have watched Jesse Broadwater extensively on video. I see a lot of similarities in video form to this guys words. I wonder if this is close to Jesse's firing process? And no, I'm not implying that these are Jesse's words above. Far from it. 

I have heard that Jesse has shared a little (firing process) checklist with a few people. But I've never seen it written down. Would sure like to know what it is.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Not claiming expertise by any means, but is sounds like pull/yield to me. I'd be willing to bet that is how most people that think they are using "pure" back tension are actually firing the release.


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> Ok, I'm curious of others opinions on this. I know this guy that shared his (main) firing process with me as best he could and I just wanted to hear some thoughts on how the I&A forum would define this process. So here goes, I'll start with full draw.......
> 
> At the precise instant of full draw this guy completes the transfer of the draw of the bow into the back muscles (I'm not sure he knows the I&A forum names for all the muscles, he just uses the term "back" muscles.) Since his eyes have been on the "X" from pre-draw to this point his lens is usually pretty much centered on at least the highest scoring ring when he looks through the peep. Ok........here's where it gets interesting; When the highest scoring ring is acquired and centered in the lens he pulls (not a physical pull against the wall) but a pull of the back and bow against the relaxed muscles in the draw arm, (he calls it a stretching pull.) He says when he does this it starts a (real) physical flattening of the hand which I guess because of the anatomy of the hand causes an equalization of the pressure on the fore finger and the second finger. He says when he thinks about it he physically feels the hand flatten out and the release rotate between those first two fingers. He says while this is happening he has a laser focus on the "X" and if he has done his part the bow pretty much fires effortlessly.* He says that sometimes if he is shooting a little angle outdoors (or stress situations) he knows to engage the ring finger in the process right up front to assist this process if it slows before the bow goes off but always to the end of an unanticipated release.*
> 
> ...


Who was this? I stumbled across this method after trying the GRIV method of yielding the release hand.

This is how I shoot my hinge and I love it. It's amazing the bolded is exactly what I have had issues with. If I'm suddenly hanging up, which is almost always in some sort of pressure situation, it's because my ring finger wasn't engaged properly.

I'll fully admit that I think it's because of how I draw with the hinge heavily on my index finger and thumb - I don't have the time or discipline to tear my shot down again to change drawing with more even pressure across the finger bed.


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

cbrunson said:


> Not claiming expertise by any means, but is sounds like pull/yield to me. I'd be willing to bet that is how most people that think they are using "pure" back tension are actually firing the release.


Pull/yield is how I'd describe it also.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

I would say it's typical pull yield execution. the thing is that how you set up your release, will have a large bearing on just how much yield you need to allow, to get the hinge to rotate. obviously, if you have it set pretty shallow(or "fast" as some call it) the yield doesn't have to be much more that a "suggestion" and the shot breaks.
as cbrunson suggested, many people mix the yield and what some here call, "pure back tension" processes together, whether knowingly or not.
I have a suspicion that the description you posted, is a melding of knowingly combining both methods.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

If the "expansion" in the hand is intentional, a practiced skill, I'd call it Shawn's yielding engine. If that intention with the hand is absent (the yeild is natural and not a practiced skill), it's basically PBT (with what Tim Gillingham calls a "controlled release" in the case where the ring finger is intentially manipulated  ).

My whack at it,

LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

it could very well be that, indeed. there's so much overlap of supporting process involved, that it's hard to hear or read someone's "description" and make a definite call.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

ron w said:


> it could very well be that, indeed. there's so much overlap of supporting process involved, that it's hard to hear or read someone's "description" and make a definite call.


Not to make a comparison, but the description sounds to me very close to what I do with my pull-through now and what I was doing with my hinge at the end of its career. The draw arm feels like simple rope or string suspended between the hook of my fingers in the handle and the elbow, with all the muscles except those holding the hook of my fingers relaxed. That in turn is hooked to the bow which is suspended on the "post" formed by the bow arm. I apply tension to that suspended "rope" with the back and only the back, till it goes....

So a variation kind of on PBT that I used with both release types....

LS


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Just an added caveat. He shoots a three finger hinge. Says his pinky finger being very relaxed and pointing downward is crucial to getting the left side of the hand to relax during the "stretch" phase. 

He also did ad that his ring finger plays no role in the process having only incidental contact with the hinge with the exception of when it's needed to move the situation along. He really downplays any involvement of the ring finger other than from a relaxed standpoint. 

Interesting thoughts so far. :cheers: Ned250.....I'm not at liberty to say who this is. I have sworn secrecy in order to get the detailed info.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Sounds like a very conscious yield to me.

-Grant


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Lazarus said:


> Ok, I'm curious of others opinions on this. I know this guy that shared his (main) firing process with me as best he could and I just wanted to hear some thoughts on how the I&A forum would define this process. So here goes, I'll start with full draw.......
> 
> At the precise instant of full draw this guy completes the transfer of the draw of the bow into the back muscles (I'm not sure he knows the I&A forum names for all the muscles, he just uses the term "back" muscles.) Since his eyes have been on the "X" from pre-draw to this point his lens is usually pretty much centered on at least the highest scoring ring when he looks through the peep. Ok........here's where it gets interesting; When the highest scoring ring is acquired and centered in the lens he pulls (not a physical pull against the wall) but a pull of the back and bow against the relaxed muscles in the draw arm, (he calls it a stretching pull.) He says when he does this it starts a (real) physical flattening of the hand which I guess because of the anatomy of the hand causes an equalization of the pressure on the fore finger and the second finger. He says when he thinks about it he physically feels the hand flatten out and the release rotate between those first two fingers. He says while this is happening he has a laser focus on the "X" and if he has done his part the bow pretty much fires effortlessly. He says that sometimes if he is shooting a little angle outdoors (or stress situations) he knows to engage the ring finger in the process right up front to assist this process if it slows before the bow goes off but always to the end of an unanticipated release.
> 
> ...


Sounds very similar to the method I'm working on. The difference is I'm pulling into the wall by pre loading the release hand fingers as my back is already pre-loaded. This balances out the fingers and flattens the hand. It does sound like a variation on the GRIV method of dynamic tension while yielding the hand tension.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

EPLC said:


> Sounds very similar to the method I'm working on. The difference is I'm pulling into the wall by pre loading the release hand fingers as my back is already pre-loaded. This balances out the fingers and flattens the hand. It does sound like a variation on the GRIV method of dynamic tension while yielding the hand tension.


Might be even more similar than we think. Could just be confusion of how the two different methods are being described.



grantmac said:


> Sounds like a very conscious yield to me.
> 
> -Grant


For the sake of this illustration I believe it does sound conscious. In real life shooting situations it might be less conscious than it sounds on the page. 

I've seen the term "yield" come up several times. This very well could be. But I wasn't seeing it that way. The release actually appears to fire from the stretching of the relaxed forearm and hand that produces the rotation on the release. Is the hand and forearm relaxed? Yes. But again, I believe that it's the stretching/flattening that produces the rotation, not a yield. 

Not debating this, just thinking out loud is all. Throwing thoughts out there. :cheers:


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Lazarus said:


> I believe that it's the stretching/flattening that produces the rotation, not a yield.


My thoughts are that if the hand does anything other than contract, or stay fixed, it is yeilding, albeit forcefully in this instance.


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> Just an added caveat. He shoots a three finger hinge. Says his pinky finger being very relaxed and pointing downward is crucial to getting the left side of the hand to relax during the "stretch" phase.
> 
> He also did ad that his ring finger plays no role in the process having only incidental contact with the hinge with the exception of when it's needed to move the situation along. He really downplays any involvement of the ring finger other than from a relaxed standpoint.
> 
> Interesting thoughts so far. :cheers: Ned250.....I'm not at liberty to say who this is. I have sworn secrecy in order to get the detailed info.


Damn it, I really want to know who this is. I tell my wife all the time to watch my pinky. If it's not hanging down behind the hinge, I'm shooting tense and need to loosen up. A lot of the time, I have no idea it's up there. 

The pinky and ring finger are the keys for me. If my hand is too tense, the release doesn't come into my ring finger like it should. This method really is all about essentially pulling the release into your fingers. If that makes any sense. 

I think by doing it this way, you're keeping the straightest pull possible since all of the give is in your hand.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

As long as you pull straight back and not into your face.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

the stretching / flattening is a necessary part of what I call "rotational back tension", or as some here call it "Pure back tension", as in, it being the release engine. the flattening of the back of the hand happens as your hand as fore arm relax to cause the tendons to stretch out tight and as I describe,..."act like ropes that meet at the elbow, to rotate the release as the elbow swings.
lazarus, I recognize that bit about the pinky finger relaxing and being a crucial part in getting the outside of the hand to relax, but I can't remember who said something similar here, several years back on the old forum.


----------



## bowfisher (Jan 21, 2003)

cbrunson said:


> Not claiming expertise by any means, but is sounds like pull/yield to me. I'd be willing to bet that is how most people that think they are using "pure" back tension are actually firing the release.


I agree!! Laz I sure would like to throw a name out there but ill keep it to myself. :wink:


----------



## Sasquech (Dec 15, 2014)

You just described the pure back tension release you always say doesn't exist. Gee guess we all did not use the right words. Or we could have come to this agreement long ago.


----------



## va MTN MAN (Jan 24, 2003)

Sasquech said:


> You just described the pure back tension release you always say doesn't exist. Gee guess we all did not use the right words. Or we could have come to this agreement long ago.


Exactly! The hand stretches or gives because it is relaxed and the back is stronger. There is no conscious effort to relax the hand or fingers (pbt) This is the way I shoot and the only caviot is the release must be set right and cannot be set too cold as the hand wont stretch very far.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

va MTN MAN said:


> There is no conscious effort to relax the hand or fingers


With your style of firing mechanism that could be the case. In the (real) example provided in the OP that's not the case. 

Either way it seems there is some room for discussion on what action actually fires the release. 

I would also like to interject this very important fact; the use of "back tension" is an element of every (properly executed) shot made with any kind of bow, using any kind of release or finger tab (with the exception of instinctive shooting.) It's my observation that the term is possibly being confused with firing techniques which are an additional step in the process. Maybe off topic but maybe not.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

Lazarus said:


> With your style of firing mechanism that could be the case. In the (real) example provided in the OP that's not the case.
> 
> Either way it seems there is some room for discussion on what action actually fires the release.
> 
> I would also like to interject this very important fact; the use of "back tension" is an element of every (properly executed) shot made with any kind of bow, using any kind of release or finger tab (with the exception of instinctive shooting.) It's my observation that the term is possibly being confused with firing techniques which are an additional step in the process. Maybe off topic but maybe not.


Unfortunately, the room for discussion that you say exists here rules that out, though, seems to me. The description in your OP definitely could be, not saying definitely is, but could be, the PBT method (or perhaps something close to it?). Your protoge', whoever he is, doesn't sound confused to me. But we would have to get inside his head a little more on the yeilding part - whether that's actually a practiced skill or not....

LS


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

unclejane said:


> Unfortunately, the room for discussion that you say exists here rules that out, though, seems to me. The description in your OP definitely could be, not saying definitely is, but could be, the PBT method (or perhaps something close to it?). Your protoge', whoever he is, doesn't sound confused to me. But we would have to get inside his head a little more on the yeilding part - whether that's actually a practiced skill or not....
> 
> LS


That motivates an interesting point, the last thing you said.

I have been studying this whole conscious/subconscious theory that gets thrown about in archery circles. I've been studying it in some detail, not to the point that I want to share my conclusions yet but I have came to some conclusions that don't mirror the commonly held belief, at least in these circles. Having said that, this I'm nearly certain of; a subconscious act (if it exists in the firing process) must at first be learned as a conscious act before it can become subconscious. If that is the case, and I believe it is, you must be able to accurately describe an act that was once conscious then morphed (through repetition) to subconscious. If it has become a practiced skill it at one point had to be conscious. 

I believe this is something that separates top level shooters. I believe they have the ability to "get inside" a subconscious activity and analyze quickly what is wrong with a "practiced skill" and make corrections quickly. Said a different way, I am convinced that top level shooters are a lot more conscious of subconscious activities than they have been given credit for by some of the people who write books for a living instead of shoot. 

Just an observation.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

I believe many of the top archers, starting as young children, may have long forgotten some of the finer aspects of their shot. There is a very strong possibility that this factor may block the ability to actually translate the subconscious activity into words. This would be the case for any automatic skill that has developed over a lifetime.


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> That motivates an interesting point, the last thing you said.
> 
> I have been studying this whole conscious/subconscious theory that gets thrown about in archery circles. I've been studying it in some detail, not to the point that I want to share my conclusions yet but I have came to some conclusions that don't mirror the commonly held belief, at least in these circles. Having said that, this I'm nearly certain of; a subconscious act (if it exists in the firing process) must at first be learned as a conscious act before it can become subconscious. If that is the case, and I believe it is, you must be able to accurately describe an act that was once conscious then morphed (through repetition) to subconscious. If it has become a practiced skill it at one point had to be conscious.
> 
> ...


This is absolutely true. I'm not trying to claim to be the OP, but the similarities in the way we fire it... Sheesh.

I first had to think about my back (lower corner of my shoulder blade) and soften my release hand to get it to fire this way. It was really frustrating at times, but when it fired correctly it was the purest release I'd ever felt. It wasn't until I realized the angle of my ring and pinky fingers were affecting the shot. I'm now to the point that once I set my ring finger (it's a step in my process), I'm just watching the dot and waiting for the arrow to go. I can't tell you the day when that process switched over, but that's what happened for me at least.

I'm no longer conscious of how much my hand is yielding, but I am conscious of the shot window. I know that if the shot starts to feel long, odds are I didn't get my ring finger set or my pinky is sky high. This ties back into the shot timing thread, so I won't go there.

I was watching shooters at Louisville and notice a lot of folks are touching their pinky and thumb together behind their hinge as they anchor. This makes a ton of sense to me and may be something I try to add to my routine. My only concern is that seems to add a bit of tension to the hand no matter how relaxed you try to make it.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

it will be interesting to read your conclusions. I shoot with a very well ingrained subconscious release process and have done so, for around 40 years, I know the entire process and execution well and know the value of a well ingrained self generated release process. all my shooting life, I had a large enough float range of movement and consequently have had to do extensive studying of the release phase of the shot process, to be able to shoot decently with a float that would send most guys home for the day. 
the big problem with "self study", is that it's far to easy to modify the sample being studied to come to the conclusion that agrees a pre-existing notion that initially motivated the study, in the first place. 
obviously, a subconscious activity has to be conscious first, if I weren't there would be no set of guidance commands that gets converted to subconscious process. our brains have the ability to make the conversion and then subdue or (for lack of a better term),forget about the conscious set once the subconscious is running the activity. it is still there, sort of like in "random memory" and can be called back to work, if a problem is recognized in the subconscious process of the activity. it is exactly what we do when we go back to the blind bale, to tune a process that we are having problems with.
the only subconscious process that has no conscious base of formation, are "survival reactions", ...those that deflect harm to our bodies and such. these sets of guidance (commands) are genetically built into our subconscious for an obvious reason.
I guess what I am saying is that stating the fact that most learned activities that are converted to sub conscious process, have conscious base,...... is no big revelation. tat's simply how the human brain works.
the conscious awareness of subconscious process, is, in archery terms, considered "trusting in the fact that your subconscious release process will run the show when it is time to run it",... having confidence in our shot process. 
it is the reason we step in front of the blind bale. anything we do there starts out as conscious process, or we would not be able to do it. so not only do we have a subconscious process, but if we learned it in front of the blind bale or through repetition, we also have the same set of commands in our conscious process. the separation is that as we learn the process ....with the mental intention to ingrain the process to sub conscious administration, we also teach an internal default to run the activity from the sub-conscious set, instead of the conscious set.
they are both there all the time, it's just that we have "told" our brains, which set to use for a given circumstance.
as in the subconscious process making room for the conscious activity of aiming, it also makes room for the conscious monitoring of the process, as it runs sub consciously. we can and do keep close tabs on how our execution is running as we shoot, through this phenomena. this phenomena, works both ways, whether you are a conscious aimer and sub-conscious release'er or a conscious release'er and a sub-conscious aimer.
the entire process is borne out of the psychologically proven fact that we cannot consciously run two activities at the same time, so one activity,... it doesn't really matter which one,.... has to be sub-consciously administered.
I believe the main difference is that the top shooters understand this more clearly and use to their obvious advantage.
the resaerch on this has been done and thoroughly establish, by guys like Sigmund Freud,...and others,.... so many years ago that it is now considered standards of knowledge with very thick books published in it's interest, that are used as occupational standards that are required knowledge to obtain degrees in the applicable field of study.


----------



## va MTN MAN (Jan 24, 2003)

Lazarus said:


> With your style of firing mechanism that could be the case. In the (real) example provided in the OP that's not the case.
> 
> Either way it seems there is some room for discussion on what action actually fires the release.
> 
> I would also like to interject this very important fact; the use of "back tension" is an element of every (properly executed) shot made with any kind of bow, using any kind of release or finger tab (with the exception of instinctive shooting.) It's my observation that the term is possibly being confused with firing techniques which are an additional step in the process. Maybe off topic but maybe not.


I think in order to clarify back tension we need to use two different terms, pbt as it has come to mean here is exacuting the shot by INCREASING the back tension after settling in to either pull the elbow around or stretching the hand to rotate the release to make it fire. We should call the holding of the bow at full draw with the back muscles (only way it can be done) full draw tension. Any of the other exacution methods are simply commanding the release by some means. I think the reason the pure back tension style works for many (like me) is you dont have very fine nerve sensors in the back so the amount you are pulling feels different on different shots. I know sometimes it feels like i put 1/2 pound extra in the pull and the shot goes off and sometimes i feel like i am pulling 10 pounds in the shot and it doesnt go off and i have to let down. Like i said in my original post i think in order to shoot this way you have to have your release set fairly hot as you cant rotate the release very far by pbt withgout some form of commanding the fingers .hand ect. I think this is where the idea came for some that a hinge cant be fired with pbt as I know i cant with the hinge set to cold.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Lazarus said:


> Ok, I'm curious of others opinions on this. I know this guy that shared his (main) firing process with me as best he could and I just wanted to hear some thoughts on how the I&A forum would define this process. So here goes, I'll start with full draw.......
> 
> At the precise instant of full draw this guy completes the transfer of the draw of the bow into the back muscles (I'm not sure he knows the I&A forum names for all the muscles, he just uses the term "back" muscles.) Since his eyes have been on the "X" from pre-draw to this point his lens is usually pretty much centered on at least the highest scoring ring when he looks through the peep. Ok........here's where it gets interesting; When the highest scoring ring is acquired and centered in the lens he pulls (not a physical pull against the wall) but a pull of the back and bow against the relaxed muscles in the draw arm, (he calls it a stretching pull.) He says when he does this it starts a (real) physical flattening of the hand which I guess because of the anatomy of the hand causes an equalization of the pressure on the fore finger and the second finger. He says when he thinks about it he physically feels the hand flatten out and the release rotate between those first two fingers. He says while this is happening he has a laser focus on the "X" and if he has done his part the bow pretty much fires effortlessly. He says that sometimes if he is shooting a little angle outdoors (or stress situations) he knows to engage the ring finger in the process right up front to assist this process if it slows before the bow goes off but always to the end of an unanticipated release.
> 
> ...


If field14 were to chime in...He'd probably give it the "biomechanics" side of things. We all describe so much, but relaxing seems most of what he is doing and being relaxed is key importance of back tension firing. He then has back tension working, holding the bow and then that little extra, "pull of the back," to execute, if I'm reading that correctly. Hey, if you're all tensed up nothing is going move all that great.
We all can correct ourselves to some degree, so is the "middle finger" being corrected if he feels a imbalance?

For at least 10 years I've used a 3 finger release, whether thumb or hinge, and my pinky finger is just there, relaxed and a bit spread wide. IF though my release hand is tense my pinky finger causes some issues. My release hand was busted and the pinky finger didn't heal all that correctly as it wants to rub up against or overlap the ring finger if my hand is tense.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

So we've heard about engrained subconscious process and all of that from various sources. I have to ask this question: If you can not translate all of this learning, knowledge and training to performance at some point, what good is it? We haven't even been told what skill level shooter this person is? I think we have all assumed this is an advanced shooter, but is the OP's example actually an advanced shooter?


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

Lazarus said:


> That motivates an interesting point, the last thing you said.
> 
> I have been studying this whole conscious/subconscious theory that gets thrown about in archery circles. I've been studying it in some detail, not to the point that I want to share my conclusions yet but I have came to some conclusions that don't mirror the commonly held belief, at least in these circles. Having said that, this I'm nearly certain of; a subconscious act (if it exists in the firing process) must at first be learned as a conscious act before it can become subconscious. If that is the case, and I believe it is, you must be able to accurately describe an act that was once conscious then morphed (through repetition) to subconscious. If it has become a practiced skill it at one point had to be conscious.
> 
> ...


Took the words absolutely right out of my mouth and the thoughts right out of my head. I've been learning motor skills of various types for my entire adult life and if I could express one and only one finding I've made in that time it's exactly what you describe here. Couldn't have said it better myself.

So I'll just go right back to the original topic: That's why I dwell on whether the expansion in the hand is a *rote-learned, practiced skill* or not - not whether it's simply consciously or subconsciously performed, but whether it's *intentional * - as the distinguishing factor in what I call what's being described. If it's intentional, it's probably one of Shawn's brilliantly described firing engines or some variant. But if it's not, I'd call it PBT, plus or minus a little bit, based on what we settle on as the definition.

LS


----------



## LMacD (Mar 16, 2015)

Lazarus said:


> ...I'm nearly certain of; a subconscious act (if it exists in the firing process) must at first be learned as a conscious act before it can become subconscious. If that is the case, and I believe it is, you must be able to accurately describe an act that was once conscious then morphed (through repetition) to subconscious. If it has become a practiced skill it at one point had to be conscious...
> 
> Just an observation.


This makes complete sense, because it's not something that's particular to archery. As a professional guitarist, I liken it to the alternate picking technique. Very, very, very few people do it intuitively and even fewer do it well at first. Even the vast majority of the very best in the world, like John Petrucci, Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai, etc, had to train themselves to do it. At first, for 99.99% of learners and I mean that literally, it is absolutely a focused, concentrated effort and oftentimes a frustrating one because there's so much thinking and so little apparent accomplishment. Over time, though, for those who practice, it becomes second nature, like the proverbial riding of a bicycle and you wonder why it didn't "just happen". If you really think about it, I can't imagine why developing a technique for the purpose of releasing an arrow while holding on target would be different **in the sense of learning one or more techniques** and more to the point, developing those to become, in essence, automatic. I certainly don't think about my picking technique when I'm playing - that's what those hours with a metronome as a teenager were for. To me, those metronome hours are the equivalent of the blank bale or holding on target and letting down: focused and purposeful practice, conscious at first, but closer and closer to automatic over time.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

unclejane said:


> Took the words absolutely right out of my mouth and the thoughts right out of my head. I've been learning motor skills of various types for my entire adult life and if there's only one finding I've made in that time it's exactly what you describe here. Couldn't have said it better myself.
> 
> So I'll just go right back to the original topic: That's why I dwell on whether the expansion in the hand is a *practiced skill* or not - not whether it's simply consciously or subconsciously performed, but whether it's *intentional * - as the distinguishing factor in what I call what's being described. If it's intentional, it's probably one of Shawn's firing engines or some variant. But if it's not, I'd call it PBT, plus or minus what we settle on as the definition.
> 
> LS


Let me get this straight: You are claiming that unintentional hand manipulation still qualifies as PBT so long as you are not aware of that hand manipulation? By definition, this can not be "PBT", but you just may have cleared up a lot of confusion surrounding PBT and it's actual application. I truly believe most people that believe, claim and post that they are executing with "PBT" are very unaware of how much their hand is involved in that process.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

LMacD said:


> This makes complete sense, because it's not something that's particular to archery. As a professional guitarist, I liken it to the alternate picking technique. Very, very, very few people do it intuitively and even fewer do it well at first. Even the vast majority of the very best in the world, like John Petrucci, Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai, etc, had to train themselves to do it. At first, for 99.99% of learners and I mean that literally, it is absolutely a focused, concentrated effort and oftentimes a frustrating one because there's so much thinking and so little apparent accomplishment. Over time, though, for those who practice, it becomes second nature, like the proverbial riding of a bicycle and you wonder why it didn't "just happen". If you really think about it, I can't imagine why developing a technique for the purpose of releasing an arrow while holding on target would be different **in the sense of learning one or more techniques** and more to the point, developing those to become, in essence, automatic. I certainly don't think about my picking technique when I'm playing - that's what those hours with a metronome as a teenager were for. To me, those metronome hours are the equivalent of the blank bale or holding on target and letting down: focused and purposeful practice, conscious at first, but closer and closer to automatic over time.


Completely agree. I was a professional (or well, very close to it) bassist for many years and the learning processes there are comparable in many ways to archery. 
One small addition and to continue the music analogy - since I'm about 75% self taught on the bass, there are certain skills that I kind of "picked up" without any explicit training. A technique called "raking" is one of those - a particular method finger style players use for string crossing in descending passages - that is a practiced skill of mine on the bass that I didn't explicitly study. In fact, I didn't discover it was an academically endorsed method (to the extent that there are such things) until many years after I'd been using it. But, I can a) describe the technique in detail and b) perform it consciously, fully formed, at will for any reason if desired.

It may be the case with certain skills in archery also, such as expanding the hand to fire the release. It's possible the shooter described in the OP just "picked up" the purposeful skill of manipulating the release to get it to fire. That's why I would also dwell on *intention* as to whether I'd call it PBT vs a more traditional firing engine like expansion, etc....

LS


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

EPLC said:


> Let me get this straight: You are claiming that unintentional hand manipulation still qualifies as PBT so long as you are not aware of that hand manipulation?


No, no - I'm claiming no such thing. Please reread my remarks carefully, I explained this in some small detail. You're confusing "intentional" and/or "rote-learned" with conscious vs. subconscious, sounds like to me.



> By definition, this can not be "PBT", but you just may have cleared up a lot of confusion surrounding PBT and it's actual application. I truly believe most people that believe, claim and post that they are executing with "PBT" are very unaware of how much their hand is involved in that process.


Yes and no. The confusion here is mainly in the definition, which I think is still not clear. I made some steps above in clarifying what I think are the main distinctions, but there's a hazard of topic drift so I didn't go into detail about it. 

Also read Laz's comment very carefully. I think he pins the tail right on the donkey....

LS


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

unclejane said:


> ... - not whether it's simply consciously or subconsciously performed, but whether it's *intentional * - as the distinguishing factor in what I call what's being described. *If it's intentional, it's probably one of Shawn's brilliantly described firing engines or some variant. But if it's not, I'd call it PBT,* plus or minus a little bit, based on what we settle on as the definition.
> 
> LS


I can not see how this could be interpreted any other way?


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

EPLC said:


> I can not see how this could be interpreted any other way?


Still not following you. What are you contesting about my statement?
Feel free to PM me if the threat of topic drift is too high and we can discuss it there.

LS


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

EPLC, just stop. That's not relevant to this topic.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

I'm not sure we'll ever settle on a definition of this form of firing process. 

There have been a lot of good ideas presented. At first it seemed that the "yield" form of firing process dominated the opinions. Lately it seems that the folks that claim to use a "back tension" form of firing process are winning out. 

As I see it, the above two schools of thought are polar opposites. One is letting go, the other is pulling. It just doesn't look like there'll be any kind of consensus on the definition. 

Ultimately, every single act in the described process is part of a quality shot. In my view the actual firing of the release takes place by elongating the forearm and flattening the hand. I'd be hard pressed to define this as a "back tension" firing process. But that's just me.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

To me it just seems that "back tension" is becoming more loosely defined. Possibly becoming more of a core fundamental, with variations in execution.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

Lazarus said:


> I'm not sure we'll ever settle on a definition of this form of firing process.
> 
> There have been a lot of good ideas presented. At first it seemed that the "yield" form of firing process dominated the opinions. Lately it seems that the folks that claim to use a "back tension" form of firing process are winning out.
> 
> ...


I actually agree with this also. It sounds like to really come up with a label for what this method is involves more quibbling over various terms than will really a) reach a solid conclusion and b) make any difference to the original shooter LOL.

Like I said, I technically don't even have a dog in the PBT vs not-PBT race anymore since I no longer shoot a hinge anyway, so I've probably commented too much on the matter already. 

I'll just drop it with it sounds kind of like PBT and kind of like a variant of other firing engines. I agree we probably can't get, and don't really need to get, more specific than that....

LS


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> I'm not sure we'll ever settle on a definition of this form of firing process.
> 
> There have been a lot of good ideas presented. At first it seemed that the "yield" form of firing process dominated the opinions. Lately it seems that the folks that claim to use a "back tension" form of firing process are winning out.
> 
> ...


I think it's a combo of letting go and pulling through. You're using back tension to "let the hand go".


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "elongating the fore arm". when it is relaxed to the extent that the only tension is what is necessary to retain the release in the hand and whatever is needed to keep the string back, if there parts of the forearm involved in that, the forearm is at it's most extended condition. elongation by it's functional definition, doesn't fire the release, but it is most definitely an element that needs to be present for PBT to work, without excessive effort. a rudimentary understanding of biomechanics, would bring this point to evidence.
the bottom line is that rotation fires the release and the elements that allow the rotation all have to be present, regardless of the specific method used in the process.
in my opinion, you are building yourself a vicious circle of questions and answers that simply refer from one to another continuously, by not recognizing the functional differences between what is considered, " pull-yield" and what s considered, "pure back tension", or as I call it, for definitive purposes thus exemplified above, "rotational back tension".
both methods involve back tension, I think we can agree on that. the defining difference appears when the actual release execution comes into focus.........
one uses an additional set of commands, that involves numerous other and more complicated musculature actions, and one is just the further extension of the same muscular process. as well, both methods also involve a certain element of yield, in that one necessarily requires a relaxed forearm and hand and one doesn't necessarily require either.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

cbrunson said:


> EPLC, just stop. That's not relevant to this topic.


I'm amenable to continuing this by PM, tho beware of plain language if I think you're wrong - I won't be as polite as I am on the forum LOL. It's up to Mahly as to whether this is topical and should be continued here. So I'll only proceed here at his discretion.

LS


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

To me, I guess it comes down to what he is focusing on to fire the shot.
If it's the pull, then that would lean to the PBT side... At least as far as his mind is concerned.
If he is thinking about the relaxing part, it would be more on the yielding side.
In the end, it sounds like the shooter has it right in that it sounds like he doesn't care how it works, just that it does works.
Sounds like a lucky and/or smart guy to me.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

unclejane said:


> I'm amenable to continuing this by PM, tho beware of plain language if I think you're wrong - I won't be as polite as I am on the forum LOL. It's up to Mahly as to whether this is topical and should be continued here. So I'll only proceed here at his discretion.
> 
> LS


You're not EPLC........ unless you're an alter he created to argue with himself. :lol:


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

I think there is still a thread or two open for those that wish to politely discuss the whole PBT vs everything else debate.
This ain't it.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

cbrunson said:


> You're not EPLC........ unless you're an alter he created to argue with himself. :lol:


That was only for anyone interested in the possible sidetracking of the OT brought up by EPLC's objection (whatever it is) to my remark. I'd rather the moderator judge whether it's topical; else, I'm defaulting the suggestion of PM if that conversation wants to be continued.

PS: Mahly has spoken, so I wont respond further about this particular matter on this thread. Feel free to PM.

LS


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

ron w said:


> I guess I don't understand what you mean by "elongating the fore arm". when it is relaxed to the extent that the only tension is what is necessary to retain the release in the hand and whatever is needed to keep the string back, if there parts of the forearm involved in that, the forearm is at it's most extended condition. elongation by it's functional definition, doesn't fire the release, but it is most definitely an element that needs to be present for PBT to work, without excessive effort. a rudimentary understanding of biomechanics, would bring this point to evidence.
> the bottom line is that rotation fires the release and the elements that allow the rotation all have to be present, regardless of the specific method used in the process.
> in my opinion, you are building yourself a vicious circle of questions and answers that simply refer from one to another continuously, by not recognizing the functional differences between what is considered, " pull-yield" and what s considered, "pure back tension", or as I call it, for definitive purposes thus exemplified above, "rotational back tension".
> both methods involve back tension, I think we can agree on that. the defining difference appears when the actual release execution comes into focus.........
> one uses an additional set of commands, that involves numerous other and more complicated musculature actions, and one is just the further extension of the same muscular process. as well, both methods also involve a certain element of yield, in that one necessarily requires a relaxed forearm and hand and one doesn't necessarily require either.


Regarding the "elongating the forearm" question Ron; Prentend, you have (or get) a release in your hand. Grab it firmly, make a fist, tighten your forearm. Look at the size of your forearm. Now put the release down and grab the back of a chair or something with your forefingers like it was a release. Now completely relax your forearm and put all the tension on your fingers from holding the chair from the knuckle joints down. Now look at your arm and see the difference in size. This isn't described in technical terms I know, but I think you'll see the difference, and that's what happens when this form of firing process is used. 

Regarding where you said above "both methods involve back tension, I think we can agree on that." I totally agree. And that takes me back to what I have said for years; back tension is an essential part of any effective shot process. But it is not to be confused with anything that is going on in the firing process. That is just my opinion. I don't plan on bending from it any time soon. And yes, I do believe the person that named this sort of firing process "back tension firing" many, many years ago was in error by doing so, because the actions that are firing the release are not occurring in the back, they are occurring in the hand and forearm. Again, that is my opinion based on valid experience. I'm not trying to take anyone else's from them, I'm just explaining mine. 

:cheers:


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

I understand what you're saying and I actually figured it was something of that sort. but anatomically, your forearm doesn't change length. your hand may stretch out as the top of it flattens out in relaxation, thus making the length from knuckles to tip of elbow longer, but your fore arm doesn't get longer (elongation meaning "to make longer"). 
I guess I find all this reference to back tension hard to accept, coming from a guy that contends "back tension is a myth". 
I don't mean this in any way,....argumentively,.... but have you recently changed your mind about that ?.
as far as it being named incorrectly, well,...that's debatable. although at some point in the muscular action, it does become a different process functionally, it is still the exact same muscular action ....that of rhomboid contraction,....that defines both,... using the rhomboids to draw and hold a bow at draw,.... and the muscular action that cause radial swing of the upper arm to transfer rotation to the release, in what is called "pure back tension", by those who prefer to call it that. where I think you sway, is that you aren't considering, that one of the initial goals of developing the process call, "back tension", was to establish a mothod of release execution that was exactly that "further extension" of a muscle group, that is already in use during the draw, so that the conversion from draw to release execution, would be a smooth and uncomplicated process. 
hence my suggesting it is a "further extension of the same muscular process". the muscle is fully capable of executing both tasks at the same time, both strength-wise and anatomically. the rhomboids' "job" is exactly what their intended core purpose is, in the execution of "back tension.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Seems to me that I remember the argument for "pure" back tension, called for a firm, fixed hand with rotation of the shoulder via back muscles to fire the hinge. Is that now incorrect?


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

cbrunson said:


> Seems to me that I remember the argument for "pure" back tension, called for a firm, fixed hand with rotation of the shoulder via back muscles to fire the hinge. Is that now incorrect?


This is correct, as defined by Larry Wise. "muscles in your back are the workers in this exercise.
All fingers should be held with equal tightness on the release and not relaxed." ~ Larry Wise


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Looks like we're getting somewhere here. :cheers:


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

So for this discussion, perhaps it is not the purest of pure back tension.
The mental side of it may well work the same. If he is not consciously aware of the forearm muscles stretching, it works the same as PBT. There is nothing to think about other than pulling to fire the shot. While the yielding part of it may not fit the purest definition of PBT, as far as the shooter is concerned, There is little difference.
If you THINK your just adding back tension, but your hand is yielding...the shot goes off just fine, and you get all the benefits of PBT. It just might work a little easier.
Now if the shooter is consciously aware of the relaxation during the shot...he is consciously letting those muscles loosen, then it is more like the "yielding" method.
My guess is the shooter doesn't care how it works, just that it does.

Laz, can you clear up for us (or just me if I'm the only one that needs it  ) is the shooter consciously aware of the stretch DURING the shot (not just that he knows it happens...is he consciously aware of it on each shot)? Or does he simply know thats what is going on, and his only input to fire the hinge is this added pull from the back?


----------



## bowfisher (Jan 21, 2003)

cbrunson said:


> Seems to me that I remember the argument for "pure" back tension, called for a firm, fixed hand with rotation of the shoulder via back muscles to fire the hinge. Is that now incorrect?


I looked up some of Rons old post, firm fixed hand with rotation via elbow with nothing added to the back wall.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Mahly said:


> Laz, can you clear up for us (or just me if I'm the only one that needs it  ) is the shooter consciously aware of the stretch DURING the shot (not just that he knows it happens...is he consciously aware of it on each shot)? Or does he simply know thats what is going on, and his only input to fire the hinge is this added pull from the back?


Yes, this stretching of the muscles in the forearm, flattening of the hand, and rotation of the release because of the flattening of the hand is a "felt" thing. Can't confirm it's really conscious on every single shot but it's felt.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

ron w said:


> I understand what you're saying and I actually figured it was something of that sort. but anatomically, your forearm doesn't change length. your hand may stretch out as the top of it flattens out in relaxation, thus making the length from knuckles to tip of elbow longer, but your fore arm doesn't get longer (elongation meaning "to make longer").


Obviously. The elongation I was referring to was of the muscles. Stretching would probably be a more accurate term. 




ron w said:


> I guess I find all this reference to back tension hard to accept, coming from a guy that contends "back tension is a myth".
> I don't mean this in any way,....argumentively,.... but have you recently changed your mind about that ?


No. Still hold the same position as before. I always maintained that "back tension" was the important aspect of the shot that it is. I always maintained that it had no business being mentioned as part of the firing mechanism. I still hold to that. That's my opinion. If you take a quick look back at some of my earlier postings on that topic I think you will find that to be consistent with what I have always said. I'm not perfect though and may have mis-stated something somewhere. 

Great discussion by the way Ron. :cheers:


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

cbrunson said:


> To me it just seems that "back tension" is becoming more loosely defined. Possibly becoming more of a core fundamental, with variations in execution.


Not disagreeing. Each person being different they are describing what they think or feel I would say.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

SonnyThomas said:


> Not disagreeing. Each person being different they are describing what they think or feel I would say.


I think it is becoming more clear that it is actual differences in execution with the same broad brush labeling.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

cbrunson said:


> I think it is becoming more clear that it is actual differences in execution with the same broad brush labeling.


That's kind of what it appears to me. 

When I posted this topic, I never really considered it a strong possibility that there would be a considerable amount of people that labeled it as a version of "back tension firing." I've shot this exact way to the point that I pretty much have it perfected and the (firing) sensation felt during the firing process isn't in my back. That's not to say I'm right. Just an observation.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

the grey area is the fact that 'back tension", by definition, os used in every shot that is taken by every single archer in the world. the confusion arises when we start trying to label the release execution as either including back tension as a element of the process or not including back tension as an element of the process.
in either case, back tension is present. one sample uses it as the main ingredient in the production of rotation and one doesn't.
again that's why I choose to use the term "rotational back tension" when I speak of the method I and a few others use.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

I would tend to agree with the above Ron. 

I tend to set "back tension" in a class much like "stance" or "bow arm" or "anchor," it's likely it's an even more critical aspect of the successful shot than any of those aspects. My contention from the first time I ever saw a hinge and saw how it operated was that the term "back tension" release was a faulty term. Why? Because back tension was a part of the shot process that had nothing to do with actually firing the release. I still maintain that. I'm not asking for new disciples of this popular way of thinking. I'm just explaining my take on it. And I know my way of thinking has merit. It is not the ONLY way to think, but it is ONE way.


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> Yes, this stretching of the muscles in the forearm, flattening of the hand, and rotation of the release because of the flattening of the hand is a "felt" thing. Can't confirm it's really conscious on every single shot but it's felt.


For me, if I try to think about it while I'm in the shot, I can feel the yielding happen. However, when I'm shooting a normally executed shot, I never feel it nor am I conscious of what's happening to my hand. When I'm locked in, it feels like it's almost completely motionless process. It is to the point where I can't even tell if I followed through or not. It just all happens.

I'm a mental midget, so it's not a consistent or common occurrence. But when it does happen, it's pretty awesome and freaky all in the same moment.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

Ned250 said:


> For me, if I try to think about it while I'm in the shot, I can feel the yielding happen. However, when I'm shooting a normally executed shot, I never feel it nor am I conscious of what's happening to my hand. When I'm locked in, it feels like it's almost completely motionless process. It is to the point where I can't even tell if I followed through or not. It just all happens.
> 
> I'm a mental midget, so it's not a consistent or common occurrence. But when it does happen, it's pretty awesome and freaky all in the same moment.


I know exactly what you're talking about. It's that moment when you start to realize that you can do it, if you can figure out what you just did.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Whatever you want to call it, I tried a conscious yield tonight and at least for indoor use I like it. Not sure I will like it for outdoor though since it makes my DL feel a bit on the long side and I'm also not quite as aggressive into the wall.

-Grant


----------



## Sasquech (Dec 15, 2014)

I think you were doing fine. There must be some kind of yield in the process . In my case it is compression shift from index finger to middle and ring fingers two vs 1 the slight difference in compression when tension is increased rotates from the click to fire with out conscious hand changes. 

Hope that is more clear. And a quarter turn in the speed screw on the HBC and you cannot get it to consistently release with this method. It is extremely sensitive to proper setting of the release. 

I think this is the closest to same page the rest have been for a few months thanks laz for posting this .



Lazarus said:


> I'm not sure we'll ever settle on a definition of this form of firing process.
> 
> There have been a lot of good ideas presented. At first it seemed that the "yield" form of firing process dominated the opinions. Lately it seems that the folks that claim to use a "back tension" form of firing process are winning out.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Whatever you want to call it, I tried a conscious yield tonight and at least for indoor use I like it. Not sure I will like it for outdoor though since it makes my DL feel a bit on the long side and I'm also not quite as aggressive into the wall.
> 
> -Grant


That's precisely why I shortened my DL 1/16". It was the last missing piece to making this really work well for me.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

Lazarus said:


> I would tend to agree with the above Ron.
> 
> I tend to set "back tension" in a class much like "stance" or "bow arm" or "anchor," it's likely it's an even more critical aspect of the successful shot than any of those aspects. My contention from the first time I ever saw a hinge and saw how it operated was that the term "back tension" release was a faulty term. Why? Because back tension was a part of the shot process that had nothing to do with actually firing the release. I still maintain that. I'm not asking for new disciples of this popular way of thinking. I'm just explaining my take on it. And I know my way of thinking has merit. It is not the ONLY way to think, but it is ONE way.


 well,.....that's the debatable part,.....when the release execution is done with what people here call "pure back tension", it actually is an essential part of the process,......if it is done correctly. the problem is that the process needs to be clearly understood on an internal level, in order to be executed correctly.
what makes the term "back tension release" incorrectly applied, is the fact that any release there is, can be shot with or without back tension. the term has been propagated by the almost universal misunderstanding of this parameter. the original inventor of the "hinge" had the conception that it was a release that could be activated by using the same muscular process that is used to draw and hold the bow. ironically, that process is/was a direct importation from the way recurves are drawn and shot.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

t:


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Mahly said:


> t:


Could be. But the discussion was kind of evolving into the intricacies of a particular style of release in order to define what the OP either was or wasn't. 

Back to topic........I can't define the example of a firing process in the OP as having anything to do with "back tension" firing because the firing process takes place in the forearm and hand. But that's just my opinion based on those two facts. 

:cheers:


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> Could be. But the discussion was kind of evolving into the intricacies of a particular style of release in order to define what the OP either was or wasn't.
> 
> Back to topic........I can't define the example of a firing process in the OP as having anything to do with "back tension" firing because the firing process takes place in the forearm and hand. But that's just my opinion based on those two facts.
> 
> :cheers:


Its a chicken/egg dilemma. I can't fire this without the relaxation happening, but I also can't fire this without the back tension. Sure, I could speed up the hinge to accommodate one or the other, but that puts it so scary hot that it renders it useless. Finding the happy medium between the 2 was the end result.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Ned250 said:


> Its a chicken/egg dilemma. I can't fire this without the relaxation happening, *but I also can't fire this without the back tension.* Sure, I could speed up the hinge to accommodate one or the other, but that puts it so scary hot that it renders it useless. Finding the happy medium between the 2 was the end result.


Totally agree Ned. And my response goes right back to the bolded area. It goes without saying that you can't fire an effective shot without back tension. That is the case no matter what release you have in your hand, how you fire it, or maybe you aren't even shooting a release. *In my opinion* the term "back tension" is inaccurately ascribed to the release process when it works exactly the same no matter what release you are using or lack there of. 

I'm not sure we're getting anywhere, but we're trying! :cheers:


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

unless you are using a firing engine based on back tension, such as what people here, call "pure back tension".....back tension is completely separate issue from the various alternative firing engines that involve any hand or wrist manipulation. it is only "an element of the shot process" at that level of firing engine use.
the name, regardless of it's being incorrectly assigned, is still the name of the muscular action that everyone recognizes as "contraction of the rhomboids". using it as named, simply refers to the muscular action, for a universally recognizable intent.
the irny of this, is that even the people who use a hinge , but don't use an engine that involves the rhomboids as the main motor for activation of the release, still use the term, "Back tension release", when they refer to a hinge.
to me, this can only suggest, that they in fact,... recognize the application of rhomboid contraction, as the main engine used with a hinge,.... in a almost universal acceptance. 
and that suggests,.... that they don't realize they are doing this, or are confused about the facts, surrounding either variation of firing engine.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

I think we mostly agree that back tension is used as part of the shot if not the engine.
I don't think we can attribute the name people use for a hinge necessarily implies anything more than that it has just become common place to call a hinge a back tension release.
Someone may ask for a "Kleenex" and you give them a "Puffs" it's still a tissue.
You can call it a T handle or a thumb trigger, people know what you mean...they don't know your personal firing engine.
Same goes for the Hinge, the name has become interchangeable with back tension release (rightly or wrongly).

For the case at hand, and to stay on topic, being the shooter is well aware of the movement of the hand it, to me, doesn't fit the PBT method (non-yielding hand, elbow movement to get rotation). 
Though at the same time, if he is not consciously forcing the hand to relax/flatten etc. he is still using the back tension to fire the shot via way of how it stretches the finger muscles in the forearm. 
I'm still in the "yielding" (or variation of it) camp for this shooter.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Ned250 said:


> That's precisely why I shortened my DL 1/16". It was the last missing piece to making this really work well for me.


I'm currently debating whether the loss of valley (I'm shooting spirals pretty close to minimum) would be worth it since the float is rather good right now. I do have a little D-loop length to play with if I need to.

Either way I'm not certain this technique will be the best when there are outside factors in the shot such as wind, poor footing or angles. It just feels a little too critical on getting the entire shot built perfectly each time.

-Grant


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Lazarus said:


> Totally agree Ned. And my response goes right back to the bolded area. It goes without saying that you can't fire an effective shot without back tension. That is the case no matter what release you have in your hand, how you fire it, or maybe you aren't even shooting a release. *In my opinion* the term "back tension" is inaccurately ascribed to the release process when it works exactly the same no matter what release you are using or lack there of.
> 
> I'm not sure we're getting anywhere, but we're trying! :cheers:


Funny, I was thinking about this while I was out for a run. We all have to have some sort of back tension while shooting, else we'd never be able to anchor. I kept pondering and then I thought, hmmmmm. Maybe its _continued _back tension. You need to _hold _the tension to stay against the wall, but if you _continue_ the back tension..........It goes into what I heard Reo say "just keep drawing the bow". 

I'm essentially drawing another 1/16" where by that last 1/16" is being drawn out of my hand, not the bow. The tension I created by drawing and anchoring into the wall is still maintained, but any additional tension is then absorbed by the yielding of my hand. God, after putting it that way, what a complicated mess. :zip:

For the record, I'm in complete agreement on the back tension misnomers. I cringe every time someone comes up to me and talks about how well my son is shooting his "back tension release". I just smile and thank them, but inside I'm gritting my teeth. That little turkey (8yrs old) has that 'asleep at the wheel - Jesse B' look to him.


----------



## Sasquech (Dec 15, 2014)

With my students 240 frames a second tells if they are closing the fingers and ending up with a closed hand. ( release manip)
Or release 10 frames after release looking like it did at the instant of release (rotational back tension.)

This is where I get into trouble. I fully acknowledge that there is yielding going on and elbow rotation at the American time in pure back tension and a 3 finger release. If your hand is not relaxed the release can freeze up. But the yielding for me is just flesh compression 1 vs2 fingers index vs ring middle. The elbow moves maybe half a degree the finger yields a 64th of an inch and the combined resulting of the release makes it go off. The key is all this is caused by rhomboid contraction period. No conscious intentional anything but back contraction. 

I truely believe we are all on the same page . The 8 year old just pulls and it goes off much like jessie keep his head off archery talk and he will keep that automatic engine for a full career. Let him start thinking about it and it will be months of analysis and hopefully he gets back where he is now.

I really think we are making a meal of wether the yield ,stretch , relaxation is conscious and thus driven by the conscious mind (not PBT). if all that is happening is aim and pull with back all the other things subconscious byproducts of the pulling then (PBT)


----------



## Ned250 (Aug 10, 2009)

Sasquech said:


> With my students 240 frames a second tells if they are closing the fingers and ending up with a closed hand. ( release manip)
> Or release 10 frames after release looking like it did at the instant of release (rotational back tension.)
> 
> This is where I get into trouble. I fully acknowledge that there is yielding going on and elbow rotation at the American time in pure back tension and a 3 finger release. If your hand is not relaxed the release can freeze up. But the yielding for me is just flesh compression 1 vs2 fingers index vs ring middle. The elbow moves maybe half a degree the finger yields a 64th of an inch and the combined resulting of the release makes it go off. The key is all this is caused by rhomboid contraction period. No conscious intentional anything but back contraction.
> ...


:thumbs_up

I ask my son the same single question every time we go to the range...

"what's your goal?"

"push and pull, daddy"


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

everybody has the "flesh compression" sort of yield. I don't really think "that", is what is being referred to as "yeild" in this subject matter, because that is just a natural consequence of increasing loads on the resilient structure of our anatomy....really nothing we can do about that. it is present in every form of release execution, whether consciously, or sub-consciously executed, or in, as labeled, "pure BT" or any form of manipulated execution that produces the rotation. 
when I think of "yield" I think of deliberate movement.... a specific amount of "relaxation of contracted musculature". 
I think we really should establish a universally accepted definition of the term "yield", to be on the same page, with this issue.
to be accurately honest, the intention of using what is called "pure back tension", on this forum, to produce rotation, is accomplished by relaxing the fore arm and flattening the top of the hand through relaxation, to eliminate as much "natural yield" as possible. essentially,.... from the elbow to the release, your anatomy, should be "all yielded out", when it is done correctly. that's the whole purpose of relaxing this area.
as I've said several times before, the relaxation in hand and fore arm, except for the retention of the release in the hand, is done to make the tendons act as ropes that keep the fingers in a j shape, for obvious reasons, and meet at the elbow, where it's swing, transfers the rotational action to the hand and thus the release. the key, is to learn to relax the specific muscles that need to be relaxed and maintain enough contraction, to for the hook that retains the release.
this specifically, is the main difference between executing with Pure BT, vs. any kind of hand manipulated execution, in producing rotation. 
this leads us to what is called back tension, being a "further extension" of the drawing process, in it's being considered as a firing engine.
as far as "back tension" being improperly assigned as a name for the muscular contraction,....it is the name we all recognize for the action in question. whether it is "correct" or not, really doesn't matter, because the accepted interpretation of the name, is universally understood to mean, "contraction of the rhomboid muscle(s)".


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

I believe that every action required to use the firing process in the OP takes place from the draw elbow down. I actually should know, since it's my firing process. 

Is "back tension" being used to execute the shot? Of course it is, just like all effective shots. But it is not being used to fire the release. In the use of this firing process there is a total disconnect of "back tension" from the *firing process* described in the OP. For these reasons I can't buy into the idea that it would be defined in any way as a "back tension" firing process. Yet I'm still not certain how to define it. 

Maybe it's time to discuss (on another topic) the inconsistencies in the descriptions of "back tension" firing that exist even though there are those that claim the definitions and techniques are "universally accepted."

^ I am absolutely not trying to start anything. But it's a fact, that right on this topic the same person (several potentially) has/have described this "back tension" firing process in terms that are FAR from "universally accepted." That is indisputable. Why have I chosen this topic to hammer it? Because it's important to archery in general that's why. 

Thanks.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

are you saying that rhomboid contraction is not "back tension", as the "name" is universally applied to the muscular action ?. it really doesn't matter if it is anatomically , or bio-mechanically correct in name, it is what it is called for the purposes of discussion in archery community.
if you prefer to call it something else, that's fine, just make sure you make that distinction when you talk to someone that calls it "back tension". 
there are many terms that people use to describe something where two or more names define the same object. I personally, don't prefer to use the tern "pure back tension" when referring to back tension as a firing engine inclusively. that's why I make the distinction ,"as it is called on this forum", or I use "rotational back tension", occasionally, as well. 
if the firing engine that includes the contraction of the rhomboid, to produce rotation, as the main muscular motor, shouldn't be called "back tension", as it is universally recognized in the archery community, what should it be called(?).....it IS after all,.... just a name.... in my fourty years of shooting, I have never heard it called anything else, by anyone else.
i'm quite sure there is most probably a more "medically oriented term, for the process", but most of us aren't medical people here. 
the fact that Levi, said what he did in your signature, has no bearing to the specific issue of whether the process is aptly named, or not. he was making the distinction between what is known as back tension as a firing engine and the various forms of manipulated execution that involves hand and finger movement, to produce rotation. 
i'll wager that outside his reference to the type of firing engine being used by the "pros" , every single one of them use what is commonly known as "back tension" to shoot their bows.
all "back tension" means, is the muscular forces applied to the scapula that moves the upper arm back, radially. essentially, you cannot shoot a bow, if that doesn't happen.
I guess one might ask, " which would you rather type all the time,.... Back tension",...or...., "Rhomboidal contraction" ?.


----------



## Lazarus (Sep 19, 2005)

Too many inconsistencies to address there Ron. Sometimes I wonder if you read what you type. That's not a jab, I'm being honest. 

I'm out. Gotta go take care of archery business for a few days. Need to focus. May check in to see what's being said but doubt you'll hear too much out me. Sorry I have to bolt, alarm going off to remind me of 12:15 call to Olympic archery gold medalist John Williams. :cheers: 

Have an outstanding weekend all.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

ron w said:


> are you saying that rhomboid contraction is not "back tension", as the "name" is universally applied to the muscular action ?. it really doesn't matter if it is anatomically , or bio-mechanically correct in name, it is what it is called for the purposes of discussion in archery community.
> if you prefer to call it something else, that's fine, just make sure you make that distinction when you talk to someone that calls it "back tension".
> there are many terms that people use to describe something where two or more names define the same object. I personally, don't prefer to use the tern "pure back tension" when referring to back tension as a firing engine inclusively. that's why I make the distinction ,"as it is called on this forum", or I use "rotational back tension", occasionally, as well.
> if the firing engine that includes the contraction of the rhomboid, to produce rotation, as the main muscular motor, shouldn't be called "back tension", as it is universally recognized in the archery community, what should it be called(?).....it IS after all,.... just a name.... in my fourty years of shooting, I have never heard it called anything else, by anyone else.
> ...


A whole bunch of words for what? It's been argued/discussed too damn many times and with the same people.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Sasquech said:


> With my students 240 frames a second tells if they are closing the fingers and ending up with a closed hand. ( release manip)
> Or release 10 frames after release looking like it did at the instant of release (rotational back tension.)
> 
> This is where I get into trouble. I fully acknowledge that there is yielding going on and elbow rotation at the American time in pure back tension and a 3 finger release. If your hand is not relaxed the release can freeze up. But the yielding for me is just flesh compression 1 vs2 fingers index vs ring middle. The elbow moves maybe half a degree the finger yields a 64th of an inch and the combined resulting of the release makes it go off. The key is all this is caused by rhomboid contraction period. No conscious intentional anything but back contraction.
> ...


Ok, here are my problems/issues with PBT: Aside from the fact that I don't hit anything, I not flexible enough to get enough rotation with my back to get the release off. To assume that the shoulder, arm and hand is one solid unit that moves like a block carved of wood that is rotated rearward by the back muscles is beyond my physical abilities... far beyond. Even if I could accomplish this contortion how would I then keep the bow in line with the target with all of that torque working against it? Just asking? 

Yes, back tension is a wonderful tool to draw and hold steady... But as a firing engine, how many are really using it? How many are really applying pressure as they pull with the middle and ring fingers... movement that your camera won't pick up because it is so small?


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

there those that are flexible enough, though. just because you don't do it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not any good, or not being done.


----------



## cbrunson (Oct 25, 2010)

ron w said:


> there those that are flexible enough, though. just because you don't do it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not any good, or not being done.


This is true. I know a few.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> there those that are flexible enough, though. just because you don't do it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not any good, or not being done.


That is not my claim. Just saying it isn't the best method for me... and I really doubt there are many actually accomplishing it without "any" hand manipulation, conscious or otherwise.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

you see, I don't really care how many there are or are not using any method there is. it is the method I use and it works for me. I don't keep tabs on who uses what method, because it doesn't matter what method you use or prefer. when the issue of which method is being used arises, I post what I use.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

And the topic is: define/label this "hinge" firing process if you can....... (This firing engine being the one described by the op)


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

I think we're all pretty much agreed, that the method is a "relaxed finger manipulated execution, with back tension".....quite a while ago.


----------

