# Pseudo-science being taught at the OTC and in USA Archery book "Archery"?



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Not sure how hoaxy it is, but I've had this done to me by a coach and I've done it to students. I didn't even know this AK thing existed, and I always push straight down on both arms at the same time to collapse them.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Zounds! Psuedo-science being advanced in a mental/faith based area of study! Quick, call the tabloids!


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

warbow, 

there most likely IS a physiological/real basis for what they are promoting.. it just might not be the for the reasons they are positing.



we can try to explain it but the proof is in the pudding. right?


i feel that if you cant explain it with science then just say so. dont reach for it or turn it into something spiritual. ..unless it is spiritual.. then youre gonna have a hard time defining it with science  ha!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

kshet26 said:


> Not sure how hoaxy it is, but I've had this done to me by a coach and I've done it to students. I didn't even know this AK thing existed, and I always push straight down on both arms at the same time to collapse them.


Yes, the AK test can be very convincing to both parties. That's one of the reasons so many alternative medicine practitioners falsely believe it is a sound test. It gives them the results they expect. Check out the links and the video for more info. If you do a properly blinded study I think you'll find you don't get the results you expect.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> Zounds! Psuedo-science being advanced in a mental/faith based area of study! Quick, call the tabloids!


So, you seem to agree that USA Archery is teaching psuedo science as part of its national curriculum as part of its role as the NGB for US Archery but we should ignore that fact because nonsense is common in sports? Sorry if I don't find that a convincing reason to ignore this issue.

Secondly, this isn't in the "Mental Training for Archers" section of the book, it is in the sections on the physiology of archery. It makes a claim of fact about a physiological link between eye position and arm strength and uses a test to "prove" a change in strengh in orders of magnitude. That isn't some wishy washy "mental game" claim. Heck, this pseudo-scientific claim might even be on the L3 or L4 written test :dontknow: So, again, this shouldn't be ignored. It may just be the tip of the pseudo-scientific iceberg :embara:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

>--gt--> said:


> Zounds! Psuedo-science being advanced in a mental/faith based area of study! Quick, call the tabloids!


I'm having a little trouble following that argument. 

It appears you're saying that its either 1) no surprise that Pseudo science is being used, or 2) Archery is a mental/faith-based area of study. I would find either response surprising from you.

Warbow, are you daring to suggest that the emporer might not be wearing any clothes?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, are you daring to suggest that the emporer might not be wearing any clothes?


Hmm...

I just think that this incident suggests that NTS may consist of real science and pseudo-science indiscriminately mixed up by a coach who can't tell the difference--a much venerated medal-winning head coach who isn't called on it. I don't expect that questioning coach Lee's teaching is the way to get ahead at the OTC :embara: I hear he is a great coach in person, very insightful, helpful and open to questions. But even capable people can fall for pseudo science in a big way without realizing it.

I dislike misinformation. I was hoping that the USA Archery book would be fact-based and vetted based on all the latest sound science and that I could turn my filters off and just soak up the pure, fact-based goodness  Of course I was fooling myself. But one can hope... 

I took up BEST/KSL/NTS because it was supposed to be superior and science-based. I assumed, wrongly, that there was a constant scientific laboratory at the OTC with lab coated technicians testing hypothesis. We often see those vignettes of scientific testing on Olympic athletes on TV during the Olympics. Wind tunnel testing, and all sorts of things. That's what I thought the OTC was all about. I was being kind of naive. Instead I've since read in this forum that USA Archery lost reams of scientific data from previous years.


----------



## agillator (Sep 11, 2011)

Funny you should bring this up, Warbow. KSL's statement regarding the importance of a "neurological connection" is, to me, the single most valuable thing he has to say. Looking squarely at the target (and I'm still working on it) has made an unambiguously valuable contribution to my shooting. As for the rest of BEST, much of it seems like affectation, the parts that aren't are better explained elsewhere, and the notion that the vague and ever-shifting BEST technique is somehow unique in its biomechanical efficiency is just silly.

Issues of quackery aside, the "neurological connection" idea provides at the least a useful metaphor. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that indeed there is some scientifically supportable neuromuscular advantage associate with that "connection", but that is not really important; the idea has utility regardless. KSL's mandate is to coach archery, not physiology, and he should be read that way.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

agillator said:


> Funny you should bring this up, Warbow. KSL's statement regarding the importance of a "neurological connection" is, to me, the single most valuable thing he has to say. Looking squarely at the target (and I'm still working on it) has made an unambiguously valuable contribution to my shooting.


That could easily be true. But I'd say it is a fundamentally different claim than the one in the book and the one "proved" by the Applied Kinesiology test about arm strength. 

I'm glad the idea has helped your shooting. But if Lee is going to make basic claims of fact about eye position and strength like like them to be based in fact rather than "proved" by pseudo-science.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Just for clarification the B.E.S.T. system was developed by the USA Archery Coach Development Committee (CDC) in 2004-5. Coach Lee came on board in 2006 and made changes to what was already developed. I'm sure that a lot of the reasons behind some of the practices have been forgotten or reimagined. 

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Just for clarification the B.E.S.T. system was developed by the USA Archery Coach Development Committee (CDC) in 2004-5. Coach Lee came on board in 2006 and made changes to what was already developed. I'm sure that a lot of the reasons behind some of the practices have been forgotten or reimagined.
> 
> TAO


Interesting. I knew that USA Archery came up with the name, I didn't know that it started out as a different system than Coach Lee's. The fact that USA Archery doesn't publish a Change Log or Version History contributes to the problem. The national standard changes under what seems to outsiders like an opaque shroud of mystery and we only learn of changes when students come back from JOAD Camp with new techniques or we find the manuals have been changed when we put together a new instructor class. We never know when, how or why changes are made. So I'd say confusion is the foreseeable consequence of the way USA Archery rolls out changes to the system.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

I like a skeptic, as I myself am one. I'm the doubting Thomas of my social circle, and often call bs on things that make some folks all dewy. I think warbow has some great insights here. I too would like To believe that our athletes are subjected to the highest forms of scientific testing possible. I mean, heck...they had that Russian guy in Rocky 2 in the 80s, please tell me there's a shiny room at OTC where they poke and prod and hold things under a microscope.

The suggestion being valid, and the assumption being that it comes from ( what is hopefully well researched and documented CAT / retinal scans) "real science", I'd love to see that process. Because, damn! It sounds fascinating!

The supposition that it's based on pseudo science (like AK or The religion of a science fiction author) should also require identical testing. 

My guess is that some people can pass off pseudo science, as long as the result is agreeable, without much argument...because some people are _held up to be_above scrutiny, or aren't scrutinized by voices loud enough to be heard. And that's a damn shame, because folks should never believe %100 of _anything, anyone _ says. There's always a bias, and an agenda. 

Lance Armstrong was once above scrutiny, too. Ask Greg Lemond.



All that said, I'm new. I'm still learning. I'm still questioning everything, and have a coach that doesn't entirely do the NTS goose-step.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

MickeyBisco said:


> I like a skeptic, as I myself am one. I'm the doubting Thomas of my social circle, and often call bs on things that make some folks all dewy...
> All that said, I'm new. I'm still learning. I'm still questioning everything, and have a coach that doesn't entirely do the NTS goose-step.


Indeed, I think it is good to feel free to question claims regardless of who makes them. I think many folks just assume that what Lee says is true because it seems incredible that the 30 year archery veteran and head USA Coach would confidently spout nonsense. We are used to deferring to authority and experts. Authorities and experts can be wrong, and in some fields I think they can be wrong longer than regular folks because they get the benefit of the doubt, being authorities and experts.

Conversely, I also recognize that questioning everything, while useful, can also get in the way of just getting on with it and training. I think Limbwalker has what seems like a an effective combination of skepticism and practicality such he doesn't let his skepticism get in the way of getting on with his archery.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

Another thought.


Not everyone's eye openings are the same, and people's eyelid structure differs greatly from one person to the next. I think that "Neurological strength is decreased" might just be a clever way of saying " your eyelashes get in the way", or " you see the target better", or even " it strains the eye less". 

Or not.


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Indeed, I think it is good to feel free to question claims regardless of who makes them. I think many folks just assume that what Lee says is true because it seems incredible that the 30 year archery veteran and head USA Coach would confidently spout nonsense. We are used to deferring to authority and experts. Authorities and experts can be wrong, and in some fields I think they can be wrong longer than regular folks because they get the benefit of the doubt, being authorities and experts.
> 
> Conversely, I also recognize that questioning everything, while useful, can also get in the way of just getting on with it and training. I think Limbwalker has what seems like a an effective combination of skepticism and practicality such he doesn't let his skepticism get in the way of getting on with his archery.



All true. 

I will admit I have accepted many things as axiomatic when it comes to archery, but only because my coach has always had such massively detailed explanations, pie charts and PowerPoint presentations to support his conclusion any time I've asked. In other words, he is more of a skeptic than I, so I trust he has vetted it... And I just get on with training.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

MickeyBisco said:


> Another thought.
> 
> 
> Not everyone's eye openings are the same, and people's eyelid structure differs greatly from one person to the next. I think that "Neurological strength is decreased" might just be a clever way of saying " your eyelashes get in the way", or " you see the target better", or even " it strains the eye less".


It's possible, but what the pseudo science does is give a false understanding of a) what, if anything, is happening and b) why it happens if it does happen. You can't effectively improve things if you start with false premises. If you think disease is caused by and imbalance of the four humors, for instance, you might think that bleeding and purging people to balance their black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood would be an effective way to treat tuberculosis, when, instead, the patient needs antibiotics. Likewise, if Lee thinks that eye position dramatically and negatively affects "neurological strength" he may over emphasize head turning to the detriment of other issues. And we'll all waste time mis-informing coaches and archery students nationwide about this new physiological effect.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

MickeyBisco said:


> I will admit I have accepted many things as axiomatic when it comes to archery, but only because my coach has always had such massively detailed explanations, pie charts and PowerPoint presentations to support his conclusion any time I've asked. In other words, he is more of a skeptic than I, so I trust he has vetted it... And I just get on with training.


Wow, sounds neat.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

> I'm having a little trouble following that argument.


Well, perhaps that's because you're inclined to seeing it as an argument. It's not an argument, it's a dismissal. A dismissal of a toxic argument from an unaccomplished individual attacking an accomplished one.

I think Warbow is a poisonous troll.

Now, John with respect to neuromuscular items, let me draw an analogy that might hit home with you. When you were taught to do a retention reload at FLETC, did your instructor explain the reason for the specifics of the technique, and why you place your hands where you're supposed to place them? Ring any bells? (If not your instructor didn't serve you as well as he might have).


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

I Ordered the book on Amazon but since they're out of stock I went ahead and downloaded it from iTunes because I had a $10 gift certificate.

I'll start reading it tonight after I finish Papillion for the millionth time.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> Well, perhaps that's because you're inclined to seeing it as an argument. It's not an argument, it's a dismissal.


Its both. You are arguing for a dismissal. :tongue:

Really, you are. You are making the claim that since nonsense is common in sports that we should ignore it. I don't buy that. Limbwalker doesn't buy it. I don't think it is a very good position to take about the curriculum being rolled out nationwide by USA Archery, that it is irrelevant if they teach nonsense because nonsense is common in sports. That kind of argument for ignorance isn't good for the program or archers.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> Well, perhaps that's because you're inclined to seeing it as an argument. It's not an argument, it's a dismissal. A dismissal of a toxic argument from an unaccomplished individual attacking an accomplished one.
> 
> I think Warbow is a poisonous troll.


Interesting. I'm arguing based on facts, explaining my reasoning, providing context, quotes, video and links demonstrating what I'm thinking and why I think I'm right. And I'm open to sound evidence that I'm wrong. And I haven't called anybody any names, whereas you have just updated your post to call me rather vile names. I think you just might be projecting :dontknow: And you haven't rebutted my post, just declared that you don't care because pseudoscience is common in sports. So your ad hominem accusation seems rather off base, an attempt at distraction since you have no rebuttal.


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

jeeze im doing this in two posts now 

look, you can call it frickin "peanut butter" if you want to.. and it might work ..and it might work really great ..and it might be perfect technique. its just not peanut butter.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

MickeyBisco said:


> I too would like To believe that our athletes are subjected to the highest forms of scientific testing possible.


They do some work with force plates and the type of motion capture photography that helped animate Golum in LOTR. They also do brain wave analysis to measure concentration. Maybe when the new Easton 22 million dollar training complex is finished they will get some shiney new toys.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

The bottom line is that archery is about holding with back tension, if any system gets you there it's worth doing. Every country has their own flavor of archery, NTS just might be the flavor of the year. Who knows what the new flavor may be or where it will come from. 

Part of the issue is that Coach Lee treats archery as a Martial Art so some of his focus is coached in martial arts terms (the infamous Lan2 come to mind). Another for Westerners is mind-set, I don't need a step describing mind-set, I know what I came to the range for. If I'm not sure of what I'm doing there I shouldn't take my bow out of the case. Bow sit-down is an issue for others, I don't use it or teach it. Like any other Martial Art this is one style (Tae kwon do or Shotokan anyone?). Most modern Martial Arts are a combination of many that came before. Take what you can use from NTS and mix it with what you have been doing all these years. It's the experimentation and combination that gets you to a better level of performance.

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

ryan b. said:


> jeeze im doing this in two posts now
> 
> look, you can call it frickin "peanut butter" if you want to.. and it might work ..and it might work really great ..and it might be perfect technique. its just not peanut butter.


I call it Bob!

TAO


----------



## MickeyBisco (Jul 14, 2012)

TheAncientOne said:


> They do some work with force plates and the type of motion capture photography that helped animate Golum in LOTR. They also do brain wave analysis to measure concentration. Maybe when the new Easton 22 million dollar training complex is finished they will get some shiney new toys.
> 
> TAO



I'm betting there's a neurological strength measuring module in the Amazon wish list.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Part of the issue is that Coach Lee treats archery as a Martial Art so some of his focus is coached in martial arts terms (the infamous Lan2 come to mind)...Most modern Martial Arts are a combination of many that came before.


I would have hoped that NTS would be more like Jeet Kune Do rather than, say, Qigong. Bruce Lee worked condense martial arts from all fields to what works rather than what is traditional with mystical foundations.


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

Warbow,
Science and religion do not mix and it is impossible to win a logical argument with true believers. Their last resort is calling names. No scientist will publish an "Ultimate guide" to anything. 
Thank you and limbwalker for your critical thinking!
S.B.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

George, I understand what you're suggesting. And you have a point. I just didn't expect you to suggest that archery is a mental/faith-based area of study. Is that what you're saying?

As for the "retention reload" at FLETC, there is no such thing. At least, our instructors didn't call it a retention reload. I believe what you're thinking of is a tactical reload. 

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

S.B. said:


> Warbow,
> Science and religion do not mix and it is impossible to win a logical argument with true believers. Their last resort is calling names.


Strangely, I'm not sure if gh is a "true believer" or not. I don't know what he actually stands for in this thread, if anything. It is clear he doesn't like me or this thread and that he doesn't care whether nonsense forms the core of our US Archery program. :dontknow: 

Science is the tool we use to separate what is real from what merely seems to be real. Only with a true understanding of what effects are real, and what affects them, can we reliably improve archery techniques for the USAT. If gt wants the US to succeed in archery he should be in favor of the US separating sense from nonsense in its archery program so it can concentrate on teaching what is real rather than what merely seems to be real. Yes, there are some answers that are hard to know for certain even with proper science, but others we can, but only if we apply science as the bench mark and filter out the non-science.

Also, I am an average archer. Most archers are (its a tautology, actually). If gt thinks that is a problem then he has a problem with most archers. As to daring to critically consider the published claims of an "accomplished archer", the US Head coach? Facts are facts and they don't care who points them out. They are "accomplished archer" agnostic. Whether Lee's claim is pseudo-science is completely independent of whether he's an accomplished archer, a good guy, a good coach or any other thing short of the infallibility of godhood. gt is implying that Lee should be immune from all criticism from people with fewer "accomplishments" than he has, which is nonsense. That way lies the arbitrary veneration of ignorance, the antithesis of science and the scientific method. 

I'd say we all need to use good critical thinking skills and keep our minds open, but not so open that our brains fall out.


----------



## rick11743 (Sep 20, 2010)

Fig 5.14 “The head should be turned toward the target so that the irises are close to the center of the eye openings. In this photo, the irises are too far to the edge of the eye openings, and thus the stance is less aggressive and neurological strength is decreased.”

This actually may be valid. There have been studies regarding ocular motor system/head position and neural firing. It's a common practice in power lifting/strength training. For example, when squatting, strength training coach will have you focus at a point on the floor, about 5 or 10 ft in front of you. He may put a water bottle or something on the floor at that location and have you focus on it during the lift. It can make a big difference.


----------



## gonehuntin (Dec 2, 2004)

Guess this is gonna sound kinda dumb... but.... aren't they just saying that, if we just turn our head toward the target, as straight on as each of us can, and do that the same each shot.... we will shoot better??????

If so... why not just say that? 

I try to teach simple archery....I use the analogy of.....that the chin has an imaginary laser beam attached... point beam as much as your are physically able toward center of aiming spot... bam... arrow goes where chin points....


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

rick11743 said:


> This actually may be valid. There have been studies regarding ocular motor system/head position and neural firing. It's a common practice in power lifting/strength training. For example, when squatting, strength training coach will have you focus at a point on the floor, about 5 or 10 ft in front of you. He may put a water bottle or something on the floor at that location and have you focus on it during the lift. It can make a big difference.


Many things are possible, but we have no reason to believe them until proven. It is possible that holding your in a folded position gives you better balance. Should you believe it just because it is possible? Same goes for claims about eye position, "aggressive stance" and "neurological strength".

What we do know is that the test used to "prove" the effect of eye position and strength to coaches seems to be the same pseudo-scientific test used by the quacks known as Applied Kinesiologists, a test that is known to give results based on the belief of the participants rather than objective outcomes, so rather than prove the effect of eye position on strength I'd say resorting to a pseudo-scientific "test" casts doubt on the veracity of the claim.

What we can also reasonably conclude is that the dramatic orders of magnitude difference in strength caused shown by the apparent pseudo-scientific test to be correlated with eye position does not exist. There could be some subtle difference that isn't apparent in everyday life (though there is no reason to believe that, either), but if the incredible difference the AK test showed was real, the difference between resisting the full weight of a man and not being able to resist the pressure of two fingers, then eye position would be the single most important thing in **all sports**, more important than all other techniques. The wrong eye position would be to us like Kryptonite is to Superman. We'd all have to be trained in strict eye position discipline from birth, lest we collapse under a load by accidentally flicking our eyes to the side.

If you have any links to published studies about eye position and/or head and strength I'd love to look at them and see what they say.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Unfortunately, it seems our beloved gt has put himself on a one remark limit these days. Obviously taking the "Ali" approach (you know, float like a butterfly, sting like a bee...  )

What say you George? Is archery a mental/faith based area of study?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

gonehuntin said:


> Guess this is gonna sound kinda dumb... but.... aren't they just saying that, if we just turn our head toward the target, as straight on as each of us can, and do that the same each shot.... we will shoot better??????
> 
> If so... why not just say that?


Because it wouldn't sound all sciency and convincing :embara:

I think your way is the way to go. If we do something because it seems to work, just say that, no need to pretend to know more about it than we do. Pretending something is all science-based and giving sciency sounding details and justifications that are made up would just muddle our knowledge and make it harder to figure out things in the future, like saying you get more horsepower out of your car because you put a magnet on the fuel line and giving some fancy sounding, but false, reasons why it "works". I don't know if that is what is being done in this instance, but it at first glance there does seem to be something off. I'm open to evidence, sound evidence not pseudo-science, that I'm wrong :dontknow: I'm interesting in knowing the real details, what really happens, even if that means I have to revise what I know and admit I'm wrong. I hope that others are the same way, and if they find out this eye thing is false will revise what they know and tell their students they were taught wrong.


----------



## agillator (Sep 11, 2011)

Warbow said:


> ...
> Science is the tool we use to separate what is real from what merely seems to be real. ...


Science is the support of hypotheses through experiment. Only pseudoscientists make claims about what is "real". 

Skepticism is a healthy impulse, but this thread has become an exercise in the histrionics of disbelief. There is no more science in such activity than there is in slavish adherence to unsupported hypotheses. Time to let it flow downstream.


----------



## rick11743 (Sep 20, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Many things are possible, but we have no reason to believe them until proven. It is possible that holding your in a folded position gives you better balance. Should you believe it just because it is possible? Same goes for claims about eye position, "aggressive stance" and "neurological strength".
> 
> What we do know is that the test used to "prove" the effect of eye position and strength to coaches seems to be the same pseudo-scientific test used by the quacks known as Applied Kinesiologists, a test that is known to give results based on the belief of the participants rather than objective outcomes, so rather than prove the effect of eye position on strength I'd say resorting to a pseudo-scientific "test" casts doubt on the veracity of the claim.
> 
> ...


We must be wary of quackery, chiropractors trying to push your arms down, etc. I'm referring to illegitimate studies that support links between ocular motor function, focal point, focal distance and sports performance. I'm not suggesting that we blindly believe Kisik Lee's comment on eye position, I'm just saying that there are highly accredited physiologists that site similar connections. The study that comes to mind was by Sebastian Seung, professor of Neuroscience at MIT. If I can find it, I will post it.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

rick11743 said:


> I'm referring to illegitimate studies that support links between ocular motor function, focal point, focal distance and sports performance.


I assumed that was the type of study you were thinking of. Keeping one's mind open to sound evidence is one of the keys to science and to learning. Which is why I'm interested in seeing the study you were reminded of. The details of a paper are important. Do its conclusions really match the claims of Lee? Or does Prof Seung just have some very interesting thing to say about the complex integration of eye position and neurology? Does, for instance, "Linear Regression of Eye Velocity on Eye Position and Head Velocity Suggests a Common Oculomotor Neural Integrator" actually say anything about Lee's claim, or is it a very specific statistical study about an obscure area of neurology?

Here are his MIT publications, but I don't find any that seem to be on point.

http://hebb.mit.edu/people/seung/pubsbycategory.html


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Here's the good news...

We're very fortunate in our sport, because with any technique or equipment question we may have, we are blessed with an active "R&D" staff that are always on the job. They're called archers. And the results are not subjective. They're called "scores" and they are published for everyone to see.

So, removing emotion, marketing, personalities, hype, celebrity and slight of hand from the equasion, it's still possible to put some statistical analysis to most of the questions we have. 

To quote pet detective ACE Ventura - "Fiction can be fun!" But when it comes to making decisions on technique or equipment for competition, I usually prefer fact. And the fact is that every year, multiple styles are used to win championship archery tournaments.

This concept of looking more directly at the target is one of the first things I can recall coach Lee introducing into his coaches training for us early JDT coaches. He used examples of archers who had not been able to shoot with sunglasses before, but after changing their head positions for their eyes to face the target more squarely, and more horizontally, they were not only able to shoot with glasses on, but according to him they were shooting stronger. I distinctly recall him using Jason McKittrick as an example in his slide presentation. 

Does it work? For my money, the answer is "who knows?" 

I've not run the data, so I couldn't say. But I did watch the Olympics and noticed that a fair number of top archers still look at the target from the corner of their eyes. Archers that beat other archers who were facing the target more squarely. So, as with anything, I say "show me." 

Archery is a very static, scored sport. It's not golf. The course doesn't change on us from day to day, shot to shot, week to week. It's not gymnastics. We don't have a panel of judges deciding which technique was best. 

We get a target at a set distance. The same ones every . single . time.

Perfect scenario for a statistical test.

And I think, if the numbers were run, the only conclusion we could draw is that there is no "ONE" best way and no "ONE" magic technique for winning archery tournaments.

How many times, how many Olympic games, how many World Championships, etc. are we going to have to see to figure this out?


----------



## rick11743 (Sep 20, 2010)

Here is the study that I was thinking of http://http://seunglab.mit.edu/people/seung/papers/stability.pdf

I thought that there was another, by David Lieberman, professor of Adaptive Human Biology at Harvard, but I can't find it. Again, I'm not blindly agreeing to Kisik Lee's comment, just saying that the ocular motor - neural firing relationship has been illegitimately studied.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Here's the good news...
> 
> We're very fortunate in our sport, because with any technique or equipment question we may have, we are blessed with an active "R&D" staff that are always on the job. They're called archers. And the results are not subjective. They're called "scores" and they are published for everyone to see.


Thank you for your practicality  What you describe reminds me of that anecdote I included in the OP about the chiropractor who, confronted with objective, double-blind test results showing his long held beliefs to be false, responded "You see, that is why we never do double-blind testing anymore. It never works!"

The scores from international competition show that there are a number of ways to shoot at the very highest level. Any method that isn't common to them all can't be considered to be part of some "one true way" to do archery.

I'd like techniques that help our students shoot well as easily as possible, and with as little injury as possible. I'd like not to be mislead. If we don't know something for certain, that is ok. What is not ok is to say we do when we don't.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

rick11743 said:


> Here is the study that I was thinking of http://http://seunglab.mit.edu/people/seung/papers/stability.pdf
> .. just saying that the ocular motor - neural firing relationship has been illegitimately studied.


I suspect you mean "legitimately" . Thanks for finding the link to this paper. It serves to remind us just how complex the human brain is, but my lay reading of it is that it has nothing to do with Lee's claim, either generally or specifically.

H. Sebastian Seung, Daniel D. Lee , Ben Y. Reis , and David W. Tank."Stability of the memory of eye position in a recurrent network of conductance-based model neurons. February 7, 2000.



> These mechanisms are not just of interest in the oculomotor system, because persistent neural activity has been observed in a wide variety of brain areas (Fuster, 1995), generally in association with short-term memory tasks. From this broader perspective, the integrator can be viewed as storing a short-term memory of the current eye position (Seung, 1996). Pharmacological studies have shown that fixation is impaired when the integrator is inactivated (Cheron and Godaux, 1987; Cannon and Robinson, 1987; Godaux et al., 1993; Mettens et al., 1994b; Straube et al., 1991), a disorder that can be interpreted as loss of the ability to store a short-term memory of eye position.
> For physiological investigations, the goldfish is a convenient experimental preparation with fixation performance comparable to that of mammals (Mensh et al., 1997). A brainstem nucleus has previously been identified as part of the neural integrator for horizontal eye position in goldfish (Pastor et al., 1994). *The present paper describes a mathematical model of the goldfish integrator* with the biophysical realism necessary for fruitful interaction with experimental research.


So, while we can't rule out Lee's claim as impossible, neither do we currently have any sound reason to believe it, no more so than to believe, say, that tongue position affects balance.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Warbow said:


> I suspect you mean "legitimately" . Thanks for finding the link to this paper. It serves to remind us just how complex the human brain is, but my lay reading of it is that it has nothing to do with Lee's claim, either generally or specifically, and is about memory, eye position and the way eye position is controlled, in goldfish.
> 
> H. Sebastian Seung, Daniel D. Lee , Ben Y. Reis , and David W. Tank."Stability of the memory of eye position in a recurrent network of conductance-based model neurons. February 7, 2000.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity I did a quick search to see how long you have been obsessing about "pseudo-science". This says* no less than FIVE YEARS*. 

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=593161&highlight=pseudo-science

To quote Dr. Phil: "You need help".


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> What say you George? Is archery a mental/faith based area of study?



Odd question from a guy who used to put biblical references on his limbs with a sharpie, I think.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> Out of curiosity I did a quick search to see how long you have been obsessively ranting about "pseudo-science". This says* no less than FIVE YEARS*.
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=593161&highlight=pseudo-science
> 
> To quote Dr. Phil: "You need help".


Do you think Lee's claim is true or not and on what basis? And if it is false, why should we ignore that it is being taught as fact as part of our national archery program to all coaches and students?

Pseudo-science has been around a long time. You can read Oliver Wendell Holmes 1842 take down of the pseudo-science of Homeopathy, "Homœopathy, and its kindred delusions". Just because nonsense has been around for a while is no reason to give it a free pass. Nonsense only serves to hold us back from advancing real understanding.

Also, I think my old posts you linked to are still reasonably well written and argued.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> Odd question from a guy who used to put biblical references on his limbs with a sharpie, I think.


You seem to be dodging the question. Plenty of people, for example, have bible bumper stickers on their cars. Do you try to dismiss driving as "a mental/faith based area of study" on that basis?

So, no dodging. Do you claim that archery is primarily "a mental/faith based area of study"? Why or why not?


----------



## rick11743 (Sep 20, 2010)

Yeah, I mean't legitimately! Damn spell checker. I see your point about Mr. Seung's paper. Goldfish have similar eye fixation patterns as humans. Who knew. I think that Seung's paper does site some interesting points on the neural impact of eye position that could relate to Kisik's theory. I had in mind another study that more directly related focal point to sport performance, I'll try to find it. 

For sure, tongue position affects balance, and if I clench my teeth, my car breaks better.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

What I expected. George is, once again, more interested in sniping from behind cover than accounting for his snarky comments. Will his contributions to this forum never cease!?!

I see you're really up on your Olympian trivia too.  

I never put biblical references on my limbs George. But you probably couldn't see that from where they told you to sit. 

George, I know what archery is for me. But that wasn't the question. 

I asked you a specific question. Do I need to repeat it? Are you confused or just unwilling to stand by your comment?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

My apologies George. That was inappropriate. You frustrate me sometimes, but that's no excuse. 

I would like to see you clarify your comment about archery being a mental/faith based area of study. Curious to know what you mean by that. 

The act of shooting well is, in my opinion, as much an act of faith and mental control as it is one of technical precision. If what you're suggesting is that a coach should be fluent in the area of mental and faith-based instruction and use specific tools to help their archers achieve confidence and control, then I don't disagree with that.

I can see Warbow's point (I think) that if this technique of using the eyes to control the body is a mental/faith-based exercise rather than a proven technical and physical exercise, it would be simple to just say so, and not make it sound more scientific than it really is.

John


----------



## rick11743 (Sep 20, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> My apologies George. That was inappropriate. You frustrate me sometimes, but that's no excuse.
> 
> I would like to see you clarify your comment about archery being a mental/faith based area of study. Curious to know what you mean by that.
> 
> ...


John,

Excellent post. Have you read "Zen in the Art of Archery"? It captures the spiritual aspect of archery, which I think is often overlooked.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

No, but it's on my list. I'm not much of a reader, unfortunately. My mild dyslexia and ADHD make it tough on me to ever get through a book.

John


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I'd have to say if you have don't read lots for pleasure to skip Zen in the art as it's not the easiest reading or most interesting book on the shelf.

There are however interesting readings on how faith (of any kind) affects sporting performances, Malcolm Gladwell or Mathew Syed spring to mind.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> My apologies George. That was inappropriate. You frustrate me sometimes, but that's no excuse.
> 
> I would like to see you clarify your comment about archery being a mental/faith based area of study. Curious to know what you mean by that.
> 
> ...


First, apology accepted and given. Second that (bold above) is _precisely_ what I believe, particularly with regard to recurve shooting. You managed to sum it up perfectly.

Look, faith in yourself, in your coach, and if it works for you, in a higher power is absolutely essential to successful performance. I take umbrage at Warbow's incessant attempts over the past few years to discredit someone/something who/which many successful people in our sport from wildly different backgrounds have faith in. And as in religion, you don't need science to justify faith. And as in religion, the faithful don't like it when one argues with it...


----------



## rick11743 (Sep 20, 2010)

toj said:


> I'd have to say if you have don't read lots for pleasure to skip Zen in the art as it's not the easiest reading or most interesting book on the shelf.
> 
> There are however interesting readings on how faith (of any kind) affects sporting performances, Malcolm Gladwell or Mathew Syed spring to mind.


Zen in the Art of Archery is a very short book. I found it easy to read and very interesting. I would strongly recommend it to any archer, especially if you find any interest in Eastern philosophy. 

For anyone not familiar, the book is about Kyudo, a Japanese style of archery that focuses on the shot as a ceremony, a spiritual exercise, and a type of physical meditation.

The concept of Kyudo can also be applied to oly recurve and traditional archery. The goal is for the shooter and the shot, the bow, the arrow and the target to be one living entity. If executed properly, you are completely in the moment, in a state of total concentration that culminates in the release. There is a strong emphasis to focus on your breath (as in other meditations) during the shot cycle.

The book also explores the complex relationship between the archer and the target, that anyone who has ever experienced target panic would find interesting.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Okay, you've piqued my interest. I'll sit down and read it. Most likely while in a deer stand  

Because for me archery is all of those things, and more.

I often describe to my students that both the greatest challenge and the greatest reward in archery is learning to just "let go." Until an archer learns to balance both strength and total release, they will always be at odds with themselves.

John


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> No, but it's on my list. I'm not much of a reader, unfortunately. My mild dyslexia and ADHD make it tough on me to ever get through a book.
> 
> John


Maybe you *do* need a Kindle! 

Most, but not all, Kindles have pretty decent computerized text to speech. Its handy for books that aren't available as professionally narrated audiobooks. The TTS isn't perfect, but it is usable. Most Kindle books have the text to speech enabled--publishers have the choice to turn off the feature on individual books. Text to speech is enabled for the USA Archery book "Archery" on the kindle.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> I take umbrage at Warbow's incessant attempts over the past few years to discredit someone/something who/which many successful people in our sport from wildly different backgrounds have faith in. And as in religion, you don't need science to justify faith. And as in religion, the faithful don't like it when one argues with it...


Sorry, gt, but the US archery program should be fact-based not faith-based. USA Archery's national standard shouldn't be an impenetrable, unquestionable mystery spread by cloistered priests of the NTS but a transparent, fact-based endeavor based on the latest sound evidence, one people can productively build on with their own brand of faith.

As to discrediting the program you seem to be doing a pretty good job of that yourself with your post where you seem to concede that at least some of the NTS system is nonsense, but that we should ignore that fact because nonsense is common in sports. That seems like an apathetic and defeatist attitude to me, not positive at all, and not something that should inspire "faith" in the NTS.

I think there is a lot of good in the NTS program. And I'd love to see that good concentrated and made more effective by separating the wheat from the chaff as opposed to being apathetic and hostile to people who wish to see the program improved. I've pointed out what seems like a false claim and clearly given the reasons why I think it is false, providing links, evidence and polite discussion on the issue. The *productive* and helpful response would be for people to say "I think the claim is true, and here is sound evidence why." or "I think you may be right. Let's investigate this and remove it from the NTS if it is false." It's that simple.

Calling people "poisonous trolls" for bringing up legitimate issues, issues you've never denied or rebutted, is not productive or helpful. If you want people to have "faith" in the NTS I think you'd accomplish that better by advocating for it to be as good as it can be and fixed when potential problems are found. The kind of "faith" you want people to have, in a program you suggest we shouldn't be surprised contains pseudo-science, is a very fragile kind of faith, as we can see by how little faith you, yourself, seem to have in it such that you feel a need to shoot me down even though you appear to tacitly agree that Lee's claim is false.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

agillator said:


> Science is the support of hypotheses through experiment.


No, agillator, that is only a part of science, not all of what science is. Richard Feynman defined science in a way that is especially on point to this thread:



> Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . .As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.


To assume that something must be true because Coach Lee said it is the antithesis of science.

Feynman went on to note:



> When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, ‘Science has shown such and such,’ you should ask, ‘How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?’ It should not be ‘science has shown.’ And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.”


So, has Lee arrived at a sensible conclusion about eye position, "aggressive stance" and "neurological strength"? Is the claim valid? Or is it pseudo-science that should be removed from the standard rolled out by USA Archery to coaches and archers nationwide? Feynman says we all have the right to ask these kinds of questions of experts.

Do you think the claim by Lee is true? Yes or no, and why or why not? And is the Applied Kinesiology test apparently used to prove the claim a valid, reliable and objective test of the claim? Yes or no, and why or why not?


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Do you think the claim by Lee is true? Yes or no, and why or why not? And is the Applied Kinesiology test apparently used to prove the claim a valid, reliable and objective test of the claim? Yes or no, and why or why not?


I think that calling it the "Applied Kinesiology" test gives the concept an unfair taint. Just because the AK community uses the phenomenom as "proof of concept" doesn't mean there isn't a real cause and effect. My interest is in how much of an effect it causes and at what point does it kick in. If it's minimal then 'nuff said. If can give someone an edge, then it's worth looking into.

However I do think that we've beaten this particular dead horse enough!

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The scores from international competition show that there are a number of ways to shoot at the very highest level. Any method that isn't common to them all can't be considered to be part of some "one true way" to do archery.


Yes. So to conclude this thread, I think we can all agree that in order to shoot well, the archer MUST be looking toward the target.


----------



## shootemstraight (Jan 13, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Yes. So to conclude this thread, I think we can all agree that in order to shoot well, the archer MUST be looking toward the target.


I've heard that some can shoot some pretty high scores with their eyes closed! :tongue:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yes, but they are still at least looking in the direction of the target... 

Of course, I forgot about Byron Ferguson's "mirror" shot... Oh well, there goes THAT rule!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Yes. So to conclude this thread, I think we can all agree that in order to shoot well, the archer MUST be looking toward the target.


Ah, you could write up "Limbwalker's Universal Steps to Archery: Step 1 - Get a bow and arrow..."


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> I think that calling it the "Applied Kinesiology" test gives the concept an unfair taint. Just because the AK community uses the phenomenom as "proof of concept" doesn't mean there isn't a real cause and effect.


What it means is that the demonstration shown to you is a quack test that literally proves nothing. Could a real cause and effect exist? Yes. But that test can't reliably show it any more than reading your aura with dowsing rods can. You have no sound reason to think such an effect exists.

Think about it. If the orders of magnitude effect demonstrated to you in the AK test was real, the difference between being able to resist the full weight of a man vs. not being able to resist the pressure of two fingers, then eye position would be the single most important effect in all of sports--a huge and obvious effect that would affect all sports, and all of our life, in dramatic ways. Flicking our eyes to the side would be to us what Kryptonite is to Superman. And yet you know that no such dramatic effect exists in your everyday life. The AK test is inherently subject to unconscious bias. Unless you think that eye position means the difference between being able to lift, say, 200 pounds and not being able to lift 10, then you have to admit this is so, that the test gives false results.



TheAncientOne said:


> My interest is in how much of an effect it causes and at what point does it kick in. If it's minimal then 'nuff said. If can give someone an edge, then it's worth looking into.


You are getting ahead of yourself. You can't prove how much of an effect there is until you've proven there is an effect to begin with. You don't have any sound evidence that such an effect exists at all. The test you were shown is invalid and can be used to "prove" other non-existent correlations with muscle strength, based on the conscious or unconscious beliefs of the participants--that is what the test does. It is essentially the same effect as using dowsing rods.




TheAncientOne said:


> However I do think that we've beaten this particular dead horse enough!
> 
> TAO


This issue won't be closed until something changes, either the effect is demonstrated to be true with sound evidence or it is is shown to be unproven or false and removed from the training rolled out by USA Archery to thousands of instructors, coaches and archers around the country.


----------



## rick11743 (Sep 20, 2010)

Maybe we should let this thread die a peaceful death, but I searched for pics of oly recurve archers at full draw (geez, I need to find a girlfriend or something) and everyone that I see shows the eyes rotated to the corner of the socket, including these two, and they are pretty good:


----------



## rick11743 (Sep 20, 2010)

This one also:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Precisely what I mean. There are plenty of archers who face the target more directly (I am one of them) but I don't see any solid evidence that it makes one bit of difference. I know for me it's more comfortable when I look more squarely at the target, but I'm not shooting at the level of the archers shown above. So based on a sample size of 4, I'd say that there is a 75% chance that my head is rotated TOO squarely at the target... 

John


----------



## Velvetme (Apr 12, 2012)

I know that my contacts slip out of place if the iris is too far in the corner! Ha


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Think about it. If the orders of magnitude effect demonstrated to you in the AK test was real, the difference between being able to resist the full weight of a man vs. not being able to resist the pressure of two fingers, then eye position would be the single most important effect in all of sports


Don't be confused by the 2 fingers description. There was still significant pressure being exerted just not full body weight. 

TAO


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

View attachment 1549060



another example


Chris


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Precisely what I mean. There are plenty of archers who face the target more directly (I am one of them) but I don't see any solid evidence that it makes one bit of difference. I know for me it's more comfortable when I look more squarely at the target, but I'm not shooting at the level of the archers shown above. So based on a sample size of 4, I'd say that there is a 75% chance that my head is rotated TOO squarely at the target...
> 
> John


Viper1 is the only archer I know who uses a square stance yet can anchor with the string touching the center of his chin. I can't do that with an open stance. 

TAO


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> This issue won't be closed until something changes, either the effect is demonstrated to be true with sound evidence or it is is shown to be unproven or false and removed from the training rolled out by USA Archery to thousands of instructors, coaches and archers around the country.


Or we just table it until we can prove or disprove it to our mutual satisfaction and move on to something else.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> another example
> 
> 
> Chris


Dangit, my chances just got worse...


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Dangit, my chances just got worse...


You seem to be doing just fine. 

TAO


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Or we just table it until we can prove or disprove it to our mutual satisfaction and move on to something else.
> 
> TAO


Alright. This should be pretty easy to test objectively test using stuff we archers already have.

To do an objective test we need a couple of things. One is an objective, quantitative method of measuring strength rather than a subjective one. The push down test can be affected by the tester (the angle they pull or push at, for instance, can make all the difference) and can be affected the person being tested if they know the "expected" outcome. So, we need to using a measuring device, and neither the tester nor the people being tested should know what the test is about or what the "expected" outcome is so they don't consciously or unconsciously bias the result.

A simple double blind test would be to get a volunteer to administer the test and additional volunteer test subjects who haven't heard of this eye thing. Nobody who knows about the eye thing should be in the room during the testing. That's "double-blinding" and its important in this kind of test. Next, instead of pushing down on a persons arm, we can have them pull up on a peak weight bow scale that pulls on a cord staked securely to the ground. Have the subjects look in a randomly selected direction, pull up slowly as hard as they can with their outstretched arm on the bow scale and record the measurement. Repeat the process with each subject to get enough data.

Then we look at the variance in the data and see if the orders of magnitude difference you experienced in the un-blinded, subjective AK test are replicated.

Such a test could easily rule out the possibility of the kind of dramatic effect the AK test "proved". However, with small data sets you have to be careful about trying to make conclusions after the fact by cherry picking data. Just random variation, especially if you selectively hunt for clusters (the bullseye fallacy) rather than apply sound statistical techniques, can make there seem to be small effects in what is actual noise with no statistically significant variation.

*This might be a good school project for some of the JOAD kids to take on.*  They'd have to have volunteers who haven't heard of the eye thing run and take the test.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Thanks for a good read guys

Matt


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Position of the head is a consequence of:
- Draw lengt used
- String alignement used
- Nose size, shape and position on face
- Use of different kind of glasses in combination to the previous parameters

It happens of course that eyes position at full draw is related to the above parmeters and has nothing to do with the strenght of the position.


----------



## sawtoothscream (Apr 19, 2008)

Balance bracelets LOL. had a guy a the mall make me try it and failed then again fail then continue to tell me it really worked how it was suppose to and I should try again. I walked away laughing. 

Going to try the arm thing and see what happens


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

As is so often in archery the only true way to tell what method will give the greatest consistency is for the individual to try each method and see which yeilds the most satisfactory result.

I suspect though the method most practiced will be win out so it'll probably be the preferred method as opposed to the best.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Warbow said:


> Next, instead of pushing down on a persons arm, we can have them pull up on a peak weight bow scale that pulls on a cord staked securely to the ground. Have the subjects look in a randomly selected direction, pull up slowly as hard as they can with their outstretched arm on the bow scale and record the measurement. Repeat the process with each subject to get enough data.


Idealy we need to measure the downwards pressure on the arms not the subject's strength. Force plates on the arms or even under the feet should be able to measure that. Even a digital scale could be used. I like the JOAD kids idea.

Maybe we could get a grant for the kids from Easton archery.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Maybe we could get a grant for the kids from Easton archery


You're going to get a grant from Easton to perform a study that may contradict something coach Lee is teaching? 

Yea, good luck with that.

John


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> You're going to get a grant from Easton to perform a study that may contradict something coach Lee is teaching?
> 
> Yea, good luck with that.
> 
> John


We could say that we are teaching young athletes to evaluate proper training techniques.

TAO


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Again, good luck.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

TheAncientOne said:


> Viper1 is the only archer I know who uses a square stance yet can anchor with the string touching the center of his chin. I can't do that with an open stance.
> 
> TAO


 I also shoot that way.

Chris


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Dangit, my chances just got worse...


lol, she still anchors very close to center of her face. You are in good company. You can see the string impression on her face is 1/4 inch from her center line on her face in that photo if you enlarge the photo. 

Chris


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

toj said:


> As is so often in archery the only true way to tell what method will give the greatest consistency is for the individual to try each method and see which yeilds the most satisfactory result.
> 
> I suspect though the method most practiced will be win out so it'll probably be the preferred method as opposed to the best.


Humans are subject to all sorts of unconscious biases. If you don't use a methodological approach that accounts for human bias you can wind up thinking that your lucky socks are the key to success, or how much your eyes look forward.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Idealy we need to measure the downwards pressure on the arms not the subject's strength. Force plates on the arms or even under the feet should be able to measure that. Even a digital scale could be used. I like the JOAD kids idea.


I think you are trying too literally to replicate the flawed test used on you. The claim, and subsequent AK test, is that eye position affects muscle strength of outstretched arms, the upward strength of the muscles. So using a peak weight bow scale anchored to the ground, or similar, is a good direct measure of that. No extra complications to get in the way or to confound the data. And you can do it right now, no special force plates needed.

However, I think you could have fun with force plates on the arm to study the bias of AK testing, especially if you did an blinded and un-blinded studies and measured the difference in force, however, the force plate would have a hard time detecting the *vector* of the force, which is a key part of the potential biases in the AK test.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

TheAncientOne said:


> Maybe we could get a grant for the kids from Easton archery.
> 
> TAO





limbwalker said:


> You're going to get a grant from Easton to perform a study that may contradict something coach Lee is teaching?
> 
> Yea, good luck with that.
> 
> John


Yeah, TAO, you saw what gt from Easton thought of that. He's busy attacking me on multiple fronts (you are a "poisonous troll" for bringing this issue up, sports is full of nonsense so we should ignore nonsense in the NTS, pointing out false claims hurts the fragile "faith" people have in NTS so don't do it, etc.) all while furiously tap dancing around whether Lee's claim is false.

He knows coach Lee and even has a nice write up on Coach Lee's site on how Lee helped improve his form--and no surprise there, Lee is by all accounts an experienced and capable coach. However, George is also professional engineer, who's job succeeds or fails based on science and objective data. So I think he not only knows that the eye position claim, and the subsequent AK test used to demonstrate it, are nonsense but that Lee has more where that came from, which is why George has spent so much time trying to find excuses to shoot me down all while fastidiously avoiding the issue of whether Lee's claim is false or not.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

Warbow said:


> Humans are subject to all sorts of unconscious biases. If you don't use a methodological approach that accounts for human bias you can wind up thinking that your lucky socks are the key to success, or how much your eyes look forward.


Very true, however research has shown that as long as you really and truely believe in your lucky socks they will actually benefit your mental game and as a result your performance overall.

Please note that I do not advocate the use of lucky socks.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

toj said:


> Very true, however research has shown that as long as you really and truely believe in your lucky socks they will actually benefit your mental game and as a result your performance overall.


Yes, and that seems pretty harmless, but what can happen is that rather than something innocuous like socks they can believe certain behaviors are the key to their success. And then they *teach* other people this, and we become encumbered with non-functional, or counter-functional, baggage rather than physical techniques that really make a difference. And the baggage just builds up and up. This is the issue that can happen if we don't nip what appear to be false claims like the eye position/strength thing in the bud. It is why we use science. It is the tool we use to separate what is true from what merely seems to be true.

The behavioral psychology term for this kind of false causal association is "superstitious behavior", and basing even part of our archery program on it is a bad idea. People will invent enough of them on their own, we don't need to add to the problem by having them in the program to begin with.


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

Coaches I've seen often teach every student the things one student has used sucessfully.

I know of one senior coach who still teaches archers to pull using the middle two fingers and keeping the index finger relaxed as a student used this with good results many years ago.
What was overlooked was the childhood accident that had all but disabled that finger in the original archer.

I know they mean well and give a lot of time and energy to teaching others but how do you coach the "coach"?

Speaking to a physics teacher last year opened my eyes to just how much is passed off as "good science" in archery that really flies in the face of what is accepted science to the rest of the world.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

toj said:


> Speaking to a physics teacher last year opened my eyes to just how much is passed off as "good science" in archery that really flies in the face of what is accepted science to the rest of the world.


Do tell...


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

TBH most of it was over my head but he spoke at length about fletching positions and stabilisation. He got quite animated trying to explain moment of inertia and the effects of de coupling weights.

Saddly all a little lost on me, but the gist was that a lot of what is passed on as wisdom is little more than rumor rarely challenged

What i did take away from it was how important it is to research things properly, It is entirely possible for lots of people to to be wrong.


----------

