# Is this considered gap shooting?



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

If you focus on the target and see the arrow in your peripheral vision but make no effort to consciously adjust the position of the arrow (leave it to the subconscious), is this considered a form of gap?


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

Since you can't NOT see the arrow in your periphery, I guess it's just called, shooting your bow while focusing on the mark. :embara:


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

I call it split vision Kegan, and maybe improperly. I do see the arrow peripherally and I do use it somewhat for windage but I do not consciously use it for elevation. I tried using a specific gap for different yardages and found myself having to focus much more intensely on that gap(and less accurately I'll add) than when I focused my attention on the spot, especially at longer distances. I now use my understanding of split vision for shots from close to 15-16 yards and served a 20 yard crawl on my string to stringwalk for shots at that distance and further. I understand it's not allowed in some tournaments, that's fine, I'm strictly a hunter, but those groups from 20 to 30 where I struggled were cut in half.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> If you focus on the target and see the arrow in your peripheral vision but make no effort to consciously adjust the position of the arrow (leave it to the subconscious), is this considered a form of gap?


IMO...no...but almost. The fact that you see the arrow indicates there is some conscious level of awareness of it...and when you're adjusting it in your sight picture...you're adjusting it more by feel... just as many experienced Gap shooters already aim. When an archer can see their arrow in their sight picture and has enough time to adjust it as they are holding anchor but totally focusing on the target...they're just adjusting it at a much lower level of conscious awareness than an archer analyzing and thinking about their exact gaps for a specific distance.

What separates true Instinctive Aiming and Gap is when the archer is relying on their hand and eye coordination to respond to the target like a pitcher throws a baseball in one fluid motion.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Kegan, I consider gap by definition the management of two specific reference points, target and arrow point, with the concentration of distance between the two. At longer distances, that becomes more of what it is for me. For my indoor, 20-yard, and other close range, my focus is all on the target with all other managed in the peripheral. 

In my peripheral, I manage the relation of the shaft of the arrow, not the tip as it's way too low, and the relation of my bow hand, bow arm, and shoulder. I triangulate everything to the target focus. 

Now, whether or not my mind had refined the arrow point relation due to repetitive work at that range, probably so, but to gap straight off it would be counter-productive for me at that range. As I move back, the shaft gets less attention and the point becomes more relevant - target is most always primary in focus. I don't call it anything but shooting


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

kegan said:


> If you focus on the target and see the arrow in your peripheral vision but make no effort to consciously adjust the position of the arrow (leave it to the subconscious), is this considered a form of gap?


Keagn...For me, and maybe just me, this is kinda how I shoot...call it a subconscious gap, or Split Vision, or Gapstinctive, whatever....Once I get a bow tuned, shooting right for me, and shoot that bow a bow a while, this Gaps kinda become second nature, or something along those lines....????....I try to set the elevation on the pre-draw, then once at anchor, hold that elevation and pull through the shot keeping the bow arm solid, let the bow do what it does at the shot break....Jim


----------



## gnome (Oct 22, 2006)

kegan said:


> If you focus on the target and see the arrow in your peripheral vision but make no effort to consciously adjust the position of the arrow (leave it to the subconscious), is this considered a form of gap?


This pretty much describes the way I shoot. More of a perception of a correct sight picture for a particular distance, with no real mental calculations. But I would not call it instinctive because it is learned over time by repetitive action and muscle memory .

As a side note, does anyone want to place bets on how long it takes before this turns in to the Sharp and Ray show? God bless both of them , but I can see it coming....:fencing::deadhorse:happy1:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> IMO...no...but almost.


That should have read 'yes...I think what you described is still Gap'.

Ray :shade:


----------



## vulcan12 (Oct 9, 2007)

That is gap, but it doesn't matter. Whatever works for you.

For me, if I see the arrow at all, I might as well let down, because I just blew it. Messes me up bad. I work very hard at focusing on NOTHING but the spot, and shoot well when I do.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

I’m pleasantly surprised this hasn’t turned into a slugfest--yet.


Seriously…. What you’ve described is how I shoot, and how “I” think a lot of hunting barebow archers shoot; most of them refer to it as instinctive. I don’t, because I see it as obvious gapping, but at a different level. I just call it what Bob Wesley called it… indirect aiming. Some folks use the term, gap-stinctive, and I suppose that’s a pretty good description. I shoot by feeling the gaps, which I’ve learned over time. 

Heck, I even take time to make sure all my bows shoot the same speed, and the impact points are the same, so I don’t have to try to learn new gaps.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Kegan, I know my gap...above or below the target before I touch my string, I start my point as close the gap as possible when I get to anchor I want my tip to be within 2-3" of my intended gap...if it's much further then your body will give up on the shot before the point gets there.

Dewayne Martin


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Kegan, What Dewayne just described to you is point of aim. Anytime you aim the tip of the arrow at a specific area up on the target or animal, it is pick-a-point. What you described in you original question is a form of gap, just not the most accutate form of gapping, in my opinion. In my opinion, The best gap system utilizes looking at the gap between your arrow tip and the spot( at the end of the arrow and not up at the intended target). Concentrate on the gap only, with the spot and arrow tip in your secondary vision.


----------



## jkcerda (Jan 25, 2007)

kegan said:


> If you focus on the target and see the arrow in your peripheral vision but make no effort to consciously adjust the position of the arrow (leave it to the subconscious), is this considered a form of gap?


I am new to TRAD, this is exactly how I am shooting, why? tried gap & that worked somewhat ok, it was a MESS the minute I added a BH to the arrow :doh:
now I just pick the spot & let it rip, seems to be working pretty good, even with BH's :banana:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

kegan said:


> If you focus on the target and see the arrow in your peripheral vision but make no effort to consciously adjust the position of the arrow (leave it to the subconscious), is this considered a form of gap?


That's called, "Using the FORCE," young Skywalker.



You can do it blindfolded and get similar results.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Just like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X69NCLxwLEY


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

Logos said:


> You can do it blindfolded and get similar results.


LMBO! Naaah, that's just too easy......:zip:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Kegan, It all depends what your end goal is. If you just want to plink or do"pretty good" then stick with any of the suggestions above except the one I offered. If you want to be the best you can be then get a definite aiming system based on results in past competitions. Good luck with whatever you chose.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> If you focus on the target and see the arrow in your peripheral vision but make no effort to consciously adjust the position of the arrow (leave it to the subconscious), is this considered a form of gap?



Nope. You don't seem to be consciously thinking about a measured distance between the arrow point and the spot you want to hit. IMO that would be gap aiming. 
Most who claim to 'gap shoot' are probably actually shooting instinctive because they all say they look at a gap between the arrow and the spot. Then they forget about that and focus on the spot only. In the meantime the old brain power kicks in and makes the adjustments for them so the first step was not really needed to begin with.
Some,like yourself,seem to notice the point in their peripheral vision. Others, like myself and sharpbroadhead,don't notice it at all. If I pay any attention to the arrow at all it just interferes with my focus on the most important part. The spot I want to hit.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Kegan, It all depends what your end goal is. If you just want to plink or do"pretty good" then stick with any of the suggestions above except the one I offered. If you want to be the best you can be then get a definite aiming system based on results in past competitions. Good luck with whatever you chose.



Yeah,you're right about the end goal. But that 'end goal' makes the rest of the statement seem a little arrogant.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Arrogant? I can live with that. I can also back up my opinions with facts. I hate to see anyone on here given information that will stunt their accuracy and development as an archer.If a person is happy just shooting their bow, fine. From most of the posts that I see, people are wanting to learn to shoot more accurately, and I will always try to give them the information that I feel will make them the best archers they can be. Whether they chose to use that information is up to them. What I won't do is tell someone " this is the way I shoot, and I do PRETTY GOOD with it". That seems to be a general response on here, and pretty soon the op has so many opinions they don't know which way to turn.I do thank you for just calling me arrogant, most times it is much worse.:teeth:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Arrogant is spot on - just like Jimmy's comment about me becoming a better shooter if I learned a conscious aiming method - odd - I have beat Jimmy more than once - but I should switch to his methods?

Anyhow - to the original question...

Opinions are like butts - everyone has one - I prefer to deal in facts.

Here is the Medical Dictionary definition of Instinct:

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmedsamp

Main Entry: in·stinct
Pronunciation: in-sti(k)t
Function: noun

1 : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

2 : *behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level *

Note the 2nd definition of the word - and then Kegan, ask yourself - do you consciously make adjustments to your aim based on the bow, the arrow, your bowhand. etc... - Do you consciously hold the bow higher or lower based on distances - do you consciously determine distance?

If you don't do these things at a consciousl level - and you still hit your target - you are aiming at a SUBCONSCIOUS LEVEL - and therefore aiming your bow instinctively - simple as that.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Here is gap shooting explained by Jimmy himself - do you do all this stuff Kegan?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> I will always try to give them the information that I feel will make them the best archers they can be.


:thumbs_up

I personally believe an archer's style and aiming technique should ALWAYS be based on their specific goals, abilities/genetics & personality.

Each option will have general advantages & disadvantages based on the archer's goals and the archer ultimately has to decide if something is or is not working for them....or get a good coach.

True Instinctive aiming does and can have some advantages under specific circumstances when compared to some of the other aiming techniques...but it often takes someone with a natural gift of good hand & eye coordination to exploit it well.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

When Im learning a new bow or picking up another bow to shoot (I shot many types) Im visually aware of the gap but once Im comfortable it becomes less visual and more about spatial awareness, it allows me to focus on the spot and my subconscious just knows the gap is good, even though the gaps are quite different between 20 and 50 yards. My subconscious is still gap shooting because the Gaps are changing at various distances Im just not relying a conscious visual adjustment.

On a bow Ive never shot if I shot say 30 yards I can pretty much predict my gap at 50y even though I havent shot that distance yet, it always starts of very conscious/visual and once learnt I become less reliance in needing to consciously see the Gap on a visual level but on an awareness level below conscious but still at a higher state of pure instinctive shooters.

I dont get a book out and start writing numbers down like Jimmy but then Ive been doing it for quite a while ( I would suggest for somebody coming into the gap method though) and maybe I just dont need to anymore, shooting marked IFAA Field and knowing the target size really speeds up the learning process anyway.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

steve morley said:


> When Im learning a new bow or picking up another bow to shoot (I shot many types) Im visually aware of the gap but once Im comfortable it becomes less visual and more about spatial awareness, it allows me to focus on the spot and my subconscious just knows the gap is good, even though the gaps are quite different between 20 and 50 yards. My subconscious is still gap shooting because the Gaps are changing at various distances Im just not relying a conscious visual adjustment.
> 
> On a bow Ive never shot if I shot say 30 yards I can pretty much predict my gap at 50y even though I havent shot that distance yet, it always starts of very conscious/visual and once learnt I become less reliance in needing to consciously see the Gap on a visual level but on an awareness level below conscious but still at a higher state of pure instinctive shooters.
> 
> I dont get a book out and start writing numbers down like Jimmy but then Ive been doing it for quite a while ( I would suggest for somebody coming into the gap method though) and maybe I just dont need to anymore, shooting marked IFAA Field and knowing the target size really speeds up the learning process anyway.


Steve, I'm not letting you leave Florida without teaching you the GAP. You will shoot scores that you are only dreaming about now.:wink:


----------



## jkcerda (Jan 25, 2007)

itbeso said:


> Steve, I'm not letting you leave Florida without teaching you the GAP. You will shoot scores that you are only dreaming about now.:wink:


HOW do you "gap" when there are BH;s involved? :noidea: that is the reason I stopped gapping & just started concentrating on the spot


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Arrogant is spot on - just like Jimmy's comment about me becoming a better shooter if I learned a conscious aiming method - odd - I have beat Jimmy more than once - but I should switch to his methods?


Your own comment comes across as quite arrogant and of course you can twist it around and take what Jimmy said as arrogance but I know for a fact if you were to shoot field instinctively and then learnt gap you would shoot better scores, the point that you only want to shoot 30y 3D game means you have no reason to change anything but the point is that in some situations Gap would make you a better shot. Im guessing this is what Jimmy meant cause he has never come across as arrogant in any post Ive ever read.



itbeso said:


> Steve, I'm not letting you leave Florida without teaching you the GAP. You will shoot scores that you are only dreaming about now.:wink:


Im not so sure, when I put too much into picking the Gap on a visual level I get slight Target Panic, Im more relaxed focus on the spot and letting the sight picture sort itself out, I have shot a few National/European records that match WRs. I did shoot a 300 round the other day for fun by putting a marker on the ground and focus on putting the arrow on the mark and not looked at the spot, it felt very strange but I was impressed on how they kept dropping into that 5/4 ring.

Im open to listen to and try your method, it all goes into the melting pot of knowledge/experience :thumbs_up


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

I love these discussions. 

What immediately comes to mind? Tommy, the Pinball Wizard!!!

The lyric goes, "How do you think he does it?"

The chorus answers, "I don't know!!!!"

And......they go on to agree......."That deaf, dumb blind kid.......*sure plays a mean pinball!"*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqXVZM9o6DU

I suppose I shouldn't laugh, since I am one who does this and, I too, lack a coherent explanation.

I will say that there's NOTHING subconscious about it for me--I, at least-- DO see the entire picture and based on that entire sight picture I can do an amazing job of sending an arrow into the center of the target.....but the EXACT how or why is probably different with different people--and a mystery that will remain cloaked even if some insist they know exactly how they do it.

(And maybe they DO know, but their explanations are never real clear--after all, "subconscious" is a mysterious concept.)


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

jkcerda said:


> HOW do you "gap" when there are BH;s involved? :noidea: that is the reason I stopped gapping & just started concentrating on the spot


A broadhead has a point just as a field tip does. All you are using is the tip of the arrow and the intended target, then seeing the gap between them(at the end of the arrow). If the blades on the bhs mess up your picture then try to position them so you have the blades out of the line of the tip of the arrow or as I do and put one blade perfectly vertical and use it as alignment on your animal or bird.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Logos said:


> I will say that there's NOTHING subconscious about it for me--I, at least-- DO see the entire picture and based on that entire sight picture I can do an amazing job of sending an arrow into the center of the target.....but the EXACT how or why is probably different with different people--and a mystery that will remain cloaked even if some insist they know exactly how they do it.


Logos, that's really not an unreasonable observation. If you were to work and Algebra problem, you would not understand all the mechanics your brain went through to get the answer. But, that's not what some claim about their shooting, they would want you to believe that even though they don't even understand or use Algebra, their subconscious can work out Trig. IOW, for archery, deny the preexisting requirement that they at least and foremost know how to aim - it is a fundamental requirement. I have always said, that if one's subconscious is smarter than their conscious, they better be comatose, as it's not a very good verdict on one's intelligence.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Here is gap shooting explained by Jimmy himself - do you do all this stuff Kegan?


That's Gap Aiming at a more conscious level...but there are Gap archers who have been shooting Gap nearly their their whole life that aim EXACTLY as you mentor tries to describe on what he believes Instinctive Aiming is.

The FACT is...there ARE different levels of conscious awareness.

If an archer is consciously aware that the arrow is some where within their sight picture...they ARE at some level...consciously aware of it.

Analytically breaking down and adjusting the gaps for a particular distance is a different level of conscious awareness than an archer who adjusts their gaps by feel and has no idea exactly what their gaps are for a particular distance.

The closer an archer's aiming reference is to their direct line of sight to the target...the harder if not impossible it becomes to not be consciously aware of it at some level. The longer an archer holds anchor...the more chance the conscious mind has to become aware of the aiming reference. When you combine those 2...the archer is even more likely to consciously be aware of the arrow.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sanford said:


> I have always said, that if one's subconscious is smarter than their conscious, they better be comatose, as it's not a very good verdict on one's intelligence.


It's NOT necessarily that the subconscious/unconscious is smarter...it's more often than not...just faster when executing a movement than if the athlete was thinking about every step involved....especially when the movement has been engrained.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> Logos, that's really not an unreasonable observation. If you were to work and Algebra problem, you would not understand all the mechanics your brain went through to get the answer. But, that's not what some claim about their shooting, they would want you to believe that even though they don't even understand or use Algebra, their subconscious can work out Trig. IOW, for archery, deny the preexisting requirement that they at least and foremost know how to aim - it is a fundamental requirement. I have always said, that if one's subconscious is smarter than their conscious, they better be comatose, as it's not a very good verdict on one's intelligence.


Yes, Sanford.....I agree, sort of (as much as we can agree on a mysterious process such as this) and I thought this by Gump was good as well.



> Most who claim to 'gap shoot' are probably actually shooting instinctive because they all say they look at a gap between the arrow and the spot. Then they forget about that and focus on the spot only. In the meantime the old brain power kicks in and makes the adjustments for them so the first step was not really needed to begin with.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Another thing I'd add is to consider that.....

Just because it's peripheral does NOT mean it's subconscious.

Those two words seem to get tangled up sometimes.


----------



## jkcerda (Jan 25, 2007)

itbeso said:


> A broadhead has a point just as a field tip does. All you are using is the tip of the arrow and the intended target, then seeing the gap between them(at the end of the arrow). If the blades on the bhs mess up your picture then try to position them so you have the blades out of the line of the tip of the arrow or as I do and put one blade perfectly vertical and use it as alignment on your animal or bird.


YES, but those points tend to be a lot longer then regular field points.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Sanford should not be one to talk about others intelligence with the brilliant comments he just made


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Sanford should not be one to talk about others intelligence with the brilliant comments he just made


A statement like that should always be accompanied by information explaining the logic and reasons behind such an opinion--otherwise it's just a groundless and childish insult.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Kegan,

Yes that is gap. It can be more defined if you wish. Either at the target or the arrow. Both have been used to set national and world titles since before Trad was Trad, back when it was just archery. If you embrace the idea of making it a little more defined then you can begin increasing your effective range by setting a definite gap for each distance.
If you wasn't gap then you would be just as accuracy split fingered with a low anchor, and I believe you'd been there before.

-Grant


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Ken, do you think you could be any more negative?????


Gees,

Give it a break.


Dewayne


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Logos said:


> A statement like that should always be accompanied by information explaining the logic and reasons behind such an opinion--otherwise it's just a groundless and childish insult.


It the part of the difference in explanation he has never been able to fill in, because, there is no filler. It's easier to post an empty post, why? It covers your lack of support for your argument but adds smoke. 

Here's my take, again. Using the analogy he regularly uses that it's like driving a car... we all know the analogy.... subconscious controlling many aspects of the drive, though I would call it something very different. But, to stay on his analogy, and for where there lacks the substantiation, if that's so, the analogy to his archery is that he doesn't know how to drive but his subconscious does. He doesn't have an aiming method, his inner archer does. One who can aim better than he can.

So, he either has a refined aiming system that he learned in the conscious but has learned through repetition to not think about it as much, like many of us, or, his subconscious knows how to do something his conscious doesn't.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I think one of the biggest problems here is there is a lot of different explanations of what gapping is. If you watched Jimmy's video he is explaining gapping at the target. This way your focus is on the point of your arrow a certain distance form the point of impact. Great job Jimmy. Then there is focus on the spot then seeing a distance between your arrow and the spot then memorizing what that picture looks like for each different distance. Then once you have seen it you let your subconscious refine the picture. I think this is what Steve Morley uses ( help me if I am wrong Steve).
Then there is itbeso's method where you see the arrow and the spot but you focus on the distance between them in the window of your bow. This method works best with a higher anchor kind of like Sharp uses. Lower anchor means bigger gaps and they are harder to refine. I agree with itbeso on which one works best ( don't tell him it will go to his head) but each type has proven to be very accurate. You just have to figure out which one is for you. 
So when you ask about gapping I would say you are using Steve's method after December he will change to itbeso's (just kidding I think)
Gary


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

This turns into a complicated subject, as always, it is unecessarily so. So, I will attempt to avoid certain vocabulary that tends to turn these discussions in the wrong direction. Back to the OP, Kegan, I can understand the struggle of perfecting an aiming method. And, I myself, am no expert. However, I too struggle with formal gapping. Too much concentration on a specific amount of inches of the arrow tip to the target and my focus is all off and the shot is in the toilet. Although, I do believe I gap the arrow/sight picture to the intended target, but I can not tell you what that gap distance is. 

I prefer to call it "gapping the arrow flight". In other words, I concentrate on the target, I use the arrow for windage, and I watch/study the flight of the arrow as it flies to the target. Once I learn the arrow trajectory I can then use that knowledge to make shots at varying distances. NOW, there are days I can't miss, and then there are days where it is less than perfect. THe more I practice the better it gets, but I am certain that a formal aiming method such as true gapping would be more accurate, but it just messes me up in the worst way. 

I do not like the term "subconcious" because I believe that something is being consciously used when aiming. After all, we are all conscious beings, performing a conscious act of aiming an arrow, so something is being consciously used to aim the arrow to the target. In other words, maybe the site picture is being consciously used when aiming. Once I realized that I am using some conscious method of aiming, then I have defined it, and now I can refine it.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

I'm with Iris.......

I'm willing to let the mystery be.

Sometimes when you analyze something too much......you lose the magic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

2413gary said:


> So when you ask about gapping I would say you are using Steve's method after December he will change to itbeso's (just kidding I think)
> Gary


Gary LOL, it is likely Im using itbeso's method on longer shots but at 30y I have such big gaps I have to go more by feel than precise visual gapping methods, if I used field target size as a measument for my 30y fan shots then I would be gapping 3 whole targets faces below, Im more aware of the visual Gaps when Im close to my 60yard point on distance.

I have experimented with bow/arrow weights and got a 35y point on for WA3D but for Field Im ok with a 55y to 60y point on.


----------



## MacIndust (Feb 7, 2012)

I am with Urban so far on this one. I think it requires shooting one bow/arrow combination though to learn the flight much like I know how much loft when throwing a baseball.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Logos said:


> I'm with Iris.......
> 
> I'm willing to let the mystery be.
> 
> ...



And I believe that's exactly the problem many people have with instinctive shooting. They just have to figure it out. Find a way to control it, measure something.
And so they miss the magic. I too can let it slip away temporarily if I start thinking too much about the process. Then I have to work on reprogramming the shoulder mounted computer. In other words,it's all in your mind.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

If it needs a name.......we should just call it "Natural Shooting."

Nobody thinks about how they throw a baseball......they just throw it.

Naturally.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> They just have to figure it out. Find a way to control it, *measure something*.


Well being a Gap thread thats exactly what you need to do, if you were on an Instinctive thread I would agree with you. Regardless of aiming method if you start overthinking things at the stake you wont shoot your best but here in virtual archery world its ok to dig a little deeper into the mechanics of aiming just because it helps people wanting to learn understand a little better.

And Sharp (I never start anything or post on gaps threads) once again is posting what seems only negative comments in an attempt to kick off a big argument.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

steve morley said:


> Well being a Gap thread thats exactly what you need to do, if you were on an Instinctive thread I would agree with you.


Thread title:
*
"Is this considered gap shooting?" *


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Steve I think I will come also in Dec. and bring my video cam and record your lesson with itbeso. It will make YouTube history. And clear up all the confusion about gapping. Lol
Gary


steve morley said:


> Gary LOL, it is likely Im using itbeso's method on longer shots but at 30y I have such big gaps I have to go more by feel than precise visual gapping methods, if I used field target size as a measument for my 30y fan shots then I would be gapping 3 whole targets faces below, Im more aware of the visual Gaps when Im close to my 60yard point on distance.
> 
> I have experimented with bow/arrow weights and got a 35y point on for WA3D but for Field Im ok with a 55y to 60y point on.


----------



## MacIndust (Feb 7, 2012)

....and when you do think about throwing broken windows happen. "Nuke" Laloosh.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Logos said:


> Nobody thinks about how they throw a baseball......they just throw it.
> 
> Naturally.


Yes, but do they bring it up under their eye and directly into their line of sight to throw it? Any magic is lost once you do that, as the secret to the magic trick is then revealed


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

2413gary said:


> Steve I think I will come also in Dec. and bring my video cam and record your lesson with itbeso. It will make YouTube history. And clear up all the confusion about gapping. Lol
> Gary


A short, ugly, bald Englishman, youre just gonna break your camera lens lol


Ive been watching my 3.5 year old son play Angry birds throwing game at home, sometimes you see him pausing and readjusting in mid throw, it appears to me that he is learning through his previous misses and making conscious adjustments after each throwing experience. he was hitting maybe 20% at first but has improved to about a 70% hit rate in a couple of days.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Logos said:


> Thread title:
> *
> "Is this considered gap shooting?" *



And my answer is basically,NO,unless you are payng attention to the gap. Kegan said he sees the arrow point in his peripheral vision but not actually using it to aim. So I guess that makes it an instinctive thread since it's what is doing.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

kegan said:


> If you focus on the target and see the arrow in your peripheral vision but make no effort to consciously adjust the position of the arrow (leave it to the subconscious),* is this considered a form of gap?*


Forest, every Gap shooter on this thread basically said YES it is.

Think of Gap this way, if youre on target there is no requirement for conscious input/adjustment and for the most part trust the subconscious to run this task allowing the main focus on the spot but the real difference is if a gap shooter was off aim he would become consciously aware that his arrow/riser view was wrong and either adjust his aim or come down and start the shot again.

When I blow a shot for the most part its because the subconscious knows the aim isnt quite right but the conscious is still trying to overide the alarm bells and run the shot.


----------



## ozzypop (Sep 23, 2010)

Jimmy would be more fun to be around.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Yes, but do they bring it up under their eye and directly into their line of sight to throw it? Any magic is lost once you do that, as the secret to the magic trick is then revealed


You're overthinking this.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

So kegan there has been a lot said about your question what do you think it is?
Gary


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Logos said:


> You're overthinking this.


You know what's odd, or not? I have shot around about every kind of trad archer there is, that means, from all kinds of backgrounds and levels of instruction, formal & informal & just plain do-it-yourselfers. Not once, not even in the slightest, have I ever had a conversation with another about aiming other than "how do you do it best" or "what works best"...etc.... No one ever has talked about instinctive like you find on the Internet, matter fact, all always seem to be looking for the better aiming mousetrap as we all do or have.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Sanford said:


> You know what's odd, or not? I have shot around about every kind of trad archer there is, that means, from all kinds of backgrounds and levels of instruction, formal & informal & just plain do-it-yourselfers. Not once, not even in the slightest, have I ever had a conversation with another about aiming other than "how do you do it best" or "what works best"...etc.... No one ever has talked about instinctive like you find on the Internet, matter fact, all always seem to be looking for the better aiming mousetrap as we all do or have.


I've seen those "aiming mousetraps" and you won't see me drilling any holes in my fine classics to attach one!!

Let others wallow in the slimy pond of high tech aiming.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> Forest, every Gap shooter on this thread basically said YES it is.
> 
> Think of Gap this way, if youre on target there is no requirement for conscious input/adjustment and for the most part trust the subconscious to run this task allowing the main focus on the spot but the real difference is if a gap shooter was off aim he would become consciously aware that his arrow/riser view was wrong and either adjust his aim or come down and start the shot again.
> 
> When I blow a shot for the most part its because the subconscious knows the aim isnt quite right but the conscious is still trying to overide the alarm bells and run the shot.



The way I see it there are two gap shooters in this thread. The rest have all admitted in the past to guessing at some gap between the arrow point and the target,then directing their attention elsewhere,namely the spot they wish to hit. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to maintain this percieved gap while looking somewhere else. So, I beleive that the brain uses that time to make last second adjustments so that the arrow is aimed where the eyes are looking. So,the first step is essentially useless.
In fact mr morley,your last sentence seems to prove my point.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Forest theyre are several ways to Gap from a very conscious/visual level to a level of subconscious very close to Instinctive but it is mine and many others opinion that it is still Gap shooting. I have in the past and still do shoot instinctively so I understand the subtle differences between that awareness of sight picture/arrow in Gap and Instinctive aiming.


If you want to call what I do Instinctive thats fine, just not that big an issue to argue over, only import thing is what youre doing works for you. :thumbs_up


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Forest theyre are several ways to Gap from a very conscious/visual level to a level of subconscious very close to Instinctive but it is mine and many others opinion that it is still Gap shooting. I have in the past and still do shoot instinctively so I understand the subtle differences between that awareness of sight picture/arrow in Gap and Instinctive aiming.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> :thumbs_up
> 
> Ray :shade:


Well it is my unprinicpled and undisciplined opinion, that shooting is learned. My opinion is that your brain calculates, organizes, and collates what it sees and recalls the "sight" picture that produced the shot your attempting to make and offers it to your conscious mind to act on.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> Well it is my unprinicpled and undisciplined opinion, that shooting is learned. My opinion is that your brain calculates, organizes, and collates what it sees and recalls the "sight" picture that produced the shot your attempting to make and offers it to your conscious mind to act on.


Learning to shoot a bow or any weapon consistently accurate...is learned :wink:

Instinctive Aiming is learned through conscious awareness. The muscle and joint response that takes place as a trained athlete performs a task is initiated at the conscious level...but it is than mediated by muscle memory, proprioception and kinesthesia to execute the movement.

Consider Instinctive Aiming as a reflex action to what the archer consciously sees as the target.

There's a fine line between True Instinctive Aiming and Gap Aiming at a lower level of conscious awareness.

Ray :shade:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> Forest theyre are several ways to Gap from a very conscious/visual level to a level of subconscious very close to Instinctive but it is mine and many others opinion that it is still Gap shooting. I have in the past and still do shoot instinctively so I understand the subtle differences between that awareness of sight picture/arrow in Gap and Instinctive aiming.
> 
> 
> If you want to call what I do Instinctive thats fine, just not that big an issue to argue over, only import thing is what youre doing works for you. :thumbs_up



Maybe you are pre gapping,or pre aiming. And it helps your brain in some way to do the readjustment when you switch gears and direct focus elsewhere. So if the brain takes over to correct the pre established gap it must be the subconcious kicking in and you just don't realise it's happening. Very subtle transition.Something like pre aim gap to get close,change focus to the spot you wish to hit,brain takes over for fine adjustment and release happens when the eyes become focused on the spot. Sounds a lot like what we describe as instinctive shooting except we leave out the pre aim gap step. Unless of course it happens subconciously also.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Learning to shoot a bow or any weapon consistently accurate...is learned :wink:
> 
> Instinctive Aiming is learned through conscious awareness. The muscle and joint response that takes place as a trained athlete performs a task is initiated at the conscious level...but it is than mediated by muscle memory, proprioception and kinesthesia to execute the movement.
> 
> ...


So the next question then.... Can a newborne archer just pick up a bow and you know... instinctively.... :grin:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> So the next question then.... Can a newborne archer just pick up a bow and you know... instinctively.... :grin:


Newborne archer as in just starting archery or a baby being born? :wink:

A baby can NOT. An adult can but that doesn't mean they will be very accurate :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

ozzypop said:


> Jimmy would be more fun to be around.


Jimmy is more fun to be around - go shoot you bows guys


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Newborne archer as in just starting archery or a baby being born? :wink:
> 
> A baby can NOT. An adult can but that doesn't mean they will be very accurate :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Twas the second I be referrin.... :grin: :thumbs_up


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

kegan said:


> If you focus on the target and see the arrow in your peripheral vision but make no effort to consciously adjust the position of the arrow (leave it to the subconscious), is this considered a form of gap?


Yes, no, maybe. Depends who you ask. I remember in one of Asbell's books, he said that he didn't notice the periphery at all, but that his hunting buddy did, and considered both instinctive. What it is really, is a matter of what dictionary you subscribe to. You do what you do. What's most important, in my opinion, is to find out what works best. Sometimes that means trying stuff. the more you play, the better you'll get at any given method, and the more you can pick and choose to suit your environment or goals.

Sometimes I downright gap, off the arrow, or the riser, sometimes I simply acknowledge the sight picture and wait until it feels right, then the arrow goes. Sometimes I couldn't tell you what I was doing, and I'd assume it was instinctive, in the Sharpy sense. With aerial targets, I'd call it instinctive in the Ray sense, most times.

I wouldn't worry about it. Just focus on learning to use whatever method suits you, and expand when you feel like it, or focus on a method when you feel like it. Explore, play, have fun.


----------



## ozzypop (Sep 23, 2010)

'Arrogant is spot on - just like Jimmy's comment about me becoming a better shooter if I learned a conscious aiming method - odd - I have beat Jimmy more than once - but I should switch to his methods?'

Have you beat his 291 with 22x on a 300 round?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

ozzypop - has he ever beat me on the 3D range shooting at unknown distances? BTW - when did he shoot a 291 with 22x - this year at the Nationals he scored a 259 and a 262 - going to a 291 is quite a jump in score - but that is besides the point - I think we shoot at the same level - I don't think I shoot any better than him and I don't think he shoots any better than me - the difference is I am not out there telling him and the world via the internet that he would be a better shooter if he switched to my method of aiming - that is what he did towards me -and I find that a bit arrogant.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1839591&p=1065086189#post1065086189

Sharpbroadhead, I looked it up a few weeks ago when you said you shot a "265 average" at the 2011 NFAA indoor nationals (it was really 261.5 ), Jimmy shot 268.5 average... maybe not a thumping, but seven points is a substantial margin in a 300 round.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Well it is my unprinicpled and undisciplined opinion, that shooting is learned. My opinion is that your brain calculates, organizes, and collates what it sees and recalls the "sight" picture that produced the shot your attempting to make and offers it to your conscious mind to act on.
> 
> Aloha... :beer:


Rattus is correct.

One can choose to make reference points on the bow or string function as crude sights, but that's just aiming with crude sights, not natural aiming.

Natural aiming is indeed a mystery and the best attempt we can make to explain the mystery is this:

A true natural aimer will *consciously* use both peripheral and focused vision to study the *"look"* of the entire picture when aiming. He or she will then release the arrow when everything is as close to perfect as possible.

"Instinct," of course, has nothing to do with it. 

Our amazing brains remember the *"look"* from many thousands of past shots and attempt to recreate all conditions that resulted in good shots. That may be what many confuse with "subconscious."

Success is determined by many things, acuity of vision, physical fitness, coordination, strength, fine motor skills, mental toughness and concentration and desire........hard to say what's most important, but desire ranks right up there with the rest.

Also, it takes more practice than most of us have time for or are willing to spend. The best natural shots are probably kids that spend entire days wandering the woods and fields and shooting at all distances.

Sadly, those kids have become almost extinct with the advent of video games and such other pastimes.

Alas, Babylon.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Arrowood - I said my average at home is in the 270's and did quick math in my head for my first and only time shooting the Indoor Nationals - and i'm sorry I was off by a few percentage points - it is irrelevant - that year I shot a 259 and a 264 - this year Jimmy Shot a 259 and a 262 - and btw - most people shoot well below average their first time shooting at such an event and below average almost anytime at such an event - but either way - As I said Jimmy and I shoot at the same level - I have scored higher than him every time we shot on the 3D range together and in the shoot offs - but it was not by much - it was an any given Sunday scenario - I don't claim that I shoot better than Jimmy - never did - Jimmy is a great shot - no question - but I also do not claim that he is a better shot than me - because he is not -we shoot at the same level - but the difference is - I am not claiming that if he shot my method of aiming he would become a better shooter - I would never make such a claim - we are all different and whatever works for you - his game is not mine and mine is not his.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Lay your numbers out there, boys......let's see whose is biggest.



In getting past the "my number is bigger than your number" barrier and debate......it might be good to talk about speed.

Numbers aren't everything.

The natural shooter is more deadly because he or she can get an arrow into the target without laboriously looking at reference points and pondering exactly what "gap" or other contrived sight substitution is best.

That's the real benefit of natural aiming.......it's fast and deadly.

This IS a martial art, after all.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Guys, I'm so sorry for not getting back to this sooner. Yesterday sort of ran away from me, was working up until heading to look at possibly getting a "new" truck ('87 Ram) but wound up getting there to find a beautiful body and frame... and a front end beat really badly. 

Anyway, it seems that it is more of a gap- at least now that my gaps are pretty small for closer targets. I know my point on (40 at the moment with these high back feathers), and have an idea of the gaps at 20 and 30, I just don't try to "put" my hand in any specific place to make those gaps happen- but it's not a really formal form of gap because I try to make sure the exact spot I want to hit is the last thing I think about before the shot goes off. The farther and farther I move beyond 40 though, the more I use point of aim (or pick a point, still can't tell the difference) though. Always did that with really long targets though.

I asked because I have been trying to help a friend get back into shooting. He asked how I aimed. I described it as I did in the initial post, and I couldn't tell him more than that. I lent him MBB volumes 1 and 2. He was even more confused. So I figured I'd jsut ask.

Sorry for starting another fight, guys.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Kegan - I think you could have said the sky is blue and the result would have been the same

Matt


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Round we go again 
For the record, I think Jimmy has done nothing but positive things for this sport and his advice helps many of us. If you can stand up and say you have won a world title I think that trumps most score claims at the end of the day.
Is Jimmy a better shot than SB, undoubtedly yes because he excels in more than one discipline of the sport and doesn't limit himself to one game by putting on blinkers and saying I shoot this method and that's all I need.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Bigjono said:


> he excels in more than one discipline of the sport


Both Sharp and Jimmy are great shots but my vote goes to Jimmy for this very reason, it takes a lot more dedication/effort to excel in more than one dicipline and I respect that effort Jimmy puts in, I dont know where he finds the time to post all these informative videos to help people. :thumbs_up


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

And some people wonder why there is soooo much confusion between what is and what isn't Instinctive Aiming :wink:

Kegan...no need to apologize for asking a question. You did NOTHING wrong!

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

kegan said:


> Sorry for starting another fight, guys.


Relax. You just asked a simple question and people followed their nature.

Same thing happened to me here a few days ago. 

We are not responsible for the inexplicable and bizarre behaviors of others.


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

Logos said:


> Rattus is correct.
> 
> One can choose to make reference points on the bow or string function as crude sights, but that's just aiming with crude sights, not natural aiming.
> 
> ...


Wow grasshopper, how quickly you have grown! Last week you were wondering if there was a need for a designated nocking point and this week you're all grown up and challenging the experts again on what is gapping and what is instinctive. The Force must truly be with you....


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Long Rifle said:


> Wow grasshopper, how quickly you have grown! Last week you were wondering if there was a need for a designated nocking point and this week you're all grown up and challenging the experts again on what is gapping and what is instinctive. The Force must truly be with you....


Wow, cockroach......you haven't grown at all. 

Still inane, irrelevant and making personal attacks instead of contributing to the thread topic.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Logos said:


> Rattus is correct.
> 
> One can choose to make reference points on the bow or string function as crude sights, but that's just aiming with crude sights, not natural aiming.
> 
> ...



Good job. I have tried to explain this same method of aiming as I see it, but not quite as well. I do not like the terms "instinctive" or "subconscious" with any type of target shooting, because it just doesn't make sense. We are conscious and controlling the shot with some kind of method. I like the "natural aiming" description, which, as you define, entails ingraining the site picture in your memory, and with many thousands of shots of practice, and perhaps some natural physical abilities enables one to eventually perform repetitive accurate shots. This is how I aim, however, it is not the most efficient way of learning how to aim. It takes WAY too much practice, and can be super frustrating at times. If I had the opportunity to hang out with Jimmy Blackmon and really learn Gap / String Walking I'd jump on the chance. I would prefer to be proficient in many methods of aiming.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

kegan said:


> Sorry for starting another fight, guys.


Kegan is a good man, and definitely not the fighting type. BUT, invariably, this is usually how these debates usually end up. I could care less how anybody aims. But it would be more helpful if questions on aiming could be discussed....... without turning into a spitting contest. Because many of us are just trying to become better archers, without the benefit of having an actual archery coach helping us along.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - hmmm we score virtually identically at Indoor 300 rounds on average and nearly identicle on the 3D range and moving targets - but because he uses several different aiming methods and bow and arrow set ups to do the same thing that I do with one bow and arrow set up and one style of aiming that makes him "undoubtedly" a better shot than me - LOL - this stuff is hysterical - sometimes I wonder how many of the members of this forum are sitting in their mom's basement as they post this stuff!


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> LOL - hmmm we score virtually identically at Indoor 300 rounds on average and nearly identicle on the 3D range and moving targets - but because he uses several different aiming methods and bow and arrow set ups to do the same thing that I do with one bow and arrow set up and one style of aiming that makes him "undoubtedly" a better shot than me - LOL - this stuff is hysterical - sometimes I wonder how many of the members of this forum are sitting in their mom's basement as they post this stuff!


That sounds like a great topic for another discussion.

I'd say you're giving him an advantage and still staying about even in scores.

You're using natural aiming and he's using crude, improvised sighting systems.

Pretty good.

So when to they plan to have matches where all have to use just one bow and set up?


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

SB, I think what's being said is that the fact of you both being top class shooters is proven. The difference is that you are happy to stick to a one method fits all approach whereas Jimmy looks at the best method or set up for each discipline. By doing it his way he can adapt to different types of shooting but I don't think you could without changing your aiming and gaping method.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

I say that the one who is most adaptable is the one who adapts one method to all disciplines.

And why not have a competition where everybody has to use natural aiming rather than allowing some to use crude, improvised sighting systems?


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Good job. I have tried to explain this same method of aiming as I see it, but not quite as well. I do not like the terms "instinctive" or "subconscious" with any type of target shooting, because it just doesn't make sense. We are conscious and controlling the shot with some kind of method. I like the "natural aiming" description, which, as you define, entails ingraining the site picture in your memory, and with many thousands of shots of practice, and perhaps some natural physical abilities enables one to eventually perform repetitive accurate shots. This is how I aim, however, it is not the most efficient way of learning how to aim. It takes WAY too much practice, and can be super frustrating at times. If I had the opportunity to hang out with Jimmy Blackmon and really learn Gap / String Walking I'd jump on the chance. I would prefer to be proficient in many methods of aiming.


Stringwalking is actually a very simple concept and one that has plenty written about it. Jimmy's videos pretty much sum it up. The tuning is harder though, especially if shooting off the shelf.

As for a more formal gap system, that really revolves around how you best see the gap. It could be at the arrow, bow or target. Personally I see the gap best at the arrow, but I require a fairly close PO distance (35-40yds) to make it work for me.



Logos said:


> And why not have a competition where everybody has to use natural aiming rather than allowing some to use crude, improvised sighting systems?


That is every competition which doesn't allow stringwalking, IE: most of them. Not surprisingly the best are those who use a more structured approach to their aiming.

Any competition which permits stringwalking is generally dominated by it to the extent that all other aiming methods are disregarded (or stringwalking is forbidden). Stringwalking is much more common in Europe where there are a great deal more traditional shooters and the average ability is much higher.

-Grant


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> SB, I think what's being said is that the fact of you both being top class shooters is proven. The difference is that you are happy to stick to a one method fits all approach whereas Jimmy looks at the best method or set up for each discipline. By doing it his way he can adapt to different types of shooting but I don't think you could without changing your aiming and gaping method.


I will go further with this and suggest that one recognizes that if accuracy is goal... such as a sniper might have calibrated tubes for both windage and elevation... anemometers for wind... and maybe bi-pods or other stability devices.... anyways... that taking advantage of what works for you is what one who wants to "be the best that he can be" with what he has available, will in fact use such. When I hunt off Island, I use a takedown recurve... when I hunt on Island or have a plane available to accomodate a longbow... I take both... :grin:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I will be there by the way what has that got to do with gap shooting? Can I gap shoot at this tournament?because I can naturally gap shoot.
Gary


Logos said:


> You're overthinking this.





Logos said:


> I say that the one who is most adaptable is the one who adapts one method to all disciplines.
> 
> And why not have a competition where everybody has to use natural aiming rather than allowing some to use crude, improvised sighting systems?


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Define "all disciplines" because i'm not sure how well the average "instinctive" shooter would do at a FITA or IFAA field tourney.






Logos said:


> I say that the one who is most adaptable is the one who adapts one method to all disciplines.
> 
> And why not have a competition where everybody has to use natural aiming rather than allowing some to use crude, improvised sighting systems?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Well, maybe speed should be factored in.....that would give the true natural shooters more credit.

I should think that the "sighters" would be somewhat slower on average, as they do their crude sighting adjustments.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> Define "all disciplines" because i'm not sure how well the average "instinctive" shooter would do at a FITA or IFAA field tourney.


Disciplines referenced in post #90.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Logos

Please expand what archery disciplines are referring to

Matt


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> Logos
> 
> Please expand what archery disciplines are referring to
> 
> Matt


Reference post #90.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

I'm curious about your input not Jon's 

Matt


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

You better spell it out for me I'm a little slow


Logos said:


> Reference post #90.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Use all caps Gary is a little old and hard of hearing - me I'm just slow


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Guess you two will just have to fall behind then.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Logos didn't they teach you at university of Mn how to get your point across. You are killing me please please tell me
Gary


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

One thing that puzzles me is why the folks that use these crude, improvised sighting systems don't just go ahead and drill some holes and tack on some sights?

Same idea, only faster and more efficient.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> One thing that puzzles me is why the folks that use these crude, improvised sighting systems don't just go ahead and drill some holes and tack on some sights?
> 
> Same idea, only faster and more efficient.


I can tell you that.... I think... in my opinion, when it comes to using open sights on muzzleloaders, string walking, gap shooting, notches on the riser etc, is so that specifically you are not using anything foreign to the bow and staying within the bows natural born gifts.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Huh - I might be a slow farm boy from Montana but, I think he might have just tried to change the subject


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> Huh - I might be a slow farm boy from Montana but, I think he might have just tried to change the subject


Why not? You refused to comment on the subject.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> I can tell you that.... I think... in my opinion, when it comes to using open sights on muzzleloaders, string walking, gap shooting, notches on the riser etc, is so that specifically you are not using anything foreign to the bow and staying within the bows natural born gifts.


That makes sense.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Although, Rattus.......it still seems that "string walking, gap shooting, notches on the riser etc," gets so complex that it becomes very UN-natural (and slow....and contrived) in the final analysis.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Although, Rattus.......it still seems that "string walking, gap shooting, notches on the riser etc," gets so complex that it becomes very UN-natural (and slow....and contrived) in the final analysis.


Well that's true... but this is archery... walk into my living room univited and past my pooches... you'll only be seein red dots... :grin:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Can't afford them then I'd have to buy Allen wrenches who knows where it would go from there. Then I couldn't shoot the world Trads I'd have to sign up freestyle my friends wouldn't look up to me. My wife would laugh her $& off I would start shooting ACE's (oh I do that now) I probably buy a carter release like the one you have. You see where this is going ? Itbeso would never want to tell me how the proper way to gap. 
No I think I'll stick with my crude aiming gap system that is with out a doubt the most accurate aiming system ever used in the barebow division and the bowhunter division.

All this typing with one finger is wearing me out good night.
Gary


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Logos said:


> Although, Rattus.......it still seems that "string walking, gap shooting, notches on the riser etc," gets so complex that it becomes very UN-natural (and slow....and contrived) in the final analysis.


Remind me again about your State/National/World titles and records? How about your record animal? Or any animals? Maybe just your personal best for an NFAA indoor round? Maybe even something as simple as how long you've been involved with competitive recurve archery? Or how long you've been bowhunting?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

grantmac said:


> Remind me again about your State/National/World titles and records? How about your record animal? Or any animals? Maybe just your personal best for an NFAA indoor round? Maybe even something as simple as how long you've been involved with competitive recurve archery? Or how long you've been bowhunting?


Grant, why do any of you even respond to Logos. It's very obvious that he makes comments to just get a reaction. Ignore every post of his and he will get the message and go away. He's just another lonely troll who thinks his arguments hold any water. If you remember the last thread, he didn't hunt. This thread, he has shot many deer. He is obviously a wannabe poster here who doesn't know how to go about being intelligent. He think his little one line zingers are cute when in fact they are pathetic and sad. Personally I feel sorry for the lonely soul.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Logos said:


> And why not have a competition where everybody has to use natural aiming rather than allowing some to use crude, improvised sighting systems?


How would you monitor such shooting i.e how can you be sure people are not gapping, only Aerial targets would ensure Instinctive shooting, even if you watch Sharps instinctive method there is nothing natural/fluid about it, he holds for several seconds before release, we take his word that he is instinctive, will you take everybodies word at a 3D tourney were only instinctive shooting is allowed?

Nothing crude about gapping when you see a good gapper shooting great 50y groups on a field course.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

itbeso said:


> Grant, why do any of you even respond to Logos. It's very obvious that he makes comments to just get a reaction. Ignore every post of his and he will get the message and go away. He's just another lonely troll who thinks his arguments hold any water. If you remember the last thread, he didn't hunt. This thread, he has shot many deer. He is obviously a wannabe poster here who doesn't know how to go about being intelligent. He think his little one line zingers are cute when in fact they are pathetic and sad. Personally I feel sorry for the lonely soul.


I'm waiting until he can no longer talk past all the feet in his mouth.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Itbeso is right (wow that was hard to say) good by logos I wish you well
Gary


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Bigjono said:


> SB, I think what's being said is that the fact of you both being top class shooters is proven. The difference is that you are happy to stick to a one method fits all approach whereas Jimmy looks at the best method or set up for each discipline. By doing it his way he can adapt to different types of shooting but I don't think you could without changing your aiming and gaping method.


But my scores prove that I can - on the 3D range and in 300 rounds we score virtually the same - I have proven that you don't need to hae a different bow and arrow setup or aiming method for every type of shooting you do. 

I can see guys who shoot very long distances having to do things differently - but that is not my game - never claimed it was - my game is bowhunting - and bowhunting is not about shooting 80 yards - it is a 40 yard or less game - at least in my book.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

btw - I do not think that "natural aiming" is superior - nor do I think any other aiming method is superior - at least at the 40 yard or less distances that are my game


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Steve, good post.....we can all claim to shoot instinctive and basically nobody can prove us wrong!!!!

Hmmm. That's a thought.


Dewayne


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Grant, why do any of you even respond to Logos. It's very obvious that he makes comments to just get a reaction. Ignore every post of his and he will get the message and go away. He's just another lonely troll who thinks his arguments hold any water. If you remember the last thread, he didn't hunt. This thread, he has shot many deer. He is obviously a wannabe poster here who doesn't know how to go about being intelligent. He think his little one line zingers are cute when in fact they are pathetic and sad. Personally I feel sorry for the lonely soul.



But, if he gets caught telling lies in an attempt to make someone look 'silly' or 'stupid'. You just know I'll be there to nail him.:whip2:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Ken

Don't know or care what your issue is with Jimmy but, I really don't get your infatuation with who you beat and what your score was. I went from Montana to Tennessee (yeah I know they have me down as living in MI) to see how I would stack up with the best of the best. It was my first time at a big national shoot and I felt that I did fairly well. But, when you get down to it the only person I was competing with was myself and personally I care much more about executing good shots than how they score - I was bummed at my lack of control but, as Jimmy said to me at the time "this ain't a club shoot" - I'll do better next time.

I figure if I execute all good controlled shots there is nothing more I can do and if you beat me my hat is off to you. I have personal goals and if I hit them and you beat me good for you as you shot VERY well but, that won't lessen my satisfaction in hitting my goal - my goal for trad worlds was to make the cut. I took a bunch of knowledge and some home work away and my goal will be different next year.

I beat some "name" shooters there but, I could care less it was one shoot and one score things change shoot to shoot - I was much more interested in watching and learning from the top guys than I was in what the score was. I shot with some great guys and had a blast a couple of the guys had off shoots and I got no joy out of beating them I was honestly bummed that they were having a tough time - if I beat someone I want it to be cause I can shooting well not they are shooting poorly.

If people want they can look up the scores and see who I beat and how the score stacks with in that shoot and historically but, you won't see me doing it.

Matt


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

steve morley said:


> How would you monitor such shooting i.e how can you be sure people are not gapping....


A competition that penalized slow shooters and rewarded fast shooters would do it.

Those that used natural aiming could shoot faster than the folks using crude, improvised sighting systems and calculating their "gaps" or whatever.....thus they (the natural aimers) would get higher scores.

That only seems fair, when you think about it.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Matt, GREAT post......the last 2 IBO World Championships I finished 3 rd....however I shot what I thought was my potential...not what I shoot here locally but normally what I shoot at the major events.


Dewayne


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Logos said:


> A competition that penalized slow shooters and rewarded fast shooters would do it.
> 
> Those that used natural aiming could shoot faster than the folks using crude, improvised sighting systems and calculating their "gaps" or whatever.....thus they (the natural aimers) would get higher scores.
> 
> That only seems fair, when you think about it.


Logos

You are exposing you ignorance again a gap shooter is just as fast as your so called "natural" shooter - most natural shooters are shooting a form of internalized gap


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Logos said:


> A competition that penalized slow shooters and rewarded fast shooters would do it.
> 
> Those that used natural aiming could shoot faster than the folks using crude, improvised sighting systems and calculating their "gaps" or whatever.....thus they (the natural aimers) would get higher scores.
> 
> That only seems fair, when you think about it.


Where does this "fast" shooting exist. Other than aerial shooting, where even then a sight picture is just ingrained, I can't imagine anyone not having or taking the time set up a shot properly. You may have fallen victim to some of that Internet mythology that floats around, because, if there's not enough time for a proper set up to the shot, there's not a shot to take it.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

steve morley said:


> if you watch Sharps instinctive method there is nothing natural/fluid about it, he holds for several seconds before release....


Maybe he's lining up some imaginary sighting references himself......who could know except him? If he's not, he could probably do it faster if he so chose.

Anyway, natural or not, there's certainly nothing "instinctive" about it, either.

Being new at this, I don't know who coined the term "instinctive" as an aiming style......but it was an ill chosen and inaccurate term. 

It's simply a wrong use of the English language. A word that has nothing to do with the chosen application.

Certainly I can't be the first one to have noticed this obvious error???


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> Logos.......a gap shooter is just as fast as your so called "natural" shooter - most natural shooters are shooting a form of internalized gap


And you know that..........how?

That's not a hostile question, just trying to show that you (and others here) are making statements completely lacking in solid foundation.

And.......you make those statements as if they were fact.

Just a note of caution......when you are on such shaky ground, it might be wise to refrain from calling others "ignorant."


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

String walking is incredibly effective for thrown targets it is just like shooting a shot gun


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Where does this "fast" shooting exist. Other than aerial shooting, where even then a sight picture is just ingrained, I can't imagine anyone not having or taking the time set up a shot properly. You may have fallen victim to some of that Internet mythology that floats around, because, if there's not enough time for a proper set up to the shot, there's not a shot to take it.


What I said was that maybe it SHOULD exist.

As for Internet Mythology......this is the only place I've come to find out about archery, and.........thus far I've detected a lot of mythology, but I've been questioning it rather than presenting it.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Logos, the main point is not in defining archers by their aiming style. A good archer is an "archer" and can pull off varied tasks using multiple tools from their toolbox. Matter of fact, they better have multiple tools and know how the use them separately and mixed as the venue requires. This is what separates an "archer" from a one-trick pony. If I am in shooting a venue that needs a sight on my bow, I can and do, if I am not, I don't. If I need more a formal gap reference, I use it, if not, I don't. That's just archery.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> String walking is incredibly effective for thrown targets it is just like shooting a shot gun


Exactly.

Except for the pattern of number nine shot, the noise, the ventilated rib, pulling a trigger instead of releasing an arrow and the lack of any string to speak of on a shotgun.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> And you know that..........how?
> 
> That's not a hostile question, just trying to show that you (and others here) are making statements completely lacking in solid foundation.
> 
> ...


The reason Matt knows that is because he has shot with me, Logos. I am a gap shooter and can shoot as fast and accurate as anyone in the world. If you would care to test that statement then pick your hero who is a "natural" shooter, put your money where your mouth is and lets have a go at it. I'm your huckleberry, put up or shut up. Of course, you'll shut up or give me a word"of caution".


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Logos said:


> And you know that..........how?
> 
> That's not a hostile question, just trying to show that you (and others here) are making statements completely lacking in solid foundation.
> 
> ...


I said ignorance instead of stupidity cause if you would shut your mouth for 2 seconds you might learn something. 

I based my statement on having shot instinctive, gap, split vision, pick a point, and string-walking. I have also shot with the best in our country at those styles. In other words real live experience not a key board. 

Matt


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Logos, the main point is not in defining archers by their aiming style. A good archer is an "archer" and can pull off varied tasks using multiple tools from their toolbox. Matter of fact, they better have multiple tools and know how the use them separately and mixed as the venue requires. This is what separates an "archer" from a one-trick pony. If I am in shooting a venue that needs a sight on my bow, I can and do, if I am not, I don't. If I need more a formal gap reference, I use it, if not, I don't. That's just archery.


I can agree with that.

My comments were directed to my observation that it seems unfair for a true natural aimer to compete with those using crude, improvised sighting systems to direct their arrows.

Maybe a competition that valued quick aiming and shooting more highly would be more equitable to that shooter.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Logos said:


> I can agree with that.
> 
> My comments were directed to my observation that it seems unfair for a true natural aimer to compete with those using crude, improvised sighting systems to direct their arrows.
> 
> Maybe a competition that valued quick aiming and shooting more highly would be more equitable to that shooter.


Have you ever watched Byron Ferguson on TV, shooting those baby aspirins and water droplets out of mid-air flight? He taught himself and teaches others to start that process from a gap. Learn to gap it first. What do you think those gap shooters will be doing in your competition? I think you have a lot of supposition, but once you start shooting this stuff, you too will find there's more to real life than the Internet likes to suggest. You might find your "natural" shooter is a gap shooter or some variation thereof.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> I based my statement on having shot instinctive, gap, split vision, pick a point, and string-walking. I have also shot with the best in our country at those styles. In other words real live experience not a key board.
> Matt


No.......because your statement was specific.

You said, "a gap shooter is just as fast as your so called "natural" shooter - most natural shooters are shooting a form of internalized gap."

How could you know what "most" shooters are doing? Judging by posts here, many of them don't know themselves what they are doing.....or at least can't express it clearly in words.

How could you possibly have knowledge of how fast natural aimers are as opposed to "gap" or "string-walkers" or other of these crude, improvised sighting systems?

This is, I think, the REAL Internet Mythology. No factual foundation, but instead, a massive group opinion based on..........massive group opinion.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Logos said:


> I
> 
> Maybe a competition that valued quick aiming and shooting more highly would be more equitable to that shooter.


Great idea lets set up a competition that encourages snap shooting - have you heard of target panic?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Have you ever watched Byron Ferguson on TV, shooting those baby aspirins and water droplets out of mid-air flight? He taught himself and teaches others to start that process from a gap. Learn to gap it first. What do you think those gap shooters will be doing in your competition? I think you have a lot of supposition, but once you start shooting this stuff, you too will find there's more to real life than the Internet likes to suggest. You might find your "natural" shooter is a gap shooter or some variation thereof.


Well, I don't think people "Gap" tiny and fast moving aerial targets, because it would be too slow.

I don't think you're saying that they do that, either.

So what is your point?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> Great idea lets set up a competition that encourages snap shooting - have you heard of target panic?


Snap shooting could be an interesting variation, but I was talking about rewarding faster shooters and penalizing slower shooters.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

itbeso said:


> The reason Matt knows that is because he has shot with me, Logos. I am a gap shooter and can shoot as fast and accurate as anyone in the world. If you would care to test that statement then pick your hero who is a "natural" shooter, put your money where your mouth is and lets have a go at it. I'm your huckleberry, put up or shut up. Of course, you'll shut up or give me a word"of caution".


LOL!

You can shoot "as fast and accurate as anyone in the world?"

And you know that how?

Somebody help him, please.

ROFL with tears in my eyes.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> LOL!
> 
> You can shoot "as fast and accurate as anyone in the world?"
> 
> ...


Put up or shut up, Logos. You Have your pick of the rest of the world.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

The silence of Logos is deafening!


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

And all I've got are crude, improvised, sighting systems.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Goodbye Troll.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Logos,

Remind me again about your State/National/World titles and records? How about your record animals? Or any animals? Maybe just your personal best for an NFAA indoor round? Maybe even something as simple as how long you've been involved with competitive recurve archery? Or how long you've been bowhunting?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

LOL! FOUR frothy posts in a row!

Please try to calm down, Itbeso!! Your blood pressure!!!

Just try to hold yourself back from making statements like, *"I can shoot as fast and accurate as anyone in the world"* and you may be able to make a contribution here and actually get some respect.

Wild boasting without an Olympic Gold to back it up will get you only a trophy for best comedic post of the day.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Logos said:


> A competition that penalized slow shooters and rewarded fast shooters would do it.
> 
> Those that used natural aiming could shoot faster than the folks using crude, improvised sighting systems and calculating their "gaps" or whatever.....thus they (the natural aimers) would get higher scores.
> 
> That only seems fair, when you think about it.


Some shoots have speed rounds and popup rounds. They definitely reward more instinctive shooters, whatever their preferred aiming methods. Would be interesting to have competitions in some format that addressed things like this. I don't think it's necessarily a superior demonstration of skill, just a different skill set that's better in those circumstances.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

vabowdog said:


> Steve, good post.....we can all claim to shoot instinctive and basically nobody can prove us wrong!!!!
> 
> Hmmm. That's a thought.
> 
> ...


To what end? How silly - why would anyone lie about how they aim - to what end? That is just ridiculous - why would I or Rick Welch lie about how we aim - why would all of Rick Welch's students lie about how he teaches them to aim and how they now aim? That is soooo silly - it is almost like you guys that aim differently feel guilty or something - I don't get it - why do the gap shooters think Instinctive shooters lie about how they aim - to what end?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Logos said:


> LOL!
> 
> You can shoot "as fast and accurate as anyone in the world?"
> 
> ...


Because he has shot against the best in the world - again real world experience - Olympic shooting has nothing to do with speed and you were the one who brought up speed

ITBESO - did you mention crude rough around the edges yes but I wouldn't call you crude.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Matt_Potter said:


> Ken
> 
> Don't know or care what your issue is with Jimmy but, I really don't get your infatuation with who you beat and what your score was. I went from Montana to Tennessee (yeah I know they have me down as living in MI) to see how I would stack up with the best of the best. It was my first time at a big national shoot and I felt that I did fairly well. But, when you get down to it the only person I was competing with was myself and personally I care much more about executing good shots than how they score - I was bummed at my lack of control but, as Jimmy said to me at the time "this ain't a club shoot" - I'll do better next time.
> 
> ...


Matt - my issue is that Jimmy just recently posted that if I would learn a conscious aiming method my accuracy would improve - and I find that to be incredibly arrogant considering that we both shoot at the same level of accuracy - I do not have an infactuation with who I beat - and I repeatedly said that I do not think I am a better shot than Jimmy - so for you to twist my words is absurd and willful.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Logos said:


> Well, I don't think people "Gap" tiny and fast moving aerial targets, because it would be too slow.


I do. It's of the split vision variety, pretty loose, and not as focused as when figuring out a known distance at a stationary target. It is not explicitly figuring distance above the arrow, but most would call that a form of gap. It may lean instinctively, but i am aware of the sight picture most of the time. Can't say i am great at it, but it seems to work alright. Hardest part is estimating the lead.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BarneySlayer said:


> Some shoots have speed rounds and popup rounds. They definitely reward more instinctive shooters, whatever their preferred aiming methods. Would be interesting to have competitions in some format that addressed things like this. I don't think it's necessarily a superior demonstration of skill, just a different skill set that's better in those circumstances.


Agreed in principle......however, bear in mind that this is a martial art and, in combat, speed with acceptable accuracy trumps slightly slower with perfect accuracy--EVERY time.

In other words, snipers are great, but they are a tiny part of an overall combat package.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BarneySlayer said:


> I do. It's of the split vision variety, pretty loose, and not as focused as when figuring out a known distance at a stationary target. It is not explicitly figuring distance above the arrow, but most would call that a form of gap. It may lean instinctively, but i am aware of the sight picture most of the time. Can't say i am great at it, but it seems to work alright. Hardest part is estimating the lead.


I'll accept your admittedly amorphous version of "gap" in this scenario.

I'll add that when I was a kid I could stand in a field and toss up potatoes and hit them with consistency......just natural shooting, no aiming involved other than natural point and shoot.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> To what end? How silly - why would anyone lie about how they aim - to what end? That is just ridiculous - why would I or Rick Welch lie about how we aim - why would all of Rick Welch's students lie about how he teaches them to aim and how they now aim? That is soooo silly - it is almost like you guys that aim differently feel guilty or something - I don't get it - why do the gap shooters think Instinctive shooters lie about how they aim - to what end?


I think that it was more of a response to the notion that explicit aiming methods should be prohibited, discouraged, or penalized. I was at a'trad' shoot when i mentioned that i was leaning to incorporate gap method. A guy in my group suggested that i don't mention that, as it is frowned upon. The guy running the shoot later poked fun at gapping, saying, isn't that using s sight? It was never prohibited, but there is deinitely the mentality out there, that if you don't do it their way, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Some shoots have speed rounds and popup rounds. They definitely reward more instinctive shooters, whatever their preferred aiming methods. Would be interesting to have competitions in some format that addressed things like this. I don't think it's necessarily a superior demonstration of skill, just a different skill set that's better in those circumstances.


EXACTLY!!!

Instinctive is no less inferior of an aiming technique than any of the other barebow aiming methods...unless a specific situation is being used as an example.

Each aiming method will have GENERAL ADVANATAGES AND DISADVANTAGES depending on the circumstances.

Instinctive Aiming is NO more crude than String Walking...unless the archer is no where near mastering it. 

It's the archer's ability to exploit and aiming technique or not that makes it crude...NOT the aiming technique itself!

I shot in a local competition against basically ALL forms of archery from compound to trad...and from sights to barebow. It was a competition that was being promoted by Muzzy to help bring awareness to one of their drop away hunting rests. It was a timed event where accuracy was rewarded. Time was added to the overall score based on where the arrow hit the target.

The scoring system went something like this on a McKenzie deer target. 1 second was subtracted from the over all score for each 12 hit. Zero seconds were added for a 10. 3 seconds were added for 8's, 5 seconds for 5's and 10 seconds for a complete miss.

This is where True Instinctive shooters and archers using Gap Aiming at a lower level of conscious awareness can have an advantage.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> I do. It's of the split vision variety, pretty loose, and not as focused as when figuring out a known distance at a stationary target.


I would just suggest being careful when using the term 'split vision' when describing your aiming technique...because there is another barebow aiming method named 'Split Vision' described by Howard Hill that is very different from what you just described.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Ken

Really don't see how I twisted your words - said you have an issue with Jimmy that is pretty clear and it predates his last post

Matt


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> Instinctive Aiming is NO more crude than String Walking...unless the archer is no where near mastering it.
> 
> It's the archer's ability to exploit and aiming technique or not that makes it crude...NOT the aiming technique itself!


Terming these contrived substitutions for actual sights as "crude" only because such substitution is crude compared to an actual pin sighting system.

Not meant to be a derogatory, just accurate terminology.

Calling any method of aiming "instinctive" is inaccurate, as there is no innate human instinct for aiming a bow or arrow.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Logos said:


> Agreed in principle......however, bear in mind that this is a martial art and, in combat, speed with acceptable accuracy trumps slightly slower with perfect accuracy--EVERY time.
> 
> In other words, snipers are great, but they are a tiny part of an overall combat package.


In certain situations, sure. However, the hunting aspect is not the same as melee, we would hope. Also, from a combat perspective, when it came to artillery uses, long distance accuracy could be highly valued over speed. If the knight is upon you, you're right. If the knight is running at you, having longer range, greater accuracy would be more of an advantage.

Aside from that, the bow for combat, well, some might say it doesn't have to be a martial art to be valid. In War, or just desperate situations, we try to use the best tools we have. I love my bows, but if there was a **** and fan scenario, i'd grab the rifle and revolver first.

I think there is value in instinctive shooting. Sometimes, i think i do it more than not. It usually involves me spacing out on the shot sequence, and staring at the target, like being hypnotized. I like being able to shoot quickly too, though i'm hardly fast. But, at the same time, i feel like if i have ten seconds, i should have a pretty good chance of hitting a beer can at 20 yards, and if i miss, i did something wrong. Suffice to say, i do wrong things regularly.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> Calling any method of aiming "instinctive" is inaccurate, as there is no innate human instinct for aiming a bow or arrow.


THAT arguement holds NO water when you understand that the term Instinctive as it applies to a specific barebow aiming technique...is NOT being used to describe what you were taught in Biology 101 in grade school.

There is more than one definition to Instinctive.

Your arguement is no different than someone claiming a woman can not be 'HOT' because she is beautiful and sexy. When they believe a woman can ONLY be hot when her tempreture is above 98.6 degrees :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I would just suggest being careful when using the term 'split vision' when describing your aiming technique...because there is another barebow aiming method named 'Split Vision' described by Howard Hill that is very different from what you just described.
> 
> Ray :shade:


My error. I should say, focus is on the target, but i am aware of the riser and arrow in the sight picture and use them as rough reference.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Matt good earlier post and love the attitude about your tourney shooting. 


Logos a little clip of a Gap shooter playing with Aerial targets in a Natural fluid style, you have to remember 3D and Field is not about shooting fast but just because I gap it doesnt mean myself and other gappers dont know how to shoot fast when required.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> THAT arguement holds NO water when you understand that the term Instinctive as it applies to a specific barebow aiming technique...is NOT being used to describe what you were taught in Biology 101 in grade school.


Yes. What I'm saying is that somewhere along the line, someone with a vague and incorrect understanding of the word incorrectly applied the word to barebow aiming.

Thus originated the popular incorrect usage of the word.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> Yes. What I'm saying is that somewhere along the line, someone with a vague and incorrect understanding of the word incorrectly applied the word to barebow aiming.
> 
> Thus originated the popular incorrect usage of the word.


Words evolve. If you do NOT understand that or realize that...you need to get out more.

A word may ONLY have one definition when it is first created...but if you live long enough you may see it evolve into other meanings...just like the word 'Hot' has.

If a definition has made it to a dictionary and a person uses it correctly within it's context...it is NO longer incorrect just because you didn't get the memo :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

steve morley said:


> Matt good earlier post and love the attitude about your tourney shooting.
> 
> 
> Logos a little clip of a Gap shooter playing with Aerial targets in a Natural fluid style, you have to remember 3D and Field is not about shooting fast but just because I gap it doesnt mean myself and other gappers dont know how to shoot fast when required.


Cool.

As I said, I did that with potatoes as a farm boy 50 years ago and there was no time for "gapping." Indeed, "gapping" was a concept unknown to me.

It was strictly natural point and shoot.

Maybe with a target as large and slow as a frisby there would be time to use some other sighting method.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Logos, i feel that you've got some valid things to say, but your choice of words, intentional or not, comes off as an elitist superiority complex. Crude may work in a sentence to serve the same function as less precise, indirect, etc., but i certainly interpreted it in a derogatory tone, even if it wasn't meant that way. Similarly, sure, instinctive shooting isn't truly biologically instinctive, but it has become accepted vocabulary. It is one thing to point out the benefits of how you like to shoot, but to imply the inferiority of others' preferences and methods without careful qualification is, essentially, trolling for an argument. Wish you well, but thought i should point it out relatively politely.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Logos - you are missing the point Steve is gapping every one of those targets he is just doing it fast - if I was shooting the same targets I would string-walk them and do it just as fast. Just because you are using the arrow tip to aim with doesn't mean you can't do it quickly - what do you think shot gun wing shooters are doing - they are gapping it is just a small gap - and your lead with a shot gun?? - gapping again.

Matt


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BarneySlayer said:


> Logos, i feel that you've got some valid things to say, but your choice of words, intentional or not, comes off as an elitist superiority complex. Crude may work in a sentence to serve the same function as less precise, indirect, etc., but i certainly interpreted it in a derogatory tone, even if it wasn't meant that way. Similarly, sure, instinctive shooting isn't truly biologically instinctive, but it has become accepted vocabulary. It is one thing to point out the benefits of how you like to shoot, but to imply the inferiority of others' preferences and methods without careful qualification is, essentially, trolling for an argument. Wish you well, but thought i should point it out relatively politely.


Cool. I understand. 

Crude only implied inferiority to a real.......an actual separate commercial (such as pin) sighting system attached to the bow.

As to whose METHODS are inferior......that's hard, maybe impossible to say.

As to "instinctive"....... while I accept the fact that it is accepted in traditional archery vernacular, it's still incorrect in fact.

While saying that is akin to pointing out that the emperor has no clothes......the truth is not always popular, but it's still the truth.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> Logos - you are missing the point Steve is gapping every one of those targets he is just doing it fast - if I was shooting the same targets I would string-walk them and do it just as fast. Just because you are using the arrow tip to aim with doesn't mean you can't do it quickly - what do you think shot gun wing shooters are doing - they are gapping it is just a small gap - and your lead with a shot gun?? - gapping again.
> Matt


Maybe.

It seems that people do things differently or, at least, perceive it differently, so it's hard to tell.

Same holds true for shotgun wingshooters and those rifle shooters who shoot at moving game.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Just because you are using the arrow tip to aim with doesn't mean you can't do it quickly - what do you think shot gun wing shooters are doing - they are gapping it is just a small gap - and your lead with a shot gun?? - gapping again.


GREAT POINT! :thumbs_up

It helps explain when I try to teach people that there are different levels of conscious awareness...and at each lower level of conscious awareness...some of the processes involving hand and eye coordination respond quicker....until there is basically no conscious awareness of a movement other than it being triggered by what they athlete/archer sees and is responding to in regards to the target.

For those people that believe EVERY archer is or must be using a gap...how do you explain archers/gunmen hitting targets from the hip or shooting from behind their backs?

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

It can be done by sighted shooters also :mg:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> For those people that believe EVERY archer is or must be using a gap...how do you explain *archers/gunmen hitting targets from the hip or shooting from behind their backs?*
> 
> Ray :shade:


Don't tell me there are archers shooting from behind their backs!!!!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> It can be done by sighted shooters also :mg:


LOL...yep! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> Don't tell me there are archers shooting from behind their backs!!!!


Yep...I do it....and so do a few others like Frank Addington.

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> GREAT POINT! :thumbs_up
> 
> It helps explain when I try to teach people that there are different levels of conscious awareness...and at each lower level of conscious awareness...some of the processes involving hand and eye coordination respond quicker....until there is basically no conscious awareness of a movement other than it being triggered by what they athlete/archer sees and is responding to in regards to the target.
> 
> ...


Ray, don't go there, I know all my behind the back gaps.LOL:wink:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

steve morley said:


> It can be done by sighted shooters also :mg:


Great shooting!


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

I gotta watch football.

Nice discussion. Later.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

The only issue I have with Jimmy is his constant digs about instinctive shooting


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

There are indeed archers shooting from behind their backs with a precision that causes one's jaw to drop.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Logos, reading through all this I am really not sure on what you base your reasoning or arguments. Ken has an argument to make, he's been there and nearly done it at the top level so has valid opinions on aiming method comparisons. I don't agree that he or any of the people he quotes are instinctive at all (or even that instinctive exists as an aiming method) but there are points to be made.
I was saying that his method of shooting limits him to short range stuff while someone like Jimmy, Matt or Steve can compete at all disciplines of the sport because they open their minds to all the available aiming and sighting variations.
You obviously have something against people who admit to the aiming method they use and prefer to keep spouting this crap about " natural" aiming methods, well guess what cockle, that's all BS, you aim and you gap same as the rest of us, you're either too stubborn or too something else to admit it.
If you want to watch people shoot fast, go to Compton or Denton or Hawkeye, you see loads of the Trady Trady trad trads shooting fast there, you also see the biggest collection of found arrows in the arrow bins there, Mmmmm, what does that tell you.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> You obviously have something against people who admit to the aiming method they use....


No, I don't.

If you read the thread carefully, though......the descriptions of "HOW" they aim have been vague and contradictory in a lot of cases.

It's not a matter of "admitting," it's a matter of so many of the admissions being vague and incoherent.

They're trying to grasp the moonbeam and failing.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> If you read the thread carefully, though......the descriptions of "HOW" they aim have been vague and contradictory in a lot of cases.
> 
> It's not a matter of "admitting," it's a matter of so many of the admissions being vague and incoherent.
> 
> They're trying to grasp the moonbeam and failing.


This I can agree with you on :wink:

In most cases people are going to try and describe Instinctive Aiming as best as they know how based on what they have been told or think they understand...but many will fall short until they have thoroughly researched and understand the differences that actually exist between the different aiming techniques if they are trying to go beyond saying they just point and shoot.

It would be like me trying to describe the moon beam at the level an astronomer could.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

True, but I'm not at all convinced that your explanations are superior to theirs, Ray.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> True, but I'm not at all convinced that your explanations are superior to theirs, Ray Ray.


LOL...I don't doubt that. You wouldn't be the first person on this website :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

You can't gap shoot when shooting behind your back. And when someone can break a so-so 200 on a 300 round shooting behind their back, they'll have something to impress everyone with. 

There is an arrow in front of your face right where you are looking when you shoot. If you shoot better by ignoring it, then ignore it. If you shoot better by knowing where it should be in relation to your target, then do that. Where your arrows hit on your target matters a lit more than what you want to call your aiming technique. For most folks, any way.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Robert Williams said:


> You can't gap shoot when shooting behind your back. And when someone can break a so-so 200 on a 300 round shooting behind their back, they'll have something to impress everyone with.
> 
> There is an arrow in front of your face right where you are looking when you shoot. If you shoot better by ignoring it, then ignore it. If you shoot better by knowing where it should be in relation to your target, then do that. Where your arrows hit on your target matters a lit more than what you want to call your aiming technique. For most folks, any way.


Yeah......results rule, no doubt.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...I don't doubt that. You wouldn't be the first person on this website :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Nothing against you personally......I'm not at all convinced that ANYBODY will ever nail it down.

Too many variables.....too many intangibles.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Logos said:


> I'm not at all convinced that ANYBODY will ever nail it down.


This is why these threads go on for 7 pages.




Logos said:


> Too many variables.....too many intangibles.


For the most part nobody is wrong in their description of Gap/Instinct everybodies brain works differently and they need find in their own mind that they can understand and accept, it allows them to shoot that aiming method consistently and accurately.

Im involved in Coaching and quite often I have to explain the same thing in several different ways before it clicks in the students mind.


Great post Mr Williams :thumbs_up


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> Nothing against you personally......I'm not at all convinced that ANYBODY will ever nail it down.
> 
> Too many variables.....too many intangibles.


If you've researched and studied it as much as I have...it becomes clear as day...especially when you understand how it relates to all athletes and how they perform while throwing an object or shooting a target.

Ray :shade:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

No one will ever be able to nail it down for you because you can't see how to gap shoot. And it's not just you their are very few people that see the gap in the window. There are a few here on AT that do see and understand the concept. I have spent the last 35 years shooting and refining my gaps with a compound and recurve they are as vivid and plain to see as a line drawn on paper. I have spent my entire adult life hunting and shooting competively in the Bowhunter and the last 4 years Trad division. 
I have yet to see anyone shooting instinctive come close to shooting scores that compare to a gap shooter on a NFAA round. I also have shot instinctively for 50 plus years it is a very accurate aiming system because I see it and many archers also see the picture.
When I shoot instinctive my brain recognizes the picture I need then I let go. But when I need to be exact I look at the gap and refine it to what ever yardage I am shooting. Some may ask how you just have to look for it. It may take some longer but if you look you will see. If I could talk to you face to face I could explain much easier. When I gap I can cut my gaps to within a 1/16" when I was 40 and had good eyes I could cut a 1/32" now Sharp will ask why don't you beat the pros ? I never said I could execute the shot perfect every time. Just said I could see the gap to be able tell the difference between a yard or two when necessary. For the nonbeliever I can't help you. Some are so blinded they will never see they don't want to. For my fellow ATers that want to see and be more accurate PM me and we can talk. One last thing for those of you who think gapping is like cheating SUCK It UP CUPCAKE us gappers and string walkers wlii keep setting records and learning to be elite archers.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Gary....it's real simple with the arrow laying right there in front of you.....why not use it. If you look at the scores of almost all IBO and ASA champions over the past 5 years they were all using some type of system or method.


Dewayne


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

steve morley said:


> This is why these threads go on for 7 pages.
> 
> For the most part nobody is wrong in their description of Gap/Instinct everybodies brain works differently and they need find in their own mind that they can understand and accept, it allows them to shoot that aiming method consistently and accurately.
> 
> Im involved in Coaching and quite often I have to explain the same thing in several different ways before it clicks in the students mind.


One cannot fail to detect the similarity between these and religious discussions.

Those go on for many pages, too.....with copious discussion of things that can't be seen, explained or proven. 

Some folks get addicted to that.

:wink:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Logos seeing the gap is just like just like God he is their you just have to look for him. I can help you with that also.

Gary


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

2413gary said:


> No one will ever be able to nail it down for you because you can't see how to gap shoot.


LOL!

Sure. If I just had enough faith, I could see the light.

I could be convinced of that if there was a little more consensus in these discussions.

Fact is, you can hardly find two people who agree on what they're talking about.

No one has disputed that people who use crude, improvised sighting systems can shoot better than those who use NO sighting system.

By the same token, those who use real sighting systems shoot better than those who use crude, improvised sighting systems.

The assertion has been made here that you can shoot faster without sights (or improvised sighting systems). It seems logical.

It appears that archery has never had an Ed McGivern, so these issues have never really been fully explored.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

You are so right kind of like using a pair of vise grips to stear your car with when the stearing wheel is right in front off you.
Gray


vabowdog said:


> Gary....it's real simple with the arrow laying right there in front of you.....why not use it. If you look at the scores of almost all IBO and ASA champions over the past 5 years they were all using some type of system or method.
> 
> 
> Dewayne


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

2413gary said:


> Logos seeing the gap is just like just like God he is their you just have to look for him. I can help you with that also.
> Gary


:banana:

I rest my case. Gary has provided the perfect example.

And each one says, "My religion is right, all those other infidels are going to hell."

:wink:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

The bottom line is that no matter what all those who deny that instinctive shooting is possible say, or even more absurdly deny the subconscious - is that the subconscious can and does aim and calculate many things in everyday life - and those who deny this are simply in denial of reality. How do you aim a golf ball? How do you aim a basketball that is held over your head? How do you aim a baseball? Obviously there is nothing being used to "aim" these things - and yet millions of people do these things all the time with no "gap" no "string walk", nothing - and they do not calculate and triangulate, and do the complex math that would be involved if you tried to get a computer to accurately throw these things - it is all done at a subconscious level - the computer that God gave us is amazing and to try and take credit for it is absurd. If we can aim a golf ball, basketball, baseball, or heck - throw a wad of paper in the trash - without sights, a gap, or a string to walk - we can also aim our arrows the same way - Subconsciously and those who deny this are living in Disneyland.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

vabowdog said:


> Gary....it's real simple with the arrow laying right there in front of you.....why not use it. If you look at the scores of almost all IBO and ASA champions over the past 5 years they were all using some type of system or method.
> 
> 
> Dewayne




You are right. For those of you who are paper and foam shooters that's great. But there are many people who could care less about ASA or IBO or even champions for that matter. They just want to be effective when it comes time to put the arrow in a deer or whatever they might be hunting. No time to decide if it's 28yds or 32yds and try and figure out if the gap is 13 or fifteen inches. They don't care about either one.
For me, I just want to know if it's damn close, a little too far or somewhere in between. No need for more info than that and no need for guestimating or calculating. Just do it,NOW,before it's too late.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> If you've researched and studied it as much as I have...it becomes clear as day...especially when you understand how it relates to all athletes and how they perform while throwing an object or shooting a target.


That's what all the gurus say.

They understand all and all you have to do is become an acolyte and.....you too, can share in the deep understanding of what is hidden to all others.

:wink:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Oh and regarding VA's point about most champs using an aiming method - any experienced archer knows that the aim is a VERY SMALL part of being an accurate shot - it is primarily form that makes us good shots or bad shots - and the problem is that most all people associate instinctive shooting with BAD FORM - they think that in order to shoot instinctively you have to snap shoot, you have to bend all over the place, etc... - and this FACT can be seen by the fact that guys will automatically accuse someone who shoots instinctive, but with good form of not shooting instincdtive!

So the reason that most champs have a conscious aiming method is because they have good form and if they ever shot instinctive - they associated it with bad form and when they switched to good form - they switched to a conscious aiming method.

The aim is a VERY small part of it all and it is a matter of personal preference - if you like calculating distance and using a tape measure to figure your gaps and all that jaz go for it - if you like just looking at what you want to hit and trusting the amazing computer in your brain that God gave you - go for it - but in the end - as in many things - the opposite of what we silly humans believe to be true is many times true - and i believe in large part the claim that nobody really shoots insintinctive is true is nonsense and the at the opposite is more than likely true - namely that nobody really gap shoots - that their subconscious actually takes over the shot, but they cannot accept this - I do not believe it is possible for us to consciously make the very minor adjustments to the gap that are needed to accurately shoot - I think they may think that they are - but in the end the shot is directed subconsciously.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Black Wolf if you want to claim expert status - don't complain when people state what your status truly is


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> The bottom line is that no matter what all those who deny that instinctive shooting is possible say, or even more absurdly deny the subconscious - is that the subconscious can and does aim and calculate many things in everyday life - and those who deny this are simply in denial of reality. How do you aim a golf ball? How do you aim a basketball that is held over your head? How do you aim a baseball? Obviously there is nothing being used to "aim" these things - and yet millions of people do these things all the time with no "gap" no "string walk", nothing - and they do not calculate and triangulate, and do the complex math that would be involved if you tried to get a computer to accurately throw these things - it is all done at a subconscious level - the computer that God gave us is amazing and to try and take credit for it is absurd. If we can aim a golf ball, basketball, baseball, or heck - throw a wad of paper in the trash - without sights, a gap, or a string to walk - we can also aim our arrows the same way - Subconsciously and those who deny this are living in Disneyland.


And those who espouse it are living long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Logos said:


> :banana:
> 
> I rest my case. Gary has provided the perfect example.
> 
> ...



Well I see a silver lining in that cloud. At least we archery nuts aren't slaughtering each other by the thousands just because we don't agree.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> aim is a VERY SMALL part of being an accurate shot -


Great point......if you can't hold steady and release at the right millisecond......sights won't help you a lot.......in fact, nothing will.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Well I see a silver lining in that cloud. At least we archery nuts aren't slaughtering each other by the thousands just because we don't agree.


Yet.

:wink:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Sorry for makin you think I'm just a paper puncher Forrest. My freezer is full. Just like Sharp says every arrow I shoot is to help me be a better hunter. I get to the shot exactly like you when it's necessary.
Gary


FORESTGUMP said:


> You are right. For those of you who are paper and foam shooters that's great. But there are many people who could care less about ASA or IBO or even champions for that matter. They just want to be effective when it comes time to put the arrow in a deer or whatever they might be hunting. No time to decide if it's 28yds or 32yds and try and figure out if the gap is 13 or fifteen inches. They don't care about either one.
> For me, I just want to know if it's damn close, a little too far or somewhere in between. No need for more info than that and no need for guestimating or calculating. Just do it,NOW,before it's too late.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Black Wolf if you want to claim expert status - don't complain when people state what your status truly is


LOL...same goes for your bogus, misguided and misinformed opinions! :wink:

The funny thing is I'm not complaining when someone disagrees with me. Because I choose to debate someone using facts based on the research that sport's psychologists, athletic trainers and doctors use.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

FORESTGUMP said:


> You are right. For those of you who are paper and foam shooters that's great. But there are many people who could care less about ASA or IBO or even champions for that matter. They just want to be effective when it comes time to put the arrow in a deer or whatever they might be hunting. No time to decide if it's 28yds or 32yds and try and figure out if the gap is 13 or fifteen inches. They don't care about either one.
> For me, I just want to know if it's damn close, a little too far or somewhere in between. No need for more info than that and no need for guestimating or calculating. Just do it,NOW,before it's too late.


Now that you mention it, I have noticed that "instinctive" aiming seems to be most effective and most advocated by those who do all their shooting where no one is looking. Not that it matters. Everyone aims one way or another. Choose whatever works best for you for whatever kind of shooting you do. In the end, your skill as an archer is determined by how well you shoot the equipment you choose; not what you think about when you shoot. 

If you want to shoot moving targets and think gap shooting isn't helping you, then do something else. If short drawing and fast shooting without using any conscious aiming techniques makes you blow too many shots, learn something else. Do what works and don't assume what you think works best for you must work best for everyone. 

Speaking if throwing. Pitchers. Ever notice the best pitchers have several techniques in their bag of tricks? Maybe they're onto something there?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Originally Posted by sharpbroadhead:


> Black Wolf if you want to claim expert status - don't complain when people state what your status truly is.


And Black Wolf responds:



> LOL...same goes for your bogus, misguided and misinformed opinions!
> 
> Ray


And I'm smiling because, to me, (when it comes to their "instinctive" and "subconscious" etc.) they are both equally full of it!!!

LOL!

(Yes, I know......they are great shooters. But they can't tell us how it happens.)

:wink:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Forrest I think if we could talk all of us face to face we would agree on a lot of what we are talking about. We would have to promiss to leave the guns and knives home all except logos he might need some protection. Lol
Gary


FORESTGUMP said:


> Well I see a silver lining in that cloud. At least we archery nuts aren't slaughtering each other by the thousands just because we don't agree.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> That's what all the gurus say.
> 
> They understand all and all you have to do is become an acolyte and.....you too, can share in the deep understanding of what is hidden to all others.
> 
> :wink:


Logos, as with all other pedants, you are always about 5 degrees off level with all your statements. By the way, you were called out previously in this thread. When are you going to put up or shut up. Of course, that will never happen because you have no clue what most of the people on here are talking about. "I don't hunt. Naw, I've killed lots of deer". What will your next contradiction be?Pathetic.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> And I'm smiling because, to me, (when it comes to their "instinctive" and "subconscious" etc.) they are both equally full of it!!!


Logos...it's sometimes really hard to take you seriously when you ask questions about the effectiveness of string nocks and than you act like you are somehow totally educated on how the mind and body work while aiming and than claim it's impossible to know how an archer aims Instinctively? 

C'mon!!! You said that tying on a string nock was to much work...are you actually going to try and convince us that you've taken the time and work involved to research how an athlete moves and the triggers and mechanisms involved to say that no one will ever be able to understand it.

Heck...you still believe there is only one definition for a word and choose to ignore the rest because they don't fit into your preconceived opinions.



Logos said:


> (Yes, I know......they are great shooters. But they can't tell us how it happens.)
> 
> :wink:


You do NOT have to be a great shot to be able to tell how an archer aims and shoots. You just have to take the time to research it more deeply than what was taught in grade school.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

sharpbroadhead said:


> The bottom line is that no matter what all those who deny that instinctive shooting is possible say, or even more absurdly deny the subconscious - is that the subconscious can and does aim and calculate many things in everyday life - and those who deny this are simply in denial of reality. How do you aim a golf ball? How do you aim a basketball that is held over your head? How do you aim a baseball? Obviously there is nothing being used to "aim" these things - and yet millions of people do these things all the time with no "gap" no "string walk", nothing - and they do not calculate and triangulate, and do the complex math that would be involved if you tried to get a computer to accurately throw these things - it is all done at a subconscious level - the computer that God gave us is amazing and to try and take credit for it is absurd. If we can aim a golf ball, basketball, baseball, or heck - throw a wad of paper in the trash - without sights, a gap, or a string to walk - we can also aim our arrows the same way - Subconsciously and those who deny this are living in Disneyland.


Pitchers throw a ball 60 feet. 20 yards. About the distance we hunt. Not many would be good enough to hit the "kill zone" on a deer every time at that distance. The strike zone is a lot bigger. And on small game, fuggetaboutit. If you are close enough and the target is big enough, you can just guesstimate the right direction and that's good enough. One of the reasons puny little arrows became favored over mighty and devastatingly lethal spears is because shooting can be a lot more accurate than throwing because you can use easily repeatable techniques. 

If you only shoot as good as you throw, you are leaving a lot on the table.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Pitchers throw a ball 60 feet. 20 yards. About the distance we hunt. Not many would be good enough to hit the "kill zone" on a deer every time at that distance. The strike zone is a lot bigger. And on small game, fuggetaboutit. If you are close enough and the target is big enough, you can just guesstimate the right direction and that's good enough. One of the reasons puny little arrows became favored over mighty and devastatingly lethal spears is because shooting can be a lot more accurate than throwing because you can use easily repeatable techniques.
> 
> If you only shoot as good as you throw, you are leaving a lot on the table.


Here's a great video. Some people are gifted with a natural ability to throw things or excel in most thing that involve hand and eye coordination.

We all have gifts of some sort...and it's the people who have the natural gift of athleticism that will excel and be able to exploit Instinctive Aiming if they choose to master it.

Ray :shade:

[video]http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=8180638[/video]


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Imagine what a great advantage we would have if we filed off the sights on our rifles and shoot them "instinctively". For some reason, the romance of that notion never caught on in any other shooting discipline. The idea that by "not consciously aiming" you are demonstrating how wonderfully athletic and gifted you are just never caught on anywhere else. But then again in all other shooting sports, results were the mark of the superior shooter. Shoot too well in traditional archery and you'll be accused of "aiming" like its some sort of cheating. It's just bizarre.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Logos I get the impression nobody will be able to explain Gap or Instinct to you because youre not willing to listen to anything anybody has to say. Ive read many of these threads and most of the Gap shooters agree on key aspects of the aiming method and so do the Instinctive guys, I think you just need to read a little more and open your mind to what people are trying to say.

Its not really that hard a concept to understand, before the internet a lot people learnt it through trial and error, maybe best for you to go and try some of this stuff and report back with your findings :thumbs_up


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Robert Williams said:


> Imagine what a great advantage we would have if we filed off the sights on our rifles and shoot them "instinctively". For some reason, the romance of that notion never caught on in any other shooting discipline. The idea that by "not consciously aiming" you are demonstrating how wonderfully athletic and gifted you are just never caught on anywhere else. But then again in all other shooting sports, results were the mark of the superior shooter. Shoot too well in traditional archery and you'll be accused of "aiming" like its some sort of cheating. It's just bizarre.


I think in archery, shooting without sights represents an expression of added work and practice to become proficient at doing it that way. It doesn't really represent any superior or added athletic ability nor any inborn natural talent - just the fact that one chose to do it differently and was willing to put in the time to accomplish that end.

As for "natural ability", well, those people exist in all sports, and these folks would be equally talented at any way they shoot a bow. Good hand-to-eye coordination or whatever will transcend any specific aiming style and has nothing to do with one or the other. Learning to shoot instinctive is just learning to shoot a bow without a sight - being good with a bow is talent and practice, whatever way you shoot it.

Sad are the ones who think because they do it a more difficult way they are ingraining or reviving "natural talent". Sorry for them, that would be in their genes and not their practice regimen.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> Logos...it's sometimes really hard to take you seriously when you ask questions about the effectiveness of string nocks ...


And it's hard to take you seriously when you can't answer the questions, Black wolf.



> you act like you are somehow totally educated on how the mind and body work...


Wrong, Black Wolf. I said I don't think anybody will every be able understand it......and you clearly don't.



> You said that tying on a string nock was to much work...


Wrong again. I said I wanted to avoid the work of doing that, but I said I may eventually end up doing it--I'm just not yet convinced that it's worth it.



> you still believe there is only one definition for a word....


We have an instinct to hunt.......shooting a gun, bow or BB gun is not an instinct, though. It's learned.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> Its not really that hard a concept to understand, before the internet a lot people learnt it through trial and error, maybe best for you to go and try some of this stuff and report back with your findings....


Steve, I was shooting arrows with natural point and shoot method in 1955 and did it for eight or ten years.......and I got pretty good at it because I was a kid and shot all day spring, summer and fall. Took it up again recently and I'm picking up the skills rapidly. The body and mind remember.

Could I do better by laboriously developing crude, improvised sighting systems? Maybe, but if I was going to go that direction I'd just go ahead and put sights on the bow.

I like the speed, simplicity and ease of natural aiming.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Robert Williams said:


> Imagine what a great advantage we would have if we filed off the sights on our rifles and shoot them "instinctively". For some reason, the romance of that notion never caught on in any other shooting discipline. The idea that by "not consciously aiming" you are demonstrating how wonderfully athletic and gifted you are just never caught on anywhere else. But then again in all other shooting sports, results were the mark of the superior shooter. Shoot too well in traditional archery and you'll be accused of "aiming" like its some sort of cheating. It's just bizarre.



Maybe you should choose to punt now mr. guru,before you attract too much attention to your ignorance of the prevailing winds of the forum. Read a few old threads and become familiar with the who's who around here. Otherwise you may get in over you head.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> You just have to take the time to research it more deeply than what was taught in grade school.


LOL!

I DID IT in grade school, Black Wolf.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Logos said:


> Could I do better by laboriously developing crude, improvised sighting systems?
> I like the speed, simplicity and ease of natural aiming.


That's all your natural aiming, or whatever you want to call it, is - your whole bow is sight, a crude/improvised sighting system - that is, if you draw and anchor along and within your line of sight. Think of how much faster you could be if you didn't take the time to draw all the way up there and anchor, but instead, just flung them arrows like a baseball. Now that would be fast shooting, faster than you can, so you might fit that same camp of folks that might as well put on a sight, too


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> I think in archery, shooting without sights represents an expression of added work and practice to become proficient at doing it that way. It doesn't really represent any superior or added athletic ability nor any inborn natural talent - just the fact that one chose to do it differently and was willing to put in the time to accomplish that end.
> 
> As for "natural ability", well, those people exist in all sports, and these folks would be equally talented at any way they shoot a bow. Good hand-to-eye coordination or whatever will transcend any specific aiming style and has nothing to do with one or the other. Learning to shoot instinctive is just learning to shoot a bow without a sight - being good with a bow is talent and practice, whatever way you shoot it.
> 
> Sad are the ones who think because they do it a more difficult way they are ingraining or reviving "natural talent". Sorry for them, that would be in their genes and not their practice regimen.



I know this is strange,but I agree with all of that. I really do.
In my case, and most other country boys I suppose, I just never had heard of a coach or aiming methods for a bow and arrow. Starting with a home made slingshot and a pocket full of rocks,only knew one way. Look at it and sling a rock at it. No natural skill maybe but after doing it for a while it just gets easier. I'm convinced that the learning process for the slingshot transfered easily to the bow and arrow.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Robert Williams said:


> Imagine what a great advantage we would have if we filed off the sights on our rifles and shoot them "instinctively". For some reason, the romance of that notion never caught on in any other shooting discipline. The idea that by "not consciously aiming" you are demonstrating how wonderfully athletic and gifted you are just never caught on anywhere else. But then again in all other shooting sports, results were the mark of the superior shooter. Shoot too well in traditional archery and you'll be accused of "aiming" like its some sort of cheating. It's just bizarre.


My kids were better with a bb gun that had no sights than I was with a shotgun it almost seemed.... practice I think cures many ills... :grin:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

One thing that should be noted is that as distances increase, sights become more and more important.

You don't see any "gapping" gurus or any "instinctive" or "subconscious" aimers in the Olympics.

Olympic shooters seem quite conscious all the time.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Sanford said:


> I think in archery, shooting without sights represents an expression of added work and practice to become proficient at doing it that way. It doesn't really represent any superior or added athletic ability nor any inborn natural talent - just the fact that one chose to do it differently and was willing to put in the time to accomplish that end.
> 
> As for "natural ability", well, those people exist in all sports, and these folks would be equally talented at any way they shoot a bow. Good hand-to-eye coordination or whatever will transcend any specific aiming style and has nothing to do with one or the other. Learning to shoot instinctive is just learning to shoot a bow without a sight - being good with a bow is talent and practice, whatever way you shoot it.
> 
> Sad are the ones who think because they do it a more difficult way they are ingraining or reviving "natural talent". Sorry for them, that would be in their genes and not their practice regimen.


Those with "natural ability" do well regardless of aiming style and the best shooters do tend to have the best work ethic, most dedication and determination as well as highly developed hand eye coordination. Again, regardless of aiming method. Aiming technique is open. It can be whatever anyone wants and the guys that want to be the best will work whatever techniques they believe will work best. Some just tend to be more effective for most people than others but its up to the archer to master his game however he sees fit and how good he becomes is measurable by the accuracy and consistency of his shooting. Target sports were designed to sort out the "who is best" arguments, which have undoubtedly been going on ever since the 2nd guy decided to try the newfangled stick launcher the first guy invented v v


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Imagine what a great advantage we would have if we filed off the sights on our rifles and shoot them "instinctively". For some reason, the romance of that notion never caught on in any other shooting discipline.


No...but shooting from the hip did.



Robert Williams said:


> The idea that by "not consciously aiming" you are demonstrating how wonderfully athletic and gifted you are just never caught on anywhere else.


I don't think very many if anyone has really chosen Instinctive aiming to demonstrate how gifted they are. I think if a person chooses it, they're choosing it because it fits their goals, personality and abilities better than the other options.

I know some use it as an excuse for their poor performance in competition but not everyone uses it as an excuse or a means to show off!



Robert Williams said:


> Shoot too well in traditional archery and you'll be accused of "aiming" like its some sort of cheating. It's just bizarre.


I think that's pretty sad and pathetic when some makes a comment like that when an archer is following the rules.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Logos said:


> One thing that should be noted is that as distances increase, sights become more and more important.


From the competition standpoint, not the case. Sights are just more refined in the aiming process and over more arrows, no matter the distance. Whether it be indoor 20-yard or 80-yard field, you will find sighted and unsighted shooters, with the top scores for each division reflecting the differences in refinement of aim. Since most folks like to compete where the variance in score is small and over a small target area, you find more folks opting for sights, but, even then, you have different sights, scoped v. open, and other equipment factors.

Basically, for a 20-yard indoor game, a sight has the same weight against no sight as it does anywhere else. At the distance shots, the difficulty is increased for both, respectively.


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> ... practice I think cures many ills... :grin:


An old boss used to say, "Practice doesn't make perfect; practice makes _permanent_!" (His point being that imperfect practice at anything didn't neccesarily result in perfection.)

On the other hand, that's how I learned to shoot a bow; picked it up, took it out in the yard, started shooting at a blank bale from ultra-close range, and slowly worked my way back. Not ever having had a coach to tell me right from wrong, I still to this day have no idea what to call what I'm doing... but it works for me.

As all this relates to my "aiming" method, kegan, I also have no clue; again, I just try to repeat the successful shot sequence - form, anchor point, and aim-point picture/focus. From the description in your OP, I "aim" much the same way: focus on the target; arrow point in the lower edge of my peripheral vision; my eye flicks down to the arrow point, and back to the intended point of impact (no conscious range calculations, etc); quick (micro-second) rundown of form and anchor point; "surprise" release. While I'll never win a tourney, I've never yet lost either an arrow or an animal. 

Like many around here, sometimes (on rare occasions) I amaze myself; much of the time I struggle with my accuracy. I have discovered that during those frustrating sessions, if I make a conscious effort to repeat that "eye-flick" to the tip of the arrow and back to my target, my accuracy mysteriously returns...

I obviously don't shoot purely "instinctive", but also obviously don't really "gap" (no calculations, etc). I certainly don't have any idea how to string-walk; that takes an understand, talent, and practice I don't have. So I don't really know what to call my method of aiming... but I also don't really care, as long as it keeps working for me. :wink:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Okay, despite the good start and valid posts that have worked their way into this thread, I can no longer follow what seems to be locked into a downward spiral of a ******ed eagle having sex with itself.

Thank you all, who have tried to exchange ideas with the unwilling. Apparently, being right is more important than understanding. It's not going to work.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Logos said:


> One thing that should be noted is that as distances increase, sights become more and more important.
> 
> You don't see any "gapping" gurus or any "instinctive" or "subconscious" aimers in the Olympics.
> 
> Olympic shooters seem quite conscious all the time.


Yep. If you are close enough and the target is big enough, you can just point the right general direction and shoot. The more precisely you need to shoot and the longer the distance, the more discipline and refined the technique needed. I had a visitor yesterday that hunts with compounds. I taught him a three under style and after a dozen arrow, his last two were touching each other in the center of the bullseye at ten yards. He'd be ready to hunt if he kept the shots close enough. 

The shot difficulty with a bow increases geometrically with added distance.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Maybe you should choose to punt now mr. guru,before you attract too much attention to your ignorance of the prevailing winds of the forum. Read a few old threads and become familiar with the who's who around here. Otherwise you may get in over you head.


The "who's who"? No wonder discussions get all muddled. When who's right is more important than what's right a reasonable discussion isn't possible.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Robert Williams said:


> The "who's who"? No wonder discussions get all muddled. When who's right is more important than what's right a reasonable discussion isn't possible.



Who decides what's right and what is not?


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> No...but shooting from the hip did.


If you say so. It doesn't seem like it caught on much to me. I can't remember anyone ever advocating it as an effective shooting technique. Even when used as a metaphor it means taking wild shots, shooting quickly but not carefully. It's just not very accurate even if it is fun to do.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Who decides what's right and what is not?


In many cases we all have to do that for ourselves, but that's a red herring because the point is that what's right should ALWAYS be more important than WHO is right in any thoughtful and rational discussion.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Who decides what's right and what is not?


Well, most forums have a lynch mob that takes care of that......at least in THEIR mind.

:wink:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

BlackWolf you have yet to quote anyone to make a point against anything I have ever stated - just your supposed expertise and vast knowledge


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

He doesn't have to.

If the lynch mob agrees with him......he must be right, right?

:wink:


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

SB, what do you mean "how do you aim a golf ball" are you serious??? I can't think of any sport where you have to hit a target or goal of any kind where people don't aim. I played off a 4 handicap and spent most of my practice time on alignment, aim and length of swing for each variable distance. Nothing subconscious at all, just practice and learn, practice and learn.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Robert Williams said:


> Pitchers throw a ball 60 feet. 20 yards. About the distance we hunt. Not many would be good enough to hit the "kill zone" on a deer every time at that distance. The strike zone is a lot bigger. And on small game, fuggetaboutit. If you are close enough and the target is big enough, you can just guesstimate the right direction and that's good enough. One of the reasons puny little arrows became favored over mighty and devastatingly lethal spears is because shooting can be a lot more accurate than throwing because you can use easily repeatable techniques.
> 
> If you only shoot as good as you throw, you are leaving a lot on the table.


Robert - you are not considering the whole picture - when we shoot our bows we have two variables that our brain has to account for - elevation (up/down) and windage (left/right) - velocity (speed) is always the same if our form is solid.

When we throw a ball or hit a golf ball - we have the additional variable of velcocity that our brain has to account for - and that is why we cannot throw a ball as accurately as we can shoot a bow


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Big jono - you guys crack me up - the golf illustration was used to illustrate that you don't have anything to line up and aim - just like you don't with throwing a ball


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> He doesn't have to.
> 
> If the lynch mob agrees with him......he must be right, right?
> 
> :wink:


i Can't believe you guys fall into Logos trap everytime.He has insulted every one of you and yet, you still try to reason with him. That is not his pathetic little game. Stirring the pot is his sad milieu. Those of us who recognize that are having the laugh of our life as he makes a bigger and bigger fool of himself.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

itbeso said:


> i Can't believe you guys fall into Logos trap everytime.He has insulted every one of you and yet, you still try to reason with him. That is not his pathetic little game. Stirring the pot is his sad milieu. Those of us who recognize that are having the laugh of our life as he makes a bigger and bigger fool of himself.


Keep trying.

If you say it often enough maybe you can convince yourself.

:banana:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Robert - you are not considering the whole picture - when we shoot our bows we have two variables that our brain has to account for - elevation (up/down) and windage (left/right) - velocity (speed) is always the same if our form is solid.
> 
> When we throw a ball or hit a golf ball - we have the additional variable of velcocity that our brain has to account for - and that is why we cannot throw a ball as accurately as we can shoot a bow


I did consider those differences. Shooting merely requires you to point the weapon properly and trigger the shot. This is much more consistent than throwing and a very different mechanism that allows for precise aiming. While both throwing and shooting involve the launching of a projectile, the mechanics are so different that its really not possible to compare aiming methodologies for them in a meaningful fashion. We should all shoot better than we throw.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

P.s. it's not just with throwing that we have velocity to account for. Ballistics applies to any projectile regardless of launch method.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> When we throw a ball or hit a golf ball - we have the additional variable of velcocity that our brain has to account for - and that is why we cannot throw a ball as accurately as we can shoot a bow


Well, the fact that we have far less control over direction when throwing or hitting a golf ball is the most important difference.

Arrows generally go pretty much in the right general direction......but we've all seen golf balls take some pretty wild journeys.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> Keep trying.
> 
> If you say it often enough maybe you can convince yourself.
> 
> :banana:


Being that no one else is eloquent enough to explain their aiming system, why don't you explain "natural aiming" to us underlings? Ha Ha in advance for that pathetic attempt, if it ever comes.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Being that no one else is eloquent enough to explain their aiming system, why don't you explain "natural aiming" to us underlings? Ha Ha in advance for that pathetic attempt, if it ever comes.


As usual, you haven't been paying attention and don't know what's going on.

Try to keep up.

What I've said is that it is a mystery and I doubt that anyone will ever explain it.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

The issue is that velocity is a constant with the bow - everytime we shoot our bow the arrow travels the same speed - when we throw a ball or hit a golf ball - the velocity is different everytime - it is entirely controlled by how hard we hit or throw the object - and for this to be even remotely consistent it is done subconsciously - unless we are just doing it as hard as we possibly can (fast ball)


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Shooting without sights may be even more of a mystery than we realize.

I recall (if memory serves) that Ed McGivern first said that he didn't use the sights on his revolvers, but when pressed about it said that.....yes, well, maybe he kinda did.

That's what you get when the great natural shooters are asked about how they shoot.

I gotta drag out my copy of "Fast and Fancy" and refresh my memory.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> The issue is that velocity is a constant with the bow - everytime we shoot our bow the arrow travels the same speed


I doubt this is the case for all but the very best Trad shooters, For an example on a tough up/down Field course it would be very difficult to get that exact speed consitency without a the use of a clicker.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> The issue is that velocity is a constant with the bow - everytime we shoot our bow the arrow travels the same speed - when we throw a ball or hit a golf ball - the velocity is different everytime - it is entirely controlled by how hard we hit or throw the object - and for this to be even remotely consistent it is done subconsciously - unless we are just doing it as hard as we possibly can (fast ball)


Yes, my point was that we have FAR more directional control with the arrow on the bow.......most notable with the golf ball, of course, but significant with the thrown ball, too.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Steve - even with less than perfect form - the velcoity is much less a variable with a bow than with throwing a ball. I vary when shooting through a chronograph 2 fps on an average of 10 shots


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I vary when shooting through a chronograph 2 fps on an average of 10 shots


The same for me but shooting in training with no pressure is not quite the same as something a IFAA world champs, 112 arrows per day over 5 days, Ive seen my own long shots drop low, I know the aim/form felt good and the only logical reason is a few fps difference on release making the arrow drop enough to be a 3 or miss, normally gets me on hot days when energy levels are running low half way through the tourney.

Some conditions on a tourney dont always allow for perfect shot execution and even things like focused aiming under pressure can give some speed variation, clicker is the only way to ensure that kind of consistency under tourney pressure. A 5fps speed drop at 20 yards wont likely show up but at 60yards it will be noticed.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

let's get one thing straight. Shooting without a sight is only a mystery for you and it will always be. you are blinded by your ignorance. I feel sorry for you. 

Sharp you should send Logos a thank you card almost nobody is picking on you LOL
Gary



Logos said:


> Shooting without sights may be even more of a mystery than we realize.
> 
> I recall (if memory serves) that Ed McGivern first said that he didn't use the sights on his revolvers, but when pressed about it said that.....yes, well, maybe he kinda did.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

steve morley said:


> The same for me but shooting in training with no pressure is not quite the same as something a IFAA world champs, 112 arrows per day over 5 days, Ive seen my own long shots drop low, I know the aim/form felt good and the only logical reason is a few fps difference on release making the arrow drop enough to be a 3 or miss, normally gets me on hot days when energy levels are running low half way through the tourney.
> 
> Some conditions on a tourney dont always allow for perfect shot execution and even things like focused aiming under pressure can give some speed variation, clicker is the only way to ensure that kind of consistency under tourney pressure.


If not fully conscious of it and working to offset the difference, even a simple test of a 10-yard pfs v. 20-yard will show the variation of more than just a few fps. It is very mental. I tried it at various times and it is pretty surprising the difference in speed just from a 10-yard jump. If you take your close reference first, you tend to shoot it too on the long. If you take your long first, you find your close jumps up in fps. Very good training tool for consistent release. 

Most folk's reference is only from one distance, so it doesn't matter as much, but we tend to underestimate our mind's influence on the release over sight picture changes - not to mention the influences you suggest.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> If you say so. It doesn't seem like it caught on much to me. I can't remember anyone ever advocating it as an effective shooting technique. Even when used as a metaphor it means taking wild shots, shooting quickly but not carefully. It's just not very accurate even if it is fun to do.


Becareful not to twist my words or meaning.

I NEVER said it was more accurate than other forms of aiming.

What I said is that shooting from the hip has caught on with some groups of shooters. Those shooters are usually those that like to perform trick shots, speed shooting or are involved with reinactments.

Just becasue a group of people don't share the exact same interest or same levels of accuracy under the same circumstances you pursue does NOT mean they do not exist.

Shooting quickly does not mean the archer is not shooting carefully.

Just because an archer chooses to shoot slow does NOT necessarily mean they are shooting more carefully.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> And it's hard to take you seriously when you can't answer the questions, Black wolf.


LOL...I did and have answered it for years. I can't help it if you and a couple others refuse to think outside of what you have previously learned and are stuck on your limited understanding of how the mind and body work to perform a task.



Logos said:


> I said I don't think anybody will every be able understand it......and you clearly don't.


LOL. It's an easy concept to understand...if you take the time and effort to research it. If you believe I don't understand...let's discuss each specific aspect that you believe I don't understand about Instinctive Aiming...rather than you just using a blanket opinion that I clearly don't understand it.



Logos said:


> I said I wanted to avoid the work of doing that, but I said I may eventually end up doing it--I'm just not yet convinced that it's worth it.


LOL...cool...maybe someday you will convince your self to actually study Sports Science...but you obviously aren't yet convinced you need to because you act and talk like you already know it all.



Logos said:


> We have an instinct to hunt.......shooting a gun, bow or BB gun is not an instinct, though. It's learned.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct

"<had an instinct for the right word>"

We also can have an instinct for the right word...even though language is something that is learned. Go ahead and argue with one of the largest most popular dictionaries around. The definition and usuage exists even though it wasn't the original definition when the word was created. Like I said...words evolve :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Becareful not to twist my words or meaning.
> 
> I NEVER said it was more accurate than other forms of aiming.
> 
> ...


You said hip shooting "caught on". It didn't "catch on". And it didn't "catch on" because its utterly useless. Because a few people in the world might do a show with novelty shots doesn't mean it "caught on". It wouldn't be a novelty if it "caught on". And why didn't it "catch on"? Because its so inaccurate as to be useless except for shooting something at point blank range. 

Shoot a 300 round score behind your back and share the results so we can see how effective the pure hand-eye coordination resulting from superior genetics works out in a measurable way that everyone can compare. That's always better than just talking, Ray. 

Show 'em; don't tell 'em.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Here's a video of an archer who is Truly aiming Instinctively.

There are differences with his technique when compared to an archer, who gaps at a lower level of conscious awareness.

A reflex action is not mediated or controled the same way an action that is consciously analyzed, thought out and controled.

A person would have to really be looking for an arguement to say Kassai is using any other aiming technique besides aiming Totally Instinctively...and there's a reason why not many people would argue with that.

Ray :shade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNUmUBa9KMo&feature=related


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> You said hip shooting "caught on". It didn't "catch on". And it didn't "catch on" because its utterly useless. Because a few people in the world might do a show with novelty shots doesn't mean it "caught on". It wouldn't be a novelty if it "caught on". And why didn't it "catch on"? Because its so inaccurate as to be useless except for shooting something at point blank range.
> 
> Shoot a 300 round score behind your back and share the results so we can see how effective the pure hand-eye coordination resulting from superior genetics works out in a measurable way that everyone can compare. That's always better than just talking, Ray.
> 
> Show 'em; don't tell 'em.


I see you still don't look outside your puny little box you have created for yourself and others.

I can only share the evidence. The fact that there are exhibition shooters, reinactors, plenty of videos on youtube of archers, pistol shooters, shotgun and rifle shooters shooting trick shots to prove my point how it has caught on...should be enough...but you rather argue that it hasn't caught on because it does not meet YOUR criteria of competition accuracy...or enough of a following for you to consider being valid.

Shooting behind the back was not performed to demonstrate it's superiority in a target competition. It was performed to represent what a person can be capable of without having to rely on sights or showing the ability of what an archer can do with exceptional hand and eye coordination.

I've already shared the advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances that each aiming technique may have..generally speaking.

What I enjoy most out of your last post is how you're indicating that you and others would be impressed if I could shoot well from behind my back on a NFAA 300 which has alot to do with my point originally discussed on your website. Advantages and disadvantages do in fact exist with certain aiming techniques...which is why Instinctive Aiming is generally not best suited for most archery competitions....especially when the target distances are longer.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> What I enjoy most out of your last post is how you're indicating that you and others would be impressed if I could shoot well from behind my back on a NFAA 300 which has alot to do with my point originally discussed on your website.


Yep, shooting a legitimate 200+ behind your back would impress me. Id also be impressed if you could flap your arms and fly around like a hummingbird, too. 

I'm not impressed by hypothetical anecdotes, though.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Yep, shooting a legitimate 200+ behind your back would impress me. Id also be impressed if you could flap your arms and fly around like a hummingbird, too.


Just as I would be impressed if you ran a 5K and finished it in a decent time :wink: 



Robert Williams said:


> I'm not impressed by hypothetical anecdotes, though.


So what's the hypothetical anecdotes in question???

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

2413gary said:


> let's get one thing straight.


LOL!

If you ever get one thing straight we'll be sending up fireworks in celebration.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I see you still don't look outside your puny little box you have created for yourself and others.
> 
> I can only share the evidence. The fact that there are exhibition shooters, reinactors, plenty of videos on youtube of archers, pistol shooters, shotgun and rifle shooters shooting trick shots to prove my point how it has caught on...should be enough...but you rather argue that it hasn't caught on because it does not meet YOUR criteria of competition accuracy...or enough of a following for you to consider being valid.
> 
> Shooting behind the back was not performed to demonstrate it's superiority in a target competition. It was performed to represent what a person can be capable of without having to rely on sights or showing the ability of what an archer can do with exceptional hand and eye.


Trick shots and impressing people. Seems to be a theme. There's a reason they're called "trick shots". Hint: They're tricks. Not serious shooting. Think about it. Hitting a target at *point blank range* can ONLY impress anyone if you do it with your feet or behind your back or some other bizarre "look ma no hands" stunt. Trick shooting is not to be confused with good shooting.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Just as I would be impressed if you ran a 5K and finished it in a decent time :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope. Not playing the endless circle game with you, Ray. Equating pure instinctive with "superior genetics and hand eye coordination" is absurd. An archer is only as good as his shooting says he is. Period. There aren't any extra points for aiming "the hard way". Hitting your mark is "the hard way". There's nothing hard about missing.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Trick shots and impressing people.


Yep...it's called entertainment. The world is full of entertainers...from archers, musicians, actors, athletes and spelling bees. There's something for everyone...just because trick shooting holds little value to you does NOT mean that others don't find it vaulable, entertaining and/or interesting.



Robert Williams said:


> Trick shooting is not to be confused with good shooting.


Ummm...I personally consider Byron Fergueson, Frank Addington, Howard Hill, Ron LaClair and Stacy Groscup...all good shots based on the abilities to execute a good trick shot....soooooo...just because you don't does NOT mean that others do not.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Yep...it's called entertainment. The world is full of entertainers...from archers, musicians, actors, athletes and spelling bees. There's something for everyone...just because trick shooting holds little value to you does NOT mean that others don't find it vaulable, entertaining and/or interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK. Maybe that's it. You are impressed by trick shooters and entertainers. That's cool. Trick shooting won't win tournaments or double lung a deer and isn't proof of anything except having practiced stunt shooting but it impresses some people and that's always worth something.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Equating pure instinctive with "superior genetics and hand eye coordination is absurd.


The fact is....in order for someone to truly exploit Instinctive Aiming and be able to win or hold their own in most target competions...they will need to have above average if not superior hand and eye coordination to pull it off.

There's a reason why top level archers like Steve Morley make comments how they don't see archers who only aim Instinctively do very well in Field Tournaments.



Robert Williams said:


> An archer is only as good as his shooting says he is. Period.


So an archer who uses only String Walking and can't hit aerial targets worth a darn....must than suck??? Or what about a timed pop up 3D competition where a String Walker fails miserably but kicks butt out on the field course?

IMO...at aerial targets he may suck...but that doesn't necessarily make him a bad archer. He may score in the 290's on a NFAA 300 round. It just goes to prove how each aiming technique will have general advantages and disadvantages under specific circumstances.



Robert Williams said:


> There aren't any extra points for aiming "the hard way". Hitting your mark is "the hard way". There's nothing hard about missing.


NEVER said or tried to imply there is or should be.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> OK. Maybe that's it. You are impressed by trick shooters and entertainers. That's cool. Trick shooting won't win tournaments or double lung a deer and isn't proof of anything except having practiced stunt shooting but it impresses some people and that's always worth something.


There's skill involved with trick shooting. It isn't all based on pulling off some kind of trick with no skill involved if that's what you're trying to imply.

Do you believe there is skill involved with trick shooting?

If trick shooting was so easy....there would be alot of archers able to do it.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

*Originally Posted by BLACK WOLF:*



> *Instinctive Aiming is learned...*


*Mirriam Webster:*

*In·stinct*
plural in·stincts
1 a : a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is *not learned* 
b : something you know *without learning it* or thinking about it
2 : *a natural ability*

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/instinct

Looks like he's arguing with one of the most respected dictionaries around.

:banana:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> There's skill involved with trick shooting. It isn't all based on pulling off some kind of trick with no skill involved if that's what you're trying to imply.
> 
> Do you believe there is skill involved with trick shooting?
> 
> ...


Magicians can make a tiger float in the air and disappear, too. It takes skill.

But who cares?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

LOL...you omitted definition #2. of that particular reference. I'm not surprised...over look one to justify the other.

2 [count] : a natural ability 
▪ He has a strong survival instinct. ▪ an athlete with good instincts — often + for ▪ He has a strong instinct for survival. ▪ She has a natural instinct for making the right decisions in her job. — sometimes followed by to + verb ▪ a strong instinct to survive

How does an athlete get good instincts for a learned sport? How does someone make a good decision in a job if it's not learned to some degree or another?

Ray :shade:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Got to ware Ray-Bans the glare is so bright


Logos said:


> LOL!
> 
> If you ever get one thing straight we'll be sending up fireworks in celebration.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> Magicians can make a tiger float in the air and disappear, too. It takes skill.
> 
> But who cares?


Those are illusions...there's nothing faked about hitting an asprin out of the air while shooting behind your back :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> So an archer who uses only String Walking and can't hit aerial targets worth a darn....must than suck??? Or what about a timed pop up 3D competition where a String Walker fails miserably but kicks butt out on the field course?


You asked earlier, "what anecdotal hypotheticals?". And there's your answer. Which guy only uses string walking and can't hit aerial targets worth a damn? Why the hypothetical guy in your anecdote, of course. A hypothetical string walker can suck at moving targets as much as you want to say he does. In reality, that "Apache style" is actually quite effective on moving targets.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Those are illusions...there's nothing faked about hitting an asprin out of the air while shooting behind your back
> 
> Ray :shade:


And you know that how?

:wink: :wink:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> There's skill involved with trick shooting. It isn't all based on pulling off some kind of trick with no skill involved if that's what you're trying to imply.
> 
> Do you believe there is skill involved with trick shooting?
> 
> ...


Sure there's skill involved. Riding a bicycle blindfolded with no hands has "skill involved" but does that make someone a Tour de France athlete? It's a trick. It's not serious bicycling. Just like hitting an aspirin at arms length from behind your back is a trick. Not serious shooting. Good entertainment and by Jove, if there was a behind the back aspirin shooting season every fall or a behind the back aspirin shooting tournament I'd give it more serious weight but since you can't shoot any normal target at any normal range with consistency that way, it must be taken for what it is; trick shooting. Nothing more, impressive as you may want it to be.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> You asked earlier, "what anecdotal hypotheticals?". And there's your answer. Which guy only uses string walking and can't hit aerial targets worth a damn? Why the hypothetical guy in your anecdote, of course. A hypothetical string walker can suck at moving targets as much as you want to say he does.


Based on my research it's not hypothetical as if it's imaginary or has nothing to base the circumstance on.

I'm not saying it's not possible...but I have yet to see a dedicated tournament archer who only String Walks be able to do well enough to win or shoot more aerial targets than a dedicated Instinctive shooter or a Gap shooter shooting at a lower level of conscious awareness.

It's no different than Steve Morley saying that he hasn't seen many or any archers who only aim Instinctively do very well in Field Tournaments.



Robert Williams said:


> In reality, that "Apache style" is actually quite effective on moving targets.


If you mean Apache style as in 3 Under...yes...that technique and positioning of the arrow can be very effective on moving targets. It's very similar to how a skeet shooter uses the barrel of their shotgun.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Logos said:


> And you know that how?
> 
> :wink: :wink:


It's only a trick if the aspirin shooters use the biggest fletch an weakest spines arrows when "hitting" those aspirins at arms length.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Riding a bicycle blindfolded with no hands has "skill involved" but does that make them Tour de France athletes.


Never said it did. It's like comparing sychronized swimming to the 100 meter breast stroke. Trick shooting is just a different form of archery that is appreciated and admired by some...but not everyone.



Robert Williams said:


> Just like hitting an aspirin at arms length from behind your back is a trick. Not serious shooting.


Does EVERYTHING in your life have to be serious? Is there no fun or thinking outside of the box for you? You need to get out more or just plain accept that not everyone thinks or feels the way you do.

Trick shooting can involve some serious shooting.

Is hitting a target at 150yrds. away serious shooting or is it trick shooting?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Based on my research it's not hypothetical as if it's imaginary or has nothing to base the circumstance on.
> 
> I'm not saying it's not possible...but I have yet to see a dedicated tournament archer who only String Walks be able to do well enough to win or shoot more aerial targets than a dedicated Instinctive shooter or a Gap shooter shooting at a lower level of conscious awareness.
> 
> ...


And it's the same anchor stringwalkers use. It works great for moving targets. 

So which string walking champ was it that couldn't hit moving targets no matter how much he practiced? A real one or one you made up as support for your arguments?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Robert Williams said:


> Sure there's skill involved. Riding a bicycle blindfolded with no hands has "skill involved" but does that make someone a Tour de France athlete? It's a trick. It's not serious bicycling. Just like hitting an aspirin at arms length from behind your back is a trick. Not serious shooting. Good entertainment and by Jove, if there was a behind the back aspirin shooting season every fall or a behind the back aspirin shooting tournament I'd give it more serious weight but since you can't shoot any normal target at any normal range with consistency that way, it must be taken for what it is; trick shooting. Nothing more, impressive as you may want it to be.


I'd like to interject something here, and this comes from years and years and years of shooting, seeing people shoot, watching competitions of shooters, and occasionally having the opportunity to watch a program on the outdoor channel "impossible shots" and I have to say, shots at close range can be every bit as challenging as a shot to 300 or 1000.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Never said it did. It's like comparing sychronized swimming to the 100 meter breast stroke. Trick shooting is just a different form of archery that is appreciated and admired by some...but not everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Depends on the situation doesn't it. 

Is the target more like a softball or a barn?

Hit a softball at 150 yards 2 out of three and it's phenomenal shooting. Hit it one out of 25 and it could very well be dumb luck.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...you omitted definition #2. of that particular reference. I'm not surprised...over look one to justify the other.
> 
> 2 [count] : a natural ability
> ▪ He has a strong survival instinct. ▪ an athlete with good instincts — often + for ▪ He has a strong instinct for survival. ▪ She has a natural instinct for making the right decisions in her job. — sometimes followed by to + verb ▪ a strong instinct to survive
> ...


I gave you the link.....and #2 is not omitted, it's staring you in the face.

You said "Instinctive Aiming is *learned*..."

Mirriam Webster says:



> 1 a : a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is* not learned*
> b : something you know *without learning it* or thinking about it
> 2 : *a natural ability*


You're arguing with one of the most respected dictionaries around.

:wink:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

rattus58 said:


> I'd like to interject something here, and this comes from years and years and years of shooting, seeing people shoot, watching competitions of shooters, and occasionally having the opportunity to watch a program on the outdoor channel "impossible shots" and I have to say, shots at close range can be every bit as challenging as a shot to 300 or 1000.


Yep. But it doesn't mean you can make a shot at 300 or 1000. It just means you can make the trick shot. At least sometimes. Ever notice they usually don't tell you how many times they had to try it before they got a good one on tape?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> So which string walking champ was it that couldn't hit moving targets no matter how much he practiced? A real one or one you made up as support for your arguments?


I'm terrible with remembering names...but over the past 25yrs. of competing in archery tournaments and attending Trad only shoots...there have been archers I've known and met who would win or do very well on the Field courses and 3D courses but could only hit a very limited amount if any aerial targets at all.

I never asked them how much or how little they practiced shooting at aerial targets. I just know the archers who aimed Instinctively or who Gap aimed at a lower level of conscious awareness did much better hitting aerial targets than what the String Walkers did.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> I gave you the link.....and #2 is not omitted, it's staring you in the face.


You omitted how the dictionary uses the 2nd. definition and I asked you to explain how and why they used it within the context they did if a sport isn't learned or a job isn't learned?

You care to answer those questions before continueing?

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Depends on the situation doesn't it.


EXACTLY!!!...which is WHY some aiming techniques will be generally better than others depending on the situation and circumstances.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> I'd like to interject something here, and this comes from years and years and years of shooting, seeing people shoot, watching competitions of shooters, and occasionally having the opportunity to watch a program on the outdoor channel "impossible shots" and I have to say, shots at close range can be every bit as challenging as a shot to 300 or 1000.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'm terrible with remembering names...but over the past 25yrs. of competing in archery tournaments and attending Trad only shoots...there have been archers I've known and met who would win or do very well on the Field courses and 3D courses but could only hit a very limited amount if any aerial targets at all.
> 
> I never asked them how much or how little they practiced shooting at aerial targets. I just know the archers who aimed Instinctively or who Gap aimed at a lower level of conscious awareness did much better hitting aerial targets than what the String Walkers did.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Can't really argue that because if you don't practice aerial targets then you won't be good at them. Just satin' string walking doesn't make you bad at moving targets. It's a three under hook that's outstanding for moving targets. I've won more than one running deer competition at shoots three under...... Even though I normally shoot split finger. Instinctive and gap shooters who don't practice aerial targets tend to suck at aerial targets, too, by the way. Just sayin'.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Robert Williams said:


> Yep. But it doesn't mean you can make a shot at 300 or 1000. It just means you can make the trick shot. At least sometimes. Ever notice they usually don't tell you how many times they had to try it before they got a good one on tape?


 I shoot to 200 yards with my muzzleloaders. I'm shooting or generally shooting at a target I can hardly see off the bench.... but I hit it regularly by actually looking at something else and knowing my firearm. As for hitting something at two hundred or 1000 yards and being a trick shot to boot... may I introduce to you... http://www.bobmunden.com/


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> EXACTLY!!!...which is WHY some aiming techniques will be generally better than others depending on the situation and circumstances.
> 
> Ray :shade:


I don't think anyone has denied that. Lots of "gappers" ignore the "gap" at point blank range. Just point and shoot. I do. And lots of " instinctive" shooters suddenly figure out the value of gap shooting when they get beyond point blank range. Use whatever works best for what you're shooting. That's one thing all the best archers I've ever known do.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Okay logos, chalk up a win on your score card. I am wrong, I came back to this inane spiral... skimming between work, had something I just had to point out that has been bouncing around a bit...



Logos said:


> Mirriam Webster says:
> b : *something you know without* (learning it or) *thinking about it*
> 
> :wink:


How does Sharpy aim almost exclusively? He looks at the target. He has learned it by trial and error and feedback, and he no longer thinks about the aiming process at all. By your dictionary of choice, the term instinctive can be applied to aiming a bow. Can we move on and argue about something less beaten to death?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Ohhh...forgot to mention...an archer who just shoots 3 Under really is no longer String Walking if they are maintaining that same position on the string for every shot...but if the targets are moving, set or thrown from different distances that require the String Walker to move his fingers up or down the string...they are now String Walking.

A better example of the comparison I was trying to make would be with an archer who only shoots Point of Aim..which is how many String Walkers aim after they have positioned their fingers where they need to be.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

rattus58 said:


> I shoot to 200 yards with my muzzleloaders. I'm shooting or generally shooting at a target I can hardly see off the bench.... but I hit it regularly by actually looking at something else and knowing my firearm.


In archery, that's called "point of aim" shooting. If you knew the "gap" between your sight and the bullseye and referenced that with peripheral vision, it would be called "gap shooting" or sometimes "split vision".


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Use whatever works best for what you're shooting. That's one thing all the best archers I've ever known do.


Which is exactly how I shoot...and why I and others are more impressed when we hear about an archer winning a Field Tournament or winning a NFAA 300 round while ONLY aiming Totally Instinctively.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Ohhh...forgot to mention...an archer who just shoots 3 Under really is no longer String Walking if they are maintaining that same position on the string for every shot...but if the targets are moving, set or thrown from different distances that require the String Walker to move his fingers up or down the string...they are now String Walking.
> 
> A better example of the comparison I was trying to make would be with an archer who only shoots Point of Aim..which is how many String Walkers aim after they have positioned their fingers where they need to be.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Right. Stringwalkers simply become "three under" when they're no longer adjusting for various distances. It's very effective on moving targets.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Which is exactly how I shoot...and why I and others are more impressed when we hear about an archer winning a Field Tournament or winning a NFAA 300 round while ONLY aiming Totally Instinctively.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Which archer was that?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> How does Sharpy aim almost exclusively? He looks at the target. He has learned it by trial and error and feedback, and he no longer thinks about the aiming process at all. By your dictionary of choice, the term instinctive can be applied to aiming a bow. Can we move on and argue about something less beaten to death?


For some people the obvious eludes them because they refuse to acknowledge or recognize it.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

And what shoot?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Which archer was that?


LOL...EXACTLY...which is EXACTLY why it would be more impressive if they did :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Right. Stringwalkers simply become "three under" when they're no longer adjusting for various distances. It's very effective on moving targets.


But than their shooting a form of Gap and most likely NOT Point of Aim on moving targets.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> But than their shooting a form of Gap and most likely NOT Point of Aim on moving targets.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Yep but they're still the same tourney winning stringwalkers, aren't they? Or are your tourney winning anecdotal hypothetical stringwalkers unable to make this natural adjustment?


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...EXACTLY...which is EXACTLY why it would be more impressive if they did :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Of course! Who isn't impressed by anecdotal hypothetical archers?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Yep but they're still the same tourney winning stringwalkers, aren't they?


Yep



Robert Williams said:


> Or are your tourney winning anecdotal hypothetical stringwalkers on able to make this natural adjustment?


I don't know because these were real people...unlike how you prefer or choose to think of them as.

Ray :shade:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Bored today obviously lads ........


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Robert Williams said:


> In archery, that's called "point of aim" shooting. If you knew the "gap" between your sight and the bullseye and referenced that with peripheral vision, it would be called "gap shooting" or sometimes "split vision".


Bein from Puna... that's like bein from Kentucky... I get an inkling about the actual words to describe it... :grin:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Of course! Who isn't impressed by anecdotal hypothetical archers?


I don't know about you...but I'm not impressed. I'm impressed by real archers making great shots....whether they're shooting trick shots or competeing in tournaments.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Yep
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sure they were.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I don't know about you...but I'm not impressed. I'm impressed by real archers making great shots....whether they're shooting trick shots or competeing in tournaments.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Me too.... all shooting is an art.... even yer kid with his bb gun can be highly accomplished on flies and other flying objects... :grin:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I don't know about you...but I'm not impressed. I'm impressed by real archers making great shots....whether they're shooting trick shots or competeing in tournaments.
> 
> Ray :shade:


You also said you are impressed by the imaginary archer that was the imaginary champion if the imaginary NFAA 300 round tourney. But that's cool, too. [/shade]


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> You also said you are impressed by the imaginary archer that was the imaginary champion if the imaginary NFAA 300 round tourney. But that's cool, too. [/shade]


That's because he does NOT exist or very few have ever exisisted and proves my point EXACTLY.

If an archer was to win a NFAA 300 round or a Field Tournament aiming Totally and Only Instinctively...I and those that understand what would be needed or involved in accomplishing that would be very impressed.

The fact is...there are very few if any who can compete at that level aiming Totally Instinctively because it requires a natural gift of superior hand and eye coordination to pull that off.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I'm guessing things must be extremely slow and/or boring over at TradTalk but maybe Robert's feeling a little itchy lately :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> So an archer who uses only String Walking and can't hit aerial targets worth a darn....must than suck??
> 
> IMO...at aerial targets he may suck...
> 
> Ray :shade:


Don't want to interrupt a really good pissing match - LOL - but I am here to tell you string walking smokes aerial and moving targets - it is just like shooting a shot gun. 

Matt


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I think you and Robert are new Best Buds Forever now... Nobody gives anybody THAT much attention


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

On and I'm not hypothetical or imaginary


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> You omitted how the dictionary uses the 2nd. definition and I asked you to explain how and why they used it within the context they did if a sport isn't learned or a job isn't learned?
> You care to answer those questions before continueing?


They said very clearly that instinctive means NOT learned. The uses you mention DO NOT argue with that. Why would they argue with themselves?

You said "Instinctive" is learned. The dictionary clearly states NOT LEARNED.

The number 2 you mention says clearly "A Natural Ability"........which means what? NOT LEARNED.

Any questions?

:banana:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> They said very clearly that instinctive means NOT learned. The uses you mention DO NOT argue with that. Why would they argue with themselves?
> 
> You said "Instinctive" is learned. The dictionary clearly states NOT LEARNED.
> 
> ...


yes.... flying from alaska to hawaii in migration, is instinctive. Seeking mothers milk is instinctive. Sex drive might be instinctive but using your equipment might not be... and of course I've no personal experience to reference that from... but I dare say that picking up a bow even with matched arrows and everything... you are not xing out without practice... and practice makes... no I think, forces your mind to imprint your action to a seen and noted result... in order to recall later when needed.

This is my opinion, and I'm relatively secure in it. :grin:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> On and I'm not hypothetical or imaginary


Are you sure ? I heard rumours ........


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

benofthehood said:


> Are you sure ? I heard rumours ........


Nope even bigger in real life


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> They said very clearly that instinctive means NOT learned. The uses you mention DO NOT argue with that. Why would they argue with themselves?
> 
> You said "Instinctive" is learned. The dictionary clearly states NOT LEARNED.
> 
> The number 2 you mention says clearly "A Natural Ability"........which means what? NOT LEARNED.


How many definitions did they give for Instinct?

In the 2nd. definition...which has the #2 by it in case you're not sure...is there ANY mention within THAT definition of it not being learned?

Please point it out...and I'm NOT asking about the first definition...which has a one by it in case you weren't sure :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> Nope even bigger in real life


Dude...you gotta be HUGE! :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> but I am here to tell you string walking smokes aerial and moving targets - it is just like shooting a shot gun.


Sooo at that point...when you're shooting at aerial targets...are you changing the position of your fingers up and down the string or are you maintaining the same position on the string for all the aerial shots?

Are you using Point of Aim when you maintain you're 3 Under position or are you using some form of Gap?

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Odd that BlackWolf with his supposed vast medical knowledge would not quote from the Merriam-Webster MEDICAL DICTIONARY:

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

http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmedsamp


note that the 2nd definition in a MEDICAL DICATIONARY is not limited to unlearned behavior - but rather simply to behavior that is below the conscious level - subconscious - which is exacly how the instinctive archer aims


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> How many definitions did they give for Instinct?
> In the 2nd. definition...is there ANY mention within THAT definition of it not being learned?


They gave 1a, 1b, and 2. Not learned, not learned and not learned.

They all say the same thing. (Why would a dictionary argue with itself?)

AGAIN......here's 2.



> 2: *A natural ability*
> ▪ He has a strong survival instinct. ▪ an athlete with good instincts — often + for ▪ He has a strong instinct for survival. ▪ She has a natural instinct for making the right decisions in her job. — sometimes followed by to + verb ▪ a strong instinct to survive


A "natural ability" is natural.......INNATE. Meaning you're BORN with it. *Not learned.*

This was not hard to get. That's why I have trouble taking seriously all your theories about aiming. 

You seem to just take (invent) a position and then defend it in the face of facts (or dictionaries) that call it into question.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Odd that BlackWolf with his supposed vast medical knowledge would not quote from the Merriam-Webster MEDICAL DICTIONARY:
> 
> Main Entry: in·stinct
> Pronunciation: in-sti(k)t
> ...


WHOA! WHOA! WHOA!



> 2 : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level


DOES NOT mean "Aims Subconsciously." Don't even TRY to make THAT leap--it's ludicrous.

Now look up "Mediated."
*



Indirect, accomplished by the aid of an intervening medium.

Click to expand...

*And no.......this is not about a seance. 

:wink:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Sooo at that point...when you're shooting at aerial targets...are you changing the position of your fingers up and down the string or are you maintaining the same position on the string for all the aerial shots?
> 
> Are you using Point of Aim when you maintain you're 3 Under position or are you using some form of Gap?
> 
> Ray :shade:


Ray

If I am shooting aerials you know the distance the thrower is standing from you and they are throwing perpendicular to you so you know the range - set your crawl call pull and shoot it just like a shot gun. On running deer targets pick a spot on the wire where you know the distance - set your crawl - aim like a shot gun swing through and release when the target reaches your spot.

I haven't done a pop up shoot but, I just set a tab for hunting that has three deep groves for my 10 20 30 yard crawls in it so I can set my crawls with out looking - I bet with a little practice I'll be plenty fast


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Matt_Potter said:


> Don't want to interrupt a really good pissing match - LOL - but I am here to tell you string walking smokes aerial and moving targets - it is just like shooting a shot gun.
> 
> Matt


You must be an instinctive stringwalker, then, LOL. I thought it was a little odd that people can call three under "gun barreling" and not figure out that its extremely effective on moving targets. Seems easy enough to figure out but ........


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> ...swing through and release when the target reaches your spot.


That should be release JUST BEFORE the target reaches your spot.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BarneySlayer said:


> I think you and Robert are new Best Buds Forever now... Nobody gives anybody THAT much attention


No. Old best buds. Been best buds for years and years.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> They gave 1a, 1b, and 2. Not learned, not learned and not learned.


I still do NOT see where they said in the 2nd. definition that it is NOT learned. Why...because they did NOT mention anything about it NOT being learned. They just said 'natural' ability. NOTHING about it HAVING to be inate or not learned. You're making stuff up that is NOT there in definition #2. Another perfect example of you grabbing at straws because you won't admit you're wrong.

Good hand and eye coordination can be a natural ability. In order to aim Instinctively well...an archer has to have a natural ability to excel in tasks that involve hand and eye coordination and practice it to improve it.

Instinctive Aiming relies more on good hand and eye coordination more than how the other aiming techniques involve consciously setting gaps, aiming references and/or adjusting the sight picture.

So when an archer is aiming Instinctively they are putting faith into their natural hand and eye coordination that has been developed, learned and refined from hours of practice to hit their intended target.

Most ANYONE can learn a technique and have it become second nature to them and perform like they are a natural at it.



Logos said:


> They all say the same thing. (Why would a dictionary argue with itself?)


Ummmm...no they do NOT!



Logos said:


> A "natural ability" is natural.......INNATE. Meaning you're BORN with it. *Not learned.*


LOL...you're adding words that are NOT there.

AND...you still haven't explained what instincts the dictionary you referenced are talking about regarding an athlete and his particular sport or what instincts a person is using to make the right judgements regarding their job?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

LOL!

Take a break.

You must be exhausted after all that desperate dodging.

ukey:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> LOL!
> 
> Take a break.
> 
> ...


I'm NOT the one avoiding questions. I tackle everything head on unlike some timid little pompous fool.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> I'm NOT the one avoiding questions. I tackle everything head on unlike some timid little pompous fool.


Now, now......when you start name-calling you just put more emphasis on the fact that you got nothing.

:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> Now, now......when you start name-calling you just put more emphasis on the fact that you got nothing.


I haven't called you any names but if the shoe fits...wear it. If you chose to avoid the questions than maybe that description does apply to you...or maybe it doesn't.

You can either put up or shut up...in other words...you can choose to answer the questions or ignore 'em. The choice is up to you.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Give it up.

You lost the debate and you then started name-calling.

You would have done better to take a break like I suggested.

:banana:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> Give it up.
> 
> You lost the debate and you then started name-calling.
> 
> ...


LOL...you're too much. I'm actually glad you became a member here. You have added a new level of entertainment that's been missing here...from string nocks, shooting small or big bucks to now aiming techniques. 

Taking breaks are weak...especially if you don't need any :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

That empty aggressive chatter is not going to help you.

You've had a very bad day here and your bluster just makes it more obvious.

Better luck tomorrow.

:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Logos said:


> That empty aggressive chatter is not going to help you.
> 
> You've had a very bad day here and your bluster just makes it more obvious.
> 
> ...


LOL...what planet are you from??? Please...keep the comments coming...while you keep avoiding the questions!!!

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Black, Sharp, gary, rat, forest, et al , why would you even try to reason with those two yahoos, robert and Logos? Logos could throw potatoes in the air when he was a teen and "hit them with amazing accuracy". Probably naturally aiming without a nocking point. Then,after 50 years he comes back into the sport. He doesn't hunt on one thread but by the time the next thread has started, he has killed "many deer".Robert williams! I've heard that name many times. LOL. Robert has won many running deer competitions in his successful competitive career. Did I mention his name. Robert Williams? Now that is a household name in american archery archives. Not These two need to take their dog and pony show on the road, they would make a fortune as a comedy act.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

itbeso said:


> Black, Sharp, gary, rat, forest, et al , why would you even try to reason with those two yahoos, robert and Logos? Logos could throw potatoes in the air when he was a teen and "hit them with amazing accuracy". Probably naturally aiming without a nocking point. Then,after 50 years he comes back into the sport. He doesn't hunt on one thread but by the time the next thread has started, he has killed "many deer".Robert williams! I've heard that name many times. LOL. Robert has won many running deer competitions in his successful competitive career. Did I mention his name. Robert Williams? Now that is a household name in american archery archives. Not These two need to take their dog and pony show on the road, they would make a fortune as a comedy act.


Well actually.... truth be known, he ignored my last most thoughtful treatise on instinct..... :grin: so it seems we were not having conversation... :grin:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> Well actually.... truth be known, he ignored my last most thoughtful treatise on instinct..... :grin: so it seems we were not having conversation... :grin:


You haven't been ignored, my friend, Logos just need a little time to consult his dictionary to try to come up with more words that he thinks sound intelligent. Trouble is, he keeps using them in the wrong setting and context.Har,Har. With he and Robert both perusing Merriams, the next batch of one liners should be doozys


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> Black, Sharp, gary, rat, forest, et al , why would you even try to reason with those two yahoos, robert and Logos? Logos could throw potatoes in the air when he was a teen and "hit them with amazing accuracy". Probably naturally aiming without a nocking point. Then,after 50 years he comes back into the sport. He doesn't hunt on one thread but by the time the next thread has started, he has killed "many deer".Robert williams! I've heard that name many times. LOL. Robert has won many running deer competitions in his successful competitive career. Did I mention his name. Robert Williams? Now that is a household name in american archery archives. Not These two need to take their dog and pony show on the road, they would make a fortune as a comedy act.


I've got news for you. No traditional archers are a household name anywhere. Not me, you or anyone else. The "who's who of traditional archery" is a very tiny pamphlet that never got distributed and that nobody reads.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Robert Williams said:


> I've got news for you. No traditional archers are a household name anywhere. Not me, you or anyone else. The "who's who of traditional archery" is a very tiny pamphlet that never got distributed and that nobody reads.


Hmmmmm Howard Hill comes to mind... my wife knows who ted nugent is... not traditonal ..but cat scratches you know.... you might be right... but for most of us who shoot traditional style equipment as I do, the gift is in the experience.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> I've got news for you. No traditional archers are a household name anywhere. Not me, you or anyone else. The "who's who of traditional archery" is a very tiny pamphlet that never got distributed and that nobody reads.


Hit a nerve, did I? If you can and did read my post, Nowhere did I say Traditional archer, I said in "American archery archives" which gives you a lot of styles to be listed in.But, again, Robert Williams and Logos don't seem to be household names in any style. Let me research outhouse names and see if you and your buddy show up. I'll get back to you at my convenience.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> Hit a nerve, did I? If you can and did read my post, Nowhere did I say Traditional archer, I said in "American archery archives" which gives you a lot of styles to be listed in.But, again, Robert Williams and Logos don't seem to be household names in any style. Let me research outhouse names and see if you and your buddy show up. I'll get back to you at my convenience.


Just trying to inject a little reality into your life. No, don't thank me. Glad to help.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

rattus58 said:


> Hmmmmm Howard Hill comes to mind... my wife knows who ted nugent is... not traditonal ..but cat scratches you know.... you might be right... but for most of us who shoot traditional style equipment as I do, the gift is in the experience.


Anyone living? Most people don't even know who Howard Hill a was. You've got to go back to Robin Hood to find. A household name. This isn't a good sport for people with needy egos to get the attention they crave, which explains some of the goings on in forums like this. 

Chers, rat


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Just trying to inject a little reality into your life. No, don't thank me. Glad to help.


Aachoo. Sorry, I know you two think you are nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Ted Nugent???

Come on, Rattus.....Ted Nugent now has name recognition only because the News Media put in a call to him when they're on a gun control kick and they need a clown to make gun owners look like idiots.

Robin Hood......yes, but he's old news.

The great Howard Hill is lost in the mists of time......Fred Bear is slightly known because daddies are buying his little youth bows for their daughters who have seen "Brave Princess" and "The Hunger Games."

Today's name archers are: (In order of popularity)
1. Brave Princess Merida
2. Katniss Everdeen
3. Khatuna Lorig (Because she trained Jennifer Lawrence.)

The other 'NAMES' in archery that are well known?

THERE ARE NONE. 

The "gurus" here are slightly less well known than the heroes of the sport of curling.

:mg:

That's just the way it is.

:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> This isn't a good sport for people with needy egos to get the attention they crave, which explains some of the goings on in forums like this.


LOL...some people's egos are soooo injured or sooo small...that they feel the need to start their own forum/archery website to try and control what's being said.

At least this forum isn't controlled or run by people with little egos that have to try and control most everything if not everything in their little cyber world. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Ted Nugent???
> 
> Come on, Rattus.....Ted Nugent now has name recognition only because the News Media put in a call to him when they're on a gun control kick and they need a clown to make gun owners look like idiots.
> 
> ...


Ted Nugent .... You sir, don't know Ted Nugent..... :grin:

Oh... don't forget Kantniss Everdeen... too....


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Logos said:


> Ted Nugent???
> 
> Come on, Rattus.....Ted Nugent now has name recognition only because the News Media put in a call to him when they're on a gun control kick and they need a clown to make gun owners look like idiots.
> 
> ...


Funny, but I was thinking that curling is better known and respected, too. It's just strange that people who obviously crave recognition would choose traditional archery as their vehicle. Archery, in general, gets no recognition in this country and traditional archery is such a fractional splinter as to be completely invisible to the national consciousness. People are more aware of civil war reenactments. 

That's too bad because archery is a great sport. But it's so obscure that there aren't even the typical "big fish in small ponds". It's a mud puddle with some pollywogs in it. 

I've been shooting since 1970 and I realized a long time ago that this is something you must do just because you really love it. If you count on it to impress anyone or to "be somebody", you are on a fool's errand.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> I've got news for you. No traditional archers are a household name anywhere. Not me, you or anyone else. The "who's who of traditional archery" is a very tiny pamphlet that never got distributed and that nobody reads.


I'm sorry Robert, are you getting frustrated because your lame ramblings are, well-------lame! Why don't you update us on winning another running deer competition at the podunk river shoot. Meanwhile, I am enjoying this months tiny pamphlet edition. If you win a couple more moving deer shoots, I might even see your name in there.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> I'm sorry Robert, are you getting frustrated because your lame ramblings are, well-------lame!


Things must be really slow in his little sandbox (TradTalk) to feel the need to come here and share his vast wisdom with us....but I'm all for it...the more the merrier :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...some people's egos are soooo injured or sooo small...that they feel the need to start their own forum/archery website to try and control what's being said.
> 
> At least this forum isn't controlled or run by people with little egos that have to try and control most everything if not everything in their little cyber world.
> 
> Ray :shade:


"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt

[/shade]


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

itbeso said:


> I'm sorry Robert, are you getting frustrated because your lame ramblings are, well-------lame!


LOL!

The pot calling the stainless steel frying pan black.

:banana:


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> I'm sorry Robert, are you getting frustrated because your lame ramblings are, well-------lame! Why don't you update us on winning another running deer competition at the podunk river shoot. Meanwhile, I am enjoying this months tiny pamphlet edition. If you win a couple more moving deer shoots, I might even see your name in there.


Thank you for sharing.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Robert Williams said:


> Funny, but I was thinking that curling is better known and respected, too. It's just strange that people who obviously crave recognition would choose traditional archery as their vehicle. Archery, in general, gets no recognition in this country and traditional archery is such a fractional splinter as to be completely invisible to the national consciousness. People are more aware of civil war reenactments.
> 
> That's too bad because archery is a great sport. But it's so obscure that there aren't even the typical "big fish in small ponds". It's a mud puddle with some pollywogs in it.
> 
> I've been shooting since 1970 and I realized a long time ago that this is something you must do just because you really love it. If you count on it to impress anyone or to "be somebody", you are on a fool's errand.


For one thing, I don't know that I know any archers who don't hunt... I might... I'm just sayin... That be so, hunters are more or less private people and shooters of all stripes, compete on the first level with themselves... secondly on the 3D and other ranges with friends. There are some here in Hawaii who are on one or two of the archery circuits that I've heard of who may or may not be hunters. If you're not in prime time.... in my opinion....


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...some people's egos are soooo injured or sooo small...that they feel the need to start their own forum/archery website to try and control what's being said.
> 
> Ray :shade:


I will say with complete honesty that as member of Tradtalk I have *never* felt my views/comments were being controlled by anybody, it is just like any other Archery forum, except maybe you will find some Gap/Instinctive threads keeping an adult tone all the way through.:angel:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Ted Nugent .... You sir, don't know Ted Nugent..... :grin:
> 
> Oh... don't forget Kantniss Everdeen... too....


Katniss was mentioned as #2......you actually missed that?

I think there are several people here who read with their subconscious......or instinctively......or maybe they're "gapping" the words.

:wink:

By the way......I've seen enough of Ted Nugent on T.V. to know what he is......a shill for the media and a willing clown who makes hunters look bad.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> Funny, but I was thinking that curling is better known and respected, too. It's just strange that people who obviously crave recognition would choose traditional archery as their vehicle. Archery, in general, gets no recognition in this country and traditional archery is such a fractional splinter as to be completely invisible to the national consciousness. People are more aware of civil war reenactments.
> 
> That's too bad because archery is a great sport. But it's so obscure that there aren't even the typical "big fish in small ponds". It's a mud puddle with some pollywogs in it.
> 
> I've been shooting since 1970 and I realized a long time ago that this is something you must do just because you really love it. If you count on it to impress anyone or to "be somebody", you are on a fool's errand.


Robert, your last two sentences are the first intelligent words you have uttered. If you could stick to that kind of dialogue then you could probably get some respect on here. But then again you have to try to be sarcastic and snide with your first sentences. There were over 600 media people covering archery at this years Olympics. Contrast that with the 30 or so covering curling. Obviously you have been a wannabe winner all your life so you have this innate need to put down all those who have actually accomplished something in our sport.I shoot archery because I really do love the sport and I have a lot of fun doing it. The reality is, though, it is a lot more fun when you win and one of these days I hope you get to experience that feeling so you can feel at home with the rest of us pollywogs.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

steve morley said:


> I will say with complete honesty that as member of Tradtalk I have *never* felt my views/comments were being controlled by anybody, it is just like any other Archery forum, except maybe you will find some Gap/Instinctive threads keeping an adult tone all the way through.:angel:


Where is this "Tradtalk?" 

I must join up with them.

They probably need some help, too.

So many demands on my time.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> For one thing, I don't know that I know any archers who don't hunt... I might...


:wave:

Hello.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> hunters are more or less private people...


:wave:

Ted Nugent


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

rattus58 said:


> For one thing, I don't know that I know any archers who don't hunt... I might... I'm just sayin... That be so, hunters are more or less private people and shooters of all stripes, compete on the first level with themselves... secondly on the 3D and other ranges with friends. There are some here in Hawaii who are on one or two of the archery circuits that I've heard of who may or may not be hunters. If you're not in prime time.... in my opinion....


Exactly, so the "who's who" game in traditional archery can't be taken seriously. How many folks here could name 2 out of the last 10 IBO championship winners? Or NFAA nationals? Or The Vegas shoot? There might just be someone out there who shoots like the legendary Robin Hood and most folks would never know.... Or care. After all, winning a tournament doesn't make someone the world's greatest pure instinctive bow hunter, right?


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> Robert, your last two sentences are the first intelligent words you have uttered. If you could stick to that kind of dialogue then you could probably get some respect on here. But then again you have to try to be sarcastic and snide with your first sentences. There were over 600 media people covering archery at this years Olympics. Contrast that with the 30 or so covering curling. Obviously you have been a wannabe winner all your life so you have this innate need to put down all those who have actually accomplished something in our sport.I shoot archery because I really do love the sport and I have a lot of fun doing it. The reality is, though, it is a lot more fun when you win and one of these days I hope you get to experience that feeling so you can feel at home with the rest of us pollywogs.


OK. Since you are begging for attention, please, please recite your illustrious trad archery resume for me and everyone else. I'm anxiously waiting breathlessly to be impressed. Go ahead and dazzle us all.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Katniss was mentioned as #2......you actually missed that?
> 
> I think there are several people here who read with their subconscious......or instinctively......or maybe they're "gapping" the words.
> 
> ...


See that is the difference between being involved with Ted personally versus being involved with him electronically.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Logos said:


> Where is this "Tradtalk?"
> 
> I must join up with them.
> 
> ...


Yep, you'd feel right at home with a very sharp bunch of very savvy shooters.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> OK itbeso, Since you are begging for attention, please, please recite your illustrious trad archery resume for me and everyone else. I'm anxiously waiting breathlessly to be impressed. Go ahead and dazzle us all.


(Putting on sunglasses.)


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> See that is the difference between being involved with Ted personally versus being involved with him electronically.


Wait! What? In person he is smart???

:mg:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Logos said:


> Today's name archers are: (In order of popularity)
> 1. Brave Princess Merida
> 2. Katniss Everdeen
> 3. Khatuna Lorig (Because she trained Jennifer Lawrence.)


I don't know about that.... I don't recognize that third name, and I HAVE heard of Hawkeye. Dude, you need to get out more!

Throw into the mix, these fine archers, who sure made a real impression!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> I will say with complete honesty that as member of Tradtalk I have *never* felt my views/comments were being controlled by anybody, it is just like any other Archery forum, except maybe you will find some Gap/Instinctive threads keeping an adult tone all the way through.:angel:


Steve, 

You either have forgotten or didn't know I was once a moderator over at TradTalk.

I decided to leave when a thread I started polling people if they would be more impressed with an archer winning a NFAA 300 round aiming totally Instinctively or an archer who had their form and equipment set up so the arrow was right on the bullseye like a pin sight.

The poll was created to show...first....that Instinctive Aiming does exist as a unique and specific way to aim a barebow...and secondly...that there were inherent and general advantages with the different aiming techniques under specific circumstances....so new archers could make a more informed decision on which aiming technique they should try instead falling into the trap that there is only one way to shoot a Trad bow.

The thread and poll got completely pulled because someone didn't like it. The thread and poll was harmless.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Maybe go to China, Korea or italy where their archers are treated like other sports stars. The reason it's not like that here is hunting. Hunting appeals to hunters but not to non hunters. keep tournament archery miles away from anything connected to hunting and the media might come in more.




Robert Williams said:


> Exactly, so the "who's who" game in traditional archery can't be taken seriously. How many folks here could name 2 out of the last 10 IBO championship winners? Or NFAA nationals? Or The Vegas shoot? There might just be someone out there who shoots like the legendary Robin Hood and most folks would never know.... Or care. After all, winning a tournament doesn't make someone the world's greatest pure instinctive bow hunter, right?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> OK. Since you are begging for attention, please, please recite your illustrious trad archery resume for me and everyone else. I'm anxiously waiting breathlessly to be impressed. Go ahead and dazzle us all.


Ha, Ha,Ha. Robert, I'm just like you, I don't shoot trad, I'm just on here to make trolls like you miserable. How it must have hurt you all these years to wannabe somebody. Is it really that important to you to come on an archery trad site and try to put everyone down. I've got it! You are the winner! You beat out Logos for the top troll on this forum! Drum rolllllllllllllllllllllllll. Ladies and Gentlemen, Presenting the First place award for troll of the year, Robert Williams.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Robert Williams said:


> OK. Since you are begging for attention, please, please recite your illustrious trad archery resume for me and everyone else. I'm anxiously waiting breathlessly to be impressed. Go ahead and dazzle us all.


Ha, Ha,Ha. Robert, I'm just like you, I don't shoot trad, I'm just on here to make trolls like you miserable. How it must have hurt you all these years to wannabe somebody. Is it really that important to you to come on an archery trad site and try to put everyone down. I've got it! You are the winner! You beat out Logos for the top troll on this forum! Drum rolllllllllllllllllllllllll. Ladies and Gentlemen, Presenting the First place award for troll of the year, Robert Williams.


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

itbeso said:


> Ha, Ha,Ha. Robert, I'm just like you, I don't shoot trad, I'm just on here to make trolls like you miserable. How it must have hurt you all these years to wannabe somebody. Is it really that important to you to come on an archery trad site and try to put everyone down. I've got it! You are the winner! You beat out Logos for the top troll on this forum! Drum rolllllllllllllllllllllllll. Ladies and Gentlemen, Presenting the First place award for troll of the year, Robert Williams.


Resume. Your hand was called. Time to show the cards.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Still waiting with sunglasses deployed!


----------



## Robert Williams (May 5, 2004)

Bigjono said:


> Maybe go to China, Korea or italy where their archers are treated like other sports stars. The reason it's not like that here is hunting. Hunting appeals to hunters but not to non hunters. keep tournament archery miles away from anything connected to hunting and the media might come in more.


I wish it could work that way here but even the Olympic archers don't get much attention. I haven't talked to anyone that isn't into archery themselves who watched the archery events. It's sad. With more interest, I think we could dominate the sport in world competition but we don't get the interest, so it's a very small pool of competitors for us.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

While we wait for itbeso to post his accomplishments, I think the earlier suggestion to distance target from hunting was a good one.

I couldn't help but notice that in the "Hunger Games" they talked about eating squirrels and rabbits and deer, but.......the only killing that was shown was a grouse at long distance and it happened so quick it was almost non-existent.

Hunting is poison to public approval and interest.

Broadheads these days have so many edges that they scare people.

I guess they can handle targets, but most regard actually causing a critter to bleed as something barbaric........still, they eat at MacDonald's--go figure.

:shrug:


----------



## uabdave (Mar 12, 2007)

How did Kegan's thread evolve into this?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

uabdave said:


> How did Kegan's thread evolve into this?


Logos, then Robert Williams, got involved:teeth:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Wait! What? In person he is smart???
> 
> :mg:


In person he is an unselfish gentleman. Keep this up, and my opinions of you will start to shift. I considered you an intelligent member of this forum.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Well, I am intelligent. You are indeed perceptive.

But......when a celebrity goes on major Media and acts like a boorish, arrogant oaf (about guns and hunting) he makes all hunters and gun owners look bad......and Ted Nugent has done that, because I've seen it.

Now, if he has since done better......I applaud him.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Well, I am intelligent. You are indeed perceptive.
> 
> But......when a celebrity goes on major Media and acts like a boorish, arrogant oaf (about guns and hunting) he makes all hunters and gun owners look bad......and Ted Nugent has done that, because I've seen it.
> 
> Now, if he has since done better......I applaud him.


Since??? What have you done for hunting logos? What have you done for gun owners? What impact do YOU have on hundreds of kids each year? Exactly What? And what have you seen YOURSELF of Ted Nugent that you say is boorish behavior?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> *Well, I am intelligent. You are indeed perceptive.*
> 
> But......when a celebrity goes on major Media and acts like a boorish, arrogant oaf (about guns and hunting) he makes all hunters and gun owners look bad......and Ted Nugent has done that, because I've seen it.
> 
> Now, if he has since done better......I applaud him.


Well many here would take exception to your perceptions of me.... so it is entirely possibly you're not as intelligent as perceived...


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Since??? What have you done for hunting logos? What have you done for gun owners? What impact do YOU have on hundreds of kids each year? Exactly What? And what have you seen YOURSELF of Ted Nugent that you say is boorish behavior?


Well, I've seen him say that Fred Bear was intentionally lying when he said "The kill is anti-climactic." His context was saying that hunters have to be like Bear and lie to the non-hunters so as to pacify them.

I've seen him talk about his game violations as though he is (or should be) considered above the law.

I've seen him boast that he is the greatest voice in the world in promoting hunting, bar none. (Best empty boasting I've seen since *Itbeso* boasted that he can "shoot as fast and as well as anyone in the world.")

ukey:

Ummmmmm, Publicly "Whack'em and Stack'em." Waving bloody arrows around. 

It probably would be better if he took his own advice and lied......but he wants to shock people, because that's how he maintains his strange popularity with his fans.....by being boorish. *It brings in money.
*
Like a lot of deranged publicity-craving celebrities......he thinks he can cover this with charitable activities.....(which he boasts about constantly). 

Sort of reminds one of the proud and rich Pharisee in the Bible who stood up in public and boasted about all his great charities and thanked God that he was not like the dirty Publican......but then Jesus said you should conceal your charitable activities.

You know.....*you don't make friends for hunters by rubbing non-hunters noses in the guts you just pulled out of a deer.*

No.....Ted Nugent *helps himself make money* and he hurts hunters (who apparently don't know it because they keep going to his concerts and holding him up as some kind of ideal). 

When will they ever learn?

:BangHead:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Well, I've seen him say that Fred Bear was intentionally lying when he said "The kill is anti-climactic." His context was saying that hunters have to be like Bear and lie to the non-hunters so as to pacify them.
> 
> I've seen him talk about his game violations as though he is (or should be) considered above the law.
> 
> ...


Lets get back to your original statement.... that you heard Ted Nugent say that Fred Bear was LYING when he said that the kill is anticlimatic to the hunt itself. Where exactly did you hear/see/or read that? Here? http://archerytalkblog.com/?p=15579

http://www.fredbear-online.com/quotes.html



Fred Bear said:


> A downed animal is most certainly the object of a hunting trip, but it becomes
> an anticlimax when compared to the many other pleasures of the hunt.


I'll get to the rest of these one by one...


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> Lets get back to your original statement.... that you heard Ted Nugent say that Fred Bear was LYING when he said that the kill is anticlimatic to the hunt itself. Where exactly did you hear/see/or read that? Here? http://archerytalkblog.com/?p=15579
> 
> http://www.fredbear-online.com/quotes.html
> 
> ...


No, I saw him do that on T.V. 

But......the blog is a good example of how he intentionally tries to shock non-hunters (Celebration of Death), then laughs about it and insults them.

In doing that he causes harm to the reputation of sane hunters and appeals to his fans (who apparently have a need to vicariously experience his bad behavior and aggression toward non-hunters).

This stuff amazes me (how anyone could be so offensive, cause so much ill will toward hunters and act so stupid just to make money).

By the way......he's totally wrong. Normal hunters don't have a need to celebrate death. I've killed a few good deer and my response was awe rather than celebration.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> No, I saw him do that on T.V.
> 
> But......the blog is a good example of how he intentionally tries to shock non-hunters (Celebration of Death), then laughs about it and insults them.
> 
> ...


 No offense Logos... I'm not *buying it.* Some of us don't "celebrate" the kill, some of us do. People who depend on the kill all around the world most certainly do and indians in some areas not only celebrated the kill, they gave thanks to the Gods/Spirits for bringing that animal to them. I do that myself in my own way... it doesn't mean I don't enjoy the outdoors, I take one particular route to the other side of the island ONLY because of the wildlife. But I challenge you to come up with ANY SOURCE other than your memory of what YOU PERCEIVE... and we all know now how well that is going... to where Ted Nugent, of any people, would EVER have said Fred Bear was Lying about ANYTHING!

Again, this shows your bias against Nugent based upon "perception" rather than direct knowledge of the man.... anyway... i'm here waiting for your PROOF... anyone else in the universe who saw the same thing you did... even... anywhere...


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> No offense Logos... I'm not *buying it.* Some of us don't "celebrate" the kill, some of us do. People who depend on the kill all around the world most certainly do and indians in some areas not only celebrated the kill, they gave thanks to the Gods/Spirits for bringing that animal to them. I do that myself in my own way... it doesn't mean I don't enjoy the outdoors, I take one particular route to the other side of the island ONLY because of the wildlife. But I challenge you to come up with ANY SOURCE other than your memory of what YOU PERCEIVE... and we all know now how well that is going... to where Ted Nugent, of any people, would EVER have said Fred Bear was Lying about ANYTHING!
> 
> Again, this shows your bias against Nugent based upon "perception" rather than direct knowledge of the man.... anyway... i'm here waiting for your PROOF... anyone else in the universe who saw the same thing you did... even... anywhere...


Hey, I can only tell you what I saw and that's a small part of the total picture of Nugent's behavior.

As to First Nation people.....they did not celebrate death, they respectfully thanked the creature that they had killed.

That's a far cry from Nugent's two-year-old behavior (behavior, which AGAIN, is harmful to hunters in the long run).

:amen:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Nugent is not hurting hunters and does more to help kids and get kids involved in hunting than any traditional shooter I know and certainly more than any traditional elitist internet warrior. I don't agree with everythign Nugent says or does either - especially his panthiestic/pagan world view and "spirituality" - but to say that he is hurting hunting is absurd


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Hey, I can only tell you what I saw and that's a small part of the total picture of Nugent's behavior.
> 
> As to First Nation people.....they did not celebrate death, they respectfully thanked the creature that they had killed.
> 
> ...


The words I used were celebrated the kill.... and gave thanks... are we going to go off on this now... about the american indian... :grin: not celebrating the kill.... ???? hahahahhaa... Ok... show me where you find anywhere that the indians didn't celebrate the kill...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Nugent is not hurting hunters and does more to help kids and get kids involved in hunting than any traditional shooter I know and certainly more than any traditional elitist internet warrior. I don't agree with everythign Nugent says or does either - especially his panthiestic/pagan world view and "spirituality" - but to say that he is hurting hunting is absurd


:thumbs_up


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> Well, I've seen him say that Fred Bear was intentionally lying when he said "The kill is anti-climactic." His context was saying that hunters have to be like Bear and lie to the non-hunters so as to pacify them.
> 
> I've seen him talk about his game violations as though he is (or should be) considered above the law.
> 
> ...


Logos, you were called out about 50 of your inane posts ago. Again, put up or shut up. Bring the best you can find and let's get the argument settled. Bring your wallet also. And thank you for putting me in the same company as Ted, the greatest voice we bowhunters have.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Well, I DID put you in the same category, but it was one of wild and empty boasting.

:amen:

You said you can shoot as fast and as accurately as anyone on the planet and he said he's the greatest voice for hunting on the entire planet.

You two aren't related, are you?

Such shameless vanity must be connected somehow!

And don't say great minds think alike.......we know better.

:wink:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> The words I used were celebrated the kill.... and gave thanks... are we going to go off on this now... about the american indian... :grin: not celebrating the kill.... ???? hahahahhaa... Ok... show me where you find anywhere that the indians didn't celebrate the kill...


Don't change the words....I said:

Hey, I can only tell you what I saw and that's a small part of the total picture of Nugent's behavior.

As to First Nation people.....they *did not celebrate death*, they respectfully thanked the creature that they had killed.

That's a far cry from Nugent's two-year-old behavior (behavior, which AGAIN, is harmful to hunters in the long run).

:amen:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Logos said:


> As to First Nation people.....they *did not celebrate death*, they respectfully thanked the creature that they had killed.
> 
> :amen:


And you know this HOW??


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Don't change the words....I said:
> 
> Hey, I can only tell you what I saw and that's a small part of the total picture of Nugent's behavior.
> 
> ...


First off... I didn't change the words... you did... so now that we have that out of the way.... i say again... where do you see that the Indians not celebrating the kill?


----------



## uabdave (Mar 12, 2007)

From what I have seen from Uncle Ted, I am impressed by his passion. I agree with his basic belief that we have too many laws, weird ones that are flat out stupid, like the fact that in Illinois (or Iowa, cant member which) you have to unstring your bow or put a zip tie on a compound when you get in the truck to go the deer stand. That is just stupid. The most recent brush he had with the law about wounding the bear... that law is stupid. 

As far as him acting "boorish" to the anti's and lib media folks... they deserved it. I highly doubt that did anything to turn a neutral person off, if anything, it likely helped them finally understand what America was supposed to be, not what it has been turned in to. Ted believes in Liberty, and I think that comes across well in his statements. 

As far as his show and the constant advertisements, I could do without that... but as for an advocate of my personal rights to freedom, self protection, and hunting, I'll take him as an advocate any day.

Dave


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I have no dog in this Nugent fight but I can tell you guys that you view him from a hunters perspective not a non hunters.
Hunting is a huge turnoff for most people and Nugent is way over the top in his actions so no he isn't harmful to hunting, to hunters but is to non hunters and it is them who may hold he key to the future of hunting.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> I have no dog in this Nugent fight but I can tell you guys that you view him from a hunters perspective not a non hunters.
> Hunting is a huge turnoff for most people and Nugent is way over the top in his actions so no he isn't harmful to hunting, to hunters but is to non hunters and it is them who may hold he key to the future of hunting.


No... it is Hunters who hold the future of hunting. It is our behavior to a degree, but more it is how we support each other and advertise our unity and our deeds. It is educating the public as to role we as hunters play in the conservation of our resources, and the money, time and personal investment we as hunters make towards those ends. It is also political, and making sure that we make the connection between all the sports that utilize our resources are equally endowed is critical to our survival as hunters... and on that note, environmentalists are our most viscious opponent... well funded, well orgranized, and with a capacity to see the future, something most hunters don't. Most don't see next season as being important till it is threatened, then they get all involved, but the involvement is rarely long term.... and why not... the environmentalist works with a universal goal of changing america... and they don't care if it comes tomorrow, or 100 years from now... if it goes their way, they won. They work against us from 9-5... we rarely work to protect ourselves from 5-9... and we are not ever working against them. What we gain is saving a piece of this or that. This is hardly going to do anything for us other than prolong our demise... and todays hunters are happy with that. Well you shouldn't be.

As for Ted, he is ONE who actually takes it to our opponents, and the only way to do it is in public. Does he hurt out message... not a bit. I say this because I'm involved still in these struggles. Organizations are great. NWTF, RMEF, DU, Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, NRA, Safari Club, and dozens more... all help... but we need to really start thinking about coordinating our activities as a single voice.

Ted.... God Bless him, he is doing it his way... are you?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Rattus, I really don't know if you honestly DON'T know this stuff or you're pretending not to know.

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntuseland/essays/threeworlds.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-6pjkaeTeU

Nugent is clearly not a bad person, probably just misguided. You think he's great, I think he sold us out in his greed to stay rich by staying in the news by being controversial and saying crazy stuff to get attention. 

That makes him....not our friend......but our enemy (although he's his own best friend and hauling in the cash).

I think he gives hunters a bad name. You say he's wonderful.

I'm content with that.

:wink:

Oh yeah.......the "Wacky Conservative Mascot." Now.......just look at those eyes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...cal-firestorm/2012/04/18/gIQAMHsrRT_blog.html


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> Rattus, I really don't know if you honestly DON'T know this stuff or you're pretending not to know.
> 
> http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntuseland/essays/threeworlds.htm
> 
> ...


Honestly don't know what Logos.... tell me... Did you watch that interview with nugent... do you understand what Nugent was saying? And what was the point of the national humanities center piece? What else are you going to "teach me" logos.... hahahahahahaa What is your point on the humanities and how does it at all involve anything I posted... logos... :grin:

As for Nugent, he is who he is. He is doing something. I tend to think you might actually be jealous of him, since you keep mentioning his " hauling in the cash".

Oh... forgot this... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/buffalo.htm

http://www.foodbycountry.com/Spain-to-Zimbabwe-Cumulative-Index/United-States-Native-Americans.html


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Rattus, I think you are way off on that. Hunters don't decide the future of hunting, politicians do and voters decide the future of politicians. If enough public sway goes against anything the the politicians will follow it for votes.
I know from experience that many of you Americans are very vocal on your hunting and gun rights, fair play to you on the hunting anyway but your rights mean dick where politics is involved. Big cities with big urban populations hold the power now not us outdoor rural types so anything negative that comes up about hunting is never good for you.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> Rattus, I think you are way off on that. Hunters don't decide the future of hunting, politicians do and voters decide the future of politicians. If enough public sway goes against anything the the politicians will follow it for votes.
> I know from experience that many of you Americans are very vocal on your hunting and gun rights, fair play to you on the hunting anyway but your rights mean dick where politics is involved. Big cities with big urban populations hold the power now not us outdoor rural types so anything negative that comes up about hunting is never good for you.


And just where did I miss that point?


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/957917/top-10-ted-nugent-quotes

What an ass.

Mediocre musician.

World-class bigmouth.

Making hunters more enemies with every dumb statement.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

> *In a videotaped August 2007 concert performance, Nugent waved a machine gun and stated: “I think that Barack Hussein Obama should be put in jail. It is clear that Barack Hussein Obama is a communist. Mao Tse Tung lives and his name is Barack Hussein Obama. This country should be ashamed. I wanna throw up.” He also said, “Obama, he’s a piece of ****. I told him to suck on my machine gun.”
> 
> To which Obama is rumored to have answered, “You mean your tiny Beretta that only shoots blanks?”
> 
> ...


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/04/18/ted-nugents-craziest-quotes/


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm guessing your a democrat


Logos said:


> http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/957917/top-10-ted-nugent-quotes
> 
> What an ass.
> 
> ...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/957917/top-10-ted-nugent-quotes
> 
> What an ass.
> 
> ...


What an ass???? Hahahahahahahaa..... By posting this you have pegged yourself for me.... I get it. If you want to know how women feel, you should maybe ask the women in his life... Like his wife. One thing that ted isn't, he isn't cowtowing to political correctness nor weakness, which it seems you are bending to.

This is not the place however for a bash ted nugent. This is a thread on gap shooting. Why don't you start another thread to bash ted... I'll gladly comment on your perceptions there.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Bigjono said:


> . Big cities with big urban populations hold the power now not us outdoor rural types so anything negative that comes up about hunting is never good for you.


x 10


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

2413gary said:


> I'm guessing your a democrat


hahahaha..... :thumbs_up


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

http://www.cracked.com/funny-5517-ted-nugent/



> "Besides, apartheid isn't that cut-and-dry. All men are not created equal."


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Simply by your first comment the hunters decide the fate of hunting. You are doing all the right things but in the end it will be out of your hands I think. I am sure mr Nugent does what he thinks is right, I have only really seen him ranting on YouTube clips so I can't say if he helps really but all I know is that if the powers that be decide, you can say what you like but it's a done deal.
I was one who lost my handguns when they banned them in Britain. I shot recreational and some target. We all thought the ban would never go through but it did and that was that, banning them was pointless but at the time it was a vote and public sympathy winner.




QUOTE=rattus58;1065442348]And just where did I miss that point?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> What an ass???? Hahahahahahahaa..... By posting this you have pegged yourself for me.... I get it. If you want to know how women feel, you should maybe ask the women in his life... Like his wife. One thing that ted isn't, he isn't cowtowing to political correctness nor weakness, which it seems you are bending to.
> 
> This is not the place however for a bash ted nugent. This is a thread on gap shooting. Why don't you start another thread to bash ted... I'll gladly comment on your perceptions there.


What? You started this. You seemed happy enough a little while ago. The truth comes out about your hero and you waver?

:banana:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Bigjono said:


> Simply by your first comment the hunters decide the fate of hunting. You are doing all the right things but in the end it will be out of your hands I think. I am sure mr Nugent does what he thinks is right, I have only really seen him ranting on YouTube clips so I can't say if he helps really but all I know is that if the powers that be decide, you can say what you like but it's a done deal.
> I was one who lost my handguns when they banned them in Britain. I shot recreational and some target. We all thought the ban would never go through but it did and that was that, banning them was pointless but at the time it was a vote and public sympathy winner.


And Nugent continues to turn public sympathy AWAY from hunters with his over the top statements that keep him in the limelight.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> What? You started this. You seemed happy enough a little while ago. The truth comes out about your hero and you waver?
> 
> :banana:


I'm all for continuing this... lets just not trash this thread more than we have... and as for ted, the truth about ted is the truth about ted and I'm happy he'd doing what he's doing. Do I agree with every little bitty thing he says... no, but I'm sure as hell not apologizing for him either.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Back to gap shooting now please.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

I do respect one thing about him.

He had the honesty to say he is not the world's greatest shooter with a bow.

He said, "I'm not even the GOODEST shooter."

More honest, at least, than some we hear from.

He didn't say if he's a gap shooter.

:wink:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> Simply by your first comment the hunters decide the fate of hunting. You are doing all the right things but in the end it will be out of your hands I think. I am sure mr Nugent does what he thinks is right, I have only really seen him ranting on YouTube clips so I can't say if he helps really but all I know is that if the powers that be decide, you can say what you like but it's a done deal.
> I was one who lost my handguns when they banned them in Britain. I shot recreational and some target. We all thought the ban would never go through but it did and that was that, banning them was pointless but at the time it was a vote and public sympathy winner.
> 
> QUOTE=rattus58;1065442348]And just where did I miss that point?


[/QUOTE]

While I agree its political, its also what I referenced. The enviornmentalists are in our schools, and we are all at work. We have the numbers, we're just not unified. We have voices, but not a voice.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

What's wrong with environmentalists?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Logos said:


> What's wrong with environmentalists?


wrong thread.... go to your nugent thread.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Maybe if you had Ted Nugent in Britain - you would not have had your handguns banned:


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

If they'd had him around, guns would have been confiscated sooner.

:amen:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

guys - seriously - lets not engage this troll anymore


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Maybe if you had Ted Nugent in Britain - you would not have had your handguns banned:


You know... I had forgotten about this interview.... but then he does many... but this was pointed... I loved it... Thanks for the remembrance Sharp... :thumbs_up


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> guys - seriously - lets not engage this troll anymore


I'm not a troll, but your decision not to engage me is wise.

:thumbs_up


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> I do respect one thing about him.
> 
> He had the honesty to say he is not the world's greatest shooter with a bow.
> 
> ...


Hell no he isn't and he knows it. After all, Ted has seen me shoot. You are being called out again, Logos. Put up or shut up.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

What, exactly, are you talking about, itbeso???

Pardon me for asking, but you put so much weird stuff on here, I just don't know what you might want.

:wave3:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Logos said:


> What, exactly, are you talking about, itbeso???
> 
> Pardon me for asking, but you put so much weird stuff on here, I just don't know what you might want.
> 
> :wave3:


Watch that blood pressure, Logos!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Maybe if you had Ted Nugent in Britain - you would not have had your handguns banned:


Handguns were banned because some nutter walked into a School and shot and killed a bunch of 7 year old kids and since handguns were banned it has never happened again, how many times in the USA does somebody walk into a School/College and start shooting everybody, it only needed to happen once in the UK for us to get the wake up call, how many times are you guys going to let it happen before you work out something is wrong.

To me the price of losing Handguns weighed up against the price of one childs life makes it well worth it.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

steve morley said:


> Handguns were banned because some nutter walked into a School and shot and killed a bunch of 7 year old kids and since handguns were banned it has never happened again, how many times in the USA does somebody walk into a School/College and start shooting everybody, it only needed to happen once in the UK for us to get the wake up call, how many times are you guys going to let it happen before you work out something is wrong.
> 
> To me the price of losing Handguns weighed up against the price of one childs life makes it well worth it.


See... that is the difference between someone who lives in a free society and one who lives in a prison. And everyone has a lot of defenses against home invasion in england now don't you... how about rape there morely... any improvement... there... no guns... no defenses... and you're bragging about being free.... hahahahahhaa


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Rattus58 I wasnt bragging in any way, I just feel handguns are not the solution they just add to an existing problem, if you notice I dont live in the UK anymore, I lived in a very nice part of Yorkshire and was shocked to find one of the London bombers lived less than 5 miles from my house, it wasnt a hard choice to leave and Im very happy that my kids were born in Estonia and are growing up here and not the UK.

Too much racial and religious conflict these days in the UK, a real pressure cooker situation going on there.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

steve morley said:


> Rattus58 I wasnt bragging in any way, I just feel handguns are not the solution they just add to an existing problem, if you notice I dont live in the UK anymore, I lived in a very nice part of Yorkshire and was shocked to find one of the London bombers lived less than 5 miles from my house, it wasnt a hard choice to leave and Im very happy that my kids were born in Estonia and are growing up here and not the UK.
> 
> Too much racial and religious conflict these days in the UK, a real pressure cooker situation going on there.


My family is from Yorkshire... :grin:

Guns. Regardless of the weapon, it is not the weapon that creates the problem. It is the people weilding the gun/knife/bat etc... and the other problem... are the police.. I don't care how quick they are, they aren't quick enough... A firearm? ..... right there... comfy and loaded... :grin:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Hey Kegan ... I take it after 430 responses that included Ted Nugent, gun control , Sharps "instinctive" rants , Black Wolfs continued use of multi Quotes, Logos laborious archery experience, multiple dictionary references you have got your answer .....


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> Hey Kegan ... I take it after 430 responses that included Ted Nugent, gun control , Sharps "instinctive" rants , Black Wolfs continued use of multi Quotes, Logos laborious archery experience, multiple dictionary references you have got your answer .....


What was the question again LOL


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

steve morley said:


> Handguns were banned because some nutter walked into a School and shot and killed a bunch of 7 year old kids and since handguns were banned it has never happened again, how many times in the USA does somebody walk into a School/College and start shooting everybody, it only needed to happen once in the UK for us to get the wake up call, how many times are you guys going to let it happen before you work out something is wrong.
> 
> To me the price of losing Handguns weighed up against the price of one childs life makes it well worth it.



Hmm - lets apply this logic:

Man stabs 28 children in China nursery school attack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8650626.stm

Family of teen killed in stabbing at school: ‘We are not good’

http://www.suntimes.com/news/educat...ed-in-stabbing-at-school-we-are-not-good.html

Norfolk school stabbing: Boy, 17, remanded in custody

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-19880840

etc....

I guess the brits better ban knives - no more meat eating for them and they will have to tear their bread from now on - no more sliced bread!


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Steve, surely you don't believe ther are no more handguns in britian??? You think the people that would go on a shooting rampage don't have other avenues to buy guns besides the local gunshops???

Please

Dewayne


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Great post Steve but you won't get any sense out of a gun ownership debate this side of the pond, too many blinkers being worn.
Had a "discussion" about this with a couple of good ole boys in Tennessee, got fed up of hearing the word constitution. 
It would make a great thread but I bet my house it would get abusive real quick.







steve morley said:


> Handguns were banned because some nutter walked into a School and shot and killed a bunch of 7 year old kids and since handguns were banned it has never happened again, how many times in the USA does somebody walk into a School/College and start shooting everybody, it only needed to happen once in the UK for us to get the wake up call, how many times are you guys going to let it happen before you work out something is wrong.
> 
> To me the price of losing Handguns weighed up against the price of one childs life makes it well worth it.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

DeWayne, you will always get illegal guns, yes they were and are the big problem. The big losers were the honest sporting shooters and collectors, but that is normal I think.
The real problem is ease of buying guns, lack of follow up checks, no limit on amount or type and allowing civilians to walk around armed. I am sorry but this is always a recipe for things to go bad.
I was pi**ed when I had to give up my 2 hand guns because it was just a political knee jerk reaction to ban them but its a huge difference between them and being allowed to own an M16 or MP5 or and other similar thing, really, who needs a weapon like that at home? I am really open minded on this and if there are good reasons I will accept that I am wrong, it is just a personal observation.






vabowdog said:


> Steve, surely you don't believe ther are no more handguns in britian??? You think the people that would go on a shooting rampage don't have other avenues to buy guns besides the local gunshops???
> 
> Please
> 
> Dewayne


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

vabowdog said:


> Steve, surely you don't believe ther are no more handguns in britian??? You think the people that would go on a shooting rampage don't have other avenues to buy guns besides the local gunshops???
> 
> Please
> 
> Dewayne


Yes the police and criminals, if the police catch them in possession of a Gun or a knife quite simple they go to prison if it used in attempted robbery were talking about 10 years prison, its not a perfect world but the way I see it if 99.8% of the general public have zero access to handguns the the risk of some nutter shooting kids has been drastically reduced.

By the way Ive been a victim of gun crime (before the ban)I was in a superstore when cash office was robbed, he didnt know I was there and I was able to call the police, he walked right into them on the way out. Found out afterwards it was an inside job with help from instore security guy and he only had enough handcuffs for the staff in the office, who knows what he would have done to me if he found me in the Server room, when they seached the Security guys house they found detailed plans for 4 other stores.

Our British culture is different from yours so my views will be different, although I dont agree with your views it doesnt mean I dont respect them, shoot straight :thumbs_up


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Bigjono said:


> Great post Steve but you won't get any sense out of a gun ownership debate this side of the pond, too many blinkers being worn.
> Had a "discussion" about this with a couple of good ole boys in Tennessee, got fed up of hearing the word constitution.
> It would make a great thread but I bet my house it would get abusive real quick.


So in your brilliant wisdom and the "great post" wisdom of Steve - you believe that knives should be banned as well - because after all one man walked into a nursery in china and stapped 28 children!


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

oh boy the victim card - what if you were the victim of a knife crime?


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Set eve, I didn't mean to offend you or anyone else...there is always two sides to every law....I totally agree that all criminals can not own guns of any type but you and I know that if they want them bad enough and have the money there is a source for them....my opinion is when you take away all guns then how do i defend myself when my home or business gets robbed??? If they ban guns and I give up mine what do I use for protection...gun control absolutely I'm all for it...but I'm clean,never been in any trouble I think I should be able to buy as many as I want as long as my record stays clean.

Just my opinion....

Dewayne


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> So in your brilliant wisdom and the "great post" wisdom of Steve - you believe that knives should be banned as well - because after all one man walked into a nursery in china and stapped 28 children!


Knives have been banned in public areas like cities etc but the police wont arrest you if you have a knife for a legitimate reason like if you were going fishing, hunting etc, the law was put in place to protect people on city streets.

Sharp yes Ive had a knife pulled on me a few times, I grew up in a very rough part of London, you have learn to look after yourself and *not* be a victim

Vabowdog I wasnt offended in any way, just expressing a different view to the subject from a different cultural background.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

DeWayne, under your laws you can so that's fine, I respect that. Protecting your home and family is what it should all be about it just seems that the law is too slack and allows for abuse and limit pushing by many. Surely owning 50 automatic machine pistols, while legal, is not a good idea for example.
Like Steve I come from a different culture so look at this from a different angle to you and I see you gun laws as both good and bad. I would defend your right to own firearms but with much tighter restrictions than you have now.
And yes SB, we all know anything can kill anyone, Duh.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

guns kill people - like spoons make Rosie O'Donnel fat.


----------



## Logos (Jul 29, 2012)

Epic thread, Kegan!!!!

You clearly know how to get people going.

:amen:

However......discussing gun control is always a dead end, but even more of a dead end with cross-cultural talk.......people from Europe and Alabama are never going to do it. 

They simply have nothing in common in their history and culture concerning guns.

Back to bows.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I carry a pistol pretty much at all times, it is in my pocket like my pocket knife, rosary, and gluccose tabs - the only time it is not in my pocket is in places where big brother would arrest me with a felony for carrying it. I have it on me at church, at work, at play, etc... - the only time it is not on me is when I am sleeping. There is about as much chance of me killing someone wth that pistol as there is of me killing someone by stabbing them with a fork. I could take my Rosary and choke someone to death with it - should I be banned from carrying a Rosary?

When I was in school kids brought their guns to school, one kid took apart a 30-06 rifle and explained all of its parts as a demonstration in speech class - and nobody shot anyone. 

The weapon is not the problem - it is the people and if someone wants to kill and do evil - they will do it with or without a gun - as is clearly evidenced by the man in china stabbing 28 children!


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

Time to close this thread....way off topic.


----------

