# Are skills natural or developed or both?



## EPLC

I have just finished my first reading "Peak" by Anders Ericsson (my second reading starts today as there is a lot to absorb). Mr. Ericsson has provided a very compelling case that literally everyone has the ability to become a skilled performer given the proper training. Of course this path to excellence has the best chance to succeed if one starts training at a very early age but everyone should be able to improve with proper training. This proper training results in a good mental representation of the task at hand and then being able to translate that mental representation into actual performance. 

This understanding has put me into a kind of a Catch 22 situation. I've been "practicing" for the entire time I've been involved in archery but this practice hasn't resulted in much improvement since I became reasonably skillful after my first year or two. I also understand that after shooting for about 20 years I still do not have a good mental representation of my shot. It's obvious now that all those thousands of arrows I've shot over the years did not provide the results I've wanted. Knowledge alone does not translate into skill, skill needs to be developed through practice. Although practice is required to develop and refine skill, that practice should have specific goals that can be measured. Apparently mine has not provided the necessary criteria for specific goals and measurement. 

Your thoughts?


----------



## nochance

Sounds familiar, I had a friend that shot 400-500 shots a week and wasn't improving, I asked what he was working on and he replied, i'm just shooting. I told him to try and identify his weakness and work on that, He saw immediate improvement. All the practice in the world will only go so far if you're not working on the right things. I got a late start on competition archery(42 yrs old) but won't let anyone tell me i'm too old, not gifted or any other limiting advice. On a side note, lots of good things in the Scott and GRyals seminars at ATA. I'm sure its all been covered before but still great stuff.


----------



## SonnyThomas

I think this is going to turn into something like what we discussed not too long ago. It started in "Does tuning really matter or is it just the arrow" with reply #622. Went on for a couple pages...


----------



## lcaillo

The answer, of course, is both. Some people start with body structure, physiology, and psychological tendencies that afford developing greater skill. Almost anyone can develop a fairly high level of skill if the conditions are right, but beyond a certain point the returns on effort diminish. Where that asymptotic limit is varies with the individual.

That said, all one can do it work on setting the conditions for improving from the current state. If you are at a plateau, you have to find the variables that you have control over and work on those. That is what coaches do for you, often pointing out what "the hard thing" is that you have to do to move on to better performance.

What do you do least well? Work on making that better.


----------



## bigHUN

Like with any (professional) sport or any other (professional) skills the aptitude plays a big part,
some people have naturally better "open start point" and they go with "ability to go around some road blocks" for these specific skills in very impressive way
taken from there any further development towards some peak level=Plato is totally different path...
the progression speed is totally different and the final max output may - and will most likely be - way higher and in shorter period of time
Now lets put a "coach or trainer" in the game to take over the lead
Lets assume now the most positive function of the coach - not to make personal gain but to take a positive lead - he/she can take that individual to the next level way easier in brutal comparison working with an other person who need to work tonns hard
I didn't want to say here that any sport or skill can not be learned, but shall be obvious that not all of us "were borne" to do just anything successfully. You may be a better dance teacher, me maybe a better chef...got it? 
Lets get back to archery....
{ I have a friend of my, he told me once what is a main performance difference between us...after a bad score a highest-end archer can just simply step out from the crisis in contrast to an ordinary shooter....and they consistently training for that}
{ I have an other friend, he was sponsored by all the brands on this planet, he has at least ten risers and tons of parts laying around, he puts the bow together in two hours shooting world class scores}
{ I have a guy at my club, he just started a year ago with some really inexpensive=junk Olympic barebow (no sight, stabilizer, weights, no quiver or release) and he scores 20 yards better then 95% AT folks here}
How to call these people's performance now?


----------



## huteson2us2

I believe that with "CORRECT" coaching and proper training from an early age a person can reach his or her full potential at archery. I do not believe that anyone can be another Levy or Broadwater, but I believe that a person can become as good as they can be and if that means winning a National tournament once in you life or being able to compete with the top pros once in a while, that 's not bad. Being a big frog in a small pond can be nice. .


----------



## bigHUN

this just for example, and I am sure not an isolated observation
I have two boys, watching and coaching them how they grow since diapers
they are so diagonally aptitude
the older is very easy going but when I (or you) gave him to do just "something" he can not finish it with full attention and quality, he for sure won't be a good shooter but some manager position for best fit
the younger is a real pain in a*..s, picky as the german engineering would be a pudding recipe, but he doesn't have "people's soft skills" at all, he may be a very high value shooter but missing some other details
It is very hard for me to admit me and my wife exhausted all our skills through these 20+ years - to train them for life best performances, but both doing only kind of ok above average let say
this is happening everywhere through life, a coaching can do only this much


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> I have just finished my first reading "Peak" by Anders Ericsson (my second reading starts today as there is a lot to absorb). Mr. Ericsson has provided a very compelling case that literally everyone has the ability to become a skilled performer given the proper training. Of course this path to excellence has the best chance to succeed if one starts training at a very early age but everyone should be able to improve with proper training. This proper training results in a good mental representation of the task at hand and then being able to translate that mental representation into actual performance.
> 
> This understanding has put me into a kind of a Catch 22 situation. I've been "practicing" for the entire time I've been involved in archery but this practice hasn't resulted in much improvement since I became reasonably skillful after my first year or two. I also understand that after shooting for about 20 years I still do not have a good mental representation of my shot. It's obvious now that all those thousands of arrows I've shot over the years did not provide the results I've wanted. Knowledge alone does not translate into skill, skill needs to be developed through practice. Although practice is required to develop and refine skill, that practice should have specific goals that can be measured. Apparently mine has not provided the necessary criteria for specific goals and measurement.
> 
> Your thoughts?


How's the saying go? 

Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. 
Definition of archery: Doing the same thing over and over, expecting the same results. 

If you are doing the same thing and not improving, why would you keep doing the same thing, expecting to improve?


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> How's the saying go?
> 
> Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
> Definition of archery: Doing the same thing over and over, expecting the same results.
> 
> If you are doing the same thing and not improving, why would you keep doing the same thing, expecting to improve?


I've been aware of this endless loop for years. I guess the answer is that I've been lacking a better solution.


----------



## RCR_III

I guess there's different ways to look at this topic. Direct answer, both. 

From a basic educational standpoint, some states promote Standardized Testing to measure the effectiveness of a teacher's ability and also of the student's knowledge base and attributes. 

There's a big push away from this from the teaching community for reasons that not every child learns the same, tests at a high level, or has the same intellectual levels/abilities. They promote for individualized methods. 

Basically saying, some children/people are at different levels than others. To me, I would see this as the same thing for a sport. Natural talent has more potential in the beginning stages if met with proper guidance and direction/work. Someone without the same natural talents would be able to work just as hard or harder and never accomplish the task at the same level. Can they be competent, yes but the other individual with the natural abilities in that certain area will remain superior given the correct paths. 

I feel that everyone has certain skills that are advanced and certain skills that are lacking. You can't teach all of them, so for the ones you can't that's where the natural abilities overrule.


----------



## pherrley

IMO, short answer: both.

I think the book 'The Sports Gene' covers this answer pretty thoroughly. 'The Talent Code', touches on this as well. Both books suggest a lot, but to premises are that:

1. Someone without talent can become a "master" with A LOT of practice. A natural can become a "master", with relatively minimal practice. 
2. Only a natural can become truly great. (Probably somewhat due to #1; there just isn't enough time for someone without talent to become great.)

The amount of practice required to become a "master" is very dependent on your aptitude.

Also, similar to 'Peak'. 'The Talent Code' suggests you must practice with purpose to become better. Just like in the book 'Peak', people will say practice with people better than you (and you will get better). In this I agree with Peak; people seem to tend to "settle" when they're content.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> I've been aware of this endless loop for years. I guess the answer is that I've been lacking a better solution.


Where do you think the solution is found?


----------



## whiz-Oz

cbrunson said:


> Where do you think the solution is found?


Ericcson covers this in his discussion of deliberate practice. 
Deliberate practice is the concept of paying absolute attention and focus to what you're doing as you seek to increase your skill level. 
Most people learning a skill get to the point where they're "good enough" and stop paying attention. This is where they stop developing. They can even go backwards. 

The building of neural connections is what refines skill and is discernable by closely linked neurons and deposits of myelin. Unfortunately, they're not permanent structures, like muscle tissue. If you don't continuously fire that pattern of neurons associated with that skill, the links degrade. It's the method by which the brain has evolved to change and be good at what it needs to be at the time. 

The process is quite fascinating. Essentially, when you learn something new, you do it inefficiently and make lots of connections to do things that you don't need. You learn to hold tension in muscles you don't need to use. Paying attention to these things refines the neural pathways and fires more of the ones that are needed, and less of the ones that aren't. 
The ones that aren't activated, eventually get pruned off by the brains natural processes and the skill related to the neurons that are needed improves with this efficiency. 
Eventually the skill can get handed off to automatic function and the neurons fire like a preprogrammed route. Voila, you can do stuff like walk, write, drive, read, balance.. without having to concentrate on it. 
Once you stop paying attention, things can sneak in and the neural route can divert a bit and become less efficient. It's why core training retains skills and should be kept for maintenance of them. 

Brain structures are made to support each other of course. Things like balance structures are used in all sorts of things and form a core performance requirement. Excellent balance in one task is a transferrable skillset to support others. People who have good proprioception are the ones who learn the physical tasks faster and easier because they have that core skill already. 

This is one of the reasons why some people are judged to be "sportier" than others and people assume it's a talent that someone is born with, without knowing that ALL skills revolve around brain structure. 
Physical genetic advantages are NOT abled to be expressed without the brain structure to take advantage of it. People however, never remember these examples and only concentrate on the results of the two. 

They're the people that everyone knows about. So they just confirm people's beliefs. 

The one thing which is not well researched is the speed at which these structures are developed and the rate at which this changes throughout a person's life. Children have a greater brain plasticity, so generally aquire skills faster than adults. Logically, this would help their survival. 
Anyway, there are far more professionally qualified people who write and study this and the information is much better scientifically rigid than anything that archery offers at this point in time. 

You can all debate it all you want, but the truth is out there and the average person, including archers, have no idea how much is actually known about this.


----------



## catcherarcher

Two people start shooting archery the same day with the same coach and practice the same amount everyday. They are identical in their training and set-ups. After roughly a year, one will most likely be a better archer than the other. Simply because they were gifted with the right thought process, personality, and the ability to hold steady. While the other one may tend to over analyze and just not be able to hold quite as steady. Both are will most likely be very good archers, however the one will be capable of being a national or world champion while the other will just be a very good amateur or lower level pro. I would estimate that 95-98% of archery ability is proper form, set-up, and mental game. The stuff that can be trained. The other 2-5% is God-given ability.


----------



## miko0618

I think the answers you need are gonna come from people that you feel are successful. If you thought that person was me (example) I could explain why I have success. I could hypothesize why someone more successful has more success than myself but I doubt I actually know why. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

Both. 
"Greatness" cannot be achieved without an abundance of training, but an abundance of training will not necessarily guarantee greatness.


----------



## Rick!

EPLC said:


> I've been aware of this endless loop for years. I guess the answer is that I've been lacking a better solution.





cbrunson said:


> Where do you think the solution is found?


Maybe start with chapter 7 of Mastering Golf's Mental Game. Reread Lanny's book for tips on subconscious programming. Lanny was neither athletic nor gifted IIRC.


----------



## cbrunson

whiz-Oz said:


> Ericcson covers this in his discussion of deliberate practice.
> Deliberate practice is the concept of paying absolute attention and focus to what you're doing as you seek to increase your skill level.
> Most people learning a skill get to the point where they're "good enough" and stop paying attention. This is where they stop developing. They can even go backwards.
> 
> The building of neural connections is what refines skill and is discernable by closely linked neurons and deposits of myelin. Unfortunately, they're not permanent structures, like muscle tissue. If you don't continuously fire that pattern of neurons associated with that skill, the links degrade. It's the method by which the brain has evolved to change and be good at what it needs to be at the time.
> 
> The process is quite fascinating. Essentially, when you learn something new, you do it inefficiently and make lots of connections to do things that you don't need. You learn to hold tension in muscles you don't need to use. Paying attention to these things refines the neural pathways and fires more of the ones that are needed, and less of the ones that aren't.
> The ones that aren't activated, eventually get pruned off by the brains natural processes and the skill related to the neurons that are needed improves with this efficiency.
> Eventually the skill can get handed off to automatic function and the neurons fire like a preprogrammed route. Voila, you can do stuff like walk, write, drive, read, balance.. without having to concentrate on it.
> Once you stop paying attention, things can sneak in and the neural route can divert a bit and become less efficient. It's why core training retains skills and should be kept for maintenance of them.
> 
> Brain structures are made to support each other of course. Things like balance structures are used in all sorts of things and form a core performance requirement. Excellent balance in one task is a transferrable skillset to support others. People who have good proprioception are the ones who learn the physical tasks faster and easier because they have that core skill already.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why some people are judged to be "sportier" than others and people assume it's a talent that someone is born with, without knowing that ALL skills revolve around brain structure.
> Physical genetic advantages are NOT abled to be expressed without the brain structure to take advantage of it. People however, never remember these examples and only concentrate on the results of the two.
> 
> They're the people that everyone knows about. So they just confirm people's beliefs.
> 
> The one thing which is not well researched is the speed at which these structures are developed and the rate at which this changes throughout a person's life. Children have a greater brain plasticity, so generally aquire skills faster than adults. Logically, this would help their survival.
> Anyway, there are far more professionally qualified people who write and study this and the information is much better scientifically rigid than anything that archery offers at this point in time.
> 
> You can all debate it all you want, but the truth is out there and the average person, including archers, have no idea how much is actually known about this.


Very good post. 

This year has been a myriad of milestone achievements for me in both practice and competition, and this is exactly the mindset I believe was the difference for me. Discipline and purposeful execution. 

I personally believe most people don't put in the necessary effort, but expect better results, then pile on the excuses when they come up short. Even with a fair amount of natural ability, you have to work your butt off, and actually try to continually improve. You can't just keep doing what you've been doing and expect to get better.


----------



## lcaillo

whiz-Oz said:


> Ericcson covers this in his discussion of deliberate practice.
> Deliberate practice is the concept of paying absolute attention and focus to what you're doing as you seek to increase your skill level.
> Most people learning a skill get to the point where they're "good enough" and stop paying attention. This is where they stop developing. They can even go backwards.
> 
> The building of neural connections is what refines skill and is discernable by closely linked neurons and deposits of myelin. Unfortunately, they're not permanent structures, like muscle tissue. If you don't continuously fire that pattern of neurons associated with that skill, the links degrade. It's the method by which the brain has evolved to change and be good at what it needs to be at the time.
> 
> The process is quite fascinating. Essentially, when you learn something new, you do it inefficiently and make lots of connections to do things that you don't need. You learn to hold tension in muscles you don't need to use. Paying attention to these things refines the neural pathways and fires more of the ones that are needed, and less of the ones that aren't.
> The ones that aren't activated, eventually get pruned off by the brains natural processes and the skill related to the neurons that are needed improves with this efficiency.
> Eventually the skill can get handed off to automatic function and the neurons fire like a preprogrammed route. Voila, you can do stuff like walk, write, drive, read, balance.. without having to concentrate on it.
> Once you stop paying attention, things can sneak in and the neural route can divert a bit and become less efficient. It's why core training retains skills and should be kept for maintenance of them.
> 
> Brain structures are made to support each other of course. Things like balance structures are used in all sorts of things and form a core performance requirement. Excellent balance in one task is a transferrable skillset to support others. People who have good proprioception are the ones who learn the physical tasks faster and easier because they have that core skill already.
> 
> This is one of the reasons why some people are judged to be "sportier" than others and people assume it's a talent that someone is born with, without knowing that ALL skills revolve around brain structure.
> Physical genetic advantages are NOT abled to be expressed without the brain structure to take advantage of it. People however, never remember these examples and only concentrate on the results of the two.
> 
> They're the people that everyone knows about. So they just confirm people's beliefs.
> 
> The one thing which is not well researched is the speed at which these structures are developed and the rate at which this changes throughout a person's life. Children have a greater brain plasticity, so generally aquire skills faster than adults. Logically, this would help their survival.
> Anyway, there are far more professionally qualified people who write and study this and the information is much better scientifically rigid than anything that archery offers at this point in time.
> 
> You can all debate it all you want, but the truth is out there and the average person, including archers, have no idea how much is actually known about this.



Excellent post. The only thing I would differ with you on is the last sentence. We know a lot about skill acquisition and development, true enough. There is still much we don't know, and the complexity of human physiology, the brain, and psychological variables involved in performance leave many unanswered questions. These are fascinating, but what it comes down to for me is the challenge that occurs with each arrow to arrange my practice behaviors, thoughts, and conditions to make me more likely to shoot better in the future, i.e. develop the right pathways and neurological connections to make it happen. That challenge, and the flow state that occurs when we shoot that 10, is what makes it meaningful. The development of meaning in life is the ultimate goal.


----------



## Bobmuley

Both + 1

Without a strong mind neither will lead to success.


----------



## EPLC

According to Ericsson there are 3 common Myths:

1. Belief that ability limits are due to genetics and/or natural talent. (It has been shown that just about anyone can improve with the right type of practice.)
2. If you do the same thing over and over you'll get better. (This is a recipe for stagnation and decline, or as Einstein called it; "insanity")
3. Just trying harder will produce improvement. (Specialized skills require specialized training techniques. Trying harder alone won't produce much, if any improvement.)


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Based on my reading there are 3 common Myths:
> 
> 1. Belief that ability limits are due to genetics and/or natural talent. (It has been shown that just about anyone can *improve* with the right type of practice.)


*Improve*... definitely! But not everyone can become "great" at anything they choose simply through practice/training.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> *Improve*... definitely! But not everyone can become "great" at anything they choose simply through practice/training.


There seems to be some pretty compelling data to suggest otherwise although they do raise some questions in my mind due to the pretty specific criteria they used to select people for their studies. I'm beginning to believe that just about anyone can be a skilled performer given the right motivation and training at an early age. Of course I reserve the right to change my mind in a heartbeat.


----------



## Bobmuley

Rick! said:


> Maybe start with chapter 7 of Mastering Golf's Mental Game. Reread Lanny's book for tips on subconscious programming. Lanny was neither athletic nor gifted IIRC.


Do we consider mental strength as an ability or aptitude? It is essential whether we think of one as a hard worker, naturally gifted, or both in order to succeed. 

Lardon says most athletes (not sure I'd throw archers into the elite athlete realm in itself) are genetic freaks, but that gap in natural ability can be overcome...with a plan and mental training. 

Lanny was not gifted, and not mentally strong. It was his mental game that made the difference...as in planning and perserverance.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> There seems to be some pretty compelling data to suggest otherwise although they do raise some questions in my mind due to the pretty specific criteria they used to select people for their studies..


Exactly....the problem with a study is the very low probability that a truly gifted i individual will be randomly selected for the activity that's being tested. If michael jordan, or tiger woods, or joey logano had happened to be part of a random study on basketball/golf/driving skill development before it was known how good theyd become....those same studies would have proved the opposite.


----------



## nochance

EPLC said:


> I'm beginning to believe that just about anyone can be a skilled performer given the right motivation and training at an early age.


Uh oh, I didn't start shooting competitively till 43 years of age. But I won't let that hold me back.


----------



## Rat

Nature Vs. Nurture? And the debate rages on! The obvious answer is both; to some degree. 
To me, pherrly said it best:


> [/pherrley
> 
> 
> IMO, short answer: both.
> 
> I think the book 'The Sports Gene' covers this answer pretty thoroughly. 'The Talent Code', touches on this as well. Both books suggest a lot, but to premises are that:
> 
> 1. Someone without talent can become a "master" with A LOT of practice. A natural can become a "master", with relatively minimal practice.
> 2. Only a natural can become truly great. (Probably somewhat due to #1; there just isn't enough time for someone without talent to become great.)
> 
> The amount of practice required to become a "master" is very dependent on your aptitude.
> 
> Also, similar to 'Peak'. 'The Talent Code' suggests you must practice with purpose to become better. Just like in the book 'Peak', people will say practice with people better than you (and you will get better). In this I agree with Peak; people seem to tend to "settle" when they're content. QUOTE]
> 
> To a point though, a SKILL is learned; by definition. Athletic ability, or aptitude, is the person's natural ability to do something; and is not a learned 'skill'.
> 
> I know a guy who has a natural ability to fix things that are broken, he is an HVAC technician, one of the best around. He recognized early on that he had a natural ability for this trade, made the commitment to be better at it than anyone else in the area, and it has paid off for him. The same guy has only a limited natural ability for archery, but he practices a lot (he thinks it's a lot anyway) and is a slightly above average shooter in his winter leagues and 3D. But he LOVES archery! He will never be great for two reasons:
> 1) he doesn't have the raw natural ability that others do and
> 2) he doesn't commit himself to perfect training.
> He works on other people's bows and helps coach when he is asked, and is a leader in his community when it comes to archery (4H coach, local leagues and 3D shoot club member, etc.). Just maybe, if I had a higher natural ability to shoot archery I would be a pro shooter instead of an HVAC Service Manager.
> 
> There is no doubt that hard work makes up for less than average ability in my opinion; but you will never be as good as someone who puts in the same amount of work and has a higher natural ability. But that doesn't mean we stop trying!


----------



## subconsciously

Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
Quote -


----------



## EPLC

Rat said:


> Nature Vs. Nurture? And the debate rages on! The obvious answer is both; to some degree.
> To me, pherrly said it best:
> 
> 
> 
> [/pherrley
> 
> 
> IMO, short answer: both.
> 
> I think the book 'The Sports Gene' covers this answer pretty thoroughly. 'The Talent Code', touches on this as well. Both books suggest a lot, but to premises are that:
> 
> 1. Someone without talent can become a "master" with A LOT of practice. A natural can become a "master", with relatively minimal practice.
> 2. Only a natural can become truly great. (Probably somewhat due to #1; there just isn't enough time for someone without talent to become great.)
> 
> The amount of practice required to become a "master" is very dependent on your aptitude.!
> 
> 
> 
> "The Sports Gene is a book written by David Epstein, a senior writer for Sports Illustrated, on the effects of genetics and sports training on human athleticism."
> 
> I think I'm leaning more towards believing data from years of scientific studies by Ericsson over the opinion of a sports writer. In "Peak" Ericsson has provided studies that debunk Epsrein's entire position on this subject.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rick!

Bobmuley said:


> Do we consider mental strength as an ability or aptitude? It is essential whether we think of one as a hard worker, naturally gifted, or both in order to succeed.
> 
> Lardon says most athletes (not sure I'd throw archers into the elite athlete realm in itself) are genetic freaks, but that gap in natural ability can be overcome...with a plan and mental training.
> 
> Lanny was not gifted, and not mentally strong. It was his mental game that made the difference...as in planning and perserverance.


We need to make sure to not get wrapped up in semantics. Aptitude is a synonym for ability so they are fundamentally the same.

To answer the OP's thread title question, by definition, a skill is learned/developed.

Maybe the question should be rephrased: "Does one become a 99th percentile archer with natural talent or developed skills?"

I'm thinkin' it's developed skills from creating a plan and executing the plan. Internal to the plan is also developing mental fortitude. 

The deja vu in all this is if I really pay attention to my training, the info in the books is more like a review than it is a whole bunch of "aha"...


----------



## cbrunson

Natural ability will get you one good shot. Hard work will get you 60.


----------



## nestly

cbrunson said:


> Natural ability will get you one good shot. Hard work will get you 60.


I don't believe it's that simple, at least not when dealing with the 99th percentile that Rick mentioned. You can look at any tournament or competition and see that the "favorites" or "favorites" are often not the winner(s). Jesse didn't make it into the finals at Vegas last year, neither did Cousins, Morgan, Gellentien, Reo, and hundreds more of the best archers in the world because they couldn't even shoot 30 "good shots" in a row. I don't believe a lack of hard work is to blame. I'm usually the one that requires a scientific explanation for everything, but there are a lot of intangibles when the human brain and human body are a factor in the result, and "natural talent" (or whatever you choose to call it) is one of them. Anyone can beat anyone if the conditions are right, but it requires everything to come together at the same time.... whether we're talking about the person regarded as "gifted" or the person who's known for their hard work.... and even for the person who's both. 

To be clear, there's no substitute for hard work, but hard work alone isn't enough to overcome everything else.


----------



## Lazarus

With all due respect I say this to the audience. When questions like this come up they can be discussed into eternity while coming to no real consensus. Reality is, when these kind of discussions come up the real question or questions being asked is/are being hidden. 

Those questions are; (1) do I have what it takes? And (2)does someone have an advantage over me because of some God given talent that I haven't been blessed with? You might follow that with (3) regardless of the answers to the first two questions; is it worth it?

I believe winners believe in the possibilities rather than impossibilities (because of the lack of being born with a specific talent,) and act as such. Maybe that "belief" is what makes them great rather than some "natural" physical gift. 

Again, as an archery example, I give you Matt Stutzman.


----------



## aread

nestly said:


> I don't believe it's that simple, at least not when dealing with the 99th percentile that Rick mentioned. You can look at any tournament or competition and see that the "favorites" or "favorites" are often not the winner(s). Jesse didn't make it into the finals at Vegas last year, neither did Cousins, Morgan, Gellentien, Reo, and hundreds more of the best archers in the world because they couldn't even shoot 30 "good shots" in a row. I don't believe a lack of hard work is to blame. I'm usually the one that requires a scientific explanation for everything, but there are a lot of intangibles when the human brain and human body are a factor in the result, and "natural talent" (or whatever you choose to call it) is one of them. Anyone can beat anyone if the conditions are right, but it requires everything to come together at the same time.... whether we're talking about the person regarded as "gifted" or the person who's known for their hard work.... and even for the person who's both.
> 
> To be clear, there's no substitute for hard work, but hard work alone isn't enough to overcome everything else.


With respect, I don't think this falls into the nature or nurture question of the original post. The archers you mention have already acquired the skills, either by nature or nurture. They are not winning for other reasons. Be it mental fatigue, poor preparation for that specific tournament, better shooters coming up or distractions in their life. As hard as it is to achieve top level, winning skills, it's even harder to stay at that level. Reo, Jessie, Dave and the others have been at the top for a long time. Something has to give eventually.

As far as nature vs. nurture, it's going to be a bit of both. There has been a lot of information both ways. But, in archery, I think that the determining factor in reaching a high skill level, is the individuals level of determination to train, not just shoot. 

JMHO, 
Allen


----------



## nestly

Lazarus said:


> With all due respect I say this to the audience. When questions like this come up they can be discussed into eternity while coming to no real consensus. Reality is, when these kind of discussions come up the real question or questions being asked is/are being hidden.
> 
> Those questions are; (1) do I have what it takes? And (2)does someone have an advantage over me because of some God given talent that I haven't been blessed with? You might follow that with (3) regardless of the answers to the first two questions; is it worth it?
> 
> I believe winners believe in the possibilities rather than impossibilities (because of the lack of being born with a specific talent,) and act as such. Maybe that "belief" is what makes them great rather than some "natural" physical gift.
> 
> Again, as an archery example, I give you Matt Stutzman.


Not everyone has equal amounts of confidence and desire, so my position is the same. A person won't succeed just because they have great physical attributes if they lack confidence/desire. Abilities are not just physical, they're mental as well... and I find it puzzling that some deny that the path to greatness is easier for those who have an abundance of both.


----------



## pherrley

EPLC said:


> Rat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nature Vs. Nurture? And the debate rages on! The obvious answer is both; to some degree.
> To me, pherrly said it best:
> 
> 
> "The Sports Gene is a book written by David Epstein, a senior writer for Sports Illustrated, on the effects of genetics and sports training on human athleticism."
> 
> I think I'm leaning more towards believing data from years of scientific studies by Ericsson over the opinion of a sports writer. In "Peak" Ericsson has provided studies that debunk Epsrein's entire position on this subject.
> 
> 
> 
> "Don't judge a book by it's cover", give it a read. Education and intelligence are not the same thing, but if it'll make my opinion carry more weight; I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering.
> 
> Looks like everyone here agrees to a point, with varying degrees of importance between practice and aptitude. The answer obviously isn't going found in this forum, but it is fun to discuss.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bobmuley

Lazarus said:


> With all due respect I say this to the audience. When questions like this come up they can be discussed into eternity while coming to no real consensus. Reality is, when these kind of discussions come up the real question or questions being asked is/are being hidden.
> 
> Those questions are; (1) do I have what it takes? And (2)does someone have an advantage over me because of some God given talent that I haven't been blessed with? You might follow that with (3) regardless of the answers to the first two questions; is it worth it?
> 
> I believe winners believe in the possibilities rather than impossibilities (because of the lack of being born with a specific talent,) and act as such. Maybe that "belief" is what makes them great rather than some "natural" physical gift.
> 
> Again, as an archery example, I give you Matt Stutzman.


1 - Nobody knows until you try, and by try I mean give it all it takes.
2 - Who cares. Outwork them. Plan better. Give more effort. When they're sleeping...shoot.
3 - That's up to the individual. Regardless of natural abilities, it's going to require work, effort, planning to get to the top echelon. IMO, this is what separates the top tier shooters because no matter the effort, mental preparation, and hard work there is a risk that it's not worth it financially or through token notoriety. That level is the deep end of the pool where all the big fish play and nothing is guaranteed. They know it, but challenge themselves regardless. The work and effort themselves are the real reward of a competitor. 

I'll meet your Stutzman and raise you the three Wildes. I think one of them is truly gifted, one works harder at it than most realize, one is a good mixture of both. All three have won world-level competitions.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Lazarus said:


> With all due respect I say this to the audience. When questions like this come up they can be discussed into eternity while coming to no real consensus. Reality is, when these kind of discussions come up the real question or questions being asked is/are being hidden.
> 
> Those questions are; (1) do I have what it takes? And (2)does someone have an advantage over me because of some God given talent that I haven't been blessed with? You might follow that with (3) regardless of the answers to the first two questions; is it worth it?
> 
> I believe winners believe in the possibilities rather than impossibilities (because of the lack of being born with a specific talent,) and act as such. Maybe that "belief" is what makes them great rather than some "natural" physical gift.
> 
> Again, as an archery example, I give you Matt Stutzman.


I don't care what others thing, but I like this.
.
.
Ever wonder of the vast number of books/articles on archery? Because the "question" keeps being asked and no one has "hit the nail on the head" yet.


----------



## Pete53

Lazarus said:


> With all due respect I say this to the audience. When questions like this come up they can be discussed into eternity while coming to no real consensus. Reality is, when these kind of discussions come up the real question or questions being asked is/are being hidden.
> 
> Those questions are; (1) do I have what it takes? And (2)does someone have an advantage over me because of some God given talent that I haven't been blessed with? You might follow that with (3) regardless of the answers to the first two questions; is it worth it?
> 
> I believe winners believe in the possibilities rather than impossibilities (because of the lack of being born with a specific talent,) and act as such. Maybe that "belief" is what makes them great rather than some "natural" physical gift.
> 
> Again, as an archery example, I give you Matt Stutzman.


> some archers do have more god given talent ,most of us don`t and never will have as much talent including myself,just learn to live with what you have.


----------



## EPLC

Here's how it goes for most, myself included: 

1. You gain interest in something such as archery.
2. You pick up some equipment and seek advice from your friends of seek out some professional help.
3. You practice until your practice game becomes somewhat automatic. This is your comfort zone.
4. You continue shooting, 1000's of arrows over some long period of time, but never truly get much beyond your initial comfort level.

Sound familiar?


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> 4. You continue shooting, 1000's of arrows over some long period of time, but never truly get much beyond your initial comfort level.
> 
> Sound familiar?


Yes.....but what's not easy to determine is whether the stagnation is because you're near your physical/mental limitations, or because of ineffective training.....both are legitimate explanations.


----------



## erdman41

EPLC said:


> Sound familiar?


Not for me

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

erdman41 said:


> Not for me
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Great, and knowing that you are a very good shooter I'd be interested in understanding the history of your development. At what age did you start shooting and what path did you follow to get to the level you are today? What is your current training plan and does it contain goals that are measurable? Do you or did you have a coach? What feedback do you get to understand and correct errors? TIA

And same questions to Brunson... and any other 300 Vegas shooter that would like to share their training experience.


----------



## erdman41

EPLC said:


> Great, and knowing that you are a very good shooter I'd be interested in understanding the history of your development. At what age did you start shooting and what path did you follow to get to the level you are today? What is your current training plan and does it contain goals that are measurable? Do you or did you have a coach? TIA
> 
> And same questions to Brunson...


Shot my first 5 spot in a league on January 7th 2011 (300 50x). Shot a lot at 15 yards in my basement the couple of months before that league started. This was with my hunting bow. That's when I would say I started. Prior to that was fling a few arrows before season, kill a deer and put bow away. (Since age 12-36 and probably around 10 span of no archery at all in there)

Now from that first 5 spot til now has been a long winding road. I honestly probably do absolutely nothing the same today as I did then.

I was a 55x shooter for a long time. I would say my main problem and what kept me at that same level so long was I was a tinkerer. Twisting strings, moving weights, you name it I was messing with it.

Finally decided to leave my equipment alone and just work on me. Improvement started again very slowly but the last 5 x's are a 100 times harder than the first 55 at least for me.

Shot my first 60x in practice on December 13th 2014. First 60x in a tournament last month so even from practice to tournament was two years.

I shoot as much as I can and remain married. I got a 6 and 9 year old at home plus a full time job. I really don't have any other hobbies now other than archery. I try to shoot 3 times a week for a couple of hours each at a minimum. I go below that and my shot suffers. I ramp it up a little the two weeks before a shoot.

I shoot scoring rounds for whatever the next tournament is. Two ends of practice and start scoring. Whatever issue I'm having I work on while shooting the round. Usually incorporate into my shot routine that I have at the time. My shot routine is a fluid thing that changes as to what my weakness is at the time.

No formal coaching. Just read a lot, watch alot, and think a lot about the sport.

Have been doing some focus drills as of late as well. Just Google focus drills and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I've set goals for myself which some I've been able to mark off and some have not. Some have had to increase over time.

I set a goal for the tournaments I go to as well. Not a finish but a number I want to hit. Midwest and Iowa I wanted to shoot a 680. Didn't make it at either shoot but that's ok. If you set your goals too low you'll achieve them everytime.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

Thanks. I'd be interested in understanding what brought you to that next level. Also, starting with a 50x game is outstanding. Did that repeat regularly or did you find it difficult to repeat?


----------



## Rick!

EPLC: said:


> sound familiar?





erdman41 said:


> Not for me


Me either.


----------



## erdman41

EPLC said:


> Thanks. I'd be interested in understanding what brought you to that next level. Also, starting with a 50x game is outstanding. Did that repeat regularly or did you find it difficult to repeat?


Just working on me. Grip, hold, release, pushing straight towards the target, pulling straight away from the target, not having tension where it really hurts ya, just lots of little things that add up. 

Then finding what will work in a tournament. I've thought I was shooting good then go to a tournament and fall apart. I'd go back to the drawing board. I wanted my shot to be able to stand up to tournament stress. I knew just working on me being relaxed wasn't really going to help. There is always going to be stress to deal with.

No when I first started it was mid 40's to low 50's and not all 300's. Third ever 5 spot was a 57x. I was a straight up puncher though back then. I didn't shoot another 57x for like 2.5 years.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## nochance

(1) do I have what it takes?I don't care I'm going to try any ways 
(2)does someone have an advantage over me because of some God given talent that I haven't been blessed with?I don't care I'm going to try my damdest to beat them (3) regardless of the answers to the first two questions; is it worth it?If it wasn't I wouldn't be trying
I am not yet the shooter that others are on here but I've made a lot of progress and won't be held back by wondering if someone else has more natural talent. I got a late start with 3D 10 years ago at the age of 42 and just got into paper seriously about 3 years ago. You won't know if you have what it takes unless you give it a go. And i have yet to see someone at a comp with a jersey saying "I have god given talent"


----------



## EPLC

This thread is intended to be informative and while there certainly be differences in opinion I hope the data we gather here will be helpful to all. And just for the record I started at 51 twenty years ago. Like you I shot a lot of 3D and won the 2001 New England sectional with a 642 for 60 targets over two days. I was shooting in the low 440's on a good night in my second league year. That level of shooting came relatively easy for me. Unfortunately progress since then has been slow. This is not to say I have not had my share of success, it's just that I've always felt that I could shoot better.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> Great, and knowing that you are a very good shooter I'd be interested in understanding the history of your development. At what age did you start shooting and what path did you follow to get to the level you are today? What is your current training plan and does it contain goals that are measurable? Do you or did you have a coach? What feedback do you get to understand and correct errors? TIA
> 
> And same questions to Brunson... and any other 300 Vegas shooter that would like to share their training experience.


Also nope, and a lot the same as Scott. I couldn't tell you where I started on a 5-spot, but I do know I shot a target bow for about a year and gave up because I couldn't shoot it as good as my hunting bow. That was in 2011. I actually shot my first 5-spot 300 with my hunting bow shortly after giving up target. Then I decided to go all out with all brand new equipment in 2013 because I wanted to give it another try. It took me a year to shoot a higher score with it than I had with my hunting bow. That was somewhere in the neighborhood of mid-40s X count if I remember right. 

Maybe six or so months later I broke the 50s with my average and that is also about the time I committed to a hinge and stuck with it until some time in 2015. Then the streak of 55-57 X games that lasted another year. Somewhere in there I shot my first Vegas 300 as well. 

For me it is a matter of milestones. Once I broke 50x my target was 51, then 52, then 53, and so on. Every practice is a game and every game is scored. Same with Vegas. Each new high score became something to beat, and I looked for the little differences to make positive change to my set up or shot process to get it rather that getting caught in the continual rewrite so many people do. I might have tried a few things that some pro or coach recommended, but in the end I found what I could build the most confidence with, based on my own success. 

Continuing those milestone achievements through 2015 and last year and this year already have brought me my first clean league score of straight 300s, my first 300 Vegas game in competition at the Utah open (300-27x), my first 60x, my first Vegas 300-30x in practice, my first open class championship win in a 3D triple crown, and so far this indoor season I've placed in the money in every area tournament I've gone to. 

To think I gave it up in 2012 because in a year's time I couldn't shoot better than 290ish on a 5-spot is silly to me now. The one thing I can tell,you is that it doesn't come overnight. And it takes a lot of hard work. Heck, even now if I shoot less than four days a week, my scores will fall below 57x or 20x Vegas. If I shoot 5-7 days a week, 100-150 arrows a day, I can maintain a 300-25x Vegas average with a few 299-23s and a few 300-28s in practice. 

I practice with a purpose. Every shot is a test. Every game is serious, and I compete as often as possible. Competition brings a whole different element to the game and I am now learning how to set up my equipment and my shot process to better suit that. You will hear a lot of people say that it shouldn't be any different than practice and you should try to just relax and shoot your game, but it is much different when you know you can win. 

No coach
No specific goals other than the milestones. Keep goals in reach. Minimal growth is happy growth. Expecting a 300 when you are a 290 shooter is too much. Become a 295 shooter first. Then after the 300, become a 50x shooter. Milestones. 
You find success within yourself. The only feedback you need is the ability to know what a good shot is and recognize when you didn't get it. Once you see it, you just keep trying and trying to do it again. Along the way you teach yourself to self correct your mistakes. Your mistakes get smaller and smaller, but the psychological impact is the same. How you deal with those mistakes is aptitude. It's unfortunate that so many don't understand that.


----------



## whiz-Oz

One of the more useful parts of reading about studies of expertise is that one learns about WHY people believe in "natural talent"

The assumptions that everyone makes and the conclusions that they jump to in order to explain things are logical errors. 

If everyone here were skilled at statistical analysis, this wouldn't even be a discussion. 

Because humans are not wired to interpret statistics correctly, this is a field of discussion that will be permanently warped towards biased thinking, anecdotes, single points of data, cherry picking and every other cognitive bias that humans are predispositioned for. 

Asking a crowd of random people about a specialised field of study which contradicts conventional knowledge will always be met with a person who holds their one single misinterpreted example as absolute proof against decades of rigourously researched data. 

If you'd like to see how this works in reverse, where you all actually DO know something which is absolute fact, just start asking people who are about to try archery for the first time how hard they think it will be before and after they shoot and compare their expectation with reality. 

Almost without exception, depictions of archery in movies, tv and any popular culture show the archer hitting exactly where he wants the arrow to go. 

If you press people who haven't done any archery or seen it done for real, they think that it's easy, because they've been bombarded with this myth. 

If you happen to see anyone miss, they're always painted as an incompetent loser, like in Game of Thrones. Go back and watch the reaction towards the the archers that miss. 

Anywhere in popular culture that an archer fails to hit the target, he's always regarded as a loser minority who can't perform like everyone else. 

Yet in actual archery circles, you will never stand in a group who can always hit any target at any distance every time, barebow with fingers. You'll never find anyone who can do it. 

You would all consider someone who expected this to happen as delusional. 

Asking any group of people about "natural ability" is a complete waste of time. It's like asking a 3 year old if Santa exists. There's no reason not to believe it if all the evidence you've bothered to search for says that he turns up once a year. 
Once you start actually looking and thinking critically about it, you discover it's your Uncle in a red suit and fake beard. But that's not what 3 year olds want to believe.


----------



## Kdawg74

The answer is both! I can use myself as an example. Before I had joined the Army, I had never shot a gun. Never shot a bow or anything. The training I got in marksmanship from basic training was no different than the others. However, I was an expert shot. And that seemed to be the case on anything I fired. I even won a silver German shooting badge on a rifle that we weren't allowed to adjust sights on. And many years later, I picked up a compound bow and found that I could group arrows very well. I've never had any special training in marksmanship. But I'm just a natural at it. If I did have training, who knows how far I could go? But even though I'm a really good marksman, I'm by no means a professional! And I would lose any competition I entered because I have no training. So some people can have this natural skill but in order to become even better, training is needed.


----------



## cbrunson

So what level, score wise would you say makes you a natural without training?

"I'm good but I wouldn't win anything" to me means you're a beginner like all of us were at one time, before training and hard work.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Kdawg74 said:


> The answer is both! I can use myself as an example. Before I had joined the Army, I had never shot a gun. Never shot a bow or anything. The training I got in marksmanship from basic training was no different than the others. However, I was an expert shot. And that seemed to be the case on anything I fired. I even won a silver German shooting badge on a rifle that we weren't allowed to adjust sights on. And many years later, I picked up a compound bow and found that I could group arrows very well. I've never had any special training in marksmanship. But I'm just a natural at it. If I did have training, who knows how far I could go? But even though I'm a really good marksman, I'm by no means a professional! And I would lose any competition I entered because I have no training. So some people can have this natural skill but in order to become even better, training is needed.


Actually, what you have is a transferable skillset. 

This is exactly an example of not understanding of what is actually happening. At some time prior to your military training, you already developed a superior ability to coordinate your body and isolate movement. 

Ever notice that newborn babies don't pop out, land in a half somersault on their feet, do a quick lap of the delivery room and jump back onto the bed with their mother? 

Of all the legendary stories you hear about abilities being "natural" why is it that none of them apply to newborns? I mean, if you were BORN with GIFTS to do stuff, how come they're not immediately evident when you're born? 

What you are born with is any genetic potential. This means that you might be born with the potential to grow to be 9 foot tall without any issues in doing so. It also means that you might be born with the potential to only grow to be 4 foot tall. One of these is significantly going to hamper your professional basketball career. 


It's well known that children have greater neuroplasticity than adults and can gain skills faster, however it's not specifically known what particular activities can develop core skills like proprioception or the ability to coordinate one's body. Coordination and isolation are KEY components of marksmanship. 

If you happened to love doing something as a baby which gained you superior coordination, you will demonstrate that skill for the rest of your life. Transferrable skillsets are pretty much never identified correctly and they start developing as babies. 

Some studies of early childhood development have linked crawling with superior proprioception later in life. The greater crawling was caused by the greater activity of the kids. Simple activities repeated over and over develop foundation skills which are relied on for the rest of our lives. If you have no idea about this, you make up stories to explain things which other people with no idea will agree with, because it fits their own observations that THEY made without knowing what is actually going on. 

Letting your kids crawl around and encouraging them to be active and develop fine motor skills will directly equip them with the neural structures to coordinate their bodies in future activities . THIS is the transferable skillset which makes some people better at physical activites than others. In looking at people with greater expertise in fields, Ericcsson has ALWAYS found a proportionally greater time spent developing that skill. 

Even those idiot savants. He's informally investigated them too. 

I can take handheld long exposure photos and get better results than most other photographers I know. I wondered why until I realised that the years that I spent training to hold my body still and squeeze a pistol trigger are exactly the same skills needed to get a good long exposure hand held photo. Anyone who can handhold 500mm lenses at 1/30th of a second and get decent results has the same ability. The same base skillset benefits both photography and firearm marksmanship. 

When I was in basic training, I discovered by accident that I had far superior balance than any of the other recruits. I couldn't understand why. As far as I was aware I hadn't done anything special, or had never shown this before. Obviously I'm a balance superman and I was born with this! 

When I was going to high school, I caught the bus. The bus wasn't super reliable, so we had to be out there waiting for it at least 15 minutes every day. My house was on a straight stretch of road, so I stood on our brick fence so that I could see it coming. While I was doing that, I would walk from post to post on the two inch steam pipe which was about six foot long. 
I did that every school day for about 15 minutes for four years of high school. 
I used to be able to change direction on the pipe by spinning on one foot with my school bag over my shoulder. 

I had no idea that I was actually engaging in a daily deliberate practice regimen which would develop my balance.

Any of you guys able to do this? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84NzRVLOa10

I can hold arrows in the red on either front or rear foot through the complete shot cycle. Shortly after this video came out, a group of archers at my club gave it a go. 

I'm not a balance superman. I just spent at least 1120 days balance training for 15 minutes without intending to. 

Most of you will not recognise what core skills you developed, or how you developed them. How are you going to look at someone whose history you have absolutely no idea about and accurately assess how they got their skills? 

If you see a ten year old kid sink a twenty foot putt all day, are you going to look at him and say "He must be born with it, because he is doing the thing that adults can't do as well" 

Yes. Of course you are, because you're human and jump to a conclusion of magical ability because it's popular amongst other people who believe in magical ability. 

If you were then told that this ten year old kid was obsessed by golf, and did it all day since he could stand, all day from that time on from school and before and after school, you probably just witnessed eight years of solid training. This is a logical explanation as to why there is unbelievable putting skills in a ten year old. 
But if you don't know this, then magical "he was born with it" is a great explanation. 

Not everyone has the potential to become the best in the world. Nobody ever says this, but as soon as you talk about this, everyone assumes that you're saying that anyone can be world champion at something if they just train hard enough. Genetic potential plays a part in some sports more than others. 

However, if you are capable of growing neuron connections, you can refine your current skills by paying attention in detail and having conscious input into what you're trying to get better at. 

If you can read this, then you have the ability to improve, just as you have the ability to improve most skills. 

However, all the evidence and explanation in the world, including seeing your mother put presents in your stockings won't convince some people that Santa Clause does not exist. 

Transferable skillsets explain all magical unexplainable skill based abilities.

This isn't secret knowledge.


----------



## Lazarus

nestly said:


> Not everyone has equal amounts of confidence and desire, so my position is the same. A person won't succeed just because they have great physical attributes if they lack confidence/desire. Abilities are not just physical, they're mental as well... and I find it puzzling that some deny that the path to greatness is easier for those who have an abundance of both.


If they lack the confidence and desire to succeed, that is a choice, not a lack of talent. Furthermore both of those attributes can be inspired or taught. If they can be taught, the student is responsible for just what degree they decide to excel. 



Pete53 said:


> > some archers do have more god given talent ,most of us don`t and never will have as much talent including myself,just learn to live with what you have.


While your former statement is a possibility I don't subscribe to it. There are thirteen, fourteen year old kids shooting 300x60's now days. God just "gifted" them better than those of us from another era? No, no, no! These kids just haven't had the opportunity to have their minds filled with so much failure that they believe and know they can "do" it. This is coupled with better teaching than ever.

Regarding your latter statement, don't confuse choices like; "living with what we have" with supposed God given talent. If one *chooses* to "live with what they have" that's their choice, not the responsibility of some God moving pieces around on a chess board deciding who gets what "natural talent." 

Pete....please understand I'm not attacking your statement here. I'm only attacking that losing mentality. :cheers: If you meant it tongue in cheek, as self deprecating humor, my apologies. :cheers:


----------



## Lazarus

Bobmuley said:


> 1 - Nobody knows until you try, and by try I mean give it all it takes.
> 2 - Who cares. Outwork them. Plan better. Give more effort. When they're sleeping...shoot.
> 3 - That's up to the individual. Regardless of natural abilities, it's going to require work, effort, planning to get to the top echelon. IMO, this is what separates the top tier shooters because no matter the effort, mental preparation, and hard work there is a risk that it's not worth it financially or through token notoriety. That level is the deep end of the pool where all the big fish play and nothing is guaranteed. They know it, but challenge themselves regardless. The work and effort themselves are the real reward of a competitor.
> 
> I'll meet your Stutzman and raise you the three Wildes. I think one of them is truly gifted, one works harder at it than most realize, one is a good mixture of both. All three have won world-level competitions.


i believe we are nearly on the same page here Bob. The point that I missed by a mile of making in my op was this; all the talk about "natural ability" is just people looking for an excuse for their failures. In other words, looking for a way to blame God for their inadequacies because he didn't bless them with a "natural ability." 

I'm pretty sure we're almost on the same page here based on your reply. However, in your example I believe that of the 3 the one that has the most Championships is the one with the most desire, (assuming that they all shot the same number of events) not the one with some mystical "natural talent." 

:cheers:


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> Not everyone has the potential to become the best in the world.


Agree



whiz-Oz said:


> *Genetic potential* plays a part in some sports more than others.


Agree



whiz-Oz said:


> Transferable skillsets explain all magical unexplainable skill based abilities.



If you concede that it can be related to genetics, then it's not all universally explained by "transferable skillsets" unless "transferable" also includes being transferred from the parent(s), in which case it's seems to be a matter of semantics whether someone chooses to call it "natural" or "genetic". Either way, if you agree that it's possible for predisposition for a trait or ability to exist in a person which is inherited, rather than learned or developed 1st hand, then it seems the real difference on this subject is the specific choice of words, not whether some individuals are born with more potential for certain types of activities than others.


----------



## nestly

Lazarus said:


> all the talk about "natural ability" is just people looking for an excuse for their failures. In other words, looking for a way to blame God for their inadequacies because he didn't bless them with a "natural ability."


It's not about excuses or blame, it's simply an acknowledgment that not everyone has equal abilities in all areas. If you're 5'-2" and love basketball, by all means play as much as you want, but also realize that your chances of being a "great" player are less than those with a similar love for basketball that are much taller. Conversely, the guy that's 6'-5" / 240lbs is never going to be a great jockey, no matter how much he loves to race horses.


----------



## Lazarus

nestly said:


> It's not about excuses or blame, it's simply an acknowledgment that not everyone has equal abilities in all areas. If you're 5'-2" and love basketball, by all means play as much as you want, but also realize that your chances of being a "great" player are less than those with a similar love for basketball that are much taller. Conversely, the guy that's 6'-5" / 240lbs is never going to be a great jockey, no matter how much he loves to race horses.


Agreed. However we aren't talking apples to apples here. Your height/weight doesn't have anything to do with "natural (or God given) ability." This is certain though; if you are 5'2 and want to excel in basketball, the belief, desire, and work ethic to do so will make you a far better player than sitting around groaning because you weren't blessed with the physical attributes to excel against people who are 7' tall.


----------



## nestly

Lazarus said:


> Agreed. However we aren't talking apples to apples here. Your height/weight doesn't have anything to do with "natural (or God given) ability." This is certain though; if you are 5'2 and want to excel in basketball, the belief, desire, and work ethic to do so will make you a far better player than sitting around groaning because you weren't blessed with the physical attributes to excel against people who are 7' tall.


Again, it's not about groaning or complaining, or pouting or anything else because even if you do have all the physical attributes of the best NBA players, the odds that you're going to earn a career in the NBA are still slim because it requires more than just physical attributes. What seems to be lost here is that it's OK to enjoy a sport just for the enjoyment, some will be happy just to do it with no improvement, some require modest improvement, and a relative few aspire to greatness, but even among those few, most will fall short. That's not just the case for archery, it's true in life in general. "Greatness" isn't for everyone.... otherwise everyone would be "greats" and it wouldn't have any meaning.


----------



## whiz-Oz

nestly said:


> If you concede that it can be related to genetics, then it's not all universally explained by "transferable skillsets" unless "transferable" also includes being transferred from the parent(s), in which case it's seems to be a matter of semantics whether someone chooses to call it "natural" or "genetic". Either way, if you agree that it's possible for predisposition for a trait or ability to exist in a person which is inherited, rather than learned or developed 1st hand, then it seems the real difference on this subject is the specific choice of words, not whether some individuals are born with more potential for certain types of activities than others.


You're trying to infer that a skill is transferred genetically. 

This is where the average person with no background or external research in the subject always runs into confusion. You can't learn to be tall. You can't have two piano soloists produce a child who can pop out of the womb and play Mozart. 

Every single argument that everyone ever has about the "Natural talent concept" is comprehensively explained in all the research. I'm not actually explaining my independently arrived at opinion here. 

The concept comes down to some fairly basic fundamentals:

You've either read through all the research which comprehensively proves nobody is born with more expertise than anyone else, OR you don't bother to investigate and believe what you're told. 

This is equivalent to arguing that the Earth is flat when anyone who has actually orbited the Earth knows that it's spherical. 

One of the other interesting traits of humans is that some of them, when faced with actual evidence which contradicts their beliefs, will hold on even more firmly to what has been proven to be wrong.


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> You're trying to infer that a skill is transferred genetically.


Not me... you linked genetics and potential in post #54. I just happen to agree that potential can be inherited, not only learned.



whiz-Oz said:


> Genetic potential plays a part in some sports more than others.


----------



## Thansen

cbrunson said:


> How's the saying go?
> 
> Definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
> Definition of archery: Doing the same thing over and over, expecting the same results.
> 
> If you are doing the same thing and not improving, why would you keep doing the same thing, expecting to improve?



I have never heard that before but like it and it makes allot of sense. Love it....


----------



## Lazarus

nestly said:


> Again, it's not about groaning or complaining, or pouting or anything else because even if you do have all the physical attributes of the best NBA players, the odds that you're going to earn a career in the NBA are still slim because it requires more than just physical attributes. What seems to be lost here is that it's OK to enjoy a sport just for the enjoyment, some will be happy just to do it with no improvement, some require modest improvement, and a relative few aspire to greatness, but even among those few, most will fall short. That's not just the case for archery, it's true in life in general. "Greatness" isn't for everyone.... otherwise everyone would be "greats" and it wouldn't have any meaning.


Totally agree! :cheers: Unless I misunderstand the intent of the topic in this forum though we're not talking about simply enjoying the sport for fun. At least from my vantage point, the overall intent of a post on this forum is to figure out ways to excel. But that may be my motivation for reading/commenting, not everyone's. To put it simply, I'm in the game to excel. I don't enjoy it when I don't. Hopefully that's not a flaw. I want to help others excel. I don't play well with those who say they want to excel but make (and look for) excuses for not excelling. That's all. :cheers:


----------



## Rick!

nestly said:


> It's not about excuses or blame, it's simply an acknowledgment that not everyone has equal abilities in all areas. If you're 5'-2" and love basketball, by all means play as much as you want, but also realize that your chances of being a "great" player are less than those with a similar love for basketball that are much taller. Conversely, the guy that's 6'-5" / 240lbs is never going to be a great jockey, no matter how much he loves to race horses.





Lazarus said:


> Agreed. However we aren't talking apples to apples here. Your height/weight doesn't have anything to do with "natural (or God given) ability." This is certain though; if you are 5'2 and want to excel in basketball, the belief, desire, and work ethic to do so will make you a far better player than sitting around groaning because you weren't blessed with the physical attributes to excel against people who are 7' tall.


Spud Webb is almost that guy 'cept he's 5'7". Muggs Bogues was 5'3". They musta been born with something as everyone know's a 5' something white guy can't jump. 
I believe there was a movie about it.

So, where are we at?

We have substantiated evidence of the existence of transferable skillsets and lack of evidence of natural talent.
We have testimonials by respected shooters of "hard work" and intelligence that works. 
We have random noise about the occurrence of natural talent.
We have the opposite point of view that natural talent is real.
There are tomes that speak to each side of the discussion which lead to a credentials examination of the authors (like an author measuring contest.)
Genetics is being mentioned which is out of everyone's wheelhouse and IMO shouldn't even enter this conversation.

Andy is going to wear out a keyboard trying to convince folks that skills are learned, not inherited.
A few others will keep the diatribe going just to make sure we see it from their point of view.

I really liked the "question behind the question" response. That brought some proper reflection into the discussion.

I fully believe and can demonstrate that hard work with applied intelligence creates positive results in archery.
I've got years of recorded data that substantiates my claim.
Archery can't be that hard if a short, overweight, 57 year old male can get serious and be competitive on a state and national level inside of 4 years with a $450 used bow.
All it takes is 12-15 hours per week of practice, a plan, and an understanding wife.

So what's the next step in this "tastes great", "less filling" debate?

How do we do it without bringing in outliers just for argument's sake?
The part of the population that resides two sigma from the mean are few and don't reflect the general population.
But archery seems to attract those that always remember that one guy that one time, blah blah blah...

What Measurable delineates outliers from really good enthusiasts? (Recall S M A R T)

Is becoming the "outlier" the impetus of archers on this forum? 

The better I get, the more fun I have. When it starts to become work and the other F word takes over, then I'll go play golf...

Why didn't Linda or Steve balance on their back foot?


----------



## SonnyThomas

SonnyThomas said:


> I think this is going to turn into something like what we discussed not too long ago. It started in "Does tuning really matter or is it just the arrow" with reply #622. Went on for a couple pages...


Lazarus; "When questions like this come up they can be discussed into eternity while coming to no real consensus."

Archery wise, I think all of us agree that with some hard work, maybe a coach along the way, can make us better than we are. The only thing is, we can't stay this "better." Age, eye sight, health....


----------



## Lazarus

SonnyThomas said:


> Lazarus; "When questions like this come up they can be discussed into eternity while coming to no real consensus."
> 
> Archery wise, I think all of us agree that with some hard work, maybe a coach along the way, can make us better than we are. The only thing is, we can't stay this "better." Age, eye sight, health....


Sonny. talking to good friend of mine the other day, who happens to have several NFAA Silver bowls, talking about a 16 year old he shoots with that has missed one x in tournaments this winter; "God wasted the ability to hold and not shake and good eyesight on youth."

True story. :teeth:


----------



## EPLC

Transferable skillsets make more sense than being born with skills. It's obvious that folks that start out shooting scores higher than others have developed skills that would allow them to be more steady earlier on in the process. This could easily be looked at as natural ability. 
I can pick up someone else's recurve and within a couple of ends put up some groups that impress those that shoot traditional consistency. As a kid my uncle made me my first slingshot. I became pretty good with it. I also had a BB gun that at some point early on the barrel tube got bent making sight aiming impossible. I learned to shoot the thing by looking down the side of the barrel. 
My weakness shooting sighted compounds has always been in the holding steady department. 
A couple of years ago I hurt my Achilles' tendon and went to physical therapy for a couple of months. Several of the exercises involved balancing on one foot. My balance wasn't very good to start but improved greatly over the two months. I tried to.stand on one foot this morning after reading whiz-oz's post and found that it was difficult to do. Since my hold may improve with better balance I am going to start doing some exercises that improve balance.


----------



## nestly

Rick! said:


> Spud Webb is almost that guy 'cept he's 5'7". Muggs Bogues was 5'3". They musta been born with something as everyone know's a 5' something white guy can't jump.


Never said or suggested that it's impossible for a short guy to make it in the NBA, only that it's less likely. If that were not true, then there would be just as many players under 5'-10" on the court as over 5'-10" since that's the average height for men.



Rick! said:


> The better I get, the more fun I have. When it starts to become work and the other F word takes over, then I'll go play golf...


I thought the willingness to put in the "work" was what proved your mettle? Point being that everyone has to evaluate whether the reward is worth the sacrifice. Reality is that most will not reach the pinnacle, even those who claim that all it takes is "hard work" because at some point, the ROI usually becomes less than anticipated. Not really appropriate for others to determine when/where that point for someone else.


----------



## nestly

I don't see any point in standing on one foot while shooting, since I've never been in a situation where shooting with one foot suspended was necessary, but I have shot while standing on a board with a round dowel underneath trying to improve my weight distribution between the front and back foot.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Lazarus said:


> Sonny. talking to good friend of mine the other day, who happens to have several NFAA Silver bowls, talking about a 16 year old he shoots with that has missed one x in tournaments this winter; "God wasted the ability to hold and not shake and good eyesight on youth."
> 
> True story. :teeth:


If the 16 year old is happy, is it wasted? If he was "pushed" would he aspire or reject?

I've told this before; B.S's son was incredible shooting Trap, but after a while BS had to drag his son to Trap shoot. The kid won tons of prizes and money. Kid grew out from under dad and has never shot Trap again...

Okay, some of us are happy with what we have, where we are at. Is this a sin?


----------



## aread

Lazarus said:


> ... "God wasted the ability to hold and not shake and good eyesight on youth."...


I'll agree with that 100%


----------



## aread

EPLC said:


> Transferable skillsets make more sense than being born with skills. It's obvious that folks that start out shooting scores higher than others have developed skills that would allow them to be more steady earlier on in the process. This could easily be looked at as natural ability.
> I can pick up someone else's recurve and within a couple of ends put up some groups that impress those that shoot traditional consistency. As a kid my uncle made me my first slingshot. I became pretty good with it. I also had a BB gun that at some point early on the barrel tube got bent making sight aiming impossible. I learned to shoot the thing by looking down the side of the barrel.
> My weakness shooting sighted compounds has always been in the holding steady department.
> A couple of years ago I hurt my Achilles' tendon and went to physical therapy for a couple of months. Several of the exercises involved balancing on one foot. My balance wasn't very good to start but improved greatly over the two months. I tried to.stand on one foot this morning after reading whiz-oz's post and found that it was difficult to do. Since my hold may improve with better balance I am going to start doing some exercises that improve balance.


It seems that skills learned as an adult are more perishable than those learned as a young child. I started archery very young with a recurve, but dropped it for about 40 years when I picked up a compound. I have developed my compound shooting to a pretty high level a couple of times, but had layoffs from injury and I shoot horribly until I can re-establish the skills. A recurve, I can pick it up any time and shoot as well as ever.

It's why a place to practice in the winter months is my #1 limiting factor to excelling at archery.

Allen


----------



## Pete53

SonnyThomas said:


> If the 16 year old is happy, is it wasted? If he was "pushed" would he aspire or reject?
> 
> I've told this before; B.S's son was incredible shooting Trap, but after a while BS had to drag his son to Trap shoot. The kid won tons of prizes and money. Kid grew out from under dad and has never shot Trap again...
> 
> Okay, some of us are happy with what we have, where we are at. Is this a sin?


my son now 28 years of age won a lot with his bow in the hard classes F.S. MALE 300`s 55 -60 X`S,won a lot in trap 50-100 straight,won plenty with a pistol too,has always hunted with me and has shot a impressive 6x6 bull elk,mule bucks,whitetail bucks all self guided too ,caught some huge muskies up to 55 inches, lots of stream trout. he`s got unbelievable talent in everything and is lucky too and still archery is no big deal with him he hasn`t shot his target bow for a year, still he could shoot a 300 55x all day long > its just some people like my son have a lot of talent and ability many are also type B personality just wanna do their own thing.i believe there are some super archer`s out there that just want to be left alone and do their own thing and could care less about money, trophies or competing,but many of them hunt with a bow a lot.


----------



## Bobmuley

nestly said:


> Never said or suggested that it's impossible for a short guy to make it in the NBA, only that it's less likely. If that were not true, then there would be just as many players under 5'
> 
> 
> nestly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some sports are equally or more dependent on physical traits and ability...basketball, wrestling, football (by position), etc. I mean really, what was Shaq's hall-of-fame skillset? I think there are athletes in these kinds of sports that are cut every year just because of their lack of physical trait's even though they have pro-caliber talent. It'd be like me wanting to win the Kentucky Derby as a 200 pound jockey. I can handle a horse just as well as they can.
Click to expand...


----------



## spruis

*Missed the Point?*



EPLC said:


> I have just finished my first reading "Peak" by Anders Ericsson (my second reading starts today as there is a lot to absorb). Mr. Ericsson has provided a very compelling case that literally everyone has the ability to become a skilled performer given the proper training. Of course this path to excellence has the best chance to succeed if one starts training at a very early age but everyone should be able to improve with proper training. This proper training results in a good mental representation of the task at hand and then being able to translate that mental representation into actual performance.
> 
> This understanding has put me into a kind of a Catch 22 situation. I've been "practicing" for the entire time I've been involved in archery but this practice hasn't resulted in much improvement since I became reasonably skillful after my first year or two. I also understand that after shooting for about 20 years I still do not have a good mental representation of my shot. It's obvious now that all those thousands of arrows I've shot over the years did not provide the results I've wanted. Knowledge alone does not translate into skill, skill needs to be developed through practice. Although practice is required to develop and refine skill, that practice should have specific goals that can be measured. Apparently mine has not provided the necessary criteria for specific goals and measurement.
> 
> Your thoughts?


I think you might have missed the point. Ericsson is stating that for practice to be effective it must be focused on getting better. Otherwise my having driven to work for 40 years would qualify for me to race in NASCAR events. Just repetitious practice actually makes one worse, not better (which I think you have demonstrated).

His most recent idea is the one about the mental representations. I believe it is through intense focus on making all of the parts of your shot better, that you develop this mental representation. You do not get it from reading coaching books that give an outside-in view of what is going on in an archery shot. Your mental representation must be built from the inside out. This doesn't mean you can't use mirrors or video, it just be from your vantage point while making shots.

Does this make any sense?


----------



## nochance

So i guess I'm not interested in how much natural talent anyone has since it cannot make *me* a better shot. What does interest me is how better shooters got to where they got and there has been some good reading here. 
So to Paraphrase Rick, "You guys keep going I'm going to go shoot my bow."

PS: I'm not that short, overweight 57 year old, I'm only 52.


----------



## EPLC

nochance said:


> So i guess I'm not interested in how much natural talent anyone has since it cannot make *me* a better shot. What does interest me is how better shooters got to where they got and there has been some good reading here.
> So to Paraphrase Rick, "You guys keep going I'm going to go shoot my bow."
> 
> PS: I'm not that short, overweight 57 year old, I'm only 52.


Ok, so what's your history and plan?


----------



## cbrunson

spruis said:


> I think you might have missed the point. Ericsson is stating that for practice to be effective it must be focused on getting better. Otherwise my having driven to work for 40 years would qualify for me to race in NASCAR events. Just repetitious practice actually makes one worse, not better (which I think you have demonstrated).
> 
> His most recent idea is the one about the mental representations. I believe it is through intense focus on making all of the parts of your shot better, that you develop this mental representation. You do not get it from reading coaching books that give an outside-in view of what is going on in an archery shot. Your mental representation must be built from the inside out. This doesn't mean you can't use mirrors or video, it just be from your vantage point while making shots.
> 
> Does this make any sense?


Very well said. Thank You


----------



## nochance

EPLC said:


> Ok, so what's your history and plan?


Got more serious into paper about 3 years ago, shot my 1st 300 5 spot with a hunter setup but averaged 299-300 and 42-48X until last year. Started shooting FS, I've been guilty of as Erdman says "Tinkering" It has its place but half the time you just end up chasing your tail(I'm very guilty of that). Didn't shoot much Vegas till last year but prior to that i was usually high 280s, low 290s. Shot a 300 59x(Blue face) half way into last season but averaged low 50s. This year i have basically working on my back end(hinge). Most of my misses are when the shot goes too long(too much tension in the back end). I was never taught on a hinge so i learned by putting all the pressure on thumb peg and pointer finger. In December I reworked the back end and now draw with almost equal distribution all all of my fingers. In the last month I have shot my 1st, 2nd and 3rd 300's (Vegas). Can't do it regularly yet and my x count is not where i want it but we're getting there. I can blind bail and have the hinge go off in 3 seconds all day long, so I've been bridging, shooting closer rounds where I have the "aiming" stimulus added to the shot. Also been working on the mental part. My 1st 300 i did an excellent job of just making one shot at a time. I think most decent shooters if you give them 1 arrow and say put it in the Vegas x or even 10 ring they will do it but many of us lose that "1 arrow focus" somewhere along the way to our 300. Often I think about score and we know how that usually ends up. So currently I'm averaging high 290's and ~18x on Vegas, 300 54x (5spot) Got a ways to go. Next week we'll see how i do under pressure(Lancaster). I also have the privilege of having fellow AT'er STOZ(former multi-time state champ) a few miles away so we shoot together and I i get tips from him. (he has a 20yd range in his basement). This probably seems basic to many of you but that's where I'm at right now.


----------



## nswarcher

I think it is all a mental thing, skills are learned and developed, 100% agree with spruis, countless times you see the guys practicing and over the weeks their form breaks down and accuracy goes backwards, 
The guys commited and focused work on aspects of archery are the ones that shoot top scores consistantly.


----------



## whiz-Oz

nestly said:


> Not me... you linked genetics and potential in post #54. I just happen to agree that potential can be inherited, not only learned.


Potential is something that hasn't be realised. 
Learning is something which is acquired. 

The concept of keeping examples of examining people who are at the top of their game as sportspeople has some issues. 
It's called survivorship bias. 
It's generally used with basketballers, where height is a distinct advantage. 

However, when expertise in other fields is examined that don't involve physical prowess as a major component, all of a sudden, time spent developing and refining the mental skillsets are the things that make the difference. 

Wayne Gretzky's history and work eithic is a nice mix of both camps.


----------



## EPLC

spruis said:


> I think you might have missed the point. Ericsson is stating that for practice to be effective it must be focused on getting better. Otherwise my having driven to work for 40 years would qualify for me to race in NASCAR events. Just repetitious practice actually makes one worse, not better (which I think you have demonstrated).
> 
> His most recent idea is the one about the mental representations. I believe it is through intense focus on making all of the parts of your shot better, that you develop this mental representation. You do not get it from reading coaching books that give an outside-in view of what is going on in an archery shot. Your mental representation must be built from the inside out. This doesn't mean you can't use mirrors or video, it just be from your vantage point while making shots.
> 
> Does this make any sense?


Makes perfect sense. Not sure what point you think I may have missed? Because of this new understanding of mental representation I'm now aware that mine has not been developed properly. This is also the probable reason that visualization techniques haven't worked for me. In order to visualize one's shot process one would need a good mental representation wouldn't one?


----------



## EPLC

I believe my weak mental representation of my shot is due to me continually trying to fix too much. Instead of breaking my shot down into its various components, I've tried to fix it as a whole. I believe my biggest weakness is holding. During my shooting career I've come up with various workaround's for this weakness but have never really tried to work on this issue as a standalone. I still am not clear exactly how to go about this but working on balance can't hurt.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> I believe my weak mental representation of my shot is due to me continually trying to fix too much. Instead of breaking my shot down into its various components, I've tried to fix it as a whole. I believe my biggest weakness is holding. During my shooting career I've come up with various workaround's for this weakness but have never really tried to work on this issue as a standalone. I still am not clear exactly how to go about this but working on balance can't hurt.


In the early stages of learning this is very true for a lot of people, but I think one of the misconceptions is that you should be able to figure it out and be done. I think most people believe the guys at the top figure it out and just repeat what they know works to stay in good form. I think it takes a much more proactive, continual effort to keep that up. Equipment changes, our bodies change, and competition gets better and better. They are always trying to find ways to improve, to gain an edge over the competition. Not one professional target archer has shot 30 inside out baby Xs to my knowledge, but I guarantee that is the goal of every one of them. That same concept trickles down to the lower ranks. When I could shoot inside the yellow my goal was to hit 30 tens, then 60 Xs on a 5-spot, then 30x Vegas. I've never reached a point where I thought I knew enough to improve by just practicing what I know. I don't believe I ever will.

Finding a good shot to build that mental representation is just actively thinking and being introspective while you shoot. I know that goes against the popular coaching technique of trying to make things automatic, but if you're not asking yourself those questions during the process, you are relying on an outside perspective to connect the emotional and visual link of the mental game. I won't say that it's not possible to do that, but I will say that being able to see what is going on with the sight picture and knowing what you need to do in the moment to achieve the desired results, is very beneficial. You only learn by paying attention to the important things.

Was the dot in the middle? If no, why wasn't it? What can I do to get it there and keep it there until the shot breaks?

If yes, then what did *I* do that caused the miss. Was it a bad release? Did I not follow through the shot? Dropped bow arm? Pushed it out? Torqued the grip? Etc, etc......


I'm a simple mind when it comes to archery. There are three basic elements that are *the only *things necessary to make a good shot. 

1. Hold it the middle.
2. Release it without affecting #1
3. Be mentally and physically strong enough to do both #1 and #2.

How you get there relies solely on your ability to problem solve. All the drills, tricks, formulas, and coaching, are wasted until you learn to become self aware.


----------



## nochance

I might add that "3. Be mentally and physically strong enough to do both #1 and #2." and repeat 30-60 times in practice or a tournament setting. I think thats where many of us that are trying to achieve that 300 or 60x are at.


----------



## EPLC

I think what I'm trying to say is I stink at #1 and need to improve before #'s 2 & 3 mean much. I've had the cart before the horse. During my gym workout this morning I did some timed "standing on one foot" drills in between sets. Standing on one leg for 2-3 minutes is challenging for me at this point but it's a start.
Last evening I shot a hydraulic release for an hour after league. Because I did not have to be concerned with #'s 2-3 I could really focus on my hold without distraction. While I wouldn't want to use this type of release other than in practice, it may well turn out to be a very useful training tool.


----------



## nochance

Check out Grivs ATA seminar on his face book page.


----------



## EPLC

nochance said:


> Check out Grivs ATA seminar on his face book page.


Just prior to my switching to LH I spent a weekend with George. He is an excellent teacher with even better verbal communication skills. I hope I am not feeding the perception that I am new to this game as I do have some accomplishments along the way. I'm simply looking to raise my shooting to a level that I've touched but never been able to purposely repeat.


----------



## nestly

cbrunson said:


> How you get there relies solely on your ability to problem solve. All the drills, tricks, formulas, and coaching, are wasted until you learn to become self aware.


Would you agree that not everyone has the same level of self awareness and the same ability to multi-task? (if you've been married, consider yourself and your spouse before answering)


----------



## dk-1

EPLC said:


> I think what I'm trying to say is I stink at #1 and need to improve before #'s 2 & 3 mean much. I've had the cart before the horse. During my gym workout this morning I did some timed "standing on one foot" drills in between sets. Standing on one leg for 2-3 minutes is challenging for me at this point but it's a start.
> Last evening I shot a hydraulic release for an hour after league. Because I did not have to be concerned with #'s 2-3 I could really focus on my hold without distraction. While I wouldn't want to use this type of release other than in practice, it may well turn out to be a very useful training tool.


I've been following this thread but haven't posted until now.... What exactly does your float look like? I know great shooters who consistently post 300 Vegas scores in competition settings say their float is all over the yellow and dabbles in the red. They keep their focus on the X, trust their shot, make smooth releases and they go in the middle. The main problem for me right now is trusting my shot and staying focused on the X. My hold is what I would say pretty good (I can keep it in the 10 ring for 8-12 seconds) but my week link is on the back end during the execution. My average for the past month is 298 - 19-21X but that is slowly climbing. 

Last month I attended a clinic with Henry Bass. It was mainly geared toward equipment set up, and I was pretty close I guess because he only had me move my back bar left a couple notches on the mount (I was shooting too neutral). After the main clinic, we had some time to talk ideas. At the time my average on a Vegas target was 296.5-297 arround 16X. I asked him "What separates a guy like you from a guy like me?" His reply was my "Aha" moment... He said, "Practice". He elaborated to say that he would practice every day after working full time job, get off work and go shoot into the late night/early morning hours. Recalling things I had heard about two particular archers, Dave Cousins and Levi Morgan, then came to mind. Dave Cousins practices so much he has bruised his bow hand where it meets the riser. Levi Morgan has been coached from a young age, referring to the "one arrow" practice drills his father would run him through. I also have an idea that Reo Wilde practices a TON more than most people would ever think, in addition to the fact that he has been groomed since early youth. This got me thinking that there is no natural or simply God given talent in archery. I guess we all see the top shooters as some what super human, when in fact they are really no different from the majority. On the flip side of that coin, I agree with earlier posts stating that some people are more gifted in certain areas which translate to archery, but I think those were skills which were honed earlier in life somewhere and aspects of those skills are used in shooting a bow. 

One last thought, I've been watching and dissecting the top shooters on youtube as of late and notice one big glaring thing... They all do it differently!! From release execution to form, they all have their own style and only a very limited few are textbook in all areas. Find what's comfortable and repeatable for YOU, then practice that. Examine the bad shots only to find the flaw, then eliminate it and forget it. Most importantly, examine the good shots and ingrain those qualities into your subconscious mind. Don't let yourself get away with making bad shots; I've been working on this lately myself. Last night I made a bad shot by forcing the release to go off and taking some focus off the X. It went right down the middle and caught the X. My coach, who was there at the range with another student, told me "Good shot". I looked back at him and thanked him, but explained that it was actually a bad shot because I forced it off. Be honest with yourself, only you can see whats going on inside your shot process. A good coach will get you solid foundation (very important), but the rest is ultimately up to you.


----------



## cbrunson

nochance said:


> I might add that "3. Be mentally and physically strong enough to do both #1 and #2." and repeat 30-60 times in practice or a tournament setting. I think thats where many of us that are trying to achieve that 300 or 60x are at.


Those three were intentionally listed for making one good shot.

I've always been of the mindset that you have to keep the score rolling, which you do if you plan to be competitive, but I've recently discovered that a disconnect from that helps focus on each individual shot. Not a full disconnect. That is impossible. But a short, well executed commitment to the shot you are about to make. I'm sure you know that it sounds easier than it is, but it does make a difference in high pressure situations if you make every effort to do it. 

When you are successful in creating that disconnect, you are breaking it down to only those three basic elements. Then you just have to win that battle 30 or 60 times. One thing that has helped me a bunch this year is telling myself between shots/ends that I need to get every one of the early ones so I can afford mistakes at the end when the pressure is higher. It helps keep the need to focus higher during the part of the game that is easy to lose focus on, and then by the end of the game, the confidence is high enough I don't get as much anxiety and just keep rolling. Even going into the tenth end clean on a Vegas game you can end up with a 299, a 297, or a 290 if you can't break it down to *one shot*, three times.


----------



## cbrunson

nestly said:


> Would you agree that not everyone has the same level of self awareness and the same ability to multi-task? (if you've been married, consider yourself and your spouse before answering)


I have no idea what other people's self awareness or multitasking abilities are. Nor would I assume they have predisposed limits on either. 

The point of introspective analysis has nothing to do with other people. I only know what I know about myself. Why would I use an assumption of another's self awareness for anything other than conjecture? 

I certainly wouldn't use an assumption of such as a justification for limiting my own progress. 

What I will assume, is that people are significantly more capable of learning if they know *what* they need to learn.


----------



## Padgett

Just before Christmas I walked into the bow shop where I shoot after school and a boy that I had in class at school was back shooting his bowtech hunting bow, he had a quiver on the bow and after each trip to the target he put the arrows back in the quiver before shooting the next 5. I was in the bow shop a year before when he bought the bow to go hunting and I spend 5 minutes giving him a few pointers and he left the bow shop. 

Here is the cool part, He was shooting inside out x's everytime into a 5-spot target and had the best looking shooting form I have seen in years even compared to the pro shooters that I use to teach shooting form. He only shot about 20 arrows and then he decided to leave so I could shoot, I asked him to stick around but he insisted that he didn't want to get in my way. This boy had no idea how good he was at shooting, he didn't even know that shooting inside out was a special thing. Right now he is in college and is playing golf for the university, to me this is the kind of guy that the moment he shows some interest in competitive archery he will spend a few months getting the equipment and put in the training and be really freaking good. Thank god right now he is just interested in golf.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Padgett said:


> Just before Christmas I walked into the bow shop where I shoot after school and a boy that I had in class at school was back shooting his bowtech hunting bow, he had a quiver on the bow and after each trip to the target he put the arrows back in the quiver before shooting the next 5. I was in the bow shop a year before when he bought the bow to go hunting and I spend 5 minutes giving him a few pointers and he left the bow shop.
> 
> Here is the cool part, He was shooting inside out x's everytime into a 5-spot target and had the best looking shooting form I have seen in years even compared to the pro shooters that I use to teach shooting form. He only shot about 20 arrows and then he decided to leave so I could shoot, I asked him to stick around but he insisted that he didn't want to get in my way. This boy had no idea how good he was at shooting, he didn't even know that shooting inside out was a special thing. Right now he is in college and is playing golf for the university, to me this is the kind of guy that the moment he shows some interest in competitive archery he will spend a few months getting the equipment and put in the training and be really freaking good. Thank god right now he is just interested in golf.


 ...............


----------



## nochance

EPLC said:


> Just prior to my switching to LH I spent a weekend with George. He is an excellent teacher with even better verbal communication skills. I hope I am not feeding the perception that I am new to this game as I do have some accomplishments along the way. I'm simply looking to raise my shooting to a level that I've touched but never been able to purposely repeat.


yes I'm aware your not new, i hope i didn't come across wrong. Wish i could afford to go see Griv at lancaster.


----------



## nestly

cbrunson said:


> I have no idea what other people's self awareness or multitasking abilities are. Nor would I assume they have predisposed limits on either.


I find it difficult to believe that you're unaware that some peoples driving skills diminish more than others while talking on the cell phone. Why would that also not be the case for aiming and pulling. or typing and talking, or dribbling a basketball while running, or any other two or more activities performed at the same time. This whole discussion has been as though shooting a bow is a single activity but it's not, it involves more than one skill (holding the bow in alignment with the target, while also changing the body's shape to activate the release) The ability to perform those skills simultaneously probably influences outcome far more than mastering those skills individually.

Is there training to help the person that drives 40mph in the left lane while talking on the phone to become a better driver while operating a phone? I kinda doubt it, but even there is, it's still an acknowledgment that not all brains process information the same way or at the same speed. Someone said earlier that the reason some don't believe in "natural talent" could be because they have it. Similarly, if someone is a good multi-tasker, they may take it for granted that everyone can or should be able to type and talk at the same time without any loss of clarity, and that's certainly not the case.


----------



## cbrunson

nestly said:


> I find it difficult to believe that you're unaware that some peoples driving skills diminish more than others while talking on the cell phone. Why would that also not be the case for aiming and pulling. or typing and talking, or dribbling a basketball while running, or any other two or more activities performed at the same time. This whole discussion has been as though shooting a bow is a single activity but it's not, it involves more than one skill (holding the bow in alignment with the target, while also changing the body's shape to activate the release) The ability to perform those skills simultaneously probably influences outcome far more than mastering those skills individually.
> 
> Is there training to help the person that drives 40mph in the left lane while talking on the phone to become a better driver while operating a phone? I kinda doubt it, but even there is, it's still an acknowledgment that not all brains process information the same way or at the same speed. Someone said earlier that the reason some don't believe in "natural talent" could be because they have it. Similarly, if someone is a good multi-tasker, they may take it for granted that everyone can or should be able to type and talk at the same time without any loss of clarity, and that's certainly not the case.


What I don't do is accept other people's excuses for failure as justification for my own.


----------



## nestly

cbrunson said:


> What I don't do is accept other people's excuses for failure as justification for my own.


Nobody has asked you to. Simply acknowledging that some do have *better* opportunities based on circumstances beyond their control doesn't mean you give them permission to whine about it. And there hasn't been any "whining" in this topic that I recall, only discussion about whether or not equal effort means equal results.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Multi-tasking doesn't exist either. People just switch from focussing on one task to another. It makes them suck more at everything. 
Even the most basic tests show that if you're distracted, you make far more mistakes and take longer. Distraction is switching your attention.
The reason that you're able to do more than one thing at a time is that you hand off subsidiary tasks to your automatic processes. They'd be ones that you've already learned. 

Multi-tasking is a term invented by uneducated housewives and unless you're holding a baby, mixing up cake mix and talking on phone at the same time, you should never use it. 

If you have someone who thinks that they can multitask, you just get three people to give them different instructions for something ALL AT THE SAME TIME for at least long enough to overwhelm their short term memory. That's about seven seconds. Then get them to tell you all three sets, or what they can remember. 

Or just get them to whistle their favourite song while determining directions on how to transit a map. 

There's a reason you turn the car radio down while working out directions. 

Brain science and human psychology is actually a specialist field. There's more misinformation about than there is in archery.


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> Multi-tasking doesn't exist either.


Again with the semantics.  Everyone knows what the term "multi-tasking" refers to, and everyone knows some are better at it than others. Doesn't make any difference if the tasks are actually performed "simultaneously", or as a result of being able to switch between them rapidly and efficiently.


----------



## cbrunson

nestly said:


> Nobody has asked you to. Simply acknowledging that some do have *better* opportunities based on circumstances beyond their control doesn't mean you give them permission to whine about it. And there hasn't been any "whining" in this topic that I recall, only discussion about whether or not equal effort means equal results.


I was talking about learning to learn. That is all. 

I wont be speculating on other people's opportunities. No need to. It's irrelevant to anyone that is concerned with their own game first.


----------



## cbrunson

nestly said:


> Again with the semantics.  Everyone knows what the term "multi-tasking" refers to, and everyone knows some are better at it than others. Doesn't make any difference if the tasks are actually performed "simultaneously", or as a result of *being able to switch between them *rapidly and efficiently.


Why would you switch? I believe they run concurrently, something like running and dribbling a basketball. The problem we as adults have, is trying to do layups before we have good ball control, and expecting the ball control to catch up eventually.


----------



## EPLC

whiz-Oz said:


> Multi-tasking doesn't exist either. People just switch from focussing on one task to another. It makes them suck more at everything.
> Even the most basic tests show that if you're distracted, you make far more mistakes and take longer. Distraction is switching your attention.
> The reason that you're able to do more than one thing at a time is that you hand off subsidiary tasks to your automatic processes. They'd be ones that you've already learned.
> 
> Multi-tasking is a term invented by uneducated housewives and unless you're holding a baby, mixing up cake mix and talking on phone at the same time, you should never use it.
> 
> If you have someone who thinks that they can multitask, you just get three people to give them different instructions for something ALL AT THE SAME TIME for at least long enough to overwhelm their short term memory. That's about seven seconds. Then get them to tell you all three sets, or what they can remember.
> 
> Or just get them to whistle their favourite song while determining directions on how to transit a map.
> 
> There's a reason you turn the car radio down while working out directions.
> 
> Brain science and human psychology is actually a specialist field. There's more misinformation about than there is in archery.


Absolutely true, with the minor exception of chewing gum and walking . The conscious mind can only handle one task at a time. Any task that requires some form of verbal thought can only be done sequentially. You can no more think two words at the exact same time than you can say two words at the same time. The subconscious mind can and does perform multiple (sometimes many) tasks simultaneously but this is not what most people regard as multi-tasking.

When shooting a bow only one portion of the shot can be controlled by conscious command at any one time. If we try to do more than one it will result in a ping pong effect from one task to another.


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> 1. Hold it the middle.
> 2. Release it without affecting #1
> 3. Be mentally and physically strong enough to do both #1 and #2.
> 
> How you get there relies solely on your ability to problem solve. All the drills, tricks, formulas, and coaching, are wasted until you learn to become self aware.


Please don't take the following as a negative because I appreciate all the input that has been provided here. People such as yourself and others who have started out shooting the scores you and others have posted and within 5 years or less are shooting near perfect 300 Vegas rounds have never had a holding issue. For whatever reason you are comfortable holding in the middle. Sure you have worked on it to improve it but in reality this has not been your issue, it can't be. I'm sure you and others take for granted this ability and do not identify with someone that struggles in this area. Just to hear that someone can hold within the 10 ring for multiple seconds is mind boggling to someone that can not settle in the middle ever, let alone for any period of time. 

The process that has worked best for me is one that pays no attention to "holding in the middle". That said, I also know that the better the hold is, the simpler this game becomes. I know this because supported I can perform at a reasonably high level. The problem I've had is when I get involved in these conversations I end up in a terrible slump. Still I'm going to continue on this path to see where it leads as I would love to be able to improve my hold, or at least improve my perception of what's going on.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> Please don't take the following as a negative because I appreciate all the input that has been provided here. People such as yourself and others who have started out shooting the scores you and others have posted and within 5 years or less are shooting near perfect 300 Vegas rounds have never had a holding issue. For whatever reason you are comfortable holding in the middle. Sure you have worked on it to improve it but in reality this has not been your issue, it can't be. I'm sure you and others take for granted this ability and do not identify with someone that struggles in this area. Just to hear that someone can hold within the 10 ring for multiple seconds is mind boggling to someone that can not settle in the middle ever, let alone for any period of time.
> 
> The process that has worked best for me is one that pays no attention to "holding in the middle". That said, I also know that the better the hold is, the simpler this game becomes. I know this because supported I can perform at a reasonably high level. The problem I've had is when I get involved in these conversations I end up in a terrible slump. Still I'm going to continue on this path to see where it leads as I would love to be able to improve my hold, or at least improve my perception of what's going on.


Are you kidding me??? Every damn shot is a struggle to get it in the middle. If it does go there and stick right away it's scary AF, and nearly impossible to get a smooth release because the brain is screaming SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT!!!

It has never been easy. What I have not, and will not accept, is that it's easier for some people so I shouldn't keep trying. It sounds to me like you're saying, "I can't do it, so somebody needs to help me find a way to shoot good without holding good. I will not try to convince anyone that it isn't possible to shoot a perfect game with a huge amount of movement, but I will say with absolute certainty that if it's in the middle and you release it in the middle, it WILL go in the middle. The more effort you put into that, the closer you get, and over time you learn the little things that make it both easier and harder. But you have to keep trying and believe it is possible.

It's a matter of attitude. To rob a quote from another guy that get's it, "My hold improved when my attitude about holding changed."


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> Are you kidding me??? Every damn shot is a struggle to get it in the middle. If it does go there and stick right away it's scary AF, and nearly impossible to get a smooth release because the brain is screaming SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT!!!
> 
> It has never been easy. What I have not, and will not accept, is that it's easier for some people so I shouldn't keep trying. It sounds to me like you're saying, "I can't do it, so somebody needs to help me find a way to shoot good without holding good. I will not try to convince anyone that it isn't possible to shoot a perfect game with a huge amount of movement, but I will say with absolute certainty that if it's in the middle and you release it in the middle, it WILL go in the middle. The more effort you put into that, the closer you get, and over time you learn the little things that make it both easier and harder. But you have to keep trying and believe it is possible.
> 
> It's a matter of attitude. To rob a quote from another guy that get's it, "My hold improved when my attitude about holding changed."


Shooting mid 40X 300's with your hunting bow does not constitute a holding problem. While I'm sure you've worked very hard to improve your game I'm just as sure you cannot identify with a hold issue to the extent I am referring to. Of course I also understand everything is relative. So what would you do if you never had that early ability to hold even one in the middle? I have never been able to do that. This is not an excuse, it just is. On the very rare occasion that one did stick in the middle I had no clue what to do, had no idea why it happened, and no clue how t repeat it.. I would love to be able to recreate those rare occasions to be able to work on improvements but this has been impossible. Tell me you identify with this.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> Shooting mid 40X 300's with your hunting bow does not constitute a holding problem. While I'm sure you've worked very hard to improve your game I'm just as sure you cannot identify with a hold issue to the extent I am referring to. Of course I also understand everything is relative. So what would you do if you never had that early ability to hold even one in the middle? I have never been able to do that. This is not an excuse, it just is. On the very rare occasion that one did stick in the middle I had no clue what to do, had no idea why it happened, and no clue how t repeat it.. I would love to be able to recreate those rare occasions to be able to work on improvements but this has been impossible. Tell me you identify with this.


To be quite honest, I've never looked at things that way. If I did, I certainly wouldn't continue pursuing something I didn't believe I could excel at. That doesn't mean I couldn't be good at it. It just means my heart wasn't in it, or I killed my hopes and dreams with self doubt. I have accepted that it takes an indeterminate amount time and commitment.

So if I were to concede that a certain level of "natural talent" is required, I would stand firmly on the definition of natural talent being desire, commitment, and attitude. Possibly even throw in a healthy dose of humble pie.


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> To be quite honest, I've never looked at things that way. If I did, I certainly wouldn't continue pursuing something I didn't believe I could excel at. That doesn't mean I couldn't be good at it. It just means my heart wasn't in it, or I killed my hopes and dreams with self doubt. I have accepted that it takes an indeterminate amount time and commitment.
> 
> So if I were to concede that a certain level of "natural talent" is required, I would stand firmly on the definition of natural talent being desire, commitment, and attitude. Possibly even throw in a healthy dose of humble pie.


No, you haven't. This is because you haven't had to deal with it. From the very beginning you were able to simply put them in the middle. While I'm certain you have had to work hard to develop this skill, you still was able to do it from the very beginning.

Desire, commitment, and attitude. I believe I've had and have that. After facing and fighting a physical issue that developed suddenly shooting right handed (read: essential tremor) for 6 plus years and not quitting. Being a completely RH dominant person dedicating the time and effort to switch to LH due to the physical issue (read: can't play the radio or chew gum left handed as my starting point). I hold several state records from both sides and have won 3 Sectional tournaments, one from the right side (3D) and two from the left (NFAA Field). I've had to work very hard to develop a shot that allows me to put arrows in the middle in spite of never being able to hold in the middle. While my scores have never been as high on average as yours, they haven't been all that bad either considering I started this entire process at 51 years old. I also toasted my shoulder a year ago and have been rehabbing it to the point where I can actually shoot without pain again. This has taken much commitment to rebuild the strength and stamina in my bow shoulder. 

Still, I would love to be able to hold in the middle but haven't found the solution that will allow that to this point. So, I keep trying. How's that for commitment?


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> So, I keep trying. How's that for commitment?


....and believe it's possible while doing so.

Start with one good shot.


----------



## ILOVE3D

Reading through lots of post's here and looking back on my progress through the years I come to the conclusion that although it might seem easier for some to excel at this sport then others, for the most part we are probably not aware of the amount of time, their particular practice routine, their equipment and how it's set up and just exactly what works best for them. In most if not all situations what works best for one person will be yeild totally different results for the next person. Just look t the quote from Reo Wilde, "There's no universal way to shoot; this is how I shoot and I hope you can find yours - Good Luck" ~ Reo Wilde 2015 I believe this says it all. My own struggles to reach the magic 300 on a Vegas face at an actual tournament is plenty of proof to me. Reading countless threads and posts on here I have often tried different things through the years. Some seem to help and others not so much. I can say this tho, I am slowly seeing positive results from not giving up and refining my technique as well as my practice routines. I am hoping to reach my goal in the next year or two although getting along in years is also adding complications that are slowing me down from reaching my goal. A torn rotator cuff and surgery 3 years ago didn't help, a detached and torn retina didn't help either but I'm still shooting for becoming the best at archery I can be. Possibly I may never get the 300 in a Vegas type tournament but knowing that won't stop me from trying to perfect my scores. Archery is something I enjoy immensely and guess others on here as well. I haven't failed at my goal because I haven't quit trying.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> No, you haven't. This is because you haven't had to deal with it. From the very beginning you were able to simply put them in the middle. While I'm certain you have had to work hard to develop this skill, you still was able to do it from the very beginning.


Last post got in before your edit....

That is not true. I still can't easily put them in the middle. Every shot is a battle


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> ....and believe it's possible while doing so.
> 
> Start with one good shot.


So, here we are. Did the chicken or the egg come first? If one good shot starts with being able to hold in the middle then how do I do that? If you can describe "how" you are able to hold in the middle please describe it. I'm betting that you can't because I believe this is probably a transferred skill that you developed at some point during your youth (which gets things back on topic). 



cbrunson said:


> Last post got in before your edit....
> 
> That is not true. I still can't easily put them in the middle. Every shot is a battle


Yes, but battle or not, you can put them in the middle. I think you greatly underestimate your skill in this area. I'd be interested to understand what you are doing to win this battle? What have you identified as weaknesses and what have you been able to do to correct these issues. Perhaps I might be able to apply some of this logic to my own difficulty.


----------



## Bobmuley

cbrunson said:


> Are you kidding me??? Every damn shot is a struggle to get it in the middle.


 Can't say I disagree. Just saying that someone who starts out as a 300 NFAA shooter, or a NFAA 50X+ shooter struggles a lot less than 95% of the people out there.


----------



## nestly

Bobmuley said:


> Can't say I disagree. Just saying that someone who starts out as a 300 NFAA shooter, or a NFAA 50X+ shooter struggles a lot less than 95% of the people out there.


^^^ This


----------



## pherrley

This thread, has the most helpful information on AT (IMO). cbrunson, 3 steps are really all I think it takes. Whenever anyone gives / gets advice everything is in reference to where the arrow hit (probably because its obvious). I think if you're not shooting 50Xs on a 5-spot, your training should probably not go past point 1 that cbrunson listed. 

1. Were you holding in the middle?
1a. Why, why, why, why.....

Anyone can look at the top shooters in the world and see that they all do somethings differently. There is one thing they all do the same (or try to); hold in the middle. I see a lot of people that I think have good form that struggle to shoot a 300 5-spot score. There focus is to shoot with great form, and "do the same thing every shot". The paper doesn't care about your form, or how well you executed your shot. 

FYI, This isn't really my opinion, I just think people don't put enough stress on the importance of aiming. Obviously steps 2 and 3 can't be ignored.


----------



## Rick!

EPLC said:


> So, here we are. Did the chicken or the egg come first? If one good shot starts with being able to hold in the middle then how do I do that? If you can describe "how" you are able to hold in the middle please describe it. I'm betting that you can't because I believe this is probably a transferred skill that you developed at some point during your youth (which gets things back on topic).
> 
> 
> Yes, but battle or not, you can put them in the middle. I think you greatly underestimate your skill in this area. I'd be interested to understand what you are doing to win this battle? What have you identified as weaknesses and what have you been able to do to correct these issues. Perhaps I might be able to apply some of this logic to my own difficulty.


It's fitting that it's close to Groundhog's Day: Hold - Circa 2002

The ironic thing is that this link is buried in another of your threads...


----------



## EPLC

Yes, this has been an ongoing issue for me. I have had several workarounds along the way that have been somewhat successful but the underlying issue has never been addressed. I understand now that I do not have a clearly defined mental representation of my shot process. I'm currently working to revamp my entire mental process and point of focus.


----------



## pherrley

Rick! said:


> It's fitting that it's close to Groundhog's Day: Hold - Circa 2002
> 
> The ironic thing is that this link is buried in another of your threads...


That thread is an example of what I see at the range all the time. Some people rate a shot purely on where the arrow hit. Aiming in the 9-ring and hitting an X, as Griv says in that post, is a shooting mistake.


----------



## Lazarus

cbrunson said:


> Are you kidding me??? Every damn shot is a struggle to get it in the middle.


Although this topic has wandered considerably this right here ^^^^^^ is gold. :cheers:

I'd comment on the original topic but see no value in it's discussion when weighed against most of us' purpose here, and that would be to shoot a better shot. You start from where you are, regardless of how much mystical "natural ability" you may or may not have.


----------



## knarrly

subconsciously said:


> Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard.
> Quote -





subconsciously said:


> There is no doubt that hard work makes up for less than average ability in my opinion, but you will never be as good as someone who puts in the same amount of work and has a higher natural ability. But that doesn't mean we stop trying.


I believe the above quotes personally.

An extreme example is that if you have a person who will genetically be an endomorph and will end up 6' 1" and will naturally weigh in at 230 lbs there is absolutely no way they can ever be an elite jockey in horse racing, no matter what kind of training and drive they have, it will never happen. Just luck of the draw in the genetics department.

The other thing i believe is each person has to find what kind of routine/training/way of doing things that works for that particular person. Just look at Reo and Jesse, while the basic concept of how they shoot is the same, watching them shoot side by side you can see the amount of tension they keep of the bow to get the release is far different and it is unlikely they would get nearly as good of results if each tried to use the others process.


----------



## cbrunson

Lazarus said:


> Although this topic has wandered considerably this right here ^^^^^^ is gold. :cheers:
> 
> I'd comment on the original topic but see no value in it's discussion when weighed against most of us' purpose here, and that would be to shoot a better shot. You start from where you are, regardless of how much mystical "natural ability" you may or may not have.


The conversation has come up a lot the last few weeks with guys at the range/shop and tournaments. A bow arm shot is a bow arm shot. A push out the top, is a push out the top. The resulting miss may be a half shaft ten for a 300 shooter, or an 8 for a 290 shooter, but the battle is the same. The more skilled or experienced shooter has just found ways to minimize the effect of the mistake, or has developed a better hold and execution that keeps it in the ten.

The one question both of them should be able to answer is where the dot was when the shot went off. 

When asked just yesterday by a guy that has been stuck at 295 for a while, what he needed to do to get better, the first thing I did was ask him what shots he missed. Low dip? Holding low then trying to push it up and fire? Wouldn't settle because of arm tension? *Those are bad shots because of bad decisions, not inability*. 25 out of 30 shots hit the ten. Probably a quarter or more of those were lucky bad shots, which leaves about half of them being good shots. If you are paying attention to every shot, you can pick out those good ones. What is it you were doing then? What was your comfort level? Where was the dot?

The more you pay attention to those, and even track them, the less mistakes you will make naturally, because you start self-diagnosing, and self-correcting. If you are shooting 50% or better "good shots", your equipment is doing it's job. Leave it alone and work on you. At my peak of tracking good vs bad shots last year, at 50% I was hitting 26x to 29x Vegas games. The effort to focus there alone brought my X count up 3-5 baby Xs.


----------



## Lazarus

knarrly said:


> An extreme example is that if you have a person who will genetically be an endomorph and will end up 6' 1" and will naturally weigh in at 230 lbs there is absolutely no way they can ever be an elite jockey in horse racing, no matter what kind of training and drive they have, it will never happen. Just luck of the draw in the genetics department.


Respectfully, what does this, be it fact or opinion have to do with archery? Is your ability to excel at archery dependent on physical attributes or gifts? If so, what are they? If someone says eyesight, I'll say get glasses. For every excuse, I believe I an give a response. 

And here I am falling into the trap of discussing something here that has absolutely nothing to do with shooting a better shot. cbrunson, I give you official permission to kick me square in the nuts for this when you see me.


----------



## Padgett

I totally believe in the way cbrunson described things in his last post, when I was a beginning hinge shooter I might shoot for 10 minutes before a good shot was felt and then another 5 or 10 minutes of arrows before another one was felt. I would focus on that feeling and finding out how to feel it again. When I was at my best a couple years ago I could rattle off over 100 of them in a row on a regular basis without any bad ones and when a bad one did happen I knew exactly why it happened, right now I am down to probably 80 out of 100 that feel awesome and there are 20 that have some little issue weather it is physical or mental the issue is there and these are where my misses come from. Out of those 20 bad executions most of them hit the 10 ring but 5 to 10 of them will miss depending on the day. 

Funny thing is my good shots right now are better than my good shots a few years ago when I was a better shooter as far as scoring average, I shoot more dead on inside out than I did in the past but I just can't seem to do it all the time.


----------



## cbrunson

Lazarus said:


> Respectfully, what does this, be it fact or opinion have to do with archery? Is your ability to excel at archery dependent on physical attributes or gifts? If so, what are they? If someone says eyesight, I'll say get glasses. For every excuse, I believe I an give a response.
> 
> And here I am falling into the trap of discussing something here that has absolutely nothing to do with shooting a better shot. cbrunson, I give you official permission to kick me square in the nuts for this when you see me.


The trouble with analogies. They can be true, but not quite fit the circumstance........like judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. So many things are involved in developing this skill that are products of conditioning, rather than natural attributes. While someone might naturally have better emotional control, or physical stature, both can be developed through conditioning. Once you break it down to being able to make one good shot, that's all it is, mental and physical strength to do it again several times. You set up the equipment to get yourself to the place where your ability to maintain strength and mental discipline is equal to everyone else. If that is not accomplished, you still have some work to do. More than likely if it comes easy to you at first, you will eventually face the greater adversity that is going backwards and not understanding why.


----------



## nestly

Lazarus said:


> Respectfully, what does this, be it fact or opinion have to do with archery? Is your ability to excel at archery dependent on physical attributes or gifts?


Bodies are not all the same, neither are brains. If someone is not "wired" toward a certain type of activity, it can be just as hard to overcome as a body that's not "built" for a certain type of activity.


----------



## Lazarus

nestly said:


> Bodies are not all the same, neither are brains. If someone is not "geared" toward a certain type of activity, it's just as hard to overcome as a body that's not "built" for a certain type of activity.


You are generalizing. We are talking about archery here. If someone has the DESIRE, what "natural ability" would limit them from becoming proficient at ARCHERY? Give me something that could not be overcome given the desire. What body is not "built" for THIS activity. 

cbrunson, you can now officially kick me TWICE in the nuts.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Lazarus said:


> You are generalizing. We are talking about archery here. If someone has the DESIRE, what "natural ability" would limit them from becoming proficient at ARCHERY? Give me something that could not be overcome given the desire. What body is not "built" for THIS activity.
> 
> cbrunson, you can now officially kick me TWICE in the nuts.


The title of the post screwed it for just being about archery; "Are skills natural or developed or both?" What most don't want to accept is some people are blessed in some manner, be it physical or mental... It's easier for them, but may not be out of the reach of the average person.
Training always given and mental right in there....I want the teacher or teachers of the student that graduated high school at age 6 and went on to graduate from college at 10 years of age. And then a kid 14 years old holding a Bachelor's degree or the 17 year old with doctor attached to his name.


----------



## EPLC

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe this is a problem of mental representation. cbrunson's comment about making on good shot and building on it make much sense. That said, in order to follow that path one must have a good shot to build on. Although I do make good shots on occasion, they do not happen enough that I understand them to be able to repeat. While this seems kind of like the chicken or egg problem, it's an issue that has plagued me my entire shooting life. For me I believe this may be some sort of visual problem. I have a very difficult time with finding a sight picture that I'm comfortable with. As I analyze my shot I can see that there are many issues going on. I think if I can get past the holding issue I'll be well on my way.


----------



## EPLC

Prior to my shoulder injury in early September of 15 I was making some headway. Since coming back it's like starting all over again.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC, I want to say the same. Shoulder tore to pieces in 2015 and nothing has been the same, not quite. Some may have started with about blind from diabetes...I really don't know...

If we could get field14 off his bicycles....He told of the story of this pretty well known shooter I can't remember. It was a bet and Tom lost, twice. The bet was the shooter could close his eyes and shoot a 25 and some Xs (5 spot). He did and did it twice. I went on quest. I made everything feel right and I don't know how I did it or what I did. Maybe something told of and I don't remember? I know I did shoot 25s and some Xs several times with my eyes closed, winning bets and even doing it with the lights turned out to make sure I couldn't see. Terry P. once put a card in front of my eyes. And once I nailed the X from 30 yards with the lights turned out (Gary B.)(just one shot and the diet Coke tasted great).
The bow was a Martin Shadowcat, 41 1/2" ata, 28 1/4" draw and d-loop adding another 5/8", 55 pounds, CXL Pro 150s, 70 gr glue-in points with 20 gr weights. I used my TRU Ball ST360. I still have one arrow. Old Martin forums hacked and finally dead, but I remember turning at least 6 high overall scores in 3D that same year and taking 3rd in the ASA State Championship.

I have never been able to do it again with other bows and my bows since then have been just great...Maybe I could have done it with my 2014 MX2 (40 1/4" ata) as it held great, but then the accident that tore up my shoulder.

I get done here I'm going to get with field14, Tom D.

Pic, the best I ever did (1/02/2011).


----------



## SonnyThomas

Tom gave of his book, Proactive Archery. Google it. Nothing in order by his reply. Holding steady and holding in the middle.


----------



## Lazarus

SonnyThomas said:


> What most don't want to accept is some people are blessed in some manner, be it physical or mental....


I realize this. But it's irrelevant to archery as far as I'm concerned. The question has been asked several times.......what "natural talent" limits a person from becoming proficient at archery? No one has given us anything to this point. 

To be very candid, the perfect archer is probably a 5'9 male, and just a little over weight. (Low center of gravity, unshaken by the wind, good balance.) But does that keep people like Levi Morgan and Tim Gillingham (seriously disadvantaged) from becoming proficient?

Peace.


----------



## subconsciously

Talent grows slowly - 
You have to think like a gardener and work like a carpenter.


One of the most important aspects of developing talent is to learn how to accept failure. Failure is not a verdict but a passage.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Lazarus said:


> I realize this. But it's irrelevant to archery as far as I'm concerned. The question has been asked several times.......what "natural talent" limits a person from becoming proficient at archery? No one has given us anything to this point.
> 
> To be very candid, the perfect archer is probably a 5'9 male, and just a little over weight. (Low center of gravity, unshaken by the wind, good balance.) But does that keep people like Levi Morgan and Tim Gillingham (seriously disadvantaged) from becoming proficient?
> 
> Peace.


Given health, I don't know of anyone who couldn't be proficient, but then seems everyone has their idea of proficient. 

Levi M (6'5" ?), Tim G (6'6"), Jeff H (6'6"), three of the tallest in archery. The problem is them poor guys don't know how much at a disadvantage they are


----------



## Lazarus

SonnyThomas said:


> Given health, I don't know of anyone who couldn't be proficient, but then seems everyone has their idea of proficient.
> 
> *Levi M (6'5" ?), Tim G (6'6"), Jeff H (6'6"), three of the tallest in archery. The problem is them poor guys don't know how much at a disadvantage they are*


Sonny, with, or without knowing it, I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure you just made the best point of this entire topic. :cheers:


----------



## pherrley

Lazarus said:


> I realize this. But it's irrelevant to archery as far as I'm concerned. The question has been asked several times.......what "natural talent" limits a person from becoming proficient at archery? No one has given us anything to this point.
> 
> To be very candid, the perfect archer is probably a 5'9 male, and just a little over weight. (Low center of gravity, unshaken by the wind, good balance.) But does that keep people like Levi Morgan and Tim Gillingham (seriously disadvantaged) from becoming proficient?
> 
> Peace.


"Proficient" is pretty ambiguous, so its pretty hard to argue, can you provide your definition? Does proficient mean shooting a 300/30X, hitting the target every time, or just not shooting yourself in the foot? If there weren't some physical / mental abilities related to archery, there probably wouldn't be divisions based on age and gender. Is it your opinion that archery proficiency fits a statistical distribution or that everyone has the exact capability?


----------



## nochance

So i'm off to Lancaster tomorrow but now I'm not sure if I should go since I don't know how much natural talent I have and how many guys have more. :darkbeer:


----------



## nestly

nochance said:


> So i'm off to Lancaster tomorrow but now I'm not sure if I should go since I don't know how much natural talent I have and how many guys have more. :darkbeer:


If you're counting on natural talent alone, you probably should be concerned.  But no one has suggested that natural talent alone leads to success.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Lazarus said:


> Sonny, with, or without knowing it, I'm not sure. But I'm pretty sure you just made the best point of this entire topic. :cheers:


Did you see my 

Me; I know what the "score" is. I've supported hospitals and gots some age on me, but I keep trying. I'm glad just to be able to shoot.


----------



## nochance

nestly said:


> If you're counting on natural talent alone, you probably should be concerned.  But no one has suggested that natural talent alone leads to success.


The point is, if it does exist there is nothing anyone can do about it except work hard and work smart or use it as an excuse as to why we cannot get to a certain level.


----------



## nestly

nochance said:


> The point is, if it does exist there is nothing anyone can do about it except work hard and work smart or use it as an excuse as to why we cannot get to a certain level.


I did not presume the purpose of this topic to be an excuse, nor an explanation for an archers relative success, merely a discussion about whether some are naturally better suited for certain types of tasks than others. To me, the answer is fairly obvious.


----------



## EPLC

Lazarus said:


> I realize this. But it's irrelevant to archery as far as I'm concerned. The question has been asked several times.......what "natural talent" limits a person from becoming proficient at archery? No one has given us anything to this point.
> 
> To be very candid, the perfect archer is probably a 5'9 male, and just a little over weight. (Low center of gravity, unshaken by the wind, good balance.) But does that keep people like Levi Morgan and Tim Gillingham (seriously disadvantaged) from becoming proficient?
> 
> Peace.


Natural ability? I think the more I understand this I believe this is more of a developed ability and/or transferred ability based on something learned and practiced as a kid (intentionally or not). Could have nothing to do with archery. In my case I shot a BB gun and a slingshot as a kid and was pretty good at both. Transferred knowledge and ability is more common than a rarity.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> I did not presume the purpose of this topic to be an excuse, nor an explanation for an archers relative success, merely a discussion about whether some are naturally better suited for certain types of tasks than others. To me, the answer is fairly obvious.


I think we can agree that basketball players and jockeys, pro football linemen and linebackers, etc., etc. are different genetically. Yes, size matters but this is not what we are talking about here. And who's to say a jockey sized athlete could not develop tremendous skills as a basketball or football player. The problem wouldn't be his or her ability to develop skill, it would simply be difficult to get a job as a pro due to larger people with the same skillset wining out.


----------



## nestly

Not just physical......who do you suppose is more likely to be a more successful competitor, someone thats always been shy, or someone thats always been outgoing and enjoys being the center of attention? There are many traits and idiosyncrasies that contribute to success that have nothing to do with physicality. You're thinking way too small if your under the impression that those who argue the existence of "natural talent" are speaking of things that can be measured with a tape or scale


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> Are you kidding me??? Every damn shot is a struggle to get it in the middle. If it does go there and stick right away it's scary AF, and nearly impossible to get a smooth release because the brain is screaming SHOOT, SHOOT, SHOOT!!!
> 
> It has never been easy. What I have not, and will not accept, is that it's easier for some people so I shouldn't keep trying. It sounds to me like you're saying, "I can't do it, so somebody needs to help me find a way to shoot good without holding good. I will not try to convince anyone that it isn't possible to shoot a perfect game with a huge amount of movement, but I will say with absolute certainty that if it's in the middle and you release it in the middle, it WILL go in the middle. The more effort you put into that, the closer you get, and over time you learn the little things that make it both easier and harder. But you have to keep trying and believe it is possible.
> 
> It's a matter of attitude. To rob a quote from another guy that get's it, "My hold improved when my attitude about holding changed."


(RED) Prior to today I truly never believed or trusted that. My shots have never really been in the middle so how could I possibly believe that? What I have done over the years is to focus on the intended target and concentrate on execution. Some days this would work really well but if I'm honest with myself the process is really hit or miss. 

(GREEN) Recently I've been trying to place more focus on holding the pin (in my case DOT) in the middle. I've had to work out some sight picture issues in order to make this even possible but today it seems I found the right combination that allowed me to hold much better than I previously believed I could. I struggled initially but for 7 or 8 straight ends on a Vegas face I was able to accomplish this. I shot a 288 to start and followed that up with a 295. As I shot and improved my hold the more confidence I had. Today showed me something that words could never accomplish. At least now I know it is possible. I assume there will be peaks and valleys as I've got a lot of un-burning to do but confident that this is a breakthrough for me.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> (RED) Prior to today I truly never believed or trusted that. My shots have never really been in the middle so how could I possibly believe that? What I have done over the years is to focus on the intended target and concentrate on execution. Some days this would work really well but if I'm honest with myself the process is really hit or miss.
> 
> (GREEN) Recently I've been trying to place more focus on holding the pin (in my case DOT) in the middle. I've had to work out some sight picture issues in order to make this even possible but today it seems I found the right combination that allowed me to hold much better than I previously believed I could. I struggled initially but for 7 or 8 straight ends on a Vegas face I was able to accomplish this. I shot a 288 to start and followed that up with a 295. As I shot and improved my hold the more confidence I had. Today showed me something that words could never accomplish. At least now I know it is possible. I assume there will be peaks and valleys as I've got a lot of un-burning to do but confident that this is a breakthrough for me.


That puts you well ahead of many out there. What's also important to know is that once you find it, you haven't found it. You can't just set it and forget it like many would have you believe. Tomorrow you will forget nearly everything you figured out today. It won't hold the same, you won't feel comfortable, and you will get frustrated with it......again. But the more you continue to pursue that hold, meaning EVERY time you practice, the better you will get at identifying what is making it difficult on that particular day. You will start to identify things like muscle tension, grip, back tension, mental focus, all the little things that might be slightly off that day and learn to correct them faster, to where you get that "ah ha" moment again. Then when you do settle in again, you have to beat the mental part of it. Accept that you can get it there, and have the discipline to not fall back into the habit of letting bad ones go. Easier said than done, but always keep trying.

Our bodies change from day to day and even from the beginning of a game to the end. Getting good at it means you know what to do for each possible condition as it comes up. Like how to handle tension when you are stronger at the beginning vs fatigued at the end. How do you keep the same hold, and the same ability to focus? Things to thing about.


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> That puts you well ahead of many out there. What's also important to know is that once you find it, you haven't found it. You can't just set it and forget it like many would have you believe. Tomorrow you will forget nearly everything you figured out today. It won't hold the same, you won't feel comfortable, and you will get frustrated with it......again. But the more you continue to pursue that hold, meaning EVERY time you practice, the better you will get at identifying what is making it difficult on that particular day. You will start to identify things like muscle tension, grip, back tension, mental focus, all the little things that might be slightly off that day and learn to correct them faster, to where you get that "ah ha" moment again. Then when you do settle in again, you have to beat the mental part of it. Accept that you can get it there, and have the discipline to not fall back into the habit of letting bad ones go. Easier said than done, but always keep trying.
> 
> Our bodies change from day to day and even from the beginning of a game to the end. Getting good at it means you know what to do for each possible condition as it comes up. Like how to handle tension when you are stronger at the beginning vs fatigued at the end. How do you keep the same hold, and the same ability to focus? Things to thing about.


As luck would have it my league shoots on Wednesday so I didn't have to wait until tomorrow to shoot. I did get the chance to read your post before I left and couldn't agree with you more.
The good news is that I now have the beginnings of a good mental representation that carried over to tonight. I could easily identify the good shots from the bad and make corrections as I shot. After all was said and done I estimate that I made about 50% of my shots according to plan and the other 50% I knew where I went wrong. As I shot my mental representation became clearer and more defined. During this process my shots became stronger as my confidence grew. This is not to say I didn't have any issues along the way but I feel the process is working.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> As luck would have it my league shoots on Wednesday so I didn't have to wait until tomorrow to shoot. I did get the chance to read your post before I left and couldn't agree with you more.
> The good news is that I now have the beginnings of a good mental representation that carried over to tonight. I could easily identify the good shots from the bad and make corrections as I shot. After all was said and done I estimate that I made about 50% of my shots according to plan and the other 50% I knew where I went wrong. As I shot my mental representation became clearer and more defined. During this process my shots became stronger as my confidence grew. This is not to say I didn't have any issues along the way but I feel the process is working.


That's great. I hope you continue to improve. Like I said somewhere earlier, once you learn *what* you need to learn, things really start to improve.

I know we've discussed this many times here before, but with so many different opinions on how you should approach the shot sequence, it can really get frustrating. If you break it down to the simplest actions, it takes a lot of doubt away. So many people get hung up on perfect draw length, perfect execution, shot timing, perfect tune, arrow spine, and form, that they totally neglect the first and most important part.......aiming. If you can't hold it in the middle reasonably well, none of the other stuff matters. Not once you reach a certain level anyway.


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> That's great. I hope you continue to improve. Like I said somewhere earlier, once you learn *what* you need to learn, things really start to improve.
> 
> I know we've discussed this many times here before, but with so many different opinions on how you should approach the shot sequence, it can really get frustrating. If you break it down to the simplest actions, it takes a lot of doubt away. So many people get hung up on perfect draw length, perfect execution, shot timing, perfect tune, arrow spine, and form, that they totally neglect the first and most important part.......aiming. If you can't hold it in the middle reasonably well, none of the other stuff matters. Not once you reach a certain level anyway.


Since I never believed that it was possible for "me" to actually hold in the middle it was impossible for me to work on that aspect of my game exclusively. If I'm honest with myself I never really tried to any extent at all. I believed this was some sort of natural talent that you either had or didn't have. While I did believe someone with this talent could improve with practice, I did not believe this applied to me. Reading "Peak" has changed my attitude and thinking about natural talent. Thanks to this thread, reading that book and some PM's with cbrunson I now understand it can happen. I've also experienced this by actually doing it, which is really the biggest contributor. Of course I'm still in the infancy stage but know this can and will improve with the proper practice. 

I also understand that just shooting arrows without a specific purpose doesn't improve anything, in fact, it leads to a gradual degradation of your game. I actually had my biggest gains during my first 2-5 years of shooting. I truly haven't learned anything new since then that has improved my skill level. Even switching from RH to LH did not provide any overall improvement in my game as I just transferred everything I had learned right handed over to the left side. Like cbrunson said, knowing it is possible is really big.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Since I never believed that it was possible for "me" to actually *hold in the middle *it was impossible for me to work on that aspect of my game exclusively. If I'm honest with myself I never really tried to any extent at all. I believed this was some sort of natural talent that you either had or didn't have. While I did believe someone with this talent could improve with practice, I did not believe this applied to me. Reading "Peak" has changed my attitude and thinking about natural talent. Thanks to this thread, reading that book and some PM's with cbrunson I now understand it can happen. I've also experienced this by actually doing it, which is really the biggest contributor. Of course I'm still in the infancy stage but know this can and will improve with the proper practice.
> 
> I also understand that just shooting arrows without a specific purpose doesn't improve anything, in fact, it leads to a gradual degradation of your game. I actually had my biggest gains during my first 2-5 years of shooting. I truly haven't learned anything new since then that has improved my skill level. Even switching from RH to LH did not provide any overall improvement in my game as I just transferred everything I had learned right handed over to the left side. Like cbrunson said, *knowing it is possible is really big*.


Possibly ingrained that it isn't possible and then forcing to middle without thinking you are...If so, you have to junk this somehow. And maybe haul back and shoot without thinking about your sight. The "center this" and "center all to the target" can make a mess of things as it is force of another kind. 
My hunting bow I set up like Randy Ulmer once penned; "First shot accuracy." You don't line up anything, just haul back and shoot. Arrow is left, adjust sight and vice versa. Up and down can be either or both peep location and sight. You have to do this cold, no warm ups, maybe a hour between shots. Get all right and it is just haul back and shoot.


----------



## EPLC

I hear what you are saying Sonny but I've been there done that. My plan is to continue to work on my aiming and nothing else until it is automatic. In order for this to be successful I will need to continue to build my mental representation. I have a start.


----------



## EPLC

I've come to believe that my original thoughts on natural talent were wrong. While there may be exceptions to just about everything, I firmly believe that natural talent is for the most part. In my own personal history I did have what would be considered natural talent but this was actually transferred skill from shooting everything from BB guns, slingshots and .22 rifles. Unfortunately this initial ability was never developed properly with proper training. I'm currently working to fix that by putting the effort into what should have been addressed years ago. This evening I shot a 300 26x from 10 yards in my basement. The first X that I missed was due to sight setting and 2 more went in that same hole. I actually only made 1 bad shot towards the end of the round. I know this was only 10 yards but I felt I made 29 really good shots.


----------



## EPLC

We seem to have some lost posts here?


----------



## SonnyThomas

Saw that. I was going to post of making sure where one was at before replying.


----------



## EPLC

EPLC said:


> We seem to have some lost posts here?


Right after I posted this the missing posts were back. Very strange behavior here over the past few days. They may be having a data corruption problem. Can't get to PM's either.


----------



## Rick!

pherrley said:


> "Proficient" is pretty ambiguous, so its pretty hard to argue, can you provide your definition? Does proficient mean shooting a 300/30X, hitting the target every time, or just not shooting yourself in the foot? If there weren't some physical / mental abilities related to archery, there probably wouldn't be divisions based on age and gender. Is it your opinion that archery proficiency fits a statistical distribution or that everyone has the exact capability?










Seems fairly clear to me what proficient means in the context of this discussion.



nestly said:


> Not just physical......who do you suppose is more likely to be a more successful competitor, someone thats always been shy, or someone thats always been outgoing and enjoys being the center of attention? There are many traits and idiosyncrasies that contribute to success that have nothing to do with physicality. You're thinking way too small if your under the impression that those who argue the existence of "natural talent" are speaking of things that can be measured with a tape or scale


Isn't shyness, or being an introvert, being an extrovert, and displaying confidence all learned traits?
I was an introvert and I chose to find training to change it and now I'm normal to slightly extrovert.
So, in my own experience, one can alter or train one's character the same way a skill is created.

I have very little natural talent, if any, so like I stated before I practice 10-15 hours a week to discover all the little nuances
it takes to increase my physical and mental skills to improve my average scores. 
I could copy and paste erdman41's post verbatim and put a mark just after the tinkering stage and that's where I'm at.
I have no delusions of "going pro" but I certainly want to get in the top five nationally in my class and steal a win once in a while...

What would be very interesting is reading what you believe are the skills and talents you possess or possessed that allowed you to compete as a professional archer.
What did you start with and what did you add to your "toolbox" to get there? 
How long was the path to get there?


----------



## Rick!

EPLC said:


> I hear what you are saying Sonny but I've been there done that. My plan is to continue to work on my aiming and nothing else until it is automatic. In order for this to be successful I will need to continue to build my mental representation. I have a start.


Watch Dee Wilde's shoot up at the Classic starting at about 4:29 in the 1/28 video.  It may provide an alternate route if the "improved hold" new car smell wears off. 

Shakey D


----------



## pherrley

Rick! said:


> View attachment 5443170
> 
> Seems fairly clear to me what proficient means in the context of this discussion.


I didn't mean for my post to be taken personal, I hope it didn't offend anyone. In archery, and this thread, the word "proficient", and "thorough competence" are not measurable, therefore ambiguous. Archery proficiency probably means something a little different to everyone. I'm not trying to convince anyone, one way or the other, mostly because I don't know the answer.

Can practice improve skill? Yes.


----------



## nestly

Rick! said:


> Isn't shyness, or being an introvert, being an extrovert, and displaying confidence all learned traits?
> I was an introvert and I chose to find training to change it and now I'm normal to slightly extrovert.
> So, in my own experience, one can alter or train one's character the same way a skill is created.


It really doesn't make a difference to me whether personality is learned or natural, a trait such as shyness is still not conducive to high level competition, so it will require more of the person that has to "overcome" it compared to the person that never had an aversion to being the center of attention.



Rick! said:


> I have very little natural talent.....


If you acknowledge the concept of "natural talent", then I don't believe we're at odds on the topic. As I said before, it's never been my intention to use "natural talent" or "gifts", or any other real or imagined advantage that one person has over another as an excuse or explanation for success (or lack thereof), I've only ever argued that some are "naturally" better suited for certain tasks than others. For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me whether the person actually had "it" when they took their first breath, or if the aptitude was due to something that occurred within their lifetime, a person that exhibits higher than average skills without specific training to develop them is a "natural".





Rick! said:


> What would be very interesting is reading what you believe are the skills and talents you possess or possessed that allowed you to compete as a professional archer.
> What did you start with and what did you add to your "toolbox" to get there?
> How long was the path to get there?


I don't believe there is a specific recipe for success. Two individuals given access to exactly the same equipment and coaching will not develop at the same rate and will probably not have identical results because they are "individuals" and subject to all same variables that make people different from each other in other ways.


----------



## cbrunson

Rick! said:


> Watch Dee Wilde's shoot up at the Classic starting at about 4:29 in the 1/28 video.  It may provide an alternate route if the "improved hold" new car smell wears off.
> 
> Shakey D


Don't let the shake fool you. He's holding it there.


----------



## nestly

cbrunson said:


> Don't let the shake fool you. He's holding it there.


Agree.... I think if you put a laser on his bow it would probably show a very rapid tremble but the extreme deviation from center would be relatively small


----------



## EPLC

Since starting this thread I've had my ups and downs with holding (mostly downs). In fact I've gotten myself in such a terrible slump I'm starting to wonder how I could have done the things I've done in this game. Today I was feeling pretty down after a very poor performance at a local shoot last night. For a short time I actually believed I could hold in the middle... hey I actually was doing it, but unfortunately it was short lived. Today I worked on my hold at 7 yards and then moved back to 15 to shoot a game. My logic is that If I can't hold at 15 yards, 20 is out of the question. I really focused on this game and ended up with a 297 13X. The 3 9's were in the same spot at 2:00 on the #2 target.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Is it hold or is it shot execution? I mean, it looks like you're right about there.......


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> Is it hold or is it shot execution? I mean, it looks like you're right about there.......


The better the hold the easier it is to execute. The first 5 ends were shot with my hinge and the last five with a thumb button. I noticed that shoulder fatigue was an issue towards the end of the second half. While my shoulder is much better, it is not 100%. I believe this continues to be a contributing factor to my troubles. There were also 4 or 5 line cutters that would have been 9's had this been shot from 20. Still, it's a good start.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> The better the hold the easier it is to execute. The first 5 ends were shot with my hinge and the last five with a thumb button. I noticed that shoulder fatigue was an issue towards the end of the second half. While my shoulder is much better, it is not 100%. I believe this continues to be a contributing factor to my troubles. There were also 4 or 5 line cutters that would have been 9's had this been shot from 20. Still, it's a good start.


That really says a lot about the whole confidence argument. When you can feel good about your shot process, you can shoot much better.

For me, the number one cause of tension is the sight picture. If I can't keep it there, I get tense. The added tension increases the inability to correct the issue, making it even worse. My fingers get rigid on the release, and torque/palming issues happen with the bow hand. It gets very difficult to execute a clean release, also adding to the likelihood of a big miss. When I am comfortable with the sight picture, it is so much easier to execute the shot. It almost happens on its own, which creates a really good feeling. You know right when it goes off that it went right down the middle. That is why my #1 battle to win is always the sight picture.

Many people have developed that level of comfort with more movement and focusing on the release end, which is okay too. There are many ways to look at it, but the one thing that rings true for all is that you have to be confident that you know exactly what it takes for YOU to make a good shot. Then you continually try to improve it.


----------



## nochance

cbrunson said:


> For me, the number one cause of tension is the sight picture. If I can't keep it there, I get tense. The added tension increases the inability to correct the issue, making it even worse. My fingers get rigid on the release, and torque/palming issues happen with the bow hand. It gets very difficult to execute a clean release, also adding to the likelihood of a big miss.


You just summed up my league night last night. made a lot of good shots but a handful of bad.


----------



## cbrunson

nochance said:


> You just summed up my league night last night. made a lot of good shots but a handful of bad.


I hear ya. The hard thing to do is focus on the good ones instead of the bad ones.


----------

