# Instinctive Shooting Traditional Bows



## dreamcatcher (May 31, 2002)

I love shooting instinctively. It, to me, has kinda been like throwing a football. I sold my compound shortly after being re-introduced into Traditional, because of the fun I was having due to the overwhelming simplicity... I recently read G. Fred Asbel's first book on this topic, and found myself in total agreement with his philosophy of releasing the string just after the anchor is reached. Opinions vary. I remembered that Traditional Archery wasn't like shooting a rifle when I came back to my recurve and longbow. I can't help but also appreciate Asbel's distinction between sight shooting and purely instinctive shooting. There was a suggestion, too, that certain point-of-aim styles fit more in the sighting system category, rather than having complete focus of hand/eye concentration on the center of a chosen target. I welcome and respect everyones' experience, as this has got to be one of my favorite subjects. Look forward to the input.


----------



## Doddsman (May 23, 2002)

I shoot both traditional non sight and compounds with sights, finger release with both, I have not read Asbells book but when I shoot traditional I release right when I reach anchor, which sometimes causes me problems when I switch back to compounds, but Thats part of the challenge


----------



## dreamcatcher (May 31, 2002)

I can appreciate that, Doddsman. The simplicity of instinctive seems to be so uncomplicated that it calls for that change in mindset approach to go back to the modern. It just takes so much darn practice to keep shape with traditional, which some consider a more constant challenge, but at the same time, it's hard to compare the two due to their vast differences. 

Anyone have a favorite particular traditional method of drawing for a certain style of hunting? (for wing shooting, stalking, stand or blind, etc..?) I certainly feel that some approaches are more suited to a certain kind of hunting. 

My original question had to do with the various methods of instinctive shooting- gap/point of aim (somewhat controversial as a method of instinctive shooting, as it relies on focusing on the point of the arrow as a sight), three finders under/split finger, reasons and preferences for canting. . .rather than to categorize Traditional Archery as a singular methodology of "aiming".


----------



## Arthur P (May 28, 2002)

Well, I'll probably get my head handed to me for this, but.... 

The whole idea of split finger/instinctive being the only true form of traditional archery comes straight from the 3D course. It comes directly from incompetent splitfinger/instinctive shooters being constantly thrubbed by one or two 3-under gap shooters. So, rather than work to improve their shooting, it was easier to ban the style of the guys that were whupping them.

Gap shooting, point of aim, face walking, string walking, and a good number of finger draw positions, even release aides, were around long before even fiberglass laminated bows. The idea that all those methods "ain't trad" is absurd. Howard Hill was a gap shooter, for Pete's sake!

Further, in my opinion, 'instinctive' shooting is a misnomer. It should be called subconscious gap shooting. Even though you don't look at the tip of the arrow, the eye still sees it, your brain recognizes it, and calculates the amount of gap it needs to hit what you're aiming at. 

After you've shot for awhile, muscle memory gets involved and your body 'remembers' how high to hold that bow arm for a given distance. That's how you can hit the candle in the dark.

I've found that it's easier to get a newbie started off by using a form of gap shooting. After he's gotten some experience under his belt, he begins forgetting to use the conscious gap, and just shoots. In other words, his shooting has become 'instinctive.'

Shooting stickbows, or compounds with sights, I always shot split finger. At 30 yards and less, I shoot 'instinctive' and shoot gap past 30 yards. I do, religously, believe in long range practice, like 60-80 yards or so, to make short range shots easier. If you can shoot at least a recognizable group at 60 yards, then 30 yards is a piece of cake.

Nowadays, I've got nerve damage and can't draw a hunting weight stickbow to anchor any longer. So, I'm shooting a compound barebow and shooting 3-under. I can tell you that 45 years of shooting recurves and longbows 
wasn't nearly enough!

By the way, I shot a lot better before reading Asbell's books. Really screwed me up! I had to read Byron Ferguson's "Become the Arrow" to get back on track.


----------



## fingers (May 27, 2002)

I've always shot split fingers so it was natural to continue that when I shoot long bow. Honestly I still shoot with wheels but since playing with the long bow I think often of switching. It threw me for a loop trying to figure out whether I should use a relaxed hand on the grip or, heaven forbid, should I use a firm grip since the bow really flipped around on the release. I did fall in love with the instinctive aim part of it and actually made the,stare at the spot and the arrow will appear there, type of thing happen. I bought an old self bow, yew, that has sweated recurve tips, for $5 from a 2nd hand store. After cleaning it up and determining it was sound, I made a string for it. It pulls around 50lbs and shoots sweet but I have been told not to shoot it as it was probably made in the 40's by some master boyer of the day. Basically this is what has kept me from making the leap which will probably require me to sell some bows with the training wheels to afford as sweet a shooter as the old one is.


----------



## dreamcatcher (May 31, 2002)

Wow, Arthur P.! Your input seems a bit negative from my reading. More flies with honey you know. I see valid points you made at the same time if I look past the emotion. 

We could go way far back into "Asiatic" Recurved Composites and a whole slew of traditional long, flat, convexed, recurved bows and practices from the past, and I agree that before the 1950's laminated recurves, Traditional Archery was already a supremely established art. That we should not ever ignore which sadly and all too often is overlooked. Many of these traditions are still alive and well today. By the way Arthur, I am a First Nations person from Canada, and we have what you would are anxious to call 'Traditional Archery', which precedes Fred Bear by thousands of years. I release on my rawhide backed longbow (60#) with the two finger split- the traditional way here from these parts. I'd be damned if you didn't think that my primitive bow weren't as sweet for you to shoot as well as look at! Self nocked wooden arrows all the way man. I'll tell you something else Arthur: although I think there is nothing wrong with gap shooting and Hill was great in my opinion, the gap approach does not exist as a form of Plains Indian hunting in Saskatchewan! Never did with a bow and arrow. But hey, what would I know..  My grandfather for instance, could shoot the eye out of a rabbit at 50 yards when he was alive! When the shot counted he never missed. And a shot never meant as much as what it felt to a person inside. Anchor points are not for the most part common as in the modern traditional as they can vay a lot. But I still admire what Fred Bear and others (Howard Hill, Art Young, etc..) have done for the sport, and of course, the traditional, if you will. I am not here to tell anyone how it is. We all have our own contributions and practices within the realm of Traditional Archery. I just wanna discuss different issues with a level of objectivity=without knocking a practice that isn't my own. Rather, what can I learn from it? 

I think we can all appreciate the fact that there are far better methods of shooting at a 3D competition than instinctive shooting. And I still go with my primitive bows and arrows. Not to be the best for anyone except for myself. To enjoy the fellowship. I would prefer carbon arrows and a quick 60# compound bow to win these things. But that's not what this is all about here.


----------



## Arthur P (May 28, 2002)

Yeah, Dreamcatcher, this thread was poorly timed for me. I'd just been involved in a couple of arguments on other sites. One, a guy flat out proclaimed that if you aren't shooting carbon arrows at 280 fps, then you're an unethical hunter. Another group of guys said if you aren't shooting longbows and wood arrows, instinctive and split finger, then you aren't shooting traditonal. I was a bit hot under the collar, feeling like I was being squeezed between two extremes.

Like you, I was taught how to shoot by my grandfather, a Cherokee who had been taught how to shoot by an Apache. (How's that for a combination? ) Anyway, grampa started me out in 1955 at the ripe old age of 3, shooting the pinch draw and gunbarrelling the arrow. That is the tradition I grew up with. I shot that way until I got into college and took an archery class. My first exposure to split finger/instinctive being THE WAY. Now, some 32 years later, I can't even remember how to shoot pinch draw any more. 

I've heard so many times that split finger and instinctive is the only 'true' traditional shooting style and it simply is not so. As you point out, pre-compound archery had many variations and had many rich traditions steeped in history, depending on region. I've shot gap, instinctive, gunbarrelling and point of aim. I've string walked and face walked. I've shot split finger, 3-under, pinch draw, thumbring and even shot the old wooden release aids (bowlocks and ledges). I guess I've been on a bit of a campain lately trying to bring attention to all those other traditional, or at least pre-compound, shooting styles.

Sorry to have come off sounding like such a jerk.


----------



## MilamberDragon (Jun 12, 2002)

WOW, this thread has been very informative to the styles of Traditional Archery.

I really only thought there where one or two major styles now with that behind us.

Is there any way one of you informative archers could possibly describe each of the styles given above. 

That would be some real good info for the traditional side of this forum.

And also I could find out what I shoot since I was taught years ago and not sure which way I shoot.

~Milamber
Traditional Archery and Fletcher


----------



## ChoPPeR (May 21, 2002)

MilamberDragon, I just like Arthur P am sick of some of these no nothing, so called Traditional Archery Shooters that think the split finger is the only traditional way to shoot. I have had them jump up and down when i would walk up to the stake and deliver the shot three fingers under. I shoot 3 under, under 30 yards and split over 30 yards. I would sometimes ask them if it made them feel better when i would smoke them at 30 yards or better with split fingers.


----------



## Arthur P (May 28, 2002)

Milamber, I'll try to describe those styles as I shoot them. This'n is gonna be kinda long, so bear with me.

Start off with draw methods.

Of course you know what split finger is. Index finger over the nock and the middle and ring fingers under. Some folks like Dreamcatcher use a 2-finger split.

Three under is all three fingers under the nock. 2-under is a variant. I've even seen one guy shooting a shorty compound doing ONE under. Scary looking!

Pinch draw is grabbing the nock of the arrow between the pad of the thumb and the middle joint of the index finger, then hooking the middle and ring fingers on the string to help get the string drawn. Like I said, I've lost the actual technique. Probably my arthritis that keeps my fingers from working right. 

Thumb ring is a ring made of leather, wood, antler or horn, even ivory or silver, and was used mostly by the Turks and Mongols with their composite bows. You hook the thumb under the arrow nock, wrap the index finger over the top of the thumb and draw. To release, you simply relax your finger and the string snaps the thumb out of the way. Arrow is generally shot from the opposite side of the bow.

Ledges and bowlocks were simple blocks of wood that are carved to fit the hand and have a carved in hook to address the string. With the bowlock, your thumb holds the backside of the hook and locks the string in place. You simply relax the thumb to release. With the ledge, the hook is cut so that the hook holds the string by itself, and then rotating the handle with back tension unhooks the string. The very basis for the mechanical back tension releases we've got now. Some later versions of these releases were molded out of plastic.

Okay, now aiming methods. 

Instinctive is the art of learning how to shoot center in the target without paying any attention to the arrow shaft at all, using hand/eye coordination. Many folks just do not have the coordination necessary to become good instinctive shots and wind up trying to use The Force.  Probably the best method for hunting, if you can get good at it.

Gap shooting is paying attention to the tip of the arrow, and learning just how high or low you have to hold the arrow tip in relation to the target for different distances in order to hit center. Excellent hunting aiming method and very popular for target. One point... After shooting gap for a while and getting familiar with it, you wind up paying less and less attention to the gap. In other words, it finally becomes 'instinctive.' 

Point of aim is similar to gap, but instead of aiming relative to the target, you pick a spot on the ground or in the trees behind the target for given distance and aim the point of the arrow directly at that spot to hit center. Very much a target shooting only method.

String walking is a method of changing the placement of the fingers on the string for different distances while using the tip of the arrow for a definite sighting reference on target. For very close targets, the fingers could be a couple of inches below the arrow nock. For long targets, you'd wind up shooting split finger. It does have application for hunting, but was most popular as a target shooting method.
Face walking is similar to string walking in that the tip of the arrow is still used as a hard aiming reference, except the finger position on the string remains constant. The anchor position moves up and down the face. Close targets, the anchor could be well up on the cheekbone, just under the eye. On medium range shots, it would be around the corner of the mouth. On long range shots, the anchor would be under the chin.

Some shooters wind up using a combination of gap, point of aim, string walking and face walking in competition. Where the rules allow, that is. NFAA Barebow class is where you'll see all those methods used.

Both string walking and face walking get into gunbarrelling on the short targets. What that is, is anchoring the arrow nock up close to the eye and sighting directly along the shaft into the target. Very, very accurate for close range shooting out to 20 yards, depending on your arrow speed. Also an excellent method for close encounters in the woods.

I really think a lot of guys that are struggling with instinctive shooting would be shooting a lot better and being more successful in the woods if they would quit worrying about instinctive and explore some of these thechniques.


----------



## MilamberDragon (Jun 12, 2002)

Loss for words on the mass of info in that last post.

Well I am for sure now I am split finger draw. As for aiming I believe it was a point and shoot but I think I am more of a Instinctive shooter. I cant remember off hand, right now its been a long and busy day. But re-reading your aiming section I would say I probably float between point and shoot and instinctive.

Now if I could get my traditional Martin rest installed on my Hunter recurve and stop using my friends everything would be cool. see my post in the traditional section on my problem.

~Milamber
Traditional Archer who needs sleep.


----------



## dreamcatcher (May 31, 2002)

Hey guys. Just have a moment right now.....but this forum is looking pretty exciting..... Arthur, I respect your knowledge and experience. Great read! No worries.  

I think that we all can learn and bypass much of the ignorance out there. I believe this openness is a sure way of respect amongst us Traditional Archers. I'll write more tomorrow- kids are going crazy at the moment! Later.

Looking forward to it.
- Deamcatcher


----------



## Woodbear (Jun 15, 2002)

This is a fantastic thread!I've been shooting wheels and cams for about 20 years now but find myself drawn more and more towards traditional.The beauty and simplicity of the traditional bow has really begun to appeal to me.Makes me remember when I was just a kid and compounds hadn't quite come into being yet.Sure had alot of fun with those cheap old stickbows.(not referring to the excellent,high quality and expensive, bows being offered today)All the above information has been extremely helpful.


----------



## johnman (Nov 22, 2002)

wow- great thread!! I have been shooting compounds and just am sick of crating around the heavy thing and constant tuning the bastage! I used to shoot recurves when I was a teen( kod magnums... and remember the simplicity of it. I recently ordered a reflex defles longbow 50# and am waiting for it in the mail - can't wait to use it after reading this thread. I can remember shooting at ranges over 50 yds with decent success as a teen shooting a righty bow left handed lol. I watch shooting world on the tv last week and was watching a guy shoot asprin out of the air with a longbow!!!! He started with 4 inch disks, then quarters, then asprin - no way to do that with a compound period!!!! It is my hope that I can get rid of the compounds soon if this bow shoots like I think it will !!!

It's not that you kill, but how you make a kill that matters!


----------



## Shakes.602 (Nov 13, 2002)

I used to shoot a recurve in my younger days also, and just recently got bit by the Archery Bug again.  The compound is fun, but I like my recurve too. 
Thanks for this Thread, explains a lot of things I wasnt too clear on. Guess I am a combination shooter also, and thats not such a bad thing. :rolleyes


----------



## critter22 (Jun 6, 2012)

*Thanks!*

Hey! not sure if anyone would still be looking at this thread or not. I registered on here mainly to thank everyone for creating such a great thread. I am just getting into archery. i have done it before but never avidly and i've never owned my own bow. i'm more of a knife thrower, but i've recently decided to take up archery more seriously and have been doing a lot of research to figure out what kind of bow would be good for me. i have to say that looking all across the web, there are a lot of archery video's and threads that seem really stuffy. i enjoy experimenting with different methods of whatever i'm doing. i've had a difficult time looking for bows because i want one that's ambidextrous yet good for hunting (at least small game), and good for fun activities such as shooting moving targets or shooting while on the move (running, horseback, back of truck or riding lawnmower). it has been rather difficult to research bows good for these uses and i have come across some very opinionated remarks. so i wanted to let everyone that contributed here know that this is one of the most open, respectful and informative thread i have come across. it has helped me to decide what kind of bow i want. a pse snake recurve bow. only 22# but shoots ambidextrous and seems durable, fun and good enough for small game...maybe even fish if i can find a way to rig up a reel without drilling a hole (there's no hole drilled for that). i've already ordered it and i'm excited to get it so that i can try all the shooting methods that i learning about! i even want to get a thumb ring and try to shoot like ghengis khan


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I met and attended Fred Asbells shooting clinic and read his books - and he does not teach that you have to release as soon as you hit anchor


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

Sharp is right on that point. If you watch his original video he discusses just that. He explains that over time his shot sequence has gotten faster but that it works for him. Not necessarily the best method for everyone or for learning.

Dang... just realized this thread is over 10 years old!


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Dang... just realized this thread is over 10 years old!


Lol! Doesn't matter though hey.


----------



## mrjeffro (Jul 25, 2007)

very well explained on the differences in aiming. Thank you :thumbs_up



Arthur P said:


> Milamber, I'll try to describe those styles as I shoot them. This'n is gonna be kinda long, so bear with me.
> 
> Start off with draw methods.
> 
> ...


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Sharp is right on that point. If you watch his original video he discusses just that. He explains that over time his shot sequence has gotten faster but that it works for him. Not necessarily the best method for everyone or for learning.
> 
> Dang... just realized this thread is over 10 years old!




Yeah,caught me off guard too. I was thinking that we sure are seeing lots of new people on the forum lately. And why are the usual suspects not getting in it? Maybe everyone is staying quiet because of the recent thread that some newbie started about what jerks we are. So I was planning to be quiet too and just see how it developed with the 'new' people involved.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

With true Instinctive Aiming...an archer will either shoot as soon as they reach anchor or very shortly after.

If an archer holds anchor and is deliberately adjusting their sight picture...there is a level of conscious awareness that is being demonstrated that is NOT the same as demonstrated by a true Instinctive shooter who shoots by reflex in a fluid motion as an athlete throws or shoots a ball.

There is a key difference otherwize it's basically the same technique that most Gap shooters use who only focus on the target.

There is a direct correlation to an archer's direct line of sight and the conscious mind.

Ray :shade:


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

Miss Arthur P.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I enjoyed reading G Freds book but found Byrons book "Become the Arrow" better for me, I met G Fred and talked with him at Denton Hill, he's a nice guy and a real Gent.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Arther P. has it dead on in my oppinion


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

How does the level of speed during the shot affect the "trueness" of the instinctivosity? :wink:

I fail to see any correlation. Your either referencing something conciously or you're not. I fail to see the shades of grey in this one.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

This archer is a perfect example of an archer shooting purely and totally Instinctively.

Note the similarities to his technique to the technique used by a person throwing a ball. It's very fluid and a refex action in response to the target.

It does not involve holding a postion while at full draw and than deliberately adjusting the sight picture until it looks right.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Str8 Shooter said:


> How does the level of speed during the shot affect the "trueness" of the instinctivosity? :wink:
> 
> Your either referencing something conciously or you're not.


The more time that is spent at full draw adjusting the sight picture...the more time the conscious mind has to become aware of the aiming reference/references....and when the aiming reference is closer to or within the archer's direct line of sight to the target...it's impossible to not to be consciously aware of the aiming reference at some level.

It's a matter of studing and understanding the correlation between the eyes and the mind and how we use objects within our sight picture to execute a movement or task.

Ray :shade:


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

10 years ago or yesterday, Arther P had it figured out, especially the last sentence.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

The archer in the video is also shooting at close range, where 'instinctive' works best.


----------



## airwolf (Jul 28, 2005)

blackwolf, that video shows shooting instinctive at like 5 yards. anybody could do that in time but add distance and you can pretty much throw your instinctive abilities right out the window without some frame of reference


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

He we go guys here is a video of me shooting my Morrison & BF Extreme limbs 

How am I shooting gap or instinctive 

I shoot what I believe to be instinctive but no worries say what ya think  


http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa302/jparanee/6c28feec.mp4


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

JParanee said:


> He we go guys here is a video of me shooting my Morrison & BF Extreme limbs
> 
> How am I shooting gap or instinctive
> 
> ...


Nice wall :wink:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

airwolf said:


> blackwolf, that video shows shooting instinctive at like 5 yards. anybody could do that in time but  add distance and you can pretty much throw your instinctive abilities right out the window without some frame of reference



Really. And you know this how? Can you prove that statement? Just because YOU don't have the capability,does not mean that I don't,and many many more good instinctive shooters.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

JParanee said:


> He we go guys here is a video of me shooting my Morrison & BF Extreme limbs
> 
> How am I shooting gap or instinctive
> 
> ...



At least we know that it was not instinctive because you hold a couple of seconds at anchor. And then we could draw a line from your eye to the target and prove that you are aiming with the arrow. 
Now aren't you glad you posted that ? :wink:


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

*Several posts deleted. this is a 10 year old thread bumped up and I don't want it to turn into another push and shove forum battle. A Warning and an Infraction handed out. Any continued thread derailing or arguing will end up in bans. *


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

centershot said:


> The archer in the video is also shooting at close range, where 'instinctive' works best.


:thumbs_up

Generally speaking...that is correct.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> And as usual the thread was perfectly peaceful and civil before this post.


How is that post not civil?

Ray :shade:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

What did I miss ?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> How am I shooting gap or instinctive
> 
> I shoot what I believe to be instinctive but no worries say what ya think


Based on your anchor, shooting Split Finger and the fact your target was about 10yrds. away (a guess) your arrow tip was not at Point On or very close to your direct line of sight so you could be shooting either.

I also didn't see you adjusting your sight picture much once you hit anchor. It appeared you were consciously focusing on some aspect of your form.

Just because an archer ONLY focuses on the target does NOT mean they are shooting totally instinctively. Most Gap shooters focus ONLY on the target and at some level...as low as it might be...they are aware to some degree of their aiming reference within their sight picture.

Many of the people that think Instinctive aiming is like that believe you can use a sight Instinctively...which really isn't the case.

Ray :shade:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

steve morley said:


> Nice wall :wink:


Thanks 

I love stone work


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

airwolf said:


> blackwolf, that video shows shooting instinctive at like 5 yards. anybody could do that in time but add distance and you can pretty much throw your instinctive abilities right out the window without some frame of reference


Just about anybody can do anything if they have the determination and perseverence to learn it...just as anyone could learn to shoot high scores in a NFAA 300 round.

The video wasn't shared to demonstrate how Instinctive shooting is a superior aiming technique at longer distances.

The video was shared to show what an archer looks like when they are aiming totally Instinctively.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> I love stone work


Did you do it?

Ray :shade:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Based on your anchor, shooting Split Finger and the fact your target was about 10yrds. away (a guess) your arrow tip was not at Point On or very close to your direct line of sight so you could be shooting either.
> 
> I also didn't see you adjusting your sight picture much once you hit anchor. It appeared you were consciously focusing on some aspect of your form.
> 
> ...



The target was about 20 yds and I was definitely trying to be conscious of my form that's why my daugther took the video, always trying to improve  

I was a snap shooter so I am trying to achieve a solid anchor and hold, so far I am very happy with the results 

How does the rest look ?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Did you do it?
> 
> Ray :shade:


No Ray I'm not that talented


----------



## muzzleloader50 (Mar 10, 2011)

this is for ray
I've read quite a bit of what you said about instictive.agree mostly because i do not know what my mind is seeing when i shoot.i do not shoot at paper my son and i set
up cans bottles milk jugs up all over the yard.we do not know the yardage. normally i concentrate on i spot and whlle bringing the bow up i am drawing
as soon as i hit anchor the arrow flies most times i do not realize the release untill its over.95% hits on targets out to 25yds within a couple of inches beyound that meaning 2 inches from a can is this considered instictive seems like to many definitions about what is and is not


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> No Ray I'm not that talented


Either way...I can also appreciate fine masonary work. Looks great! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> I really think a lot of guys that are struggling with instinctive shooting would be shooting a lot better and being more successful in the woods if they would quit worrying about instinctive and explore some of these thechniques.













Unless you are engaging in a competitive venue that prohibits using certain methods or accessories, or you are a member of a “traditional” group/club that has rules that the powers to be have determined what they believe is or is not traditional, which commonly are invented, the end game is accuracy; how you get there is your biz and no one else’s.

Over the years I have shot with and/or observed may trad shooters and it is my opinion that very few shooters ever become skillfully proficient using the so called “instinctive” method of shooting, and many that are able to become somewhat proficient using the instinctive method are only so if they shoot at a very close range.

PS: Don’t be misled by all the claims or observations of skill and accuracy by (some) shooters who claim they shoot purely instinctive and be deceived into believing that anyone can do the same or that you can do the same, or that to be a true tradder you must do the same; because many that claim or actually believe they are not aiming in some manner, actually are. Some honestly don't realize they do aim in some manner or sense, some do but deny they do because they believe that aiming is not trad. How ridiculous is that?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

muzzleloader50 said:


> agree mostly because i do not know what my mind is seeing when i shoot.


One of the easiest and most common ways to help people understand how our eyes and mind work together is to talk them through a typical driving experience.

When a person is driving down the road...the closer an object is to the drivers direct line of sight...the more conscious they are of it....to the level thatthey can generally describe those objects in better detail...but when objects are further from the driver's direct line of sight...they usually can't describe those objects in as much detail. That's because they are not as consciously aware or focused on those objects when compared to the objects closer or within their direct line of sight.

When a person is driving...they are consciously aware at some level of the other cars around them...IF...they are within the driver's periphial vision or direct line of sight. The closer a car is to the driver's direct line of sight...the more consciously aware they are of that car...and the same basically applies to arrows and other aiming references.

Does that help?



muzzleloader50 said:


> seems like to many definitions about what is and is not


There are...and that's why there is sooo much debate and why it's confusing for some people.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

WindWalker said:


> Unless you are engaging in a competitive venue that prohibits using certain methods or accessories, or you are a member of a “traditional” group/club that has rules that the powers to be have determined what they believe is or is not traditional, which commonly are invented, the end game is accuracy; how you get there is your biz and no one else’s.
> 
> Over the years I have shot with and/or observed may trad shooters and it is my opinion that very few shooters ever become skillfully proficient using the so called “instinctive” method of shooting, and many that are able to become somewhat proficient using the instinctive method are only so if they shoot at a very close range.
> 
> PS: Don’t be misled by all the claims or observations of skill and accuracy by (some) shooters who claim they shoot purely instinctive and be deceived into believing that anyone can do the same or that you can do the same, or that to be a true tradder you must do the same; because many that claim or actually believe they are not aiming in some manner, actually are. Some honestly don't realize they do aim in some manner or sense, some do but deny they do because they believe that aiming is not trad. How ridiculous is that?


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## muzzleloader50 (Mar 10, 2011)

Thanks ray and windwalker i agree i shot a bear bow in the 70's with sights then dropped them been shooting without ever since even my compound bow. traditional does not mean much to me just like to shoot if my mind can sight for me without me thinking about it just makes it easier


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> I was a snap shooter so I am trying to achieve a solid anchor and hold, so far I am very happy with the results
> 
> How does the rest look ?


I think it's looking great! :thumbs_up

Just to clarify....there are some snap shooters who have a very consistent draw length and anchor even though they shoot very fast.

With that being said....snap shooting is best used for moving targets at close distance where pin point accuracy isn't what is necessarily needed. 

I would NEVER recommend snap shooting for any archer wanting to compete...unless it was a competition on aerial targets or where time was a major part of the shot.

Ray :shade:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Thanks Ray 

on moving targets I still snap shoot


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> Thanks Ray


You're welcome!



JParanee said:


> on moving targets I still snap shoot


Have you ever wonder or considered why you still snap shoot on moving targets?

Or why most archers who are good at shooting those kinds of targets shoot very quickly?

Ray :shade:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If I don't snap shoot on moving targets I miss them 

If I let it flow I'm on if hat makes sense


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> If I don't snap shoot on moving targets I miss them
> 
> If I let it flow I'm on if hat makes sense


Totally makes sense and it's also the clue to begining to understand the difference between the percieved belief in what Instinctive aiming involves and what true Instinctive aiming really is

When you try to slow it down...the conscious mind tries and more often than not...takes over part of the aiming process...which is what usually happens when an archer is holding anchor and deliberately adjusting their sight picture.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

WindWalker said:


> able to become somewhat proficient using the instinctive method are only so if they shoot at a very close range.


This is something that's always interested me. The further away the target is, the instinctive technique seems less effective. Is the instinctive technique still used at 60, 80 and 100 yards. If it is, how effective is it compared to other aiming/shooting techniques?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Yewselfbow said:


> The further away the target is, the instinctive technique seems less effective.


Correct...if it's in regards to consistent accuracy. Some archers aiming Instinctively can make some AMAZING shots at targets from far away...but the problem is doing it again and again and again.



Yewselfbow said:


> Is the instinctive technique still used at 60, 80 and 100 yards. If it is, how effective is it compared to other aiming/shooting techniques?


It's not very effective at long distances because of the amount of deviation of distance and how exact the gaps need to be at those distances.

The further the target is...the harder it is to judge the exact distance or have the body respond appropriately that the errors made in judging distance or body placement are magnified at longer distances.

True Instinctive aiming relies more on motor/muscle memory than it does anything else...and the closer the targets are within 20yrds or less...body positioning is very similar for those targets.

Since throwing a ball is very similar to true Instinctive aiming...the same applies to target distance. A person throwing a ball is much more accurate at closer distances than they are longer distances for basically the same reasons.

Ray :shade:


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> this is a 10 year old thread bumped up


 I thought I observed a bit of mold on my screen. Still relevant, though.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Luckily the days of people being taught to shoot "trad" you have to shoot like G Fred seem to be behind us. Whatever good he has done in the world of bowhunting I think the harm his methods did to people learning to shoot recurves and longbows far out weigh that.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> With true Instinctive Aiming...an archer will either shoot as soon as they reach anchor or very shortly after.
> 
> If an archer holds anchor and is deliberately adjusting their sight picture...there is a level of conscious awareness that is being demonstrated that is NOT the same as demonstrated by a true Instinctive shooter who shoots by reflex in a fluid motion as an athlete throws or shoots a ball.
> 
> ...



I missed some things that are too obvious to pass on, and I do want to try and be thorough.

1. an archer will either shoot as soon as they reach anchor or very shortly after. Yeah,probably so. But just exactly how long is very shortly? One second or three seconds? So I take it that 'very shortly' is variable. An opinion?

2. If an archer holds anchor and is deliberately adjusting their sight picture. How long is permissible? one forth of a second or two seconds? It's a real question,I would like an answer. How would someone else besides the shooter know for sure if he is deliberately doing it? So then an observer could only guess and give his opinion if it's a deliberate action or not?

3.a level of concious awareness that is being demonstrated. I can't say that I believe that's false because I like to think that I personally demonstrate some level of concious awareness all the time,even right now. What level of concious awareness is involved in the shot process for an instinctive shooter? Who knows? For someone to say that they know is also,once again an opinion. 

4.the key difference between what? An instinctive shooter and a gap shooter who only focuses on the target? See,once again that's your opinion with no proof. My opinion is that the gap shooter focuses on the distance between the arrow point and the target. But that's just my opinion and in no way makes me an authority on gap shooting.

5.A direct correlation between an archers line of sight and the concious mind. Yeah, if he is concious and has his eyes open. It's not exactly new information that a person with their eyes open can see some things that they are not intentionally focusing on. I think there's even a big long word for it. Not to worry about the word though,lets think about how much he actually see's in the line of sight. Everyone may(probably) have an opinion here. So once again it boils down to opinions.

Now I said all that to say this. When you use words like "true" instinctive and variable terms like 'very shortly' you are then representing yourself as an expert in lots of areas. Probably won't hold much water,'in my opinion".


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

:darkbeer:


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

SteveB said:


> Miss Arthur P.


Me too. I wonder whatever happened to him.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

A common cause for some arguments and derailing of a thread is when someone expresses what he or she firmly believes and does not preface their belief/opinion with terms that indicate they are not certain about their belief or knowledge. I don't agree with everything that Wolf states/believes as I am sure he does not agree with everything I say or believe, but that he uses such terms as "true" or "very shortly" is in no way indicative that Wolf considers himself to be the last word expert. I simply conclude that he firmly stands behind what he believes, and I suspect his belief is somewhat supported by his experience. Sounds to me like a situation of respectfully agreeing to disagree.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

WindWalker said:


> A common cause for some arguments and derailing of a thread is when someone expresses what he or she firmly believes and does not preface their belief/opinion with terms that indicate they are not certain about their belief or knowledge. I don't agree with everything that Wolf states/believes as I am sure he does not agree with everything I say or believe, but that he uses such terms as "true" or "very shortly" is in no way indicative that Wolf considers himself to be the last word expert. I simply conclude that he firmly stands behind what he believes, and I suspect his belief is somewhat supported by his experience. Sounds to me like a situation of respectfully agreeing to disagree.



As I firmly stand behind my position that the use of 'truly instinctive' and going on to say that one knows for sure, no doubt about it, where some imaginary line exists between true instinctive and some other method is indicative of ones bsability.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Totally makes sense and it's also the clue to begining to understand the difference between the percieved belief in what Instinctive aiming involves and what true Instinctive aiming really is
> 
> When you try to slow it down...the conscious mind tries and more often than not...takes over part of the aiming process...which is what usually happens when an archer is holding anchor and deliberately adjusting their sight picture.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Umm...yes & no. actually Ray...The conscious mind is controlling the shot wither it is shot fast or slow. The individuals physical make up will determine if they are able to fully utilize what is being transmitted along the neural pathways..

We all aim to some degree if we have fully functioning eyesight..no matter what style we shoot..The brain triangulates distances well..and and utilizes stored memories of past events such as throwing that ball..or shooting that arrow and all we have to do is start the arrow off in the right direction..just as a ball player does with his body position or the archer does when starting his draw..the main difference is timing just as you said..and how quick the shot/throw is made.Conscious thought is the slowest function the brain does..and the reaction time slows dramatically when it is involved..which can bungle the throw...or the shot.

The real problem as I see it..is we are taking a individual event (instinctive shooting of 1 arrow) and trying to turn it into a competition of sorts (multiple shot of target archery)..and moving away from the fundamentals of practical accuracy ( getting 1 arrow into a individual/animal) to target accuracy (multiple bulls eyes...ie bragging rights to self or others )

What works well with 1...does not necessarily work well doing the other..and all of the people that belittle G.Fred and his style of shooting or anyone else whose style doesn't abide by what is or isn't "proper form" of target archery.... can not grasp this.... as evident by some of the comments made about it by those who feel "proper form" and shooting bulls eyes are paramount to accuracy ....

Common sense goes out the window in these types of discussion by some...Common sense should dictate..when shooting multiple arrows into the smallest group..the best and most consistent way to do this is to aim...Only a individuals pride stands in the way of accepting this..Wither they do or don't aim is a matter of self honesty...which is what I believe Forrest is stating...and I agree 100% with..but it is entirely possible that folks do shoot incredible shots at various times and distances...because we all have moments of acute mental clarity..in which everything comes together..for those shots to happen.

Mac


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

airwolf said:


> blackwolf, that video shows shooting instinctive at like 5 yards. anybody could do that in time but add distance and you can pretty much throw your instinctive abilities right out the window without some frame of reference


There's a few shots in here that are well over 5yds and there's little doubt they re being shot "instinctively"..


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I missed some things that are too obvious to pass on, and I do want to try and be thorough.
> 
> 1. an archer will either shoot as soon as they reach anchor or very shortly after. Yeah,probably so. But just exactly how long is very shortly? One second or three seconds? So I take it that 'very shortly' is variable. An opinion?
> 
> ...



I believe these to be fair questions that deserve clarification.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I missed some things that are too obvious to pass on, and I do want to try and be thorough.
> 
> 1. an archer will either shoot as soon as they reach anchor or very shortly after. Yeah,probably so. But just exactly how long is very shortly? One second or three seconds? So I take it that 'very shortly' is variable. An opinion?
> 
> ...


I'm not Ray...but I'll tell you what I think...

1)..no..to me it's not viable..or an option..to hold for any lenght of time to be construed either way. Others feel differently I know...but to hold at draw for any time is allowing for aquisition of a sight picture..This is aiming...Instinctual..the sight picture is already predetermined..

2)According to who ? If your aquiring a sight picture..and adjusting for it...your not shooting instinctively..If you can see someone doing this..you can say this is what they are doing..This isn't rocket science...lol...lol...lol

3)He consciously is aware of where his target is..he is positioning his body to line up the shot..What is not to know unless a person has put themselves into some kind of trance state where they have no recollection of what they are doing.. Again..this is not an opinion..but what we all must do..

4)..I honestly don't know what any one else is focusing on..but..I can tell you when they should be..and that is when they release..It's up to the individual really..For my self..when hunting...I am not focusing on any spot on the animal..I have already determined where I am going to shoot the animal..My concintration is focused on what the animal is doing..where it is looking..where it is listening..it's tail movement..it's gait..I only change my focus the second before I release the arrow..but I still am watching in my perhiprial vison the animals movement..

5) well that will depend on where the arrow is in regards to the archers line of sight..If it is well below..or well within... as to how much they are more aware of..Most people I know can't mentally block something out if it is right in front of their eye or very close to that..

Mac


----------



## Eldermike (Mar 24, 2009)

If I suppose for a minute that non-aiming archery exists, but it's not working, IOW I am missing my target, what do I fix?


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Eldermike said:


> If I suppose for a minute that non-aiming archery exists, but it's not working, IOW I am missing my target, what do I fix?


Move closer

Mac


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> Luckily the days of people being taught to shoot "trad" you have to shoot like G Fred seem to be behind us. Whatever good he has done in the world of bowhunting I think the harm his methods did to people learning to shoot recurves and longbows far out weigh that.



Sorry, not buying into this....we as humans have what is called "free choice" and a mind...there are so many books and videos on shooting, that it boggles the mind...I get tired of hearing poeple who shoot lousy blaming G. Fred and his books and methods...if I have half a brain, and try a style, and it is making me a horrible shot..then I'm not spending much time with that and looking for another method...these people act like his style is the only one being taught....and they have no option but to continue with that....

If his style was that detrimental...you would think that after all these years, his books would still not be the most sold, his classes and shooting seminars would not be so well attended, Ken Beck and Black Widow would not sponsor him or his seminars. His booth at Denton Hill is the most crowded booth all weekend.... He stated his style is not for everyone....

He has killed far more critters than I ever will...and I have talked to people who have gone stump shooting with him, Tom Parsons, and Johnny Buck...and they say if you go, get ready to eat humble pie and maybe lose some cash in the process as well.... I do not subscribe to everything he teaches...nor do I with others as well....I take a little something from every book, style, and shooter I see or talk to....I have learned from Fred, Byron, Rod Jenkins and Denny Sturgis and MBB videos, some things from Ricky Welch....and use what works and discard what doesn't....

Sometimes I believe G. Fred is the scapegoat for people who shoot poorly and want to place the blame elsewhere....he has been around too long for it to be that bad.....if a style does not work for you, find something else....

As far as instinctive being the only trad shooting method....ridiculous..BUT...in the non trad community....if you shoot a stickbow...people automatically assume you shoot instinctive...I get that all the time...but for those in "trad" to feel that way..well, the neotrads have their opinions...don't necesarily agree with them....

Not sure if I shoot instinctive, or what....do I see the arrow...probably..do I consciously use it to aim..not that I am aware of..I think I use what Scott Antczak calls in one of his shooting videos as..."feel good gapping", I draw, and adjust my bow hand/arm to what feels good as far as distance, probably using my arrow as well....hard to explain....I'll have to go back and watch it again....

Promised myself not to get involved in another Instinctive thread......another promise broken.....


Lee


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MAC 11700 said:


> Umm...yes & no. actually Ray...The conscious mind is controlling the shot wither it is shot fast or slow.


Umm...as much as we have talked about this...you should know where I stand.

The conscious mind has to be in control to some degree...but it is NOT in total control when it gives out orders for other parts of the brain to carry out....just as a captain of a ship gives out orders to other people on the ship to perform certain tasks. If the captain (conscious mind) was in TOTAL control...he would be doing EVERYTHING on the ship...not just giving out the orders. This is just one of the many reasons why when we consciously want to hit a target...we sometimes miss. 



MAC 11700 said:


> We all aim to some degree if we have fully functioning eyesight..no matter what style we shoot..The brain triangulates distances well..and and utilizes stored memories of past events such as throwing that ball..or shooting that arrow and all we have to do is start the arrow off in the right direction..just as a ball player does with his body position or the archer does when starting his draw..the main difference is timing just as you said..and how quick the shot/throw is made.


:thumbs_up



MAC 11700 said:


> Conscious thought is the slowest function the brain does..and the reaction time slows dramatically when it is involved..which can bungle the throw...or the shot.


EXACTLY!!!! which is why when an archer or athlete slows down their movements they become MORE consciously aware of those movements and body positions...AND...why our conscious minds don't recognize every specific aspect of carring out every part of a movement..when it is executed quickly.



MAC 11700 said:


> What works well with 1...does not necessarily work well doing the other..and all of the people that belittle G.Fred and his style of shooting or anyone else whose style doesn't abide by what is or isn't "proper form" of target archery.... can not grasp this.... as evident by some of the comments made about it by those who feel "proper form" and shooting bulls eyes are paramount to accuracy ....


:thumbs_up



MAC 11700 said:


> Wither they do or don't aim is a matter of self honesty...


Based on the definition of 'aim' I have researched....ANY and EVERY archer pointing their bow and arrow at a target with the intensions of hitting it...are at some level aiming...so I believe EVERY archer aims. The difference is how they aim.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

fotoguy said:


> Sorry, not buying into this....we as humans have what is called "free choice" and a mind...there are so many books and videos on shooting, that it boggles the mind...I get tired of hearing poeple who shoot lousy blaming G. Fred and his books and methods...if I have half a brain, and try a style, and it is making me a horrible shot..then I'm not spending much time with that and looking for another method...these people act like his style is the only one being taught....and they have no option but to continue with that....
> 
> If his style was that detrimental...you would think that after all these years, his books would still not be the most sold, his classes and shooting seminars would not be so well attended, Ken Beck and Black Widow would not sponsor him or his seminars. His booth at Denton Hill is the most crowded booth all weekend.... He stated his style is not for everyone....
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Well said fotoguy, A wise man once said "You can learn something from every coach, what you do with it is up to you". Good or bad, take what you like from your coaching/experience and move on.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

My experience with Fred was that I read his first book on instinctive shooting and shot my bow. I never got into the bending over thing and all that and sort of developed my own style of shooting loosely based on his book. I later attended his shooting clinic at Black Widow and trying to do what he said I should be doing - I messed up my shooting - and eventually went back to the way I was shootiung and pretty much threw $400.00 to the wind for that clinic - but that is just me. I can also say this - that the guys I see bending over and shooting like Fred - shoot like crap. Fred has a great book on stalking and stillhunting and he hs proven himself to be an excellent hunter - but as far as shooting - he is average at best and very few people can get very accurate shooting the way that he recommends. And I do tend to agree that Fred for a time became the "gold standard" of shooting a trad bow and I also agree that a good many guys tried tradbows and tried shooting the way he said it should be done and gave up and went back to compounds because they could not get accurate - remember for a while - to the bowhunter - he was the only one with books on how to shoot a tradbow for bowhunting - at least the only books that most guys knew of.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MAC 11700 said:


> I'm not Ray...but I'll tell you what I think...


No...but maybe your my Minimee :wink: Just kidding :wink:



MAC 11700 said:


> 1)to hold at draw for any time is allowing for aquisition of a sight picture..This is aiming...Instinctual..the sight picture is already predetermined.


I'm not so cut and dry on this question. It depends on what the archer is consciously concentrating on while at full draw. Some archers are concentrating on one thing at a time and are focusing on aspects of their form instead of their aiming. What I do know is...the longer an archer holds at full draw...the harder it is to consciously ignore the aiming references withion the sight picture.



MAC 11700 said:


> 2)If your aquiring a sight picture..and adjusting for it...your not shooting instinctively..If you can see someone doing this..you can say this is what they are doing.


Again....every archer that is using their vision will have a sight picture...and every archer will make adjustments with their bodies to try and hit that target. 'One' of the keys in understanding if an archer is truly aiming totally Instinctively is based on the speed of the shot. 

If an archer is holding at anchor for a couple of seconds or more...I do NOT believe they are aiming totally Instinctively.

Do I know the EXACT amount of time an archer can hold at anchor and still be shooting totally Instinctively? No...but in general I would say it's very short.



MAC 11700 said:


> 3)He consciously is aware of where his target is.


:thumbs_up

I would also add that the archer is also consciously aware of the decision to draw the bow.



MAC 11700 said:


> 4)I honestly don't know what any one else is focusing on


:thumbs_up BUT...anyone can get a good idea of what an archer is focusing on by having a picture of them at full draw with the target in the picture. What a person is looking at is based on a linear line. Anything within that line is in their direct line of sight. Anything outside of it that can still be seen is in their periphial vision.



MAC 11700 said:


> 5) well that will depend on where the arrow is in regards to the archers line of sight..If it is well below..or well within... as to how much they are more aware of..Most people I know can't mentally block something out if it is right in front of their eye or very close to that.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

*Thank you guys for keeping the board clean. You folks are able to get your points across without having to attack one another and derailing a good thread. It looks to me that some good stuff is getting added to this 10 year old thread. Please stay and course....The thread is much easier to read and comprehend when We don't have to read between the arguments. 
Thanks,
simon*


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> With true Instinctive Aiming...an archer will either shoot as soon as they reach anchor or very shortly after.
> 
> If an archer holds anchor and is deliberately adjusting their sight picture...there is a level of conscious awareness that is being demonstrated that is NOT the same as demonstrated by a true Instinctive shooter who shoots by reflex in a fluid motion as an athlete throws or shoots a ball.
> 
> ...



But this post is more specific. It seems to me that any time holding vs snap shooting determines the difference. 1/1000 of a second is a measurable amount of time. Maybe that's what you mean by very shortly. I Might be a gapper and don't know it so I'm trying to decide. At which point in measureable time do I cross the threshold from instinctive to gapping. If in fact I'm really gapping then I'm either pretty good at it because I'm doing without even knowing it or pretty bad at it because I'm not payin close enough attention to adjusting the gap.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

centershot said:


> A wise man once said "You can learn something from every coach, what you do with it is up to you". Good or bad, take what you like from your coaching/experience and move on.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ray :shade:


----------



## Eldermike (Mar 24, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> Move closer
> 
> Mac


That's funny


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> At which point in measureable time do I cross the threshold from instinctive to gapping.


I think it can vary from person to person...BUT...as I said...the longer an archer holds at anchor...the more consciously aware they will become of the objects within their sight picture.



FORESTGUMP said:


> If in fact I'm really gapping then I'm either pretty good at it because I'm doing without even knowing it or pretty bad at it because I'm not payin close enough attention to adjusting the gap.


Just because you're not paying close attention to adjusting the gap doesn't mean that you're no good at it or not doing it at all. What determines if you're good or bad at it is how well were you able to hit your target.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Eldermike said:


> That's funny


Funny...but true :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> My experience with Fred was that I read his first book on instinctive shooting and shot my bow. I never got into the bending over thing and all that and sort of developed my own style of shooting loosely based on his book. I later attended his shooting clinic at Black Widow and trying to do what he said I should be doing - I messed up my shooting - and eventually went back to the way I was shootiung and pretty much threw $400.00 to the wind for that clinic - but that is just me. I can also say this - that the guys I see bending over and shooting like Fred - shoot like crap. Fred has a great book on stalking and stillhunting and he hs proven himself to be an excellent hunter - but as far as shooting - he is average at best and very few people can get very accurate shooting the way that he recommends. And I do tend to agree that Fred for a time became the "gold standard" of shooting a trad bow and I also agree that a good many guys tried tradbows and tried shooting the way he said it should be done and gave up and went back to compounds because they could not get accurate - remember for a while - to the bowhunter - he was the only one with books on how to shoot a tradbow for bowhunting - at least the only books that most guys knew of.


Sharp..while I agree with you that at one time, he was the standard...now...with the internet, books, videos, etc...I still hear people blaming him for their lousy shooting....from folks I know who have talked to him..he is an above average shot at best....maybe not target wise, but stump shooting, roving, etc they claim he is an excellent shot....I have never attended one of his seminars...so I can't speak to that...but it just seems to me that if his method is that bad, and ruined that many people..that over time his popularity and such would be damaged...there are too many other alternatives out there...but yet he is still one of the most popular...

My beef is with those who blame him for their lousy shooting....you went back to a method that works for you...all I am saying is all of those "ruined" shooters had that same choice...do I agree with his methods...not all...but do I discredit everything...no.....he states openly that his method is for hunting..period..something he has definitely been successful at, as you stated as well....he never claims it is for target, 3d, whatever....and give him credit..he never has.....

Maybe I am different...but if I tried a method that did not work..I would seek another method....those guys that went back to compounds after trying his method....did they really want to shoot stickbows, and find a successful method..or realized it was a little harder than they thought and just went back to their comfort zone? Let me also state that I do not fault people for shooting compounds...

I just think it is a tad shallow to blame him for their poor shooting....we all pick things out of books and videos that don't work....like Fred bending over is the predominant one...if it doesn't work..don't bend over! That would be like watching a Rick Welch video, and on every shot his right hand flaps out..almost like looking out of control...but yet he is a World Champ...but if that is what I picked out of his video, and tried that.....I am sure I would be having issues.....but then should I discredit his method entirely and blame my bad shooting because I tried the hand flip and I can't shoot like him...omitting the fact that the rest of his method has validity?

Every time I hear about Fred it is the same..the bending over, the swing draw..all methods that work for him but maybe not others..but I never hear about his chapters on grip, torque, hand placement, overbowing, concentration, etc..things that are pretty much what most feel proper form and technique....

No, I am not promoting his book or style.....but I just grow weary of people, even nowadays, who blame their poor shooting on one person....at one point..maybe....but not now....not with all the resources available......all I am saying.......it's too easy to make excuses...and play the blame game.....


Lee


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

fotoguy said:


> Sharp..while I agree with you that at one time, he was the standard...now...with the internet, books, videos, etc...I still hear people blaming him for their lousy shooting....from folks I know who have talked to him..he is an above average shot at best....maybe not target wise, but stump shooting, roving, etc they claim he is an excellent shot....I have never attended one of his seminars...so I can't speak to that...but it just seems to me that if his method is that bad, and ruined that many people..that over time his popularity and such would be damaged...there are too many other alternatives out there...but yet he is still one of the most popular...
> 
> *My beef is with those who blame him for their lousy shooting*....you went back to a method that works for you...*all I am saying is all of those "ruined" shooters had that same choice*...do I agree with his methods...not all...but do I discredit everything...no.....he states openly that his method is for hunting..period..something he has definitely been successful at, as you stated as well....he never claims it is for target, 3d, whatever....and give him credit..he never has.....
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

"but I just grow weary of people, even nowadays, who blame their poor shooting on one person"

Not me!.......just as long as they realize it's themselves.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

voodoofire1 said:


> Not me!.......just as long as they realize it's themselves.


:thumbs_up :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

FORESTGUMP said:


> But this post is more specific. It seems to me that any time holding vs snap shooting determines the difference. 1/1000 of a second is a measurable amount of time. Maybe that's what you mean by very shortly. I Might be a gapper and don't know it so I'm trying to decide. At which point in measureable time do I cross the threshold from instinctive to gapping. If in fact I'm really gapping then I'm either pretty good at it because I'm doing without even knowing it or pretty bad at it because I'm not payin close enough attention to adjusting the gap.


If you find your accuracy increases measureably when you hold for any length of time, then you are most likely consciously adjusting the gap. That doesn't mean you have to be overly analytical of it, actually the opposite is fairly true. Where many people get into trouble with gap shooting is trying to focus too intently on the arrow-point, set the gap and then transfer the focus to the target.
Last year I was very intent on finding and maintaining the gap with total precision, my scores weren't doing that well. This year I am intent on setting the gap and then just letting it float, shooting much better.

Its a bit like landing an aircraft (inside pilot reference here): You know that the area of zero apparent motion on the runway is where you are going, but its not like you look at all the areas of apparent motion to determine where that is!

-Grant


----------



## SARASR (Oct 30, 2009)

I started out shooting instinctively with an old 70s PSE compound, def. some of the most fun I have had in the sport of archery, did not shoot as Asbel says when reaching full draw but once experience was gained the natural feel of when to let the arrow fly was something I have been finding myself missing as of late. 

As for aiming vs instinctive, I had tried gapping off the arrow tip, hand position, and just found when the mind gets involved things do not work as well. (letting it happen vs trying to make it happen)


----------



## SARASR (Oct 30, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Based on the definition of 'aim' I have researched....ANY and EVERY archer pointing their bow and arrow at a target with the intensions of hitting it...are at some level aiming...so I believe EVERY archer aims. The difference is how they aim.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Agreed, You can hold and shoot instinctive I was taught archery on a bare bow compound, It takes FOCUS, and experience..practice practice practice, it is definitely not one of those things you decide to do and do well the next day out. A subconscious awareness of of the 
performance of your set up can only be achieved by consistently shooting on a regular basis.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

agree 100% with fotoguy - there is no excuse - especially today - I was talking about in the late 1980's through the 1990's when Asbell seemed to be the Gold Standard and there did not seem to be anyone else that anyone knew of or went to to learn from as a traditional bowhunter.

My feeling is also the same as SARASR - if my conscious mind gets involved in the aim - it all falls apart


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grantmac said:


> If you find your accuracy increases measureably when you hold for any length of time, then you are most likely consciously adjusting the gap. That doesn't mean you have to be overly analytical of it, actually the opposite is fairly true. Where many people get into trouble with gap shooting is trying to focus too intently on the arrow-point, set the gap and then transfer the focus to the target.
> 
> Its a bit like landing an aircraft (inside pilot reference here): You know that the area of zero apparent motion on the runway is where you are going, but its not like you look at all the areas of apparent motion to determine where that is!


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Here is a video how some people explain Instinctive shooting but it is a PERFECT example of what many Gap shooters actually aim.

There is a difference between Instinctive Aiming and Gap shooting and this video is not a very good demonstration of the differences. Clost but completely accurate.






Ray :shade:


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

Good stuff fotoguy, thanks for putting into words how I feel.
sharp,SARASR, & others, thanks I don't feel so much like an oddball.
It seems, for me shooting a bow & arrow is one of the few things I do, that the less I think about it, the better I do.


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

Scientifically there is no way you can determine what someone is conciously focusing on by looking at a picture. Saying the length of time held affects the trueness is simply a pointless argument in semantics. You either use a reference system to aim or you do not. Of course your brain, irregardless of aiming method, is going to process information the whole time that is relevant to the task at hand. Saying otherwise would be false. But, if you don't utilize a referencing system and your focus remains on target your shooting instinctively. 

Ya know, I was thinking about this last night at work. I honestly think the reason these debates over instinctive take place is because there isn't anything to teach about the actual aiming style. There is no real technique to instinctive shooting. It applies to whatever form you want to use. There isn't anything a teacher is going to tell you other than, "Focus on your target and nothing else". There's really nothing else to be said. All the videos and books were just attempts to sell a style and explain an aiming system that needs no explanation.

Just my opinion...


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

str8 shooter said:


> ya know, i was thinking about this last night at work. I honestly think the reason these debates over instinctive take place is because there isn't anything to teach about the actual aiming style. There is no real technique to instinctive shooting. It applies to whatever form you want to use. There isn't anything a teacher is going to tell you other than, "focus on your target and nothing else". There's really nothing else to be said. All the videos and books were just attempts to sell a style and explain an aiming system that needs no explanation.
> 
> Just my opinion...



agreed


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Here is a video how some people explain Instinctive shooting but it is a PERFECT example of what many Gap shooters actually aim.
> 
> There is a difference between Instinctive Aiming and Gap shooting and this video is not a very good demonstration of the differences. Clost but completely accurate.
> 
> ...


Precisely one of the things that made RW loose all credibility to me. He clearly doesn't understand how his aiming system works, because he just described Gap vs. Point of aim.

-Grant


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Precisely one of the things that made RW loose all credibility to me. He clearly doesn't understand how his aiming system works, because he just described Gap vs. Point of aim.
> 
> -Grant


Grant, your assessment withstanding, one thing I have also always taken from that video is that what Welch considers instinctive is what many would call Point of Aim, the genesis of many squabbles here.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Scientifically there is no way you can determine what someone is conciously focusing on by looking at a picture. Saying the length of time held affects the trueness is simply a pointless argument in semantics. You either use a reference system to aim or you do not. Of course your brain, irregardless of aiming method, is going to process information the whole time that is relevant to the task at hand. Saying otherwise would be false. But, if you don't utilize a referencing system and your focus remains on target your shooting instinctively.
> 
> Ya know, I was thinking about this last night at work. I honestly think the reason these debates over instinctive take place is because there isn't anything to teach about the actual aiming style. There is no real technique to instinctive shooting. It applies to whatever form you want to use. There isn't anything a teacher is going to tell you other than, "Focus on your target and nothing else". There's really nothing else to be said. All the videos and books were just attempts to sell a style and explain an aiming system that needs no explanation.
> 
> Just my opinion...



You see, you made it obvious that it's your opinion. It happens that my opinion and yours is the same except for one part of the post.
When people start trying to explain every little detail of a process so simple as you just decribed it is what always starts the arguments. Everyone has an opinion and welcome to it. I'm not convinced that most of those types know any more than anyone else. But it seems to make them feel good that at least they think they are smarter.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Grant, your assessment withstanding, one thing I have also always taken from that video is that what Welch considers instinctive is what many would call Point of Aim, the genesis of many squabbles here.



Amazing,but I can agree with you guys on something. Just because he can shoot the arrows does not make him an effective teacher of all things arcery related.


----------



## Eldermike (Mar 24, 2009)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Scientifically there is no way you can determine what someone is conciously focusing on by looking at a picture. Saying the length of time held affects the trueness is simply a pointless argument in semantics. You either use a reference system to aim or you do not. Of course your brain, irregardless of aiming method, is going to process information the whole time that is relevant to the task at hand. Saying otherwise would be false. But, if you don't utilize a referencing system and your focus remains on target your shooting instinctively.
> 
> Ya know, I was thinking about this last night at work. I honestly think the reason these debates over instinctive take place is because there isn't anything to teach about the actual aiming style. There is no real technique to instinctive shooting. It applies to whatever form you want to use. There isn't anything a teacher is going to tell you other than, "Focus on your target and nothing else". There's really nothing else to be said. All the videos and books were just attempts to sell a style and explain an aiming system that needs no explanation.
> 
> Just my opinion...


That is why I asked the question: "if it's not working for you, what do you fix?" 
A point of reference is required when making any change. If you have no point of reference you can't change anything. 

To me that's the whole matter in whats confusing about this subject. If I shoot instinctive style I just need to keep it to myself, I can't tell you how I do it or how you can do it. And as soon as I tell you to look at the target I am right there describing an aiming method even though at that first step it's not complete. Then If I tell you to raise your bow arm in the direction of the target I am refining and adding to that aiming method. In the end all steps taken to put an arrow into a target is aiming and it contains reference points where changes can be incorporated for improvement.

But I can't tell you how to use no reference points and do anything. How do I get to the grocery store? Gp down this road two blocks (aiming), turn right, (aiming correction), drive until you see the big red barn, (aiming), the store in on the right (final aiming)
Or I could tell the man this: I just know its there and so should you.


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

This instinctive debate/discussion is a no-win one...both sides are firmly entrenched in their beliefs...G. Fred, Barry Wensel, etc claim to shoot instinctively....who am I to dispute that or even care...if that's how they feel they shoot, and are obviously successful at it..then so be it....same with others who feel that way....to me it seems like it all boils down to preconceived beliefs as to what is instinctive...and that is where the debate begins....what I do know is that instinctive is not then "true" traditional shooting style, whatever that notion is....there is no true style....whatever it takes to get the arrow to the target...is the style...

No matter the scientific, physical, or whatever data given to show that it does not really exist...in the pure sense...makes no difference to those who believe they shoot instinctively....and in the long run...what difference does it make? I know it is fun debating it...as thousands of threads are devoted to it on a constant basis.....ad nauseum, in my opinion...

However, to propose that instinctive is the "true traditional" shooting style is pure hogwash......and then we get into the "what is traditional" debate.....another fun topic to throw around......but not for me.....getting ready to shoot my longbow....gapstinctive, instinctive, gap, or whatever.....

Lee


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Sanford said:


> Grant, your assessment withstanding, one thing I have also always taken from that video is that what Welch considers instinctive is what many would call Point of Aim, the genesis of many squabbles here.


Really? That is polar opposite of what I would call it. His description of gap is basically what I'd call point-of-aim or pick a point, some might call it split vision. His description of instinctive is exactly how every gap shooter I know aims when in the range where their gaps remain fairly constant (~15-30 yds or so).

-Grant


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Fotoguy, only a few weeks ago I was in my local archery shop when I guy came in wanting to buy a wooden recurve and get into "Traditional" archery.
I stood in the range and stopped my practice session while the owner and local guru gave him a shooting lesson. It was the full knees bent, bend at the waist, dip your head to meet the string and lose 5" of your draw jobby, I was almost speachless. Then he he said to the guy, "Traditional archery is good fun but if you want to get accurate buy a compound".
This is an archery coach in 2012 still following outdated methods and starting a newbie on a road to ruin so yes, that G Fred style is still around and if people ate getting coached that way then they will no no better until the bad habits are ingrained..


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Eldermike said:


> That is why I asked the question: "if it's not working for you, what do you fix?"
> A point of reference is required when making any change. If you have no point of reference you can't change anything.
> 
> To me that's the whole matter in whats confusing about this subject. If I shoot instinctive style I just need to keep it to myself, I can't tell you how I do it or how you can do it. And as soon as I tell you to look at the target I am right there describing an aiming method even though at that first step it's not complete. Then If I tell you to raise your bow arm in the direction of the target I am refining and adding to that aiming method. In the end all steps taken to put an arrow into a target is aiming and it contains reference points where changes can be incorporated for improvement.
> ...



Maybe that's the problem that so many don't understand. A person in a strange place might need directions to the store. Relating those direction to the aiming of an arrow seems to be a little far fetched. So in an attempt to look smart, so many people around here want to reach waaaay out there to try and explain something that does not require much explanation to begin with.
And don't even tempt me when it comes to those peoples actual qualifications. Let's just say that a ditch digger should not attempt to convince people of his vast knowledge about complicated surgical procedures.
I read an article once where the author asked an accomplished instinctive shooter to explain how he did it. That person told him to just look hard at your target and shoot it. The author pondered the idea for some time and decided to give it a try. He practiced doing what the man had told him and became a respectable shot himself. His original intent with the article was to attempt to explain instinctive shooting. At the end he admitted that the best explanation seemed to be the one he had been given in the beginning. Just look hard at your target and shoot it.
But the difference is that this person did not spend a lot of time arguing with his mentor about what the brain,eyes muscles,minds eye etc were doing together or seperately as many of the wise ones around here do. He took the advice and put it into action. Therefore he was able to learn how to shoot instinctively without a bunch of books to tell him how.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

grantmac said:


> Really? That is polar opposite of what I would call it. His description of gap is basically what I'd call point-of-aim or pick a point, some might call it split vision. His description of instinctive is exactly how every gap shooter I know aims when in the range where their gaps remain fairly constant (~15-30 yds or so).
> 
> -Grant


Grant, I guess he doesn't describe "what is the target" and focuses more on which is in focus. For me, gap would mean using the arrow tip but focus on something else, another target point other than the intended target, or the relation point that gets it to the target - the final impact point which I may not even be looking at for that aim. In the video, where I guess the intended target is the deer vitals, no gapping is used. It's either using the tip and focus on the deer or focus on the deer and use the tip out of focus. Still, neither add up to what many describe as pure instinctive, where only a target is seen.

None of this stuff in my opinion is actually codified anywhere, as it exists in areas of where we might have common perceptions only, though some will claim to answer in full definitions. Rick does well to explain the way I shoot too, but I would never claim to only see the target (neither does he if you listen to his words), though I might call myself instinctive, at least, for some very close shots.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grantmac said:


> Really? That is polar opposite of what I would call it. His description of gap is basically what I'd call point-of-aim or pick a point, some might call it split vision. His description of instinctive is exactly how every gap shooter I know aims when in the range where their gaps remain fairly constant (~15-30 yds or so).
> 
> -Grant



Can we see the problem here?:icon_1_lol:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Grant, I guess he doesn't describe "what is the target" and focuses more on which is in focus. For me, gap would mean using the arrow tip but focus on something else, another target point other than the intended target, or the relation point that gets it to the target, the final impact point which I may not even be looking at for that aim. In the first, where the intended target is the deer vitals, no gapping is used. It's either using the tip and focus on the deer or focus on the deer and use the tip out of focus. Still, neither add up to what many describe as pure instinctive, where only a target is seen.


If we all participate in twistthewords it could get confusing.
Only a target is 'focused' on. Everything in the line of sight is seen,just so out of focus as to be a non issue.


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

Bigjono.....it was a pro shop owner..who probably makes his money selling compounds, and has a rudimentary knowledge of stickbow shooting...and looked like he went out of his way to discredit stickbows in order to sell compounds....hence his statement more accurate, etc......just because he is an owner of a shop and sells stickbows, does not mean he is well versed on shooting styles..once again...he picked one aspect of Asbell's book, etc...and harped on that.....

Sharp is correct...earlier...it was the first and only book, instruction that was mass marketed......and I understand that many people tried it and it was not for them....but I stand by my statement that today...there is too much information readily available with different styles, etc.....to blame one person for lousy shooting.....

It is obvious that the pro shop owner did not read up on, or is well versed in "traditional archery", and was merely trying to upsell a customer to the bells and whistles route where he can make more money off the sale.......

I merely want to state, that TODAY......in this society of instant information....and the vast amount of info available....that a person can expose themselves to numerous shooting methods and pick what is best for them.....

I repeat....after shooting stickbows for over 20 years..and being in the business for three years, travelling to countless traditional events....the "Fred Asbell ruined my shooting" mantra is getting old...and in MY opinion..is merely a poor excuse for pathetic shooting.....is his method the perfect method.....never said it was....but whose is...and for who?

Please, I don't want to sound like I am making excuses for Fred.....he doesn't need me to go to bat for him....but he has been doing this for a long time....and his classes still fill up..his books still sell well....soooo....he must have some valid points......as stated before, I have friends who have hunted and shot with him...and to a man they tell me that Fred can shoot.....whether that translates into points on a 3D or target range....probably not....for some....he gears his style towards hunting....and it obviously works for him......

As originally stated...I pick and choose from various people and their styles....and take what works and discard what doesn't.....but to blame a man for wrecking/ruining their shooting......really???? It's a cop out in my book....better to blame someone than take the blame, I guess.....

Lee


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Only a target is 'focused' on. Everything is the line of sight is seen,just so out of focus as to be a non issue.


Not in the video in question. So, not sure if you are describing your sight picture or the two in Rick's video.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

That video was a really horrible explanation....

It was nice and simple, and maybe a useful analogy, but aside from that, entirely wrong in a cognitive sense. The eye's focus on the target doesn't mean that you don't think about things not in focus. Sometimes I take shots with no conscious thoughts about the sight picture, (usually because it's either time sensitive, or my mind is simply wandering) and what i've absorbed from experience gets handled by the unconscious (hopefully) but I also sometimes have fully conscious awareness of the arrow/riser position, particularly when I think about it before hand, even if it never comes into focus. Just because it's a blur, doesn't mean you can't pay attention. You can use a pin sight while focusing entirely on the target too.

I don't know this guy at all, and I know he's a great shot, but this explanation is utterly horrible.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

His description of instinctive is exactly how every gap shooter I know aims when in the range where their gaps remain fairly constant (~15-30 yds or so).[/QUOTE said:


> Now this is hitting on my theory on why shooting 'instinctive' kind of works. The hold is the same (or closer than many can shoot consistantly) for the majority of trad shots (~15-30yds). So if your form is consistant and your sight picture is consistant then your arrow will be on target from 15-30 yards. Over ~30yards is where many instictive shooters start to have trouble. Aiming and form break downs become very apparent at the longer distances.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

centershot said:


> Over ~30yards is where many instictive shooters start to have trouble. Aiming and form break downs become very apparent at the longer distances.


 For me, then, elevation and increased trajectory angles start to require much more of my mental input than what was ingrained from a fairly flat state of trajectory. Loss of speed and increasing drop rate requires a larger compensating factor at an increasing rate, not to mention the changes in parallax in the vision to the target.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

centershot said:


> Now this is hitting on my theory on why shooting 'instinctive' kind of works. The hold is the same (or closer than many can shoot consistantly) for the majority of trad shots (~15-30yds). So if your form is consistant and your sight picture is consistant then your arrow will be on target from 15-30 yards. Over ~30yards is where many instictive shooters start to have trouble. Aiming and form break downs become very apparent at the longer distances.


That's kind of how it works for me. Within about 25 yards if I shoot truly "instinctive" I do pretty well but my shot might be a bit high or low depending on the yardage. Kind of like having one pin in a sight, it will only be dead on at two spots but might be "acceptably" accurate over a range of distances. My "natural" or "instinctive" shot puts me a few inches high or low within about twenty five yards. If I want to hit a tiny spot within that distance, I need to pay a little more attention to the arrow. I have a hard time with the NFAA 20 yard game because my natural sight picture always hits a bit high at 20 yards. I can compensate but my arrows don't group as well. Beyond about 25 yards and I either need to pick a spot above what I want to hit or consciously adjust my gap.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Lee, you're right and I mean no disrespect to old GFA, he has his system and he marketed it, fair play. I just use it as a generic term for that style of shooting because I don't know what else to call it.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Str8 Shooter said:


> Scientifically there is no way you can determine what someone is conciously focusing on by looking at a picture.


I disagree. 

A person can determine it within a certain amount of certainty...IF...the archer's dominant eye and their intended target can be seen in the same picture. It can even be further varified if they have a video that demonstrates what they are looking at in regards to their intended target. I'm NOT saying it's 100% accurate...but... I am saying it can be determined with a certain amount certainty.

It's really a no brainer when you understand vision...and understand the different aiming techniques that an archer can use.

Case in point.

Here's a picture of sharp shooting a target where we can see his dominant eye and the target in the same picture. We don't need to assume what he's focusing on because he claims he only focuses on the target. You than draw a straight linear line from the dominant eye to what exactly it is they are focusing on and anything within that direct line of sight will be consciously recognized even though it is blurred.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

fotoguy said:


> Sharp..while I agree with you that at one time, he was the standard...now...with the internet, books, videos, etc...I still hear people blaming him for their lousy shooting....from folks I know who have talked to him..he is an above average shot at best....maybe not target wise, but stump shooting, roving, etc they claim he is an excellent shot....I have never attended one of his seminars...so I can't speak to that...but it just seems to me that if his method is that bad, and ruined that many people..that over time his popularity and such would be damaged...there are too many other alternatives out there...but yet he is still one of the most popular...
> 
> My beef is with those who blame him for their lousy shooting....you went back to a method that works for you...all I am saying is all of those "ruined" shooters had that same choice...do I agree with his methods...not all...but do I discredit everything...no.....he states openly that his method is for hunting..period..something he has definitely been successful at, as you stated as well....he never claims it is for target, 3d, whatever....and give him credit..he never has.....
> 
> ...


Good post Lee...but you left out 1 important thing Fred does extremely well...and that is hunting..

It is too easy for folks to play the blame game..it always has been for those who want everything given to them..without paying the cost..in time spent learning

The thing about Fred's style is as you said..it works for him..for how he shoots..and since he is a hunter..it is vastly different from what most consider proper form for stance..but yet they key into it like it is the only thing that matters...



Mac


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Easykeeper said:


> That's kind of how it works for me. Within about 25 yards if I shoot truly "instinctive" I do pretty well but my shot might be a bit high or low depending on the yardage. Kind of like having one pin in a sight, it will only be dead on at two spots but might be "acceptably" accurate over a range of distances. My "natural" or "instinctive" shot puts me a few inches high or low within about twenty five yards. If I want to hit a tiny spot within that distance, I need to pay a little more attention to the arrow. I have a hard time with the NFAA 20 yard game because my natural sight picture always hits a bit high at 20 yards. I can compensate but my arrows don't group as well. Beyond about 25 yards and I either need to pick a spot above what I want to hit or consciously adjust my gap.


As a hunter primarily...I say you have a very good system for determining what is your "practical" accuracy..or as some say.."hunting" accuracy...While this may not be the most beneficial on a tournament course..it will work very well for most hunting situations..and what I consider important..Being able to utilize different methods to ensure a good hit..

Mac


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Sanford said:


> Grant, I guess he doesn't describe "what is the target" and focuses more on which is in focus. For me, gap would mean using the arrow tip but focus on something else, another target point other than the intended target, or the relation point that gets it to the target - the final impact point which I may not even be looking at for that aim. In the video, where I guess the intended target is the deer vitals, no gapping is used. It's either using the tip and focus on the deer or focus on the deer and use the tip out of focus. Still, neither add up to what many describe as pure instinctive, where only a target is seen.
> 
> None of this stuff in my opinion is actually codified anywhere, as it exists in areas of where we might have common perceptions only, though some will claim to answer in full definitions. Rick does well to explain the way I shoot too, but I would never claim to only see the target (neither does he if you listen to his words), though I might call myself instinctive, at least, for some very close shots.


I have always heard of Gap shooting as focusing on the intended point of impact while judging the windage and elevation by the position of the arrow inside the field of view. Aiming at a seconday point with the arrow head directly without focusing on the impact point is pick-a-point or point-of-aim depending on who you talk to.

Either way the RW video does a very good job of how an archer can use either one of those techniques, it just doesn't actually show anything even close to instinctive aiming. Which is true because there really isn't anything to it but shooting enough arrows inside a relatively small window of ranges to the point where your brain creates the same sight picture for every shot. In a way that is how I shoot all of my short-range 3D shots, just set the same gap and leave it.

I still wouldn't trust any coach that couldn't explain ANY method correctly at least on a rudamentary level, since it appears RW has trouble with explaining his own technique that goes doubly for him.

-Grant


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

Mac...thought I mentioned the hunting thing with Fred.....maybe not...but you are correct..in EVERY book he has written, and in his video..he emphasizes it is a method of shooting conducive to hunting....people here have stated that at close ranges, they tend to shoot more "instinctively", and it is 30 yards and beyond that the issues start...well....bowhunting is a get em close proposition...at least it is supposed to be....and I think that is what he is trying to get across.....

I have copies of his books and video...and in EVERY book he states that this method is designed for bowhunting....and suggests that if you are looking for a video or book on how to become a better target archer, or champion on the 3D range..you best look elsewhere...but people get so caught up in the bended waist, swing draw, etc that they totally discard the other information his book addresses....he is a hunter....in fact, a very successful hunter.....and his books, seminars, etc are geared towards success hunting being the goal., i fact, the subtitle of his first book is "guide to better BOWHUNTING......his book on still hunting is one of the best I have ever read on the topic.....while I do not utilize the swing draw on skitterish PA whitetails....I usually hunt from the ground..so to stand up erect in my blind would draw attention, so I do tend to bend or crouch when I shoot....but it is not the most important factor I gained from his books....

When I worked at LAS...we had the trailer at Denton Hill...and one afternoon Fred stopped by and we had a bunch of books on various archery topics......from target archery, with books by Kisik Lee and Rick McKinney..and books by Koreans on their training methods, as well as many psychological self help/zen books....he bought a copy of every one....and stated that he is never to old to learn something...and enjoys reading and studying about archery and shooting from as many sources as he can....here is a man who is in the Archery Hall of Fame because of the dedication and work he has done over the years for the sport...who has written popular books...and has done seminars everywhere....and has killed more animals than many of would ever dream of.....who admits he does not know everything and continues to learn and strive to improve....a lesson some of us could use....me included......

I did not intend to convert this into an Asbell love fest....but it just irritates me when people take parts of an overall method, and pick on that alone.....will his style win on the target range....nope....will it win IBO Worlds...NOPE....but it was never written with that in mind.....

I am a firm believer in proper form, stance, etc....and believe in one method, one bow, etc....but while I practice form, technique, controlling the shot...there are times in the woods, when a deer comes in, and the adreneline kicks in,,,and I am crouched behind a log or in a blowdown....that it becomes a trained reaction to shoot in sometimes awkward stance or situation.there are deer I have killed that I don't remember going through any mental sequence at all....I do believe practicing good form and technique truly helps at that point because it has been ingrained in me over the long haul practicing.....but seldom is the time when I can stand straight up...get stance correct, get settled in, and execute the picture perfect shot....perhaps in a tree stand it would be more applicable...
I do however believe the fundamentals that I practice help in that situation....if not only to give me a level of confidence in my shot.....


time to get off the soapbox and go out and fling some arrows......

keep calm and carry on.....


lee


Sorry so long winded.....


----------



## Pinnacle II (Jun 7, 2012)

I blame Howard Hill for messing up most traditional archers of the last several generations. He had great form but was very quick in shooting. He also shot very heavy bows because his beloved longbow was such a dog compared to modern recurves. 

So the new shooter looks at Hill and does not really see what he's doing. He only see a quick shot that looks like what we call "snap shooting." The new guy models his shooting after Howard Hill - the great Howard Hill. The new guy also insists on shooting crazy heavy bows like his idol, Hill. Of course the new guy rarely reaches full draw and never really anchors. He gets worse in time shooting too much weight and never lays a ground work of mediocre form, let alone good form. He has no form at all and calls himself an instinctive archer like his hero HH.

All this makes for some really lousy shooting done fast. Then he writes a book or two and spreads the virus. 

I blame that Hill guy. LOL


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Funny thing is it's all true.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Pinnacle II said:


> I blame Howard Hill for messing up most traditional archers of the last several generations. He had great form but was very quick in shooting. He also shot very heavy bows because his beloved longbow was such a dog compared to modern recurves.
> 
> So the new shooter looks at Hill and does not really see what he's doing. He only see a quick shot that looks like what we call "snap shooting." The new guy models his shooting after Howard Hill - the great Howard Hill. The new guy also insists on shooting crazy heavy bows like his idol, Hill. Of course the new guy rarely reaches full draw and never really anchors. He gets worse in time shooting too much weight and never lays a ground work of mediocre form, let alone good form. He has no form at all and calls himself an instinctive archer like his hero HH.
> 
> ...


Not really..and I'll take what you said and how you said it with a grain of salt..for all it is worth....I will add my $.02 though...

First off..for Howards style..or Fred's style..a solid anchor is not always needed to put your arrow where you want it..and as much as that drives "target" archers nuts..is completely true..just as snap shooting is a very effective means to shoot..provided it is done correctly..and consistantly..These so-called bad habits..as some here like to call them..is not..nor have ever been really intended for the tournaments..and those who elect to do so..usually don't fair very well..._usually_ but not always..as evident by these 2 great gentlemen and many others as well...and it is always those who preach form/stance over all other things that have failed to connect the dots..and fully understand this fact,just as Lee has said previously..and what I have always maintained and said as well.

There is a time and place for everything..and it is up to us when to use 1 paticular style or method..If you never have tried to master 1 way of shooting..and just elect to bad mouth those who do..shows just how little you really understand the sport..and it's history

Mac


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I blame the lack of coaching in Field/3D I was lucky having a mentor who was a very good shot when I first started out (became a coach and IBO champ in later years) but I see a lot of self taught shooters with bad form and too proud to ask for any help. 

In Europe at least, most of the top 3D/Field shooters I personally know have had some decent coaching early in their shooting.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MAC 11700 said:


> There is a time and place for everything..and it is up to us when to use 1 paticular style or method..If you never have tried to master 1 way of shooting..and just elect to bad mouth those who do..shows just how little you really understand the sport..and it's history


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

*Mac11700*

Mac11700, I think your statements show your lack of understanding about how to put an arrow where you want to. You say a person doesn't need a consistent anchor to shoot well. I think everyone who has spent any time at all trying to shoot a bow well ieshoot consistent groups or score well on targets ) is laughing at that statement. It doesn't take much thought to realize a slight difference in height of anchor will make a big difference in how high or low your arrow impacts. Likewise, if you draw to your chin one time and the corner of your mouth the next, your arrow is going to impact higher or lower.I think you are doing a disservice to all newbies by spreading this flawed philosophy.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

itbeso said:


> Mac11700, I think your statements show your lack of understanding about how to put an arrow where you want to. You say a person doesn't need a consistent anchor to shoot well. I think everyone who has spent any time at all trying to shoot a bow well ieshoot consistent groups or score well on targets ) is laughing at that statement. It doesn't take much thought to realize a slight difference in height of anchor will make a big difference in how high or low your arrow impacts. Likewise, if you draw to your chin one time and the corner of your mouth the next, your arrow is going to impact higher or lower.I think you are doing a disservice to all newbies by spreading this flawed philosophy.


I knew this would strike a nerve with target archers..and is exactly what I knew someone would be gullable enough to take the bait on..

1st...go back and read exactly what I said...not what you have assumed it to be..or just the part of this you want to slam me about Bro...I said



> First off..for Howards style..or Fred's style..a solid anchor is not always needed to put *your arrow *where you want it..and as much as that drives "target" archers nuts..is completely true..just as snap shooting is a very effective means to shoot..*provided it is done correctly..and consistantly*..


We are not talking about shooting for groups here...we are talking about the type of instinctive shooting Fred & Howard shoot..*when hunting*...and if you had any idea of how to shoot this way..you would understand exactly what I mean..

Me...doing a disservice...oh contrare...it is your type that cause the real diservice here and else where in this sport with your 1 track mind that is not capable of learning or appreciating a different style of shooting......You & those that have no real clue how to go about shooting this style...then wanting to take something completely out of context as it is written just to slam a individuals..

I need no lesson on how to shoot any style from you sir...I have been doing it close to 50 years..and had no problem holding my own when hunting...or in any tournament I have previously shot in and I stand by my posted statement.

Mac


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

itbeso said:


> I think everyone who has spent any time at all trying to shoot a bow well ieshoot consistent groups or score well on targets ) is laughing at that statement.


Not me, I've seen archers who could vary their draw length and still put an arrow in the right place. I've done it shooting at rabbits on the run so it is possible to do. I would call it a 'floating' anchor (not bone on bone) and its used by a lot of bow hunters. That is why a wrist release is so popular with compound hunters, it allows for movement that 'bone on bone' wouldn't.

Can work for target but is better for hunting.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> Mac11700, I think your statements show your lack of understanding about how to put an arrow where you want to. You say a person doesn't need a consistent anchor to shoot well. I think everyone who has spent any time at all trying to shoot a bow well ieshoot consistent groups or score well on targets ) is laughing at that statement. It doesn't take much thought to realize a slight difference in height of anchor will make a big difference in how high or low your arrow impacts. Likewise, if you draw to your chin one time and the corner of your mouth the next, your arrow is going to impact higher or lower.I think you are doing a disservice to all newbies by spreading this flawed philosophy.



Tell that to the beanshooter man.

sharpbroadhead,wheres the video? We need it again.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MAC 11700 said:


> Not really..and I'll take what you said and how you said it with a grain of salt..for all it is worth....I will add my $.02 though...
> 
> First off..for Howards style..or Fred's style..a solid anchor is not always needed to put your arrow where you want it..and as much as that drives "target" archers nuts..is completely true..just as snap shooting is a very effective means to shoot..provided it is done correctly..and consistantly..These so-called bad habits..as some here like to call them..is not..nor have ever been really intended for the tournaments..and those who elect to do so..usually don't fair very well..._usually_ but not always..as evident by these 2 great gentlemen and many others as well...and it is always those who preach form/stance over all other things that have failed to connect the dots..and fully understand this fact,just as Lee has said previously..and what I have always maintained and said as well.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the other side. That need to be said around here once in a while so new people don't become discouraged before they even get started.


----------



## Eldermike (Mar 24, 2009)

IMHO there is nothing wrong with any style of shooting. And when a person sets personal goals and meets those goals with a chosen style of shooting then all is well in the world as far as I can tell. Simply take your style and your gear and put in on the line in whatever class of event it meets the requirments of and see how it works for you.
At the same time there are tried and true methods of training new archers that have been shown to work very well on average over time. These two ideas clash often, but they should not if you gave it even a few minutes thought.

Take a few minutes and study the scores of your local clubs last shoot. Chances are you will have a few amazing scores, some ok ones and a bunch of not so good ones. Chances are all these folks are trying their very best to copy what's working for those few. But chances are those few are gifted talented people that can do just about anything well to begin with. And, many of those others could benifit from a method that works arcoss the board for most people. 

But no,,,,,,,,,that's not archery. Just keep looking at the target and shoot like me and you will eventually be like me. That's not a system.

My 2 cents


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Eldermike said:


> IMHO there is nothing wrong with any style of shooting. And when a person sets personal goals and meets those goals with a chosen style of shooting then all is well in the world as far as I can tell. At the same time there are tried and true methods of training new archers that have been shown to work very well on average over time.
> Take a few minutes and study the scores of your local clubs last shoot. And, many of those others could benifit from a method that works arcoss the board for most people.


That's basically it right there :thumbs_up

It ALL needs to be taken within context.

A shooting style will generally be shaped by the archer's goals.

An archer should basically study the more effective techniques for their particular goals.

Each goal...will have a technique that is more suited for it or where specific techniques are used by the majority of archers that share those same goals.

Some archers want to hit aerial targets. Some want to chase gold medals. Some want to primarily bowhunt. Some want to shoot from horseback. Some want to speed shoot. The list can go on and on
.
Bottom line...an archer's technique should be based on their goals, abilities and personality...and we all know how much variation in those can exist...which is why there is NOT a one size fits all approach to archery.

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Eldermike and blackwolf, well said. Mac11700, why are you on here, just to be a contrarian?


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

itbeso said:


> Eldermike and blackwolf, well said. Mac11700, why are you on here, just to be a contrarian?


Some times going against the flow is a good thing and needed if it opens some eyes to a different approach..

I've said this before..and say it again for your benefit...There is more to archery than just target archery and busting x's...

Why don't you pick up you bow..and see what all you can do with it..instead of just 1 thing...? You might begin to realize what I am talking about....If you have no interest in doing so..that is your choice..but don't blast me for enjoying more than 1 aspect to this sport..and telling folks about it..

Elder Mike...that is part of the problem...way too many folks trying to copy another persons style instead of learning what works best for themselves..It seems some around here what their hands held and be told how to do something very simple in it's basics..How I grew up with a bow in my hand..is not how folks are doing things these days..Today..they want to be told and shown how to hold the bow..how to shoot the bow..how to stand..how to draw..instead of doing and learning things for themselves....Many people here don't even have a clue how far their bows will shoot..let alone how to draw and shoot them with out aiming..very sad...very sad..and yet...if some had their way..they would love nothing more if people like me would just shut up and say nothing..but...TDB...that isn't going to happen..

I'm all for for someone learning how to target shoot if that is all they want from this sport...there is a proper way of doing that...but it is not the only way to do it..some ways take more commitment and effort to learn to master...and some aren't even willing to accept any different...but..what irks me is some people have forgotten...long before anyone was toeing a line casting arrows at a foam target or a paper x...they were using their stick & string to survive..and put meat on the table...or fend off a enemy and survive they did...Some folks like me..still believe in doing it that way...and are more geared for hunting and shooting out and away from the crowds...with out all the fan fare..trophies..and medals..some here need a reminder that archery means a lot of different things to a lot of different people..not just shooting for groups or scoring..

Mac


----------



## muzzleloader50 (Mar 10, 2011)

:thumbs_up


MAC 11700 said:


> Some times going against the flow is a good thing and needed if it opens some eyes to a different approach..
> 
> I've said this before..and say it again for your benefit...There is more to archery than just target archery and busting x's...
> 
> ...


I agree i do not post on here much but i do read alot I have three boys 30,25,and 11 we enjoy shooting alot but none of us shoot any type of compotition.we hunt and shoot because we enjoy it
we do not need to better than anybody else or prove ourself.theres alot of good info on here but it should not be set in stone whats good for one is good for all


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Uhhh... Howard Hill believed in a solid anchor, and he shot gap, not instinctive. Fred copied how it looked, but not what Hill was doing. Two different shooting styles.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Hill did not shoot gap and shot before the term "instinctive" was used to describe aiming. Hill specifically said that he was not a gap shooter (gap shooting was a well defined term then as it is now) - he called how he aimed "split vision" - Hill never consciously knew or thought about gaps - I think by todays definitions - Hill would have described himself as instinctive - but who knows - he is dead and gone.


----------



## muzzleloader50 (Mar 10, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Hill did not shoot gap and shot before the term "instinctive" was used to describe aiming. Hill specifically said that he was not a gap shooter (gap shooting was a well defined term then as it is now) - he called how he aimed "split vision" - Hill never consciously knew or thought about gaps - I think by todays definitions - Hill would have described himself as instinctive - but who knows - he is dead and gone.


OK do not want to seem ignorant here but what is split vision 
i have been shooting since 1968 and taught myself did not hear of all the shooting styles till recently
just gets kinda confusing just asking


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Mac11700, Your latest post, to me , is far different from the one I responded to and I totally agree with everything your latest post says. Basically, different strokes for different folks. I personally don't care if someone shoots targets, just hunts, or just stump shoots, they are a fellow archer. Sharp, I have to disagree with you on Howard. His "split vision" is definitely a form of gap shooting, just not the one most of the posters on here think of as a gap.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Hill did not shoot gap and shot before the term "instinctive" was used to describe aiming. Hill specifically said that he was not a gap shooter (gap shooting was a well defined term then as it is now) - he called how he aimed "split vision" - Hill never consciously knew or thought about gaps - I think by todays definitions - Hill would have described himself as instinctive - but who knows - he is dead and gone.


No, he specifically said he was not a _point of aim_ shooter. He describes being conscious of his arrow, and maniupulating it in relation to the target. I'm sure he subconsciously adjusted the gaps, but he was aware of the arrow, exactly how a gap shooter would.

Will and Maurice Thompson shot instinctively, completely ignoring the arrow in their sight picture and simply concentrating on the spot without any reference to the arrow.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I also remember Hill writing in one of his books about referencing the point of the arrow in relation to the target. I would infer from the name 'Split Vision', that he was able to see both, probably focusing on the target, but with a phantom image, like a heads up display, that he could use to orient his aim. Personally, I like this method, because you can forget to do it, and it still seems to work


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

I guess it depends what kind of archery you do or want to do.
Is the style and form of say Jimmy Blackmon, Larry Yien, Steve Morley Scott Antczak etc better than some others mentioned on here, in my opinion yes. I say yes because their method will hold its own in most styles of archery. They all hunt, they all shoot 3D they all shoot field and all at the highest level and they can do that because of the coaching they've had and absorbing info from different approaches and ideas. Sticking to a one man one system approach can never be ideal no matter whose approach it is.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

muzzleloader50 said:


> OK do not want to seem ignorant here but what is split vision
> i have been shooting since 1968 and taught myself did not hear of all the shooting styles till recently
> just gets kinda confusing just asking


Split Vision....as Howard described this aiming technique involved a secondary aiming reference where the arrow tip was placed on at full draw but the archer was still primarily focusing on the target but was aware of the arrow tip and the secondary aiming reference within their periphial vision..

It's basically combining Point of Aim with Gap.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Hey forest - I am going to start filming the video this weekend with some clips from our local 3D shoot - heck - we even have a live rock band that is going to play -  - and then next weekend is my favorite shoot of the year - the Rapids Archers Annual Trad Shoot - me and my 11 year old are going to shoot it and my daughter and her "boyfriend" are going to film some clips there too - then I will put together the instructional stuff and compile it all together in one video - so it probably won't be till the end of July before it is completely done - maybe a bit sooner - depens how busy I get with work and stuff - my boss/partner needs hand surgery and will not be able to work for a while which means that I will not have a day or night off till he is better - funeral service is fun - 24/7 7 days a week.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Hey forest - I am going to start filming the video this weekend with some clips from our local 3D shoot - heck - we even have a live rock band that is going to play -  -


Would you mind sharing a bit of that with us as well?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I will post it when it is done - it is a video on how I shoot instinctively


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I will post it when it is done - it is a video on how I shoot instinctively


Looking forward to seeing your video sharp.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

Does the camera get aimed while you are filming or do the subjects just get in the way when the button is pressed


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Lol


----------



## rhampton739 (Oct 17, 2021)

I constantly see information that confuses instinctive shooting with any form of aiming. Even to the extent that "there is really no such thing as instinctive shooting". At the risk of gross generalization, instinctive shooting is centered in the right hemisphere of the brain while any form of aiming is in the right hemisphere. A relatively low percentage of brains are switched. The form to shoot instinctively must be learned using the right hemisphere--cognitive thought. It is impossible to learn form and try to hit a target with instinctive shooting, at the same time. If proper form is not learned, there will never be any consistency while shooting instinctively. Most archers who want to learn to shoot instinctively, have incorrect form and will be forever frustrated.


----------



## vincenthanna (Feb 25, 2020)

Destroyer said:


> Lol! Doesn't matter though hey.


Still very good reading.


----------



## marcelxl (Dec 5, 2010)

Wow, resurrecting a 19yr old thread, this has to be a record.

This thread can legally buy booze


----------

