# Firing Engine Variations



## EPLC

Much has been written recently about hinge releases, firing engines and the different methods folks use to produce the most efficient shot for them. While there are many common ideas and suggestions available I've found that I need to think out of the box on this one. For the past 9-10 years I've shot a safety hinge as past experience found this to produce the most consistent execution for me. That said, I do understand there are compromises using s safety hinge. After soaking in a ton of information from the "Hinge" thread I purchased a TRU Ball HT Gold to work with. While my good shots are really good with this release, I'm discovering the same old issues I had before switching to the safety hinge are still with me. My biggest problems are with my index finger and my thumb. Both want to be big players with regard to my firing engine when shooting a straight hinge release. Based on recent as well as past experience I know that any process that requires relaxing any part of the hand, fingers and/or thumb is out. Sorry it's just the way it is with me, no debate required...

I find Padgett's firing engine articles interesting. I was trying to use his "release the thumb pressure" and it came to me to try a simple variation on his thumb peg theme. Instead of relaxing the pressure on the thumb peg, why can't I reverse the process and actually push on the peg while putting pressure on the middle and ring fingers? While this may not be an original idea, it certainly seems to work well for me. I've only tried it on my bale at very short range but I'm going to work with this idea as it promises to be the smoothest release I've ever tried. Time will tell but I'm very encouraged with this method.


----------



## EPLC

Like I said, no debate required.


----------



## N7709K

hard hands don't seat the release consistent from shot to shot; the release doesn't find its "home". The hard hands also lead to release that hangs up; the tension in the hand doesn't allow for rotation/yielding/etc. When the release and the hand are married together changes to one doesn't translate to changes in the other... and groups open and inconsistencies arise. I'm not saying that you need to shoot by relaxing the hand and letting the hand stretch; but keeping hard hands and tension in the hands will only further hinder the process that you are trying to improve upon.

Personally I wouldn't build a shot around needing to actively rotate the release. If you make it about actively running the shot there is no point a hinge and you might as well be shooting a button. Keeping the thumb on the peg... sure it works for some and i'm guilty of shooting some shots with my thumb lightly on the peg, but its not a good habit to keep(neither is dumping the peg all together, it has its place and it has its uses).


----------



## RCR_III

What amount of pressure do you have on each finger when you anchor? Like, 80% index 10% middle 10% ring. 60% index 30% middle 10% ring. 

If you aren't spreading the tension down to the middle and ring fingers, you'll always be fighting the index finger because it will be bearing so much of the load. And that'll be regardless of any manner of execution you choose to use. 

Also, the hinge could be set up with your index finger being too extended causing the hinge to be "over rotated." There's a swing point for everyone on their hinge. Depending on hand structure and how you are using the hinge. If you are set up to come to anchor and start your execution with the hinge already adjusted too cold and over the swing point, it'll be a fight to get it to fire. You will have to increase effort with the outer fingers or push with the thumb to get movement induced into the hinge. 

A properly set up hinge, will allow you to start your execution from the positive side of the swing. Meaning the hinge will be able to still move and balance out to the swing point and go over. That's how the relaxation technique can be of great benefit. You are not having tension building in your hands and fingers. You aren't moving the hand and anchor point. You are allowing your hand to get out of the way of the hinge release and let the hinge swing itself over the edge of the moon and fire.


----------



## ron w

EPLC, that is exactly the process intended for the Carter "solution" series of hinges. the moon is freely rotating as default, and pushing on the thumb barrel as you run your execution, locks it in place to activate the bail's dump.


----------



## EPLC

Everything you guy's are saying is true. I've always had issues with my thumb and index... it's just the way it is. I'm not supporting a hard-hand release as I'm relaxing my hand as best as I can in my setup. What I'm not capable of is using a firing engine that requires the relaxation of the hand and/or fingers as the firing engine itself.


----------



## ron w

my finger pressures are all pretty equal, in that I rely on establishing rotation from the swing of my elbow and the fact that my hand is fully flat and relaxed, except for the hook in my fingers that retains the release.
typically, old fashion, traditional, "rotational back tension".
it seems every time I try to use a different method, it works OK for a short time, then I start making stupid mistakes. the last time I tried something different, I sent the release down the lane two times.


----------



## N7709K

i setup the shot relaxed, set the hands soft, and stay relaxed during the entire shot. Due to being relaxed [soft] hands coupled with positive pressure during during the shot the release breaks. I don't come to full draw and relax the hand(not a fan of this method either for its own set of reasons...); i am already relaxed and use that relaxation as the mechanism to fire the release when the pressure between the halves in increased.

Honest question here.. why do you feel that you cannot change the relationship with the thumb and index? is it a psychological block(been there, done that) or an injury(wondering if i'm gonna go through this as well with a bit of nerve damage to my release hand index finger)?


----------



## SonnyThomas

Regardless of a hinge or thumb release I'm going to say that relaxing the hand and fingers as most describe is misleading. "Relaxed" might be said/used after you get use to something. Fingers don't relax and if they did you'd have a release going down range. You hook the fingers and get use to hooking the fingers, but they aren't relax.

My best shot; Back of hand flush or straight with arm, fingers hooked on release, but fingers from main knuckle of hand to first knuckle of fingers aligned to corner of jaw line - so fingers straight with back of hand with back of hand flush to forearm. The only releases I have that permits this are my ST360s with thumb barrels in good position to catch my thumb on - solid on the first joint out, bone, or right on the bone before the palm joint.

Over bowed and one wants that more secure feeling, where one may curl the fingers or bend the hand or both. Thumb barrels or pulling posts must be set correctly. My main complaint with my Stan Deuce and Blackjack and other brand hinges. The Deuce has a fixed pulling barrel. The Blackjack has adjustment of the post, but the post is too short, just 9/16" long and the tightening screw tip 1/8" wide doesn't leave a lot left. So I have both fingers curling and/or hand wanting to bend if I don't have the release body just so. The Deuce (fixed post) is different in a manner. Set as is I just hold into the wall, start aiming, release the barrel, and aim my butt off until the release fires. It doesn't fire within so many heart beats I clinch my index finger so it won't fire and let down. I could never get the Stan two finger Onyx to fire this way and it doesn't have a barrel to hold onto. I traded it even up to get my Deuce back. The Blackjack, I've threatened a 1000 times over to make a longer post. 

99.95% of my problems with my hinges are related to me. I don't use them enough to get over the fear or gain enough confidence to use them on a constant basis. I've pulled off some incredible shots with a hinge (for me at least), but one hiccup and I'm back to something I can control without fear. And I've used my Deuce when testing vanes and arrows at the shop and so many times the X from 20 yards was mine and never lost a bet for a diet Coke or Pepsi.


----------



## chilipowder

EPLC, follow Jacob's advice. Re-read all his posts in the last six months or so. His operation of the hinge is excellent.


----------



## EPLC

N7709K said:


> i setup the shot relaxed, set the hands soft, and stay relaxed during the entire shot. Due to being relaxed [soft] hands coupled with positive pressure during during the shot the release breaks. I don't come to full draw and relax the hand(not a fan of this method either for its own set of reasons...); i am already relaxed and use that relaxation as the mechanism to fire the release when the pressure between the halves in increased.
> 
> Honest question here.. why do you feel that you cannot change the relationship with the thumb and index? is it a psychological block(been there, done that) or an injury(wondering if i'm gonna go through this as well with a bit of nerve damage to my release hand index finger)?


Don't know why, just can't. Einstein said the true definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over expecting different results. If I get the release set so I can draw with even tension on all fingers (which I am doing) I have too much travel to deal with. If I set the release hotter I either freeze or time the shot. To sum up: I just have difficulty pulling and relaxing different parts of my hand at the same time. I can push and pull with my fingers and thumb and need something to break some really old ingrained motion. If this works I'll be fine, if it doesn't I'll be no worst off.



chilipowder said:


> EPLC, follow Jacob's advice. Re-read all his posts in the last six months or so. His operation of the hinge is excellent.


Way ahead of the curve on this. Jacob's operation involves shooting off the edge of the sear which doesn't work for me. I need something of an alternate procedure.


----------



## EPLC

One of Padgett's engines goes like this but all are similar: 

1. Come to anchor and settle in checking bubble and peep alignment and then release the thumb pressure on the peg slowly.
2. Now at the same time I start aiming I start squeezing my ring and middle finger and smoothly pull into the wall.
3. Arrow gone.

My new firing engine is only a slight modification of his and many others on here. Many firing engines require some manipulation of the hand... this is no different and is really the same continuous motion, rather than two opposing forces. 

1. Come to anchor and settle in checking bubble and peep alignment.
2. Once the X has been acquired I start pushing on the thumb peg as I squeeze my ring and middle finger as I smoothly continue pulling into the wall.
3. Arrow gone.


----------



## gcab

N7709K said:


> hard hands don't seat the release consistent from shot to shot; the release doesn't find its "home". The hard hands also lead to release that hangs up; the tension in the hand doesn't allow for rotation/yielding/etc. When the release and the hand are married together changes to one doesn't translate to changes in the other... and groups open and inconsistencies arise. I'm not saying that you need to shoot by relaxing the hand and letting the hand stretch; but keeping hard hands and tension in the hands will only further hinder the process that you are trying to improve upon.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't build a shot around needing to actively rotate the release. If you make it about actively running the shot there is no point a hinge and you might as well be shooting a button. Keeping the thumb on the peg... sure it works for some and i'm guilty of shooting some shots with my thumb lightly on the peg, but its not a good habit to keep(neither is dumping the peg all together, it has its place and it has its uses).


Is there an issue with shooting a button? I shoot a thumb button and shoot it fairly well while using my back and relaxing my hand as in the video McCarthy did. Whats the issue with that that you see?


----------



## EPLC

gcab said:


> Is there an issue with shooting a button? I shoot a thumb button and shoot it fairly well while using my back and relaxing my hand as in the video McCarthy did. Whats the issue with that that you see?


I don't believe he meant that there is an issue with shooting a button, what he said was that my process, as such, would be no different than shooting a button. The problem with that assumption is that my process will not work shooting a thumb button as my thumb is pushing in the opposite direction. By using the push on the thumb peg I find it very easy to relax the index during the process. This results in a very smooth execution... so far.


----------



## Rick!

So you feel more comfortable commanding the shot, not a big deal. Just grip your hinge real deep and squeeze your hand into a fist to fire. Add a little front and back side pressure to steady things up a bit and report back after 2500 shots.

I don't shoot this way but it does work.


----------



## EPLC

Rick! said:


> So you feel more comfortable commanding the shot, not a big deal. Just grip your hinge real deep and squeeze your hand into a fist to fire. Add a little front and back side pressure to steady things up a bit and report back after 2500 shots.
> 
> I don't shoot this way but it does work.


Not really a command shot as I'm getting a nice surprise release... I also just purchased 2 more BT Gold releases to keep me honest. I do like the 2500 shot suggestion. The count begins


----------



## ron w

the problem with that is that it takes your conscious thought to "run your finger" away from where it should be entirely focused ad the reason we took up using a hinge, is because the method of using our rhomboids, in contraction to produce the needed rotation, is easily taught to the sub conscious, just the same as we once taught our subconscious to make our hand find our cakehole, when we have a fist full of cake. very simply, we did that before we could even see....

there's a huge hint in there somewhere....did you discover it ?.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> the problem with that is that it takes your conscious thought to "run your finger" away from where it should be entirely focused ad the reason we took up using a hinge, is because the method of using our rhomboids, in contraction to produce the needed rotation, is easily taught to the sub conscious, just the same as we once taught our subconscious to make our hand find our cakehole, when we have a fist full of cake. very simply, we did that before we could even see....
> 
> there's a huge hint in there somewhere....did you discover it ?.


Ron, any repeatable action can be trained into the subconscious... and there's more than one way to shoot a hinge. This is not an exact science. Also, you might want to look up the proper use of the word "we" as that was not the reason I took up shooting a hinge. I shoot a hinge because I tend to time trigger releases badly.


----------



## N7709K

gcab said:


> Is there an issue with shooting a button? I shoot a thumb button and shoot it fairly well while using my back and relaxing my hand as in the video McCarthy did. Whats the issue with that that you see?


Lemme clarify what I meant, i was in no way saying that shooting a button is bad or there are inherent issues with shooting a button. When they are setup and shot correctly they are one of the best systems you can use. 

What I meant is this-- when you consciously rotate the hinge through pushing on the thumb peg and pulling with certain fingers to counter a rigid index you are running the shot the same as a slow squeeze on a button. There isn't a quick snap to get the release to pop, but the process is deliberate and it cheats the purpose of the release. When the release is rotated it takes away from the purpose of shooting a hinge; you do not need to engage the back to roll the release and you do not need to bleed tension out of the hands to gain consistency.




EPLC said:


> I don't believe he meant that there is an issue with shooting a button, what he said was that my process, as such, would be no different than shooting a button. The problem with that assumption is that my process will not work shooting a thumb button as my thumb is pushing in the opposite direction. By using the push on the thumb peg I find it very easy to relax the index during the process. This results in a very smooth execution... so far.


You aren't going to be able to relax only one finger; the hand will relax or the hand will stay rigid. The pressure against that finger may be less but the hand itself stays rigid and this is where problems come up. I wasn't saying you shoot your hinge like a button, or that how you shoot a hinge will transition into shooting a button.... I was saying that if you are going to cheat the release you are better off cheating a button and using a release where you can simply add travel to the button before the sear trips.



EPLC said:


> Way ahead of the curve on this. Jacob's operation involves shooting off the edge of the sear which doesn't work for me. I need something of an alternate procedure.


Am I interpreting this correctly in that you are saying I shoot my releases on the hotter side? 



Here is my process as best as I can break it down (kinda tough, it just happens...) and a video showing the shot from several different angles and how the halves are engaged in relationship to the release hand.

1. hand gets married to the release; fingers are hooked but relaxed along with the back of the hand and the wrist. There is a little tension in the release arm against the string during setup but that is relaxed when the shoulders become engaged during the draw. The fingerbeds of the release are in constant contact with the fingers and they are cushioned by the fingers.
2. at the start of the draw the release and the release hand are at about 25deg above horizontal; not laid flat but not very vertical. as the draw progresses the hand position remains the same until i reach anchor and come into anchor.
3. at full draw the thumb comes off the peg when my dot gets to the middle; at that point the weight is borne by the shoulders. Even tension across the fingers and relaxed hands.
4. I contract the rhomboids and lower lats to bring the release side shoulder down and around. This causes the release side elbow to hinge around the spine and to pull the release hand away from the bow hand; as the pressure between the halves increases due to this movement my release hand stretches. Due to the skeletal and musculature structure of the hands the index will move farther than the middle and ring fingers; this movement[stretch] is where i get the needed movement to fire the release.
5. release breaks, arrow goes in the middle, halves move apart and the hands remain relaxed.

My release is set rather cold for the vast majority of shooters; i can relax and have an even distribution of pressure on the fingers because there is still travel of the hook on the moon once i come to full draw. I prefer brass releases because the added physical weight; this helps keep the fingers relaxed and they allow for an easier time shooting a colder hinge while staying relaxed.


----------



## EPLC

N7709K said:


> Am I interpreting this correctly in that you are saying I shoot my releases on the hotter side?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I know you set your release slow. I can't find the post but I believe you said recently that at some point during the setup the release ends up on the edge of the sear.
Click to expand...


----------



## N7709K

I have about .09375" or so of the sear that is heavily worn... not all of that is from at anchor but its far from the edge of the sear when i hit anchor... probably close to .045", which really isn't all that much movement left to make the ring finger end of my hinge moves maybe .15625" at most. thats down watching the process however... at anchor it moves much less due to how the fingers sit, bit there is still a ways for it to go before it's gone. 

i know i have never intended to say or recommend to shoot from the edge of the sear; that will make the shooter play very carefully...


----------



## ron w

EPLC said:


> Ron, any repeatable action can be trained into the subconscious... and there's more than one way to shoot a hinge. This is not an exact science. Also, you might want to look up the proper use of the word "we" as that was not the reason I took up shooting a hinge. I shoot a hinge because I tend to time trigger releases badly.


 some muscular activities are easier to train into the subconscious than others. large skeletal muscles are easiest to train....what kind of muscle is a rhomboid EPLC ?.. there's a freakin reason the hinge was designed to be manipulated by contraction of the rhomboids....you might try figuring that out. 
i'll tell you what, I've been watching your posts for about 12 years now. 
I don't know what that post you made to me was supposed to be all about , but I suspect it had to do with "dismissal", well, I'll take that dismissal,...... good luck, pal.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> some muscular activities are easier to train into the subconscious than others. large skeletal muscles are easiest to train....what kind of muscle is a rhomboid EPLC ?.. there's a freakin reason the hinge was designed to be manipulated by contraction of the rhomboids....you might try figuring that out.
> i'll tell you what, I've been watching your posts for about 12 years now.
> I don't know what that post you made to me was supposed to be all about , but I suspect it had to do with "dismissal", well, I'll take that dismissal,...... good luck, pal.


Wasn't that you that scolded Padgett for doing it wrong as well? Need I say more?


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC, you've more than enough information choke 2 horses and a cow. Take it, use it, prove it, disprove it, but find what works for you. It works for you don't worry about how someone else gets the job done. Talking about it ain't getting the job done.


----------



## unclejane

> as the pressure between the halves increases due to this movement my release hand stretches. Due to the skeletal and musculature structure of the hands the index will move farther than the middle and ring fingers; this movement[stretch] is where i get the needed movement to fire the release.


Interesting and GRIV describes a similar method here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lwxnbrGAvw

I just tried this real quick with the practice rope a couple times and then once into the bail in the bathroom with the Supra Max (hope I didn't wake the neighbors downstairs). This is definitely not what I have been doing, which may be a good thing lol. This felt more "automatic" to me without an explicit concept of "rotate". I'm going to practice this more tomorrow.. 

LS


----------



## Padgett

Eplc, just saw this thread. Yes there was a time when I was struggling and freezing up and not being able to fire and I used this exact technique, in the beginning I loved it but it just proved over time to really not work. 

I saw that you listed out my Squeeze and Pull firing engine and I wanted to make sure and tell you that it isn't a rotation of the hinge with my ring and middle finger, I have my execution of my shots so refined that there is little to no wasted movement taking place and I am not visibly rotating the hinge. I am a believer in a hinge that is set up absolutely perfect so that I can draw safely and then with a very smooth transition with my thumb getting off the peg I can begin my effort and send the arrow on its way.

Yesterday I spend my shooting session getting my hinge set up after my draw length change and today I only had 20 minutes to shoot at the range before I had to leave for my daughters basketball game so I went in to just enjoy some perfect shots with my new speed on the hinge. It was slightly to fast but I was shooting really freaking good, I am going to slow it down another thousandth tomorrow and I have a feeling it will then be there to stay for a while.

All I know is that I have spent a lot of time training and working on a variety of things and I shoot pretty good most of the time but there are just a lot of shots that don't make any sense to me, but when I get my hinge speed set up absolutely perfect my shooting becomes effortless and and even though I know that I am running a certain firing engine such as the Squeeze and Pull one that is my favorite It has been shrunk down to the point where the amount of perceived effort is very very minimal.

One thing I will say that i am willing to do is have misfires, in the past I was afraid of my hinge firing before I was ready during the draw cycle or just as i got to anchor and I shot scared of my hinge. Now when I set up a hinge I find that initial setting that feels pretty good and then I go faster until I don't feel comfy and I get some misfires and during this portion of setting up my hinge I refuse to help my hinge be save by putting extra pressure on the index finger or thumb. I just keep my grip perfect and this way I know the truth about the limits of my hinge speed and once I am there I can back off the speed a little at a time and find my perfect speed.


----------



## N7709K

unclejane said:


> Interesting and GRIV describes a similar method..


Griv and I have a good relationship on and off the course and have worked together with him in a coaching relationship for a while.... The system that griv teaches works very well, it takes a bit more discipline than other methods but its worth it.


----------



## Padgett

Yeah, I love shooting with the griv method. For me it has been right there during my hinge shooting right from the start and really should be part of everyones training, I can still remember the day that I finally realized what he meant by Yielding. I had heard that term used for a while but couldn't really wrap my mind around what it really was, I really feel like all of my hinge shooting is built around fundamental standards that must exist within your shooting to succeed and this is one of them.


----------



## unclejane

N7709K said:


> Griv and I have a good relationship on and off the course and have worked together with him in a coaching relationship for a while.... The system that griv teaches works very well, it takes a bit more discipline than other methods but its worth it.


Well I'm entirely self-taught, so part of that is changing to something else if I find it works better. I'm going to try this again with the bow tomorrow, but so far it looks like a better technique than what I was doing. I've never been crazy about the concept of "rotate the release" at the end which is a kind of a kludge at the end in my current method, as sometimes I hang up waiting for the shot to go off.

So I'm all for getting rid of that idea and replacing it with a relaxing/expansion of the hand. It did feel quite a bit better the little I did on the practice rope and the one shot into the bail "in anger" with the bow.....

LS


----------



## unclejane

Padgett said:


> Yeah, I love shooting with the griv method. For me it has been right there during my hinge shooting right from the start and really should be part of everyones training, I can still remember the day that I finally realized what he meant by Yielding. I had heard that term used for a while but couldn't really wrap my mind around what it really was, I really feel like all of my hinge shooting is built around fundamental standards that must exist within your shooting to succeed and this is one of them.


Well like I said to 09Kilo, I'm going to have a go with it tomorrow with the bow. I was doing ok before, but this seems better. I'm not shooting a score at all and am still tinkering and building up/working around injuries, etc... so while I'm at it, may as well take the advice and try to improve the release too... Nothing to lose at this point 

LS


----------



## ron w

EPLC said:


> Wasn't that you that scolded Padgett for doing it wrong as well? Need I say more?


 nobody is "scolding" anybody. and what I told him wasn't that he was doing it wrong. that's maybe what you read into my posts, but when you take advice the way you do, it makes sense that you would interpret a post as being scolded. 
it does you no good to receive all this helping information and then argue it off in a dismissing manner. all it does is just reduce the potential to get the information you need to see. let's see, you've been at this for how many years, getting the same information,.....everything we are telling you now, you were told way back in the early 2000's .....and you are still in the same place with your shooting. there's a reason for that, don't you know...... and it's not because you can't control your fingers.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> nobody is "scolding" anybody. and what I told him wasn't that he was doing it wrong. that's maybe what you read into my posts, but when you take advice the way you do, it makes sense that you would interpret a post as being scolded.
> it does you no good to receive all this helping information and then argue it off in a dismissing manner. all it does is just reduce the potential to get the information you need to see. let's see, you've been at this for how many years, getting the same information,.....everything we are telling you now, you were told way back in the early 2000's .....and you are still in the same place with your shooting. there's a reason for that, don't you know...... and it's not because you can't control your fingers.


Your exact quote: *"squeeze and pull, is entirely wrong in respect to using a hinge with the standard engine being back tension. 
the "squeezing" is an entirely, consciously regulated muscle action, that does exactly opposite what a hinge and back tension, is supposed to do. it is precisely the definition of "cheating an hinge off". it is exactly contrary to the entire reason hinges were developed to be fired with back tension. 
I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong and I will gladly participate in a long discussion, revealing the reason why."*

If this is not a scolding, then what is? Once again, this is not an exact science. Find something that works for you that is repeatable and perfect it.


----------



## Padgett

The biggest issue we have in these threads is that we aren't standing on the line shooting and having the same conversations, I shoot with people all the time at asa events and even buddies in my own local group where I see all of their issues that need to be resolved but I can't say anything because it just isn't the right time and place. Here in the threads we say all the things we wish we could say to our buddies and other people but we can't even really direct them appropriately because we have really never seen each other shoot. 

I enjoy ronw's comments and he has some good things to say, sure he gives me a hard time sometimes but I have a feeling that if we stood on the line and shot for a while we would find that we basically are doing the same thing. I choose to touch base and use a few things in my shot that he chooses not to but I have a feeling he couldn't even tell the difference in my execution when I am using pure back tension and the squeeze and pull firing engine.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> Find something that works for you that is repeatable and perfect it.


I've found it quite interesting that thumb triggers (one specifically) have taken many top spots early this season.


----------



## TDS

cbrunson said:


> I've found it quite interesting that thumb triggers (one specifically) have taken many top spots early this season.


Which one specifically?


----------



## unclejane

Well, the "yielding" idea helps, tho towards the end of today's shooting I was back to what I was doing before, more or less. Seems most comfortable to me to do like how Reo Wilde describes it: "after I come to anchor I just pull". I am abandoning the "rotate" idea and seem to get the best results by just pulling and yielding. Mainly with the index finger.

The good thing is there are no spurious left and rights and the bare shaft behavior is staying the same. 

Now my problem is I can't see the pin in my aperture. Looks like a Specialty peep with a verifier is in my future; I've gotten so far sighted since the last time I shot my trusty RAD hunting peeps don't cut it anymore lol. Still, surprisingly, I was able to keep it mostly in the 5 ring and sometimes in the X. I'm pleased that the bare shaft behaves consistently, which helps give me confidence in the tune and my release. Those are my main goals right now.

I can now shoot 15 to 20 shafts out of my PSE, with long breaks. 

Rome definitely wasn't built in a day.....

LS


----------



## SonnyThomas

cbrunson said:


> I've found it quite interesting that thumb triggers (one specifically) have taken many top spots early this season.





TDS said:


> Which one specifically?


So I emailed a couple makers to see what they have to say..... Tried to pull up a few top Pros and didn't see what I was looking for as to thumb release. Most all listed hinges.

I've used very few thumb releases, but have owned and consistently used a TRU Ball ST360. You can thumb it to fire. You can pull it to fire. You can use one sided back tension or full back tension to fire it. I just posted a picture of it again - all fingers pulling though fingers aren't even and the pull barrel to the bone of my thumb and close in for a slow even firing. It's set heavy with the heavy spring. I can place my thumb on the barrel and get a good feel and not have it go off prematurely. Set heavy, it feels heavy, but not when you're into the shot - just so easy....


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Find something that works for you that is repeatable and perfect it.


Then do it. Talking doesn't get it done.... I report to one person, me......


----------



## Sasquech

We all know what is perfect and how to cheat it off. I think it is fair to say until you. Have learned how to effectively use all of them you will not recognize in yourself or someone else when different styles are being used. Let's say you go to Kentucky and on the way to the airport slip and fall and pull a muscle . When you get there the hinge can't go off due to the pain. Switch to one of the other methods in your bag of tricks. Mind you not perfect but you can complete the tournament. Cara Fernandez had to do this last year when she came up lame had to rethink things. On the fly. A one trick pony will find situations where his pure form just may not work like the straight up shot in the silo at pro archery series. It takes a solid knowledge of all methods and pick out what works for you. Now that being said finger rotation is not repeatable as pure back tension in indoor target situations and often leads to punching and thus target panic. I find it best to try to keep an open mind and respect all input there is a lot to be learned from folks that have tried things out and can share weather they were worth using or ineffective and why. If we have to learn everything from scratch and trial and error. You will be too old to enjoy the sport when you get it figured out.thank you all for your continued sharing and patients with those that ask for advice and don't really want it because they already have their mind made up the rest of us benefit immensely hats off to the thick skinned who persevere !


----------



## ron w

EPLC said:


> Your exact quote: *"squeeze and pull, is entirely wrong in respect to using a hinge with the standard engine being back tension.
> the "squeezing" is an entirely, consciously regulated muscle action, that does exactly opposite what a hinge and back tension, is supposed to do. it is precisely the definition of "cheating an hinge off". it is exactly contrary to the entire reason hinges were developed to be fired with back tension.
> I challenge anyone here to prove me wrong and I will gladly participate in a long discussion, revealing the reason why."*
> 
> If this is not a scolding, then what is? Once again, this is not an exact science. Find something that works for you that is repeatable and perfect it.


 again, it is not scolding, it is stating a simple fact that is a known true statement.
and contrary to your thinking, archery is an exact science, that has very structured and well established methods, that have been developed over more years than just about any other sport in existence. 
people who don't understand or don't/won't bother to do any reading or investigation , in order to understand the sport, are the only people who say that "it is not an exact science". they hide behind the idea that "you have to find what works for you", because they don't want to put in the effort to learn to do it in the ways that are known and established, as ways that work the best.


----------



## ron w

Padgett said:


> The biggest issue we have in these threads is that we aren't standing on the line shooting and having the same conversations, I shoot with people all the time at asa events and even buddies in my own local group where I see all of their issues that need to be resolved but I can't say anything because it just isn't the right time and place. Here in the threads we say all the things we wish we could say to our buddies and other people but we can't even really direct them appropriately because we have really never seen each other shoot.
> 
> I enjoy ronw's comments and he has some good things to say, sure he gives me a hard time sometimes but I have a feeling that if we stood on the line and shot for a while we would find that we basically are doing the same thing. I choose to touch base and use a few things in my shot that he chooses not to but I have a feeling he couldn't even tell the difference in my execution when I am using pure back tension and the squeeze and pull firing engine.


 you're probably "right as rain", Padgett !. we all like to talk about "what works for us", when we explain how to do things.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> again, it is not scolding, it is stating a simple fact that is a known true statement.
> and contrary to your thinking, archer is an exact science, that has very structured and well established methods, that have been developed over more years than just about any other sport in existence.
> people who don't understand or don't/won't bother to do any reading or investigation , in order to understand the sport, are the only people who say that "it is not an exact science". they hide behind the idea that "you have to find what works for you", because they don't want to put in the effort to learn to do it in the ways that are known and established, as ways that work the best.


I think we'll just have to agree that we disagree.


----------



## ron w

yup, and that's the problem, you refuse to believe that archery does have specific functional methodologies. if you refuse to acknowledge them and learn from those established foundations, you will always think, that it is not an exact science and continue to flounder around, with no constructively developed process for improvement. 
you don't get it, anything you do or learn to do, is based on certain undeniable established truths and methods, that are used as a basis for developing alternative methods. not learning the basic foundation, gives you no foundation to compare any deviation of your method against.
consequently, you declare that there is no right or wrong (no exact science) and any way, is as good as the next.
if this were true, there would be no coaches that are considered "better" than other coaches.


----------



## unclejane

> not learning the basic foundation, gives you no foundation to compare any deviation of your method against.


Speaking for myself, I have found that this is basically true. 

At the end of the day, our chances of doing something well are increased if the method we end up adopting and using varies from an "established" method only within a certain tolerance. One of the hardest things about being self-taught (as I am in everything I do except flying an airplane), is making sure you're not varying from established methods too far. 

A fair bit of the time that simply means having to consult an expert in your field or at least someone who knows more about the skill you're working on than you do. I'm totally relearning how to shoot this time around for various reasons and adopting a hinge is one of the major changes I've made in the process. So I've learned quite a bit about what to do with a hinge in these threads. I am curmudgeonly only about the use of a safety, mainly because I'm so safety-oriented and am willing to sacrifice some grace and endure a little ridicule to be as safe as possible. 

But when folks who really know how to use a hinge talk, I tend to listen and give it a try. Only on rare occasions have I encountered anything so far that I wasn't able to use or adapt to. Very frequently mistakes in my approach were easily discernible from the experience of others. Several major improvements in what I'm doing now I've already learned on here and from other instructors on the web like GRIV and so on. 

So there's "do what works for you" and there's "do what works for you". There are definite limits there and sometimes we gotta go to the doctor when something just doesn't seem to be coming together.

JMO,

LS


----------



## chevman

Jacob...thank you for posting that video of you shooting of a string. I found a major flaw i have for the actual pulling aliagment of the release. It was a OOOHHHH moment for me. Tried it on the string first and than grabbed the bow. So far...big difference. I get more out of watching someone than i do listening to them so the video of you shooting REPEATEDLY off of a STRING rather than a bow gave a small brain a chance to see what is actually going on. Good idea!


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> yup, and that's the problem, you refuse to believe that archery does have specific functional methodologies. if you refuse to acknowledge them and learn from those established foundations, you will always think, that it is not an exact science and continue to flounder around, with no constructively developed process for improvement.
> you don't get it, anything you do or learn to do, is based on certain undeniable established truths and methods, that are used as a basis for developing alternative methods. not learning the basic foundation, gives you no foundation to compare any deviation of your method against.
> consequently, you declare that there is no right or wrong (no exact science) and any way, is as good as the next.
> if this were true, there would be no coaches that are considered "better" than other coaches.


Actually that's not what I said at all. 

*Definition of EXACT SCIENCE
: a science (as physics, chemistry, or astronomy) whose laws are capable of accurate quantitative expression *

Archery is not and exact science, it is a mixed bag of common and uncommon methods with a multitude of individual application. Even with the so called common wisdom, there are variations galore.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> Actually that's not what I said at all.
> 
> *Definition of EXACT SCIENCE
> : a science (as physics, chemistry, or astronomy) whose laws are capable of accurate quantitative expression *
> 
> Archery is not and exact science, it is a mixed bag of common and uncommon methods with a multitude of individual application. Even with the so called common wisdom, there are variations galore.


Not to jump in again, but I think you're quite right and make a valid point. OTOH, I would still say there's a core invariant in the general set of approaches to archery that dictates limits on the variations that can produce good results. So if you go very far outside a "standard" approach, it's usually only done for a good reason. For example, if you're right handed, you typically want to shoot a right-handed bow. That's kind of a "standard" practice. However, there can be a good reason for going lefty, such as if you're left-eye dominant. This can be a reason to "violate" this "standard" practice in terms of handedness (Denise Parker, a former olympian comes to mind as an example of a rightly who shot lefty because of left-eye dominance).

However, I don't think, for example, there's been any case where trying to shoot a bow backwards has produced a good result. There's generally no reason not to hold the bow with the belly facing you and drawing away from it. An absurd example, but hopefully it makes the point.

Regarding the hinge, at least from what I've learned from it so far, it's definitely not a sky's-the-limit type of thing. There's a right way to shoot it, a kind of a grey area in there and then a wrong way to shoot it. I definitely know the wrong way and have experimented with that wrong way quite extensively LOL. I am kind of developing a personal style with it, but I can't say it deviates much from what 0NinerKilo and Padgett and others have described as a "standard" practice with it. 

LS


----------



## jpotter

All parties speeking from personal experiences,and tecnique variables coming to the same end,,,almost. After learning my BT release, I mean how to make it fire, I can now very my "engine" slightly to get the optimum shot. But it has taken a lot of flingin arrows. Training instead of practicing.


----------



## Sasquech

Ok there is one perfect method of executing back tension the correct way...... There are probably a thousand methods of shooting the 300 variations of releases all are a little less than ideal but some have applications which they apply more easily than pure back tension but flat ground 20 yards there is one proper way to shoot a hinge . No motion required no relaxing just come to anchor click and tighten the rhomboids and bang it goes off. Keep the front half strong and you are golden. Use your fingers or wrist to make it go off you will never find true 300 30x vegas accuracy. That is fact


----------



## EPLC

Sasquech said:


> Ok there is one perfect method of executing back tension the correct way...... There are probably a thousand methods of shooting the 300 variations of releases all are a little less than ideal but some have applications which they apply more easily than pure back tension but flat ground 20 yards there is one proper way to shoot a hinge . No motion required no relaxing just come to anchor click and tighten the rhomboids and bang it goes off. Keep the front half strong and you are golden. Use your fingers or wrist to make it go off you will never find true 300 30x vegas accuracy. That is fact


Sorry, you and I are not on the same page. While there may certainly be common wisdom, this is far from an exact science. I find it interesting that there are so many experts on how 300 30X is achieved when they haven't come within a mile of doing it themselves. There is no* "Ok there is one perfect method of executing back tension the correct way....."* and *"Use your fingers or wrist to make it go off you will never find true 300 30x vegas accuracy. That is fact"* is far from fact. George Ryals IV once told me not to worry about shooting with BT as the technique was very difficult to duplicate in varying conditions. "Just pull straight back" was his suggestion to me. He supports a process he calls "Dynamic Tension" with a "relaxing of the hand" execution. I don't know if he has changed his position on this as this was about 9 years ago but that's what he was teaching then. BTW, "relaxing the hand" is a hand manipulation just like so many other hand manipulations used by some of the worlds best shooters. Two of the worlds best, Jesse and Braden, both use slightly different firing engines. I've watched this video many, many times and the subtle differences are visible if you pay close attention. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NnoUNfUQ-s&feature=player_embedded


----------



## ron w

"relaxing the hand, is a hand manipulation".......you have a clever way of twisting words to fit your argument. you know exactly what the guy means, and you just twist enough to skirt around the issue that implies you're not doing something right. ....good job, keep it up and you'll never be satisfied with your shooting, because you continually do the same thing to yourself.
what does it matter what any other "pro" does. what matters is what you do, to improve your shooting. quit hiding behind what everyone else does, trying to imitate them, and worry about what you do and what efforts you make to produce that "perfect game"....they aren't shooting your bow, are they ?. 
yes, we all have a tendancy to emulate what this or that pro does, because it works for him......there's the big difference.....it works for him, maybe not for you, or me, but the basics do work for just about everybody, and the basics are what all other methods are derived from. get the basics down first, and then split off, on some idea that you might have. 
think that is your problem, it almost seems like you refuse to acknowledge the basics, in favor of the attention that what your are trying to do, brings you.
like I've said before, you've been at this just about longer than most people here, yet you are still posting about the same issues you're having with your shooting..... ten or twelve years of hearing the same thing over and over, should spur a little intuative thought, don't think ?.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Griv teaches one way. Bernie teaches one way. Terry teaches one way. And in every case the student adapts differently to do the same thing.

However, back tension can be applied differently so there just isn't one way. And, for what it is, "cheating" the release is favored use among some of the best of Pros than back tension. http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1676924


----------



## EPLC

Here's an interesting post by GRIV...

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=244108&p=1957099#post1957099


----------



## SonnyThomas

ron w said:


> "relaxing the hand, is a hand manipulation".......you have a clever way of twisting words to fit your argument. you know exactly what the guy means, and you just twist enough to skirt around the issue that implies you're not doing something right. ....good job, keep it up and you'll never be satisfied with your shooting, because you continually do the same thing to yourself.
> what does it matter what any other "pro" does. what matters is what you do, to improve your shooting. quit hiding behind what everyone else does, trying to imitate them, and worry about what you do and what efforts you make to produce that "perfect game"....they aren't shooting your bow, are they ?.
> yes, we all have a tendancy to emulate what this or that pro does, because it works for him......there's the big difference.....it works for him, maybe not for you, or me, but the basics do work for just about everybody, and the basics are what all other methods are derived from. get the basics down first, and then split off, on some idea that you might have.
> think that is your problem, it almost seems like you refuse to acknowledge the basics, in favor of the attention that what your are trying to do, brings you.
> like I've said before, you've been at this just about longer than most people here, yet you are still posting about the same issues you're having with your shooting..... ten or twelve years of hearing the same thing over and over, should spur a little intuative thought, don't think ?.


You have a point, that's for sure. This forum began around Feb/Mar, virtually everyone trying to help him and he's still right where he was to start with 9 months later.


----------



## SonnyThomas

So I want it to stick out - http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1676924

Same Thread, Eric telling it. http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1676924&p=1063132905#post1063132905


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> You have a point, that's for sure. This forum began around Feb/Mar, virtually everyone trying to help him and he's still right where he was to start with 9 months later.


Actually, my shooting has declined since then. I've been around the block more than once, and do have a very good understanding of the common wisdom. Based on my own personal 18 year experience in trying most of what has been written here recently I pretty much know what has worked and what hasn't. I am trying to improve my shooting to a higher level. Your conclusion that I haven't improved because I haven't followed the instructions of some on here that don't shoot any better than I do is comical. Can anyone on this forum providing "help" claim a jump to that next level since coming here. I think not. 

And your assumption that I haven't been willing to change is also incorrect as I am now shooting a straight hinge rather than my safety hinge. I've also switched from RH to LH. I've also been willing to try anything that makes sense. That said, I do take exception to people that shoot at approximately the same level as I do or lower telling me I don't know what I'm doing. It is quite possible that I'm just peeked due to my own personal mental and physical conditioning... but at least I continue trying to improve, unlike some that never got there and have since given up of even trying... with the exception of becoming a make-believe AT expert who admonishes anyone that strays from their narrow minded methodology... which BTW never "really" worked for them either.


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> So I want it to stick out - http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1676924
> 
> Same Thread, Eric telling it. http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1676924&p=1063132905#post1063132905


Here's the entire Eric Griggs post:


Hey Dan. I saw this post and thought I'd jump in (at the risk of being told I've been doing it wrong all these years... )

Let me start by saying that shooting a triggerless back tension release is something that will ultimately be done differently for many people. My method isn't one that will work for everyone, but anyone who's ever struggled to shoot a BT release would be doing themselves a favor just to keep an open mind and try it. 

For starters, I like to set my releases up with a good amount of travel. Setting the release light in my opinion is not much different than using a click. I don't care for a click personally, but I can't argue with the success that some have achieved shooting it either. The idea behind setting the release up with travel is so that you know that you have to "work" through the release to get it to fire. There is no worries about the shot prematurely firing and no concerns of being too tentative due to the release being set too light. Next, when activating the release and throughout the shot process, there is actual "back tension" being used. You maintain and sometimes even build that back tension throughout the shot process, but that's not ultimately what fires the release. Rotation of the release is what makes it fire. I'm not saying to crank your wrist or to move your arm and elbow to get it to rotate, but to simply apply pressure with your fingers all the while not applying and sometime even slightly relaxing your index finger. It's basically transitioning the load of the release from the index finger to the other fingers on the release. Some people feel like they're "cranking" the release or having to really move a long ways, but that's fine. One you get the basic concept of the rotation and staying active throughout the shot process you can set the speed of the release to your comfort. 

The reason I like this method comes back to the aiming process. As we aim at the target, too often we allow what the pin is doing to affect the way we execute the shot (basically the root of target panic). While we all want to aim better and more steady, the sad truth is we can't at that given moment. Trying to make the pin more steady won't result in anything but additional movement. So, since we can't control the sight picture we simply won't worry about it. We'll just aim the bow and let the natural correction process to happen. Now we can focus on the execution because the only thing that we can actually control during the shot process is our execution. Regardless of what the sight pin/picture looks like we can still do ourselves the justice of executing the best possible shot we can each and every time we draw our bow back. That's really all we can do. The rest will come. This is where the method I use for shooting the release comes in. I know when I draw my bow back that the only thing I have to do is to execute the best shot I can. And I do this by slowly rotating my release and don't stop until the release fires. The pin will move, but I don't stop the movement and rotation. With this movement I know that regardless of the scenario I'm in I will do the same thing each and every time. If I had my release set so that it was very light or if I was using a click, I could very easily get tentative in a pressure situation because I know that the release would be very close to firing. With the extra travel, I know I have to be aggressive so that removes the tentativeness that I might otherwise encounter. And one of the biggest things about shooting with a lot of travel in your release is to just make sure it's slow steady movement. Some people want to really ramp up at the beginning and then end up slowing or stopping towards the end before it fires. Start slow and finish slow, but keep the same speed throughout the shot and be patient. 

Like I mentioned, the above isn't for everyone, but I've worked with many people that benefited a lot from this. Once somebody can grasp this style, I also think it becomes easier to understand and correctly shoot other styles as well due to the fact that this sort of simplifies the entire shot process. 

Hope this can help some of you!!! 

Eric Griggs


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Actually, my shooting has declined since then. I've been around the block more than once, and do have a very good understanding of the common wisdom. Based on my own personal 18 year experience in trying most of what has been written here recently I pretty much know what has worked and what hasn't. I am trying to improve my shooting to a higher level. Your conclusion that I haven't improved because I haven't followed the instructions of some on here that don't shoot any better than I do is comical. Can anyone on this forum providing "help" claim a jump to that next level since coming here. I think not.
> And your assumption that I haven't been willing to change is also incorrect as I am now shooting a straight hinge rather than my safety hinge. I've also switched from RH to LH. I've also been willing to try anything that makes sense. That said, I do take exception to people that shoot at approximately the same level as I do or lower telling me I don't know what I'm doing. It is quite possible that I'm just peeked due to my own personal mental and physical conditioning... but at least I continue trying to improve, unlike some that never got there and have since given up of even trying... with the exception of becoming a make-believe AT expert who admonishes anyone that strays from their narrow minded methodology... which BTW never "really" worked for them either.


No, everyone can't help you. You say you've declined, then do something even if it's wrong. One of two things may come. One, you know for sure it's wrong. Two, going back may point to something. 

Aged, we are more than likely have peaked, but that shouldn't stop us from trying, but I don't have to report to anyone but me. I was put in a...embarrassing spot just this last year. 65 years old I shouldn't be embarrassed over anything. Club meeting going. Older than me, 71 or 72 old friend says; "Secretary said you shot really good." I more or less said I do the best I can, but I'm pretty much feeling my age. And then another member speaks up; "65 years old and you're out shoot 90% of all other shooters."

I practice when I can or want to. I don't practice everyday. I practice stupid stuff right along with "do it right." In other words, I have fun. Switch releases, switch to a index release. Friend came down. Releases came up. So I shot both my ST360s and 3 of my index releases and all shots went in the X. Had a arrow that got a vane ripped off. He handed to me, saying it had a vane missing. I took it and shot right in the X. He looks at my two finger Stan Deuce; "How the hell do shoot that thing?" Took, used it and another X. "Just like that." If I can't have fun I'll make it fun. I have bad days and more bad days than I want as I've aged. One thing I've learned, finish on a good note. If I'm shooting from 40 yards I will get a X or 12 or 14 ring before I quit. I won't take a slop shot. It's got to be right....

Spots, I don't like spots. If I start a 5 spot I'm out of steam before the half way point. Playing is different. I shot a 398/400 on the Vegas face playing with the Slick Shot and playing with two bows. I gave a report on the Slick Shot only because I promised. I'm still playing with it. It isn't a fix all. It doesn't make magic. It does do two things, torque off the brain, lets me practice aiming and practice proper execution of the shot. It's pointed out to me my greatest issue, execution of the shot and that's what I'm doing, getting my execution straightened out and it isn't just execution. It's getting everything right so execution doesn't suffer.


----------



## unclejane

> Can anyone on this forum providing "help" claim a jump to that next level since coming here. I think not.


I can... If you call hitting the target more than once "the next level", that is. 
My takeaways so far:
-09K talks about the attitude of a good shot as a base rather than a score. Maybe great minds just think alike because that's always been my attitude, but when it comes from a far more accomplished shooter than myself, I sit up and pay attention.
- Ron, Padgett, Sonny and 09K, all of whom shoot at 16 levels above me, all seem to show a core invariant in their descriptions of their approaches to the hinge, from what I've been able to gather. In the article from Eric Griggs: "I'm not saying to crank your wrist or to move your arm and elbow to get it to rotate, but to simply apply pressure with your fingers all the while not applying and sometime even slightly relaxing your index finger. It's basically transitioning the load of the release from the index finger to the other fingers on the release." This is along the lines of GRIV's "expansion" idea also.

Without sounding self indulgent, those arrows I shot earlier in the thread that actually hit the target - I was using the "expansion" idea with slight relaxation of the index finger at the time. I had more or less ditched my "rotation" idea in favor of just pull but with slightly less on the index finger. 

So basically, I think what the guys are settling on in the thread here is a pretty consistent idea. And I'm finding it to help me already. 

It's still a conscious effort right now because it's a slight change from what I was doing but with practice I should be able to shuttle it into the subconscious "firing engine". So the thread is helping me, at least.

LS


----------



## ron w

I can, it was about 11 years ago. 
right after coming back to archery after taking a 6 year break from giving up on getting to that next level. I found this sight , listened to the guys that were giving advice about getting my shot together....AND NOT BEING ALL WRAPPED UP ABOUT WHAT SOME PRO IS DOING, OR SAYNG.....by working on the basic foundation of a good shot execution. just like a baby, you have to learn to crawl, before you can learn to walk, and you have to learn to walk, before you can learn to run. 
the basic foundations are the same for any pro, as they are for anyone else. you can't jump over them and expect to run with the big dogs, it just won't happen.


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> I can... If you call hitting the target more than once "the next level", that is.
> My takeaways so far:
> -09K talks about the attitude of a good shot as a base rather than a score. Maybe great minds just think alike because that's always been my attitude, but when it comes from a far more accomplished shooter than myself, I sit up and pay attention.
> - Ron, Padgett, Sonny and 09K, all of whom shoot at 16 levels above me, all seem to show a core invariant in their descriptions of their approaches to the hinge, from what I've been able to gather. In the article from Eric Griggs: "I'm not saying to crank your wrist or to move your arm and elbow to get it to rotate, but to simply apply pressure with your fingers all the while not applying and sometime even slightly relaxing your index finger. It's basically transitioning the load of the release from the index finger to the other fingers on the release." This is along the lines of GRIV's "expansion" idea also.
> 
> Without sounding self indulgent, those arrows I shot earlier in the thread that actually hit the target - I was using the "expansion" idea with slight relaxation of the index finger at the time. I had more or less ditched my "rotation" idea in favor of just pull but with slightly less on the index finger.
> 
> So basically, I think what the guys are settling on in the thread here is a pretty consistent idea. And I'm finding it to help me already.
> 
> It's still a conscious effort right now because it's a slight change from what I was doing but with practice I should be able to shuttle it into the subconscious "firing engine". So the thread is helping me, at least.
> 
> LS


And it should be helpful as there is a ton of great information provided by all of the folks you mentioned. I too have found some very good and helpful some of the suggestions here. I've been a member of this board since day 2 of it's existence and this will be my 6138th posting. I shoot at a decent intermediate level on most days, pretty crappy on all too many days and where I would like to be occasionally. I have spent God knows how many hours reading and absorbing and trying the literally 1000's of really good suggestions on AT. As I've mentioned several times, archery is not a exact science. While there is certainly common ground, the variations are endless. There are those that believe that these variations do not exist, or those that are succeeding with these variations are breaking some law of nature... or whatever the crime is  

I believe I know as much "intellectually" on how to shoot, back tension, releases, form, common wisdom as any. Putting it into practical application is the difficult part. This is not to say I'm a bad shooter as I'm not. At 69 I shot a 445 personal best just recently and last week shot a 300 NFAA in competition for a win in Adult Male Free Style. I won the 2001 NESFFA Regional 3D Championship with a 642 for 60 targets over 2 days. I also hold several state records. I switched from RH to LH due to a physical issue and I'm NOT left handed in any way, shape or form. That said; I don't think my issues are as form related as they are mental. Most of the suggestions here are form related and while I do appreciate the help that most try to provide, much of my frustration comes from the fact that I've tried most of it already. 

I'm at the point that I believe my physical game isn't really going to get much better than it already is, which is just fine. I know exactly how to hit the X, I can do it at will most of the time. My mental game is where most of my difficulties are and until I find the direction I need to make improvements in that area I will probably stay where I am.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> My mental game is where most of my difficulties are and until I find the direction I need to make improvements in that area I will probably stay where I am.


What's wrong with it? Diagnosis is the first step - if you think something's wrong, then you have a notion of what it should be that it currently isn't....

LS


----------



## Mahly

Everyone is different, you have to find what works for you.
Unfortunately, if you stray from the established techniques to find your answer, your going to be much more "on your own" in your search for the answer.
For every Pro that does it a "different" way, you'll find 10 that took the established way.
You may find your own way works best for you, but your not going to be able to use much of the wealth of knowledge that's here.


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> Everyone is different, you have to find what works for you.
> Unfortunately, if you stray from the established techniques to find your answer, your going to be much more "on your own" in your search for the answer.
> For every Pro that does it a "different" way, you'll find 10 that took the established way.
> You may find your own way works best for you, but your not going to be able to use much of the wealth of knowledge that's here.


Absolutely correct on all counts. I know my task is a difficult one but I've overcome difficult tasks before.


----------



## N7709K

A very large portion for as to why everybody and their brother does it different comes down to semantics of how the process is explained. I don't explain the process the same as Griv, who doesn't explain it the same as Jesse, who doesn't explain it the same as Reo... but the underlying aspects are all the same and to a large degree the process is very much the same between all of them. 

There wont be any gains without the commitment to starting the process over and learning to shoot the release in a more efficient way; its hard to accept that scores will go down before they go up, I get that, everyone gets that. But if you want to take your shooting from its current plateau to the next step there has to be a commitment to a program and a SINGLE shot. I'm not a fan or rolling the release, or squeezing the hand, or just letting up the index... but if thats what you choose as a system, stick to it and it will pay off after you have smoothed the process out and ingrained it in the subconscious. It took me three years of hard training and lots of dedication to get my shot to where it is now; but its one of the best decisions i've ever made in my shooting career... It was super frustrating at times when things would hang up or i'd get stuck on a certain aspect, but instead of changing the process to keep scores the same, i looked for the heart of the problem and addressed that. Scores dropping is a sign things in the process have changed; don't change the process find the cause of the drop.

the mental game is the tough one; if you let it dictate your shot you won't get anywhere (i.e. focus and fixate of score as the evaluation for all shots) . Your subconscious runs the shot, not the mental game. When the subconscious has the shot covered and you TRUST the subconscious your conscious mind if free to run any mental program that you wish; if you do not trust the process you won't get anywhere. no two shooters have the mental program; I cannot tell you what to do for a mental program, however I can tell you that you need to get to the point when all the aspects of the process are not being tasked to the conscious mind. 

Going at the process alone is always tricky; its hard to self evaluate, its hard to commit to a program without others there to push you to stick with your program. It comes down to do you want a little gratification now, or lots a short while later after things are flowing?


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> What's wrong with it? Diagnosis is the first step - if you think something's wrong, then you have a notion of what it should be that it currently isn't....
> 
> LS


Honestly, I have difficulty staying within my process. I shoot my best when I do that, but it comes and goes.


----------



## EPLC

N7709K said:


> A very large portion for as to why everybody and their brother does it different comes down to semantics of how the process is explained. I don't explain the process the same as Griv, who doesn't explain it the same as Jesse, who doesn't explain it the same as Reo... but the underlying aspects are all the same and to a large degree the process is very much the same between all of them.
> 
> There wont be any gains without the commitment to starting the process over and learning to shoot the release in a more efficient way; its hard to accept that scores will go down before they go up, I get that, everyone gets that. But if you want to take your shooting from its current plateau to the next step there has to be a commitment to a program and a SINGLE shot. I'm not a fan or rolling the release, or squeezing the hand, or just letting up the index... but if thats what you choose as a system, stick to it and it will pay off after you have smoothed the process out and ingrained it in the subconscious. It took me three years of hard training and lots of dedication to get my shot to where it is now; but its one of the best decisions i've ever made in my shooting career... It was super frustrating at times when things would hang up or i'd get stuck on a certain aspect, but instead of changing the process to keep scores the same, i looked for the heart of the problem and addressed that. Scores dropping is a sign things in the process have changed; don't change the process find the cause of the drop.
> 
> the mental game is the tough one; if you let it dictate your shot you won't get anywhere (i.e. focus and fixate of score as the evaluation for all shots) . Your subconscious runs the shot, not the mental game. When the subconscious has the shot covered and you TRUST the subconscious your conscious mind if free to run any mental program that you wish; if you do not trust the process you won't get anywhere. no two shooters have the mental program; I cannot tell you what to do for a mental program, however I can tell you that you need to get to the point when all the aspects of the process are not being tasked to the conscious mind.
> 
> Going at the process alone is always tricky; its hard to self evaluate, its hard to commit to a program without others there to push you to stick with your program. It comes down to do you want a little gratification now, or lots a short while later after things are flowing?


Jacob you have been very helpful and I'm in the process of building a new shot. I'm still trying to sort it out, new release and all, so I'm trying a few different variations of a firing engine. I've decided to stick with this direction at least until it has proven itself out, one way or another. My scores have dropped during this process which is expected. I shot a competition 450 round Saturday evening and really stunk up the place. It was a learning experience though in which I may have come away with the shot that I want to build. I didn't shoot today as I'm dealing with a sore shoulder issue but will see if my new shot is repeatable tomorrow.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> Honestly, I have difficulty staying within my process. I shoot my best when I do that, but it comes and goes.


What is your process, exactly? Identify it; list its steps. Then, identify where and how you stray from it - at which steps do you lose it and what happens?

LS


----------



## Sasquech

Archery probably more than most others ( shooting sports excluded) is about consistency and repeatability then comes adaptability from subtle lighting to extreme field and hunter where your ability to execute form is challenged. Man I love this sport


----------



## ron w

if you "know as much, intellectually" as others, why do you consistently, dismiss advice that suggests you take a step back and work on fundamental process ?.


----------



## montigre

ron w said:


> if you "know as much, intellectually" as others, why do you consistently, dismiss advice that suggests you take a step back and work on fundamental process ?.


^^^ :thumbs_up This!! You cannot keep doing the same things over and over and expect to see a change in your position. It was suggested that you not shoot for score for a season to provide the necessary time to incorporate the changes that were being suggested and to move you away from being locked into scoring so much and you argued that you "had" to shoot your local indoor league this year...okay....

Then it was recommended that you shoot the short game while continuing to shoot in your league, so that any new processes could be totally ingrained into your subconcious with the foreknowledge that this would significantly slow your progress, but you again argued that the short bale does not work for you and dismissed it even though it is a VERY effective tool for even the most elite shooters, but that too is okay....

When you keep coming on and complaining about how you're not progressing as you feel you should be yet dismiss everything that is recommended, one can only conclude that you really do not want to take the steps or make the sacrifices necessary to reach those higher goals. That too is okay, but do not place the blame onto those who have been trying to help out. 

As Ron once stated, you have been battling with many of these same issues for several years now and what you have been doing in the past is obviously not working. Sometimes you have to empty your cup and take a leap of faith that removes you from your established comfort zone in order to break through a shooting plateau. Is it easy and will you see immediate results? Hell no!! But in time, if you truly have the dedication to stick with it and break free of your reliance on scoring and the methods that you currently feel are "right", then things will slowly start to fall into place. 

Even though we have never met, I would very much like to to see or read where sometime in the near future you have competed in a shoot like Vegas or some other "big" national spot tournament and made the shootoff--I really want you to succeed, but it is likely not going to happen anytime soon if you continue to approach your shooting plateaus with a cup that is always full....


----------



## Ned250

Mahly said:


> Everyone is different, you have to find what works for you.
> Unfortunately, if you stray from the established techniques to find your answer, your going to be much more "on your own" in your search for the answer.
> For every Pro that does it a "different" way, you'll find 10 that took the established way.
> You may find your own way works best for you, but your not going to be able to use much of the wealth of knowledge that's here.


Maybe EPLC is Jim Furyk, maybe not. He's received a boatload of advice at this point.. there's only one way to find out what works - keep experimenting. I'd just caution against making so many changes so quickly.


----------



## Lazarus

Ned250 said:


> Maybe EPLC is Jim Furyk, maybe not. He's received a boatload of advice at this point.. there's only one way to find out what works - keep experimenting. I'd just caution against making so many changes so quickly.


100% correct. 

That's one of the difficulties of archery. People say they are going to "try" something. They try it for about 30 shots, it doesn't seem to work, so they "try" something else. Next thing you know, they have no idea what they are doing. That idea gets perpetuated by well meaning bystanders and friends, and even to some degree those who try to make a living giving advice on forums and video's. 

What you have to do is develop from a foundation of sound principles. If you are unsatisfied with results in a particular area you commit to a minor change. Then you shoot it long enough that it becomes a part of your Process. Then and only then can you analyse results. Then to properly analyze results it may take more than just a couple of scoring rounds. When you are at this level you may not even be able to "see" progress in your analysis over a short period of time. 

Here's a good case in point. I have seen some "instructors" tell people to shoot a few ends with X ounces of weight on their bars. Note the group size. Then change the weight and shoot a few more ends. Take some pictures of your groups, post them on the internet, then decide what is the best weight. That is ludicrous. When you make a change like that it is impossible to analyze results without becoming accustom to the change, working it into your process, THEN over a period of time analyzing the results.


----------



## SonnyThomas

cbrunson said:


> I've found it quite interesting that thumb triggers (one specifically) have taken many top spots early this season.





TDS said:


> Which one specifically?


I've a return from TRU Ball. Their Absolute 360 is the most used by Pros at the moment. Numerous World Cup wins led by Martin Damsbo, and ASA wins, lead by Dan McCarthy.


----------



## Rick!

EPLC said:


> Can anyone on this forum providing "help" claim a jump to that next level since coming here. I think not.


Some of us have improved, we just don't need to solicit feedback for judgment.


----------



## Lazarus

EPLC said:


> Honestly, I have difficulty staying within my process. I shoot my best when I do that, but it comes and goes.


Honestly, Verbalizing the negatives is *always* detrimental to your abilities. 

This is an issue I'm certain. Never, ever, ever, verbalize a statement like that. Even more adamantly I'm saying NEVER, EVER, EVER write it down (type it) like that.


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> Honestly, Verbalizing the negatives is *always* detrimental to your abilities.
> 
> This is an issue I'm certain. Never, ever, ever, verbalize a statement like that. Even more adamantly I'm saying NEVER, EVER, EVER write it down (type it) like that.


Well, I personally wouldn't necessarily agree with this. EP says he has a process of some sort and that he can't stay within it; this obviously means he has some idea of what a correct (for him) shot process/routine is and some idea that he's deviating from it periodically. So, really, the most natural method of trouble-shooting at that point is to a) identify/explicate that process as rigorously as possible and b) try to identify what's working in that process and what isn't. 

I think what we do should not be indescribable or abstract - we should be able to account for everything we're doing. There's no other way that I can see to identify and fix strengths and weaknesses in our approach. So that's why I've asked EPLC to do that. 

For example, this is what I'm working on in my own shot routine, which is something like:
- check stance
- knock arrow
- set grip
- draw back
- check for bone-bone-bone on the front end
- verify grip
- come to anchor
- check shoulder alignment
- transition to back muscles
- verify relaxed forearms
- verify relaxed shoulders
- verify anchor
- release safety
- aim, aim 
- (conscious effort for now: pull, expand index finger)

That's just where it stands now. But the idea is, this gives me a concrete (not nebulous or abstract) framework for setting up a shot that I can add to, subtract from and provide loci for the identification of problems.

Anyway, that's the general idea for me. Again, fewer abstractions/indescribables, more concrete, identifiable steps....

LS


----------



## Lazarus

unclejane said:


> Well, I personally wouldn't necessarily agree with this.


I respect that, it's fine. To disagree presents an opportunity to learn.

A much more productive way to say the same thing would be; "I am working daily to establish a stronger shot process. I know by doing so I can increase my consistency." 

This may sound like smoke and mirrors but it's absolutely 100% correct.


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> I respect that, it's fine. To disagree presents an opportunity to learn.
> 
> A much more productive way to say the same thing would be; "I am working daily to establish a stronger shot process. I know by doing so I can increase my consistency."
> 
> This may sound like smoke and mirrors but it's absolutely 100% correct.


I understand the value of a good attitude, and I think you're quite right about that. But part of "establishing a strong shot process" is the permission to find the process you're currently using inadequate and in need of change. In other words, it serves no purpose to be mentally positive about a process that's flawed and not working; that doesn't accomplish anything.

The first step in solving a problem is identifying it - this is non-negotiable and it just has to be done. There simply isn't any other way to gain entry into the problem - it must be identified first. Then you can go from there.

LS


----------



## Ned250

I agree with Laz on this one and brought it up before... It really does make a difference. You can certainly identify issues that need correcting, but keep them in a positive light.



Ned250 said:


> Just a random observation that doesn't entirely pertain to short range training, but sort of does - Rethink these statements..... Instead of "not pay attention to score" and "not focus on it", try thinking about "my only focus will be on shot process".
> 
> A friend of mine's dad is a Vietnam vet and going through counseling for PTSD. One of his exercises was to try to not think about chocolate cake. Guess what you do when you try to not think about chocolate cake?


----------



## ron w

eliminating that deviation from a known successful process is what what "practicing with a mission" is all about. you have to recognize and apply the specific practice mission, that works specifically on correcting the particular deviation. 
one of the most common drills is the typical "let down drill". in it, you work to produce that exactly perfect shot execution and deliberately let down, on any deviation from what id your "perfect execution". 
this trains the shot process to produce that same perfect execution every time it produces the set of commands that is your shot process. you don't do this drill to learn that let downs are OK. it's mission, is to teach that nothing but the production of the set of commands that produce that perfect execution will be tolerated. the let down then becomes an effective a control tool. by making a let down be the statement that says to your shot process, "if your not going to run right, you're not going to run at all". the let down them becomes, NOT a failure to complete a good shot execution, but rather the,...so to speak...." whip" that keeps all the ducks in a row during the production of the shot process..... by being, the "refusal" that doesn't let a porly running shot progress to the point of producing a miss. it becomes a positive reinforcement, in that it won't happen, as long as the shot runs correctly.
this is one element of those "basic fundamentals" that have to be understood, before you can raise up to that next level of shooting. if you continually look at a let down as a failure, you will continually look at the need to et down as the affirmation that your shooting is not as good as it could be.


----------



## unclejane

Ned250 said:


> I agree with Laz on this one and brought it up before... It really does make a difference. You can certainly identify issues that need correcting, but keep them in a positive light.


I think we're actually much closer to being on the same page and aren't actually arguing about anything . I do agree that you have to have a positive orientation towards solving problems, I'm certainly not arguing that. Archery isn't easy; learning to shoot well is difficult and you have to be willing to put the rubber to the road to do it. I did it once and am having to do it all over again LOL, so I'm -ish familiar with that process. Sort of...

I'm only reemphasizing the need for a concrete strategy for doing so - we can get a bit distracted, I think, by other things like our mental approach, etc., and drift away from the unglamorous basics of actually shooting the bow . Above all, if we start trying to solve actual problems with abstract approaches instead of meat-and-potatoes police work with the bow, arrow and shooter, we've sort of lost our way. 

So again for me, the steps are (regardless of our feelings on the matter) a) specify, b) identify and c) correct. A positive mental attitude certainly does help, since it makes the process easier. But there's nothing wrong with frowning upon something we're doing that isn't working....

LS


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> The first step in solving a problem is identifying it - this is non-negotiable and it just has to be done. There simply isn't any other way to gain entry into the problem - it must be identified first. Then you can go from there.
> 
> LS


This is absolute truth... no matter what the issue or problem is. Professionally and non-professionally I can't tell you how many hackers I ran into over the years using bad process claiming they've done it this way for 20 years... Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results... = crazy. It's like doctors that treat symptoms.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> This is absolute truth... no matter what the issue or problem is. Professionally and non-professionally I can't tell you how many hackers I ran into over the years using bad process claiming they've done it this way for 20 years... Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results... = crazy. It's like doctors that treat symptoms.


So, perhaps we could begin with yours?  Just a general framework, perhaps something like I listed above for mine?

LS


----------



## EPLC

montigre said:


> ^^^ :thumbs_up This!! You cannot keep doing the same things over and over and expect to see a change in your position. It was suggested that you not shoot for score for a season to provide the necessary time to incorporate the changes that were being suggested and to move you away from being locked into scoring so much and you argued that you "had" to shoot your local indoor league this year...okay....


When you are 69 years old you do not have the luxury of taking years off from the things you love to do. As far as not scoring goes, I have not scored a practice round in several weeks. I do still shoot my league and local competitions but I'm training my mind to refocus on process, not score. This is coming along well. 



montigre said:


> ^^^ :Then it was recommended that you shoot the short game while continuing to shoot in your league, so that any new processes could be totally ingrained into your subconcious with the foreknowledge that this would significantly slow your progress, but you again argued that the short bale does not work for you and dismissed it even though it is a VERY effective tool for even the most elite shooters, but that too is okay....


I've shot 1000's of arrows at short range targets w/o seeing any improvement in my shooting. This process isn't the cure to world hunger as many claim it is... and I'm far from the only one that feels this way. Blind baling is another matter. It has purpose and bares fruit for anyone wanting to learn or clean up a specific portion of their process. I'm currently shooting 50-100 arrows every day discovering/learning a new release. BTW, changing releases was one of the suggestions made here recently.



montigre said:


> ^^^ When you keep coming on and complaining about how you're not progressing as you feel you should be yet dismiss everything that is recommended, one can only conclude that you really do not want to take the steps or make the sacrifices necessary to reach those higher goals. That too is okay, but do not place the blame onto those who have been trying to help out.


No, this is an incorrect assumption: I've only rejected things that I have already tried and found that they didn't help me. I've been doing this for a while, am not suffering from a loss of brain matter, and "WILL BE" a part of the decision making process. I also don't like being talked down to by some folks on here that have no more shooting skill than I do. I've posted that sharing your experience is a much more valuable incentive than demanding you do it their way. There are just too many subtle variations to claim there is only one perfect firing engine. 



montigre said:


> ^^^
> As Ron once stated, you have been battling with many of these same issues for several years now and what you have been doing in the past is obviously not working. Sometimes you have to empty your cup and take a leap of faith that removes you from your established comfort zone in order to break through a shooting plateau. Is it easy and will you see immediate results? Hell no!! But in time, if you truly have the dedication to stick with it and break free of your reliance on scoring and the methods that you currently feel are "right", then things will slowly start to fall into place...


Actually if you read my response above you now realize that I'm making an attempt to do just that. 



montigre said:


> ^^^
> Even though we have never met, I would very much like to to see or read where sometime in the near future you have competed in a shoot like Vegas or some other "big" national spot tournament and made the shootoff--I really want you to succeed, but it is likely not going to happen anytime soon if you continue to approach your shooting plateaus with a cup that is always full....


I don't even know how to respond to this? Is this the measure of my success? From not scoring to the shoot off at Vegas... Wow won't Mom be proud!


----------



## ron w

he 's got the right response to isolate himself from anyone , for every bit of advice you can throw at him.
the obvious is that he is doing things wrong, because what is known to work for everyone, doesn't work for him. it doesn't matter that the methods advised are developed, established and practiced by thousands, throughout the world, if it doesn't work for him, they must be no good.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> he 's got the right response to isolate himself from anyone , for every bit of advice you can throw at him.
> the obvious is that he is doing things wrong, because what is known to work for everyone, doesn't work for him. it doesn't matter that the methods advised are developed, established and practiced by thousands, throughout the world, if it doesn't work for him, they must be no good.


I'm not going to respond here to another one of your personal insults. You have a PM.


----------



## Mahly

Sometimes you have to just give someone more rope. 
Maybe a little more slack will give him enough rope to pull himself out of the hole he is in, or hang himself. (METAPHORICALLY people! :wink: )
EPLC, you have the general consensus from some very high level guys here. At the same time, I understand the frustration of the "norm" not quite working best for you.
The only advice I will offer, is: If you try your "new" technique, and you don't get results, do not wait TOO long before going back to what works for others. Know that you MAY be only making a crutch...no one wants to use a crutch forever. Give it the time it deserves, but know there is a reason it isn't taught.
I hope you find what your looking for, I also hope you don't spend too much time looking in the wrong place. Also don't take anything posted here too hard. Everyone is TRYING to help you in the best way they know how. Turning down advice they know works for most, gets frustrating. Even the ones coming down harder on you WANT your shooting to improve.
Best of luck.


----------



## Lazarus

EPLC said:


> This is absolute truth... no matter what the issue or problem is. Professionally and non-professionally I can't tell you how many hackers I ran into over the years using bad process claiming they've done it this way for 20 years... Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results... = crazy. It's like doctors that treat symptoms.


It's a given. Nobody said you didn't identify the problem. What you DON'T do is EVER state it, or write it down. You state solutions and desired outcomes. Never what you don't want. 

It's all part of the psychology of shooting. I understand the resistance. Not everyone truly wants to excel.


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> Sometimes you have to just give someone more rope.
> Maybe a little more slack will give him enough rope to pull himself out of the hole he is in, or hang himself. (METAPHORICALLY people! :wink: )
> EPLC, you have the general consensus from some very high level guys here. At the same time, I understand the frustration of the "norm" not quite working best for you.
> The only advice I will offer, is: If you try your "new" technique, and you don't get results, do not wait TOO long before going back to what works for others. Know that you MAY be only making a crutch...no one wants to use a crutch forever. Give it the time it deserves, but know there is a reason it isn't taught.
> I hope you find what your looking for, I also hope you don't spend too much time looking in the wrong place. Also don't take anything posted here too hard. Everyone is TRYING to help you in the best way they know how. Turning down advice they know works for most, gets frustrating. Even the ones coming down harder on you WANT your shooting to improve.
> Best of luck.


I started this thread solely to show off a new firing engine that I was beginning to try. I have been mocked and poked fun at for 4 pages now simply because I introduced something outside of the box. As far as the new firing engine, it didn't pan out like I had hoped, but I did learn some valuable lessons from trying it. By using the thumb peg I was able to get the feel of my index relaxing. I now am working on a firing engine that is a combination of Padgett's and GRIV's which seems to be working well. Had we not gotten so far off topic I may have felt more secure about posting this progress. 

As far as what has worked for me and what hasn't I've been totally honest about that. Some simply don't like that.


----------



## stoz

EPLC
I believe Jeff Hopkins uses a similar technique to fire his hinge and hes made a boat load of money. Any one that says you have to shoot a hinge a certain way as in squeezing or rotating your back muscles is all wet. I know most of the pros don't do that. They hold with those muscles and keep them active but don't use those muscles to fire the release. Im not saying all of them but most.


----------



## Lazarus

stoz said:


> EPLC
> I believe Jeff Hopkins uses a similar technique to fire his hinge and hes made a boat load of money. Any one that says you have to shoot a hinge a certain way as in squeezing or rotating your back muscles is all wet. I know most of the pros don't do that. They hold with those muscles and keep them active but don't use those muscles to fire the release. Im not saying all of them but most.


Exactly. There are just about as many (right) ways to fire a hinge as there are people shooting it successfully. Funniest thing about all this firing engine talk, the same people that claim that it is all "subconscious," many of them can describe to the T how to fire a hinge. If you are truly shooting it subconsciously the answer to the question of "how do you fire a hinge" should be; "I don't really know."


----------



## Mahly

N7709K said:


> A very large portion for as to why everybody and their brother does it different comes down to semantics of how the process is explained. I don't explain the process the same as Griv, who doesn't explain it the same as Jesse, who doesn't explain it the same as Reo... but the underlying aspects are all the same and to a large degree the process is very much the same between all of them.
> 
> There wont be any gains without the commitment to starting the process over and learning to shoot the release in a more efficient way; its hard to accept that scores will go down before they go up, I get that, everyone gets that. But if you want to take your shooting from its current plateau to the next step there has to be a commitment to a program and a SINGLE shot. I'm not a fan or rolling the release, or squeezing the hand, or just letting up the index... but if thats what you choose as a system, stick to it and it will pay off after you have smoothed the process out and ingrained it in the subconscious. It took me three years of hard training and lots of dedication to get my shot to where it is now; but its one of the best decisions i've ever made in my shooting career... It was super frustrating at times when things would hang up or i'd get stuck on a certain aspect, but instead of changing the process to keep scores the same, i looked for the heart of the problem and addressed that. Scores dropping is a sign things in the process have changed; don't change the process find the cause of the drop.
> 
> the mental game is the tough one; if you let it dictate your shot you won't get anywhere (i.e. focus and fixate of score as the evaluation for all shots) . Your subconscious runs the shot, not the mental game. When the subconscious has the shot covered and you TRUST the subconscious your conscious mind if free to run any mental program that you wish; if you do not trust the process you won't get anywhere. no two shooters have the mental program; I cannot tell you what to do for a mental program, however I can tell you that you need to get to the point when all the aspects of the process are not being tasked to the conscious mind.
> 
> Going at the process alone is always tricky; its hard to self evaluate, its hard to commit to a program without others there to push you to stick with your program. It comes down to do you want a little gratification now, or lots a short while later after things are flowing?


Excellent post that help explain some of the disagreements here.
I'm actually going to start a thread that relates to this. 
I personally am finding much of my issues learning a new technique/system stem from terminology rather than the instruction itself.


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> Excellent post that help explain some of the disagreements here.
> I'm actually going to start a thread that relates to this.
> I personally am finding much of my issues learning a new technique/system stem from terminology rather than the instruction itself.


While I agree with much of N7709K provided here and find his input top shelf, I do not agree that this is entirely a matter of semantics. While the foundations may be similar, the folks mentioned as examples all have physical variations in their firing engines.


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> Exactly. There are just about as many (right) ways to fire a hinge as there are people shooting it successfully. Funniest thing about all this firing engine talk, the same people that claim that it is all "subconscious," many of them can describe to the T how to fire a hinge. If you are truly shooting it subconsciously the answer to the question of "how do you fire a hinge" should be; "I don't really know."


Honest Laz, I'm not picking on you . But I have to express disagreement once again. Again, take this in the spirit in which it is given - this is just how I see it and I'm not trying to invalidate your POV.

But that a particular skill has become automatic and committed to the subconscious isn't the same as not knowing how the skill is performed. In fact, it's quite the opposite: when learning any motor skill it has to first be acquired consciously. A coach shows it to you, or you watch a video and teach it to yourself, etc. This is a fully conscious process involving the acquisition of knowledge. Then, through repetition and practice, it becomes automatic and you don't have to "think about it" anymore. 

However, that doesn't mean you no longer know how to do it. In fact, you should still be able to describe in reasonable detail what you're doing - if not, then the skill is probably incomplete. 

Learning to fly an airplane is the example I'm thinking of within my experience, since I've gotten to the level of automation in most of the actions I take as a pilot. For example, when doing a forward slip to a landing, I don't have to "think" about it at all - it's like driving a car to me nowadays. OTOH, if an instructor or someone asks me how I perform a forward slip, I can definitely describe the maneuver in detail and what exactly I'm doing when I'm performing it.

Anyway, again not to pick nits, but I think this is probably an important distinction.

LS


----------



## Lazarus

unclejane.......I take no offense at all. To each his own. I know there is merit to what you say. However, a lot of this "subconscious" stuff goes out the window when you introduce variables, like wind, and distance. It seems a great deal of today's popular archery "talk" is based on shooting in a controlled environment at 20 yards. Everything changes when you move outside. Back to what you said, disagreement is good, that's how we learn. It's all good.


----------



## Mahly

I myself have come somewhat full circle in improving MY firing engine. Reading the wealth of knowledge on this forum, got me to re-evaluate my technique. Admittedly, I got VERY frustrated when I took some of the information perhaps too literally, or maybe I just didn't read it the ways they meant to write it.
I have had the biggest breakthrough with reading Padgett's articles... Hinge set up being the most valuable by far.
I also read up on the firing engines, Padgett's articles and what was posted here ( including videos ). And while Padgett's first firing engine for a click shooter was easily the most fun to shoot, I found I had to adjust it a little to work for me. Going back to a technique that I used to use, but using it along with the information gained here.
Now I read a lot about how to release the safety peg ( and that one shouldn't even be using it in the first place), and settled on pretty much sticking with Padgett's advice. While it did indeed work, I could feel too much movement of the hinge. My tweak was simply to pull my thumb up to my fingers after releasing the peg.
With the thumb just off the peg, I was getting input from the hinge that I didn't want. I could feel it was moving, and how fast it was moving. While not that bad in itself, knowing your engine IS running and not freezing, it was too much data to ignore. By moving my thumb up, I now get that magical feeling of NOT doing anything and the hinge just going off on its own.
Ask enough people, and I'm sure I'll here I am doing it all wrong, to much thumb movement etc. but doing it this way I am getting shots off quickly ( formerly an issue for me) and my engine is not messing with my float, nor is my thumb movement.
It finally ended up putting all the pieces together for me.
I don't feel like I'm doing anything, I'm not distracted by a feeling telling me that I am, I can trust my float knowing my engine isn't messing with it, and I can get the shot off before my float starts to break down.
It was very frustrating for a while, I had to give each technique time to prove itself one way or another. I'm sure I could force a couple of different engines to work, but I'm going to focus on just one. The one that comes most naturally to me.
I know it's just a matter of time before my scores get back to where they were, and (more importantly) beyond. And I'm ok with that now that I am convinced I am finally on the right path.
Analogy time:
Bruce Lee advocated learning everything you can ( boxing, Kung fu, TKD, everything you can find ), keeping what works for you, and dropping what doesn't.
Keeping that idea, I am taking parts of firing engine from Ron W, Padgett, N7709K, and Others. 
I FEEL like I'm doing nothing
I use my muscles at full draw to allow quickish movement of my thumb without any effect on my float
My thumb comes off the peg, I get an instant click, and continue with my firing engine, I just put it somewhere (again, without an effect on my float) to keep me from getting bombarded with data about what is going on.
I am now working on ONLY this one firing engine system.
Will it work for everyone? Nope. Will it work for you? No idea. Did it work for me? Best feeling I have had shooting a hinge in my life... I'm hoping so ( as with the rest, only enough time with just this one technique will tell).


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> I myself have come somewhat full circle in improving MY firing engine. Reading the wealth of knowledge on this forum, got me to re-evaluate my technique. Admittedly, I got VERY frustrated when I took some of the information perhaps too literally, or maybe I just didn't read it the ways they meant to write it.
> I have had the biggest breakthrough with reading Padgett's articles... Hinge set up being the most valuable by far.
> I also read up on the firing engines, Padgett's articles and what was posted here ( including videos ). And while Padgett's first firing engine for a click shooter was easily the most fun to shoot, I found I had to adjust it a little to work for me. Going back to a technique that I used to use, but using it along with the information gained here.
> Now I read a lot about how to release the safety peg ( and that one shouldn't even be using it in the first place), and settled on pretty much sticking with Padgett's advice. While it did indeed work, I could feel too much movement of the hinge. My tweak was simply to pull my thumb up to my fingers after releasing the peg.
> With the thumb just off the peg, I was getting input from the hinge that I didn't want. I could feel it was moving, and how fast it was moving. While not that bad in itself, knowing your engine IS running and not freezing, it was too much data to ignore. By moving my thumb up, I now get that magical feeling of NOT doing anything and the hinge just going off on its own.
> Ask enough people, and I'm sure I'll here I am doing it all wrong, to much thumb movement etc. but doing it this way I am getting shots off quickly ( formerly an issue for me) and my engine is not messing with my float, nor is my thumb movement.
> It finally ended up putting all the pieces together for me.
> I don't feel like I'm doing anything, I'm not distracted by a feeling telling me that I am, I can trust my float knowing my engine isn't messing with it, and I can get the shot off before my float starts to break down.
> It was very frustrating for a while, I had to give each technique time to prove itself one way or another. I'm sure I could force a couple of different engines to work, but I'm going to focus on just one. The one that comes most naturally to me.
> I know it's just a matter of time before my scores get back to where they were, and (more importantly) beyond. And I'm ok with that now that I am convinced I am finally on the right path.
> Analogy time:
> Bruce Lee advocated learning everything you can ( boxing, Kung fu, TKD, everything you can find ), keeping what works for you, and dropping what doesn't.
> Keeping that idea, I am taking parts of firing engine from Ron W, Padgett, N7709K, and Others.
> I FEEL like I'm doing nothing
> I use my muscles at full draw to allow quickish movement of my thumb without any effect on my float
> My thumb comes off the peg, I get an instant click, and continue with my firing engine, I just put it somewhere (again, without an effect on my float) to keep me from getting bombarded with data about what is going on.
> I am now working on ONLY this one firing engine system.
> Will it work for everyone? Nope. Will it work for you? No idea. Did it work for me? Best feeling I have had shooting a hinge in my life... I'm hoping so ( as with the rest, only enough time with just this one technique will tell).


The firing engine that I've settled on is similar to the one you described with the exception that I leave my thumb on the peg and everything is conscious at this point. I also feel the release rotating but it doesn't bother me and I'm still getting a surprise release. I'm currently using the click to learn the release but my best shots seem to be the ones that I've set off the click prematurely and the release goes off during the relaxing phase of the engine (those are a real surprise). In any case this is a work in progress. I've still not made up my mind about which end of the shot will be conscious and which will be subconscious. I've tried both and seem to perform better by letting the subconscious do the aiming once the X has been acquired. Currently I'm learning a BT Gold and should have 2 more out in my mail box to mess with speeds, clickers, etc.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. I've got a fire engine. It's over to my mother's in one our kid's old toy boxes. Not a dang bit ridiculous than re-hashing that said and told differently since seems forever. The only thing different is now we have attitude..... General Archery Discussion under a different name.


----------



## Mahly

Other than talking, what should we be doing on an internet forum?
Reduced to only communicating in text ( save for the odd video here and there) your going to have issues getting your message across clearly and equally understood by all.
Here we are debating different techniques for firing a hinge, not who has the best release for under $30 and what colors are best.
I see a HUGE difference.
Sit back, relax, add your input if you wish, or question someone else.
Or just skip the threads that you don't like. Debate is good for the brain.

That said, let's stay on topic.


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> unclejane.......I take no offense at all. To each his own. I know there is merit to what you say. However, a lot of this "subconscious" stuff goes out the window when you introduce variables, like wind, and distance. It seems a great deal of today's popular archery "talk" is based on shooting in a controlled environment at 20 yards. Everything changes when you move outside. Back to what you said, disagreement is good, that's how we learn. It's all good.


That's a possibility. Tho to be honest about 85% of my shooting that was done outdoors was with oly recurve and a clicker, so most of what I learned there may be inapplicable to the compound/hinge. 

Now, I could almost hit the broadside of a barn with an oly recurve, but most of the time it was pretty ugly. Especially at 90 meters; I was mostly pulling arrows out of pieces of wood than the target butt LOL. The biggest temptation there in the wind was to try to defeat the clicker - if I got blown off the gold by a gust of wind at the time the clicker went off, I was capable of holding onto it until I got back on and then loosing the shot. That was bad bad - it meant I wasn't relying on the clicker the way you should - you could hear the coach "whaaat was that... c'mon...." lol. If I was doing it right, I loosed when the clicker went off regardless, subconsciously as I had trained to do.

What that really meant to me tho was my shot execution was not really properly separate from the aiming/shot setup the way it was supposed to be. In fact, I considered it better shot if I went when the clicker went and was off target, rather than commanding the shot and holding until I had aimed where I wanted.

Hopefully I'll be strong enough to shoot a basic field round by the time the weather warms up and I can see how what I'm learning now transitions to outdoors. I've only just started with the hinge a couple months ago and have literally not shot it outdoors yet. 

I'll be back to these threads for info around that time, you can be sure LOL...

LS


----------



## SonnyThomas

Mahly said:


> Other than talking, what should we be doing on an internet forum?
> Reduced to only communicating in text ( save for the odd video here and there) your going to have issues getting your message across clearly and equally understood by all.
> Here we are debating different techniques for firing a hinge, not who has the best release for under $30 and what colors are best.
> I see a HUGE difference.
> Sit back, relax, add your input if you wish, or question someone else.
> Or just skip the threads that you don't like. Debate is good for the brain.
> 
> That said, let's stay on topic.


Taken care of.........


----------



## Unk Bond

Hello
More wood for the fire here or more food for the brain. U decide. Smile

=============

Guys for me a thumb peg is a hindrance.

I draw with lot of pressure on my index finger and weight distributed to the next two fingers using a 3 finger release.

Release hand turned at 10-O'clock at draw to anchor.

My thumb rest at the bottom side of my index finger. As the shot is started with pressure applied to the side of my index finger from my release hand thumb.


If I would use a thumb peg. My thumb is so relaxed with my release hand at anchor. My thumb goes into limb-bo :wink: 


=========
Now to when I first picked a hinge release up to make a shot at are club several moons back.
I guess I was the worlds worst hinge shooter at that time. Oh yes I had some good scores.

But there was always a flyer miss fire to go with that score. I went to our club to practices. 
Open the door of the club. Turn the lights on. And what I saw floored me in away.
But I had to laugh to.

At are club we had 2 drop downs from the ceiling to ketch stray arrows. And it took a chair for me to get my arrow.:embara:
Well on the first drop down was this row of target spots. Some one had carefully cut out target spots. And place one on that drop down for every line position. A archer put me wise to using the biggest rope cord loop I could find to my hinge head. 2nd he suggested I draw with my release hand turned to 10 -O-clock. 

Do I still have a miss fire yes. But only when I am setting up a new hinge release.
Now most hinge releases I draw to anchor with my hand some what relaxed open.
Some hinge releases and ledge type. I draw to anchor. With my thumb rapped around my index finger.

When my thumb is rapped around my index finger And I am at anchor relaxed and settled in on the center of the target.
I now commit to the shot with more pressure at this time on my index finger by my thumb as I start BT. But that's me still learning Smile [ Later


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> Honest Laz, I'm not picking on you . But I have to express disagreement once again. Again, take this in the spirit in which it is given - this is just how I see it and I'm not trying to invalidate your POV.
> 
> But that a particular skill has become automatic and committed to the subconscious isn't the same as not knowing how the skill is performed. In fact, it's quite the opposite: when learning any motor skill it has to first be acquired consciously. A coach shows it to you, or you watch a video and teach it to yourself, etc. This is a fully conscious process involving the acquisition of knowledge. Then, through repetition and practice, it becomes automatic and you don't have to "think about it" anymore.
> 
> However, that doesn't mean you no longer know how to do it. In fact, you should still be able to describe in reasonable detail what you're doing - if not, then the skill is probably incomplete.
> 
> Learning to fly an airplane is the example I'm thinking of within my experience, since I've gotten to the level of automation in most of the actions I take as a pilot. For example, when doing a forward slip to a landing, I don't have to "think" about it at all - it's like driving a car to me nowadays. OTOH, if an instructor or someone asks me how I perform a forward slip, I can definitely describe the maneuver in detail and what exactly I'm doing when I'm performing it.
> 
> Anyway, again not to pick nits, but I think this is probably an important distinction.
> 
> LS


While you provide solid reasoning I'm not so sure that this is entirely true. I don't believe the conscious mind truly knows anything about the subconscious activity. Sure, for simple tasks you can somewhat duplicate the effort, but complex tasks... forget about it. Take for example driving a car. I can think of many instances but one really stands out. I was driving fast and headed south, just north of the NY line where the highway splits. Suddenly a car changed his mind at the split and cut directly in my path. I went through a very complex maneuver in just a few seconds that I couldn't possibly repeat using the conscious mind. I was aware of what was happening but I couldn't duplicate it in slow motion or tell you exactly what I did. What I can tell you is that it was an adventure but I missed the other car.

I don't know what the scientific answer is to the connection of the conscious and the subconscious but I've suspected for some time that some of the truly top pros don't actually know what their subconscious mind's role actually is when they shoot that perfect X. Take the one's that have been shooting since they were very young... sure they can intellectualize and tell you what their conscious mind thinks is going on but I don't think they really know. In my own shooting some of my best performances have not been repeatable as I truly don't know what I did. Of course there are exceptions to everything and variations galore in archery so who really knows? 

I believe it is possible that the conscious mind provides the basic instruction, training, etc., then over time the subconscious figures out the best, most efficient ways to perform the task at hand. In emergency situations this really stands out. Anyway, food for thought.


----------



## Sasquech

Team and I do mean team . I consider all of us a team of dedicated archers if you pick the fly stuff out of the pepper the last 10 or 20 posts actually describe the same process almost to a t. ELPC uses a rotation to make his go off. All the talking in the world as we have seen from this thread he like me 3 months ago was/ is convinced you can't make it go off any other way. I had the benefit of a world class coach to help me understand how to make it go off w/out rotation (remember I said I believed it not possible ) but he proved me wrong with high speed video of my self executing it properly. Sonny the talk talk talk is for us to use different words to explain the same thing . Just like dialects different folks will understand Maleys explaination or yours or Ron's. But some will decide to stick with what they have. Progress in the sport comes from discovery and epiphany. I have talked with Griv and Reo although they disagree on click what they actually do is no different look at high speed video of Reo his index finger is not stone white so as he admittedly pulls the bow apart he is yielding his index finger ever so slightly. His focus sub consciously is pull the bow apart . Griv's is center center. Both have the process committed to their subconscious like all good athletes they have done it a million times no thought required.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> While you provide solid reasoning I'm not so sure that this is entirely true. I don't believe the conscious mind truly knows anything about the subconscious activity. Sure, for simple tasks you can somewhat duplicate the effort, but complex tasks... forget about it.
> ....
> I believe it is possible that the conscious mind provides the basic instruction, training, etc., then over time the subconscious figures out the best, most efficient ways to perform the task at hand. In emergency situations this really stands out. Anyway, food for thought.


Don't agree. Really, this just boils down to a fancy way of trying to say that one doesn't know what one is doing, but it's just working "somehow". And what we do just appeared from "somewhere, somehow". This is simply demonstrably false - skills simply don't appear by magic out of nowhere. They have to be initially acquired in the usual, mundane way through a conscious process and then practiced until they become automatic skills (and suitable for subconscious execution). 

The car example is like the airplane example which is, well, like the hinge example. All of these involve motor skills that were learned in the usual way first and then practiced until they could be executed subconsciously also. We tend to forget driver's ed because for most of us it was so long ago LOL - but we still learned to drive a car The Old Fashioned Way even tho it doesn't seem like it anymore all these many years later.

And we have to learn to shoot our bows the same way - no shortcuts and no magic. We have to learn the basics manually and then practice them. There's really no other way.

PS: Alistair Whittingham has some very good discussion on the subject of automatic skills here:
part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEIAvGMbyZk&list=PLAVFmM4j7zpa1SLMJlmlJ1wtXexZtJS6S&index=8
part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXcOj-Ug2Ik&index=14&list=PLAVFmM4j7zpa1SLMJlmlJ1wtXexZtJS6S

It's worth noting that here's another professional basically relating very similar info to what others have said in this thread...

LS


----------



## EPLC

Of course we learn just as you mention. I'm not suggesting anything different. Im suggesting the subconscious can put it all together, refine it and multitask it in a way that the conscious mind is not capable of truly understanding or duplicating exactly. The example of Reo not consciously knowing he relaxes his index during the shot is a good example of what I'm trying to say.


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> Don't agree. Really, this just boils down to a fancy way of trying to say that one doesn't know what one is doing, but it's just working "somehow". And what we do just appeared from "somewhere, somehow". This is simply demonstrably false - skills simply don't appear by magic out of nowhere. They have to be initially acquired in the usual, mundane way through a conscious process and then practiced until they become automatic skills (and suitable for subconscious execution).
> 
> The car example is like the airplane example which is, well, like the hinge example. All of these involve motor skills that were learned in the usual way first and then practiced until they could be executed subconsciously also. We tend to forget driver's ed because for most of us it was so long ago LOL - but we still learned to drive a car The Old Fashioned Way even tho it doesn't seem like it anymore all these many years later.
> 
> And we have to learn to shoot our bows the same way - no shortcuts and no magic. We have to learn the basics manually and then practice them. There's really no other way.
> 
> PS: Alistair Whittingham has some very good discussion on the subject of automatic skills here:
> part 1:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEIAvGMbyZk&list=PLAVFmM4j7zpa1SLMJlmlJ1wtXexZtJS6S&index=8
> part 2:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXcOj-Ug2Ik&index=14&list=PLAVFmM4j7zpa1SLMJlmlJ1wtXexZtJS6S
> 
> It's worth noting that here's another professional basically relating very similar info to what others have said in this thread...
> 
> LS


The Alistair thoughts on this are interesting... In part 1 from 4:30 to 4:51 or so could be viewed as supportive to my thinking on this. "It's not what they do, it's them trying to put into words what they do."


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> The Alistair thoughts on this are interesting... In part 1 from 4:30 to 4:51 or so could be viewed as supportive to my thinking on this. "It's not what they do, it's them trying to put into words what they do."


Yep, I'm a long time AW fan, tho he does often sound kind of like a buddhist monk in his delivery..  Tho again I don't think his comments support the notion that you "forget" in some sense the skills you've practiced to the point of "automaticity" or that they appear out of nowhere on their own. The input is still the same - rote learning through conscious effort and then practice until the skills become automatic. 

Even the notion of assembling separately learned bits of an overall skill through drill work into a complete one like executing a shot - you do all that completely consciously at first also. His example of a musical instrument is a good one - I've learned an instrument to a moderately high level and in no sense do you end up with something greater than the sum of the parts or some other nebulous idea. Your skills just become a refined tool for your use to practice an art.

Anyway, I'm only resisting the idea that skills emerge on their own somehow or that "I don't know how I do it" is a really satisfactory description of your condition of achievement. You may have some trouble describing a deeply engrained skill, but that doesn't mean it wasn't acquired in the normal way - in other words, there's no magic to it is all I'm saying.

LS


----------



## Lazarus

While the debate over all this "subconscious" voo doo rages, there's a whole butt load of archers who *consciously* practice a perfected shot Process. These are the people that win. 

The reason you don't see them posting on AT is because they know it's pointless to try to sell that to the masses that have drank the kool aid for too many years. 

(Putting on the flame resistant suit now.)


----------



## SonnyThomas

No Flame from me. You have to work for that perfected shot. You sure can't do it with your brain somewhere else.....


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> Yep, I'm a long time AW fan, tho he does often sound kind of like a buddhist monk in his delivery..  Tho again I don't think his comments support the notion that you "forget" in some sense the skills you've practiced to the point of "automaticity" or that they appear out of nowhere on their own. The input is still the same - rote learning through conscious effort and then practice until the skills become automatic.
> 
> Even the notion of assembling separately learned bits of an overall skill through drill work into a complete one like executing a shot - you do all that completely consciously at first also. His example of a musical instrument is a good one - I've learned an instrument to a moderately high level and in no sense do you end up with something greater than the sum of the parts or some other nebulous idea. Your skills just become a refined tool for your use to practice an art.
> 
> Anyway, I'm only resisting the idea that skills emerge on their own somehow or that "I don't know how I do it" is a really satisfactory description of your condition of achievement. You may have some trouble describing a deeply engrained skill, but that doesn't mean it wasn't acquired in the normal way - in other words, there's no magic to it is all I'm saying.
> 
> LS


We are not in disagreement, I just think there may be more to it, such as development of the subconscious beyond conscious input. My initial perception of what AW said in part was this: At some point you have to turn over to the subconscious what you have learned. You still continue to practice but as you practice more and more of the process becomes subconscious. I believe the subconscious continues to develop the process to it's most efficient state. While all this is taking place the conscious is somewhat phased out, given other tasks to worry about and most likely either forgets the finer detail or was never really involved in the final phases of its development. Of course I could be completely wrong as I was once a bowler.


----------



## EPLC

Lazarus said:


> While the debate over all this "subconscious" voo doo rages, there's a whole butt load of archers who *consciously* practice a perfected shot Process. These are the people that win.
> 
> The reason you don't see them posting on AT is because they know it's pointless to try to sell that to the masses that have drank the kool aid for too many years.
> 
> (Putting on the flame resistant suit now.)


No flame resistant clothing required on that statement. Hasn't much of the discussion here really been "YOU WILL DRINK THE KOOL AID!"?


----------



## Lazarus

EPLC said:


> No flame resistant clothing required on that statement. Hasn't much of the discussion here really been "YOU WILL DRINK THE KOOL AID!"?


Lol. Good one ELPC!

It speaks volumes about you that you can maintain your sense of humor. Hang in there! [emoji1]


----------



## thawk

This was a fun read, everyone saying "THIS IS HOW ITS DONE" but get Reo, Chance, Dave, and others together and they all do it different.
It doesn't matter if you use your back, rotate your hand, relax your hand, or punch the snot out of it, if you can do it the same every time while holding in the middle you will never miss.
One thing I find funny is that no one mentions the effect aiming has on the release. When I aim great everything is easy, my timing is good and the release just happens, when my aim is bad things don't always go so smooth.
I won't post my method cause I have already read on here by all the experts that I do things wrong and debating it won't matter. To me, if it works for you, do it till it doesn't.

EPLC, in twenty years of shooting a Stan (hinge) I never thought about pushing on the peg (I also remove the peg) but see no reason why it won't work if it doesn't effect your aiming. Good luck and keep looking for what works for you


----------



## Joe Schnur

Hey Lazarus no flames from me either this is a professional forums where we are all there or damn close to there and are trying to pick out the fly stuff. 

Now I believe it as stated elsewhere semantics. We all consciously signal our brains to start the engine. A few of us rotate fingers or wrist to get there. I for one am fully concentrating on the middle of the bull nothing else matters the engine does its practiced thing and the shot goes off. It is working well for me and like so many say keep what works and chuck the rest.


----------



## Padgett

I love these threads and I know they are helping me shoot better right now than I have ever in the past. I know that I give a lot of opinions and I instruct hundreds of people but I am personally improving and plan on participating in all of these threads when they pop up even though they are repeat thoughts over and over.


----------



## Rick!

Joe Schnur said:


> We all consciously signal our brains to start the engine. .


Do we? 

Is it not ideal to calmly stare at the X, the shot breaks, then load another arrow?


----------



## possum trapper

one thing about it when you turn your scorecard in they don't have you write down what arrows,bow,release ect.......you used.heck they don't even ask you if you engaged your back for all of the shots nor do they subtract points if your head was in the hunting conversation behind the line nor if you have to go to work tomorrow.


----------



## EPLC

Padgett said:


> I love these threads and I know they are helping me shoot better right now than I have ever in the past. I know that I give a lot of opinions and I instruct hundreds of people but I am personally improving and plan on participating in all of these threads when they pop up even though they are repeat thoughts over and over.


I know from experience that you can hear the same thing from different points of view and it can take on a whole different meaning... or it just may sink in based on the manner it is presented. I prefer to gather information and then make "informed" decisions based on as much information as can be gathered. I also like to understand the source of the information, especially in a forum such as this. It's fairly easy for someone to latch on to the buzzwords and become an "expert" in short order. When varying opinions are available it makes it easier to sort out who you prefer to listen to.

I'm finding your firing engine info very helpful and am working on a variation of one that seems to have promise. Thanks.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> We are not in disagreement, I just think there may be more to it, such as development of the subconscious beyond conscious input. My initial perception of what AW said in part was this: At some point you have to turn over to the subconscious what you have learned. You still continue to practice but as you practice more and more of the process becomes subconscious. I believe the subconscious continues to develop the process to it's most efficient state. While all this is taking place the conscious is somewhat phased out, given other tasks to worry about and most likely either forgets the finer detail or was never really involved in the final phases of its development. Of course I could be completely wrong as I was once a bowler.


I have no other input on this, other than I maintain caution about any kind of nebulous ideas about "non-cognitive" skills. It is possible to practice a unsuitable or malformed skill to the level of automation and perform it subconsciously - I know, because believe me, I've done it LOL. Again, there's a difference between learning to automaticity and learning a correct skill correctly. One does not imply the other.

Apart from that, I don't have any more to add on this subject at this point.

LS


----------



## N7709K

if you need to consciously think about doing the task it is not learned to a subconscious level... period. I don't go through every detail in my head when i'm driving through town; i know where to cut corners, where to swing wide, where to short shift, etc... I don't think about when i need to let off the gas, step on the clutch, and catch the next gear.... Its at a point where the conscious's focus is on maneuvering my truck down the road.... the same goes for my shot; I don't think about starting my shot, when or how it will happen, i put my dot in the middle and after the end i go and score x's.

the issue with citing pros is when you have your shot learned and mastered you can cheat the hell out of anything and put arrows in the middle... hell you can sit on the hinge and use the mass weight of the bow to pop the release and put arrows in the 10 all day long when you shot is mastered. Look at the similarities between ALL the winning pro's; look whats shared among them and look at the aspects they all pass on to those who ask them how to shoot a hinge.


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> Well, I personally wouldn't necessarily agree with this. EP says he has a process of some sort and that he can't stay within it; this obviously means he has some idea of what a correct (for him) shot process/routine is and some idea that he's deviating from it periodically. So, really, the most natural method of trouble-shooting at that point is to a) identify/explicate that process as rigorously as possible and b) try to identify what's working in that process and what isn't.
> 
> I think what we do should not be indescribable or abstract - we should be able to account for everything we're doing. There's no other way that I can see to identify and fix strengths and weaknesses in our approach. So that's why I've asked EPLC to do that.
> 
> For example, this is what I'm working on in my own shot routine, which is something like:
> - check stance
> - knock arrow
> - set grip
> - draw back
> - check for bone-bone-bone on the front end
> - verify grip
> - come to anchor
> - check shoulder alignment
> - transition to back muscles
> - verify relaxed forearms
> - verify relaxed shoulders
> - verify anchor
> - release safety
> - aim, aim
> - (conscious effort for now: pull, expand index finger)
> 
> That's just where it stands now. But the idea is, this gives me a concrete (not nebulous or abstract) framework for setting up a shot that I can add to, subtract from and provide loci for the identification of problems.
> 
> Anyway, that's the general idea for me. Again, fewer abstractions/indescribables, more concrete, identifiable steps....
> 
> LS


My process is much simpler than yours but it works for me when I actually use it. The process may need work because of a new release and a developing firing engine. Actually I have 3 new releases, all the same with a .015 speed range between the three and no click. 

DRAW
ANCHOR & ALIGN
CENTER the PEEP
AQUIRE the X
COMMITT & RELAX


----------



## EPLC

N7709K said:


> ...the same goes for my shot; I don't think about starting my shot, when or how it will happen, i put my dot in the middle and after the end i go and score x's...


My question is: What do you do to keep your conscious mind busy between putting your dot in the middle and scoring those X's?


----------



## SonnyThomas

N7709K said:


> if you need to consciously think about doing the task it is not learned to a subconscious level... period. I don't go through every detail in my head when i'm driving through town; i know where to cut corners, where to swing wide, where to short shift, etc... I don't think about when i need to let off the gas, step on the clutch, and catch the next gear.... Its at a point where the conscious's focus is on maneuvering my truck down the road.... the same goes for my shot; I don't think about starting my shot, when or how it will happen, i put my dot in the middle and after the end i go and score x's.
> 
> the issue with citing pros is when you have your shot learned and mastered you can cheat the hell out of anything and put arrows in the middle... hell you can sit on the hinge and use the mass weight of the bow to pop the release and put arrows in the 10 all day long when you shot is mastered. Look at the similarities between ALL the winning pro's; look whats shared among them and look at the aspects they all pass on to those who ask them how to shoot a hinge.


Staying between the ditches took some brain power to start with  But once you learned.....


----------



## N7709K

EPLC said:


> My question is: What do you do to keep your conscious mind busy between putting your dot in the middle and scoring those X's?


the simple answer is that I aim; i task the conscious mind to put my dot in the middle and keep it there for the duration, if it leaves the middle my conscious mind will put it back there. For the times when the conscious mind doesnt really need to focus on aiming because the dot is being good and staying where it should it does a few different things... goes through song lyrics for the music in the background, thinks about where my release hand will end up when the shot breaks, thinks about the beautiful woman i have waiting for me at home, etc... but it NEVER thinks about how to make the shot go off while i am at full draw. If the shot doesn't break while i am at full draw it means I tried to place the arrow in the middle; i got careful, i got tense, and the release hung up... 

my shot flows kinda like this.... dot gets to the middle, shot is greenlighted and the subconscious gives the go ahead to send it when ready, when the shot breaks it prints behind the dot. that green light won't come if the dot isn't in the middle and it can be terminated if its taking too long to break (the conscious steps in to abort the process at this point). 

Honestly i've thought about more random stuff while shooting good scores than I have about archery.. i do know what makes me miss because i get too distracted, but I also know what works to keep my mind busy but out of the process of shooting the bow.


----------



## EPLC

N7709K said:


> the simple answer is that I aim; i task the conscious mind to put my dot in the middle and keep it there for the duration, if it leaves the middle my conscious mind will put it back there. For the times when the conscious mind doesnt really need to focus on aiming because the dot is being good and staying where it should it does a few different things... goes through song lyrics for the music in the background, thinks about where my release hand will end up when the shot breaks, thinks about the beautiful woman i have waiting for me at home, etc... but it NEVER thinks about how to make the shot go off while i am at full draw. If the shot doesn't break while i am at full draw it means I tried to place the arrow in the middle; i got careful, i got tense, and the release hung up...
> 
> my shot flows kinda like this.... dot gets to the middle, shot is greenlighted and the subconscious gives the go ahead to send it when ready, when the shot breaks it prints behind the dot. that green light won't come if the dot isn't in the middle and it can be terminated if its taking too long to break (the conscious steps in to abort the process at this point).
> 
> Honestly i've thought about more random stuff while shooting good scores than I have about archery.. i do know what makes me miss because i get too distracted, but I also know what works to keep my mind busy but out of the process of shooting the bow.


Here's my take on your response: you have no shot routine other than "Put the dot in the middle", and then it's all over the place, with the exception of anything about a shot process???


----------



## Lazarus

Just me personally, I love to shoot a bow. I love the intricacies of it. I love to examine and dissect the intricacies of the shot and work on perfecting them. I enjoy thinking about what's going on while the shot is operating. Oh sure, a lot of it happens without conscious thought, but on every single shot I am thinking about (at least) that one thing I am working on at the time. Always working, thinking, never just "shooting." And certainly never singing a song in my head. 

Since I like to think about shooting (while shooting) does that mean I'll never be any good?


----------



## N7709K

I don't have a list of steps I go through, not a cognitive list anyway. I've done enough cycles of the same shot that it just runs itself, all I need to do is aim- due to only needing to aim and how my personality works regarding aiming my shot won't start until the dot is in the middle.... There is ZERO point for to shoot a shot where my dot isn't in the middle because it will miss, and shooting a miss purposefully doesn't get you very far.

More or less I put my dot in the middle and then screw off until the shot breaks- I dont need to think about the shot to any degree to make it happen.


----------



## Sasquech

One thing I forgot to mention based on your personality type you may as elpc and Lazarus say think your way all the way through the process. Type a's don't try this.! But there are some personality types that can run the engine with their conscious mind and let aiming go auto. Oh and there are women which I swear can do two things at one time. The reason for the attempt to run the firing engine comes down to the following science based fact for the mind to recognize a pattern make a decision send a signal to the hand and cause an action takes approximately 250 milliseconds. Unless your hold is rock solid, the dot is not where it was when your mind said go. Thus what we need to be focusing on is getting the float inside the baby x and keeping it there to allow whatever engine conscious or sub conscious to keep the dot in the x till the arrow arrives . Flame away now please!

P.s. Merry Christmas


----------



## ron w

I shoot the exact same way as N7709K....no real specified or recorded shot routine, never even wrote anything down, that would resemble a routine of any kind. and the same, all I do is aim,...focus, as well as my old eyes will, and concentrate on the little x,....and nothing else.
it seems for me, that the level of concentration is the driver that applies the release execution and keeps it running until the shot breaks. when I get in that zone, and concentration is strong, the shot breaks with no effort, if i'm distracted in any way, for any reason, the shot breaks, but I have to sort of prod it along. when that condition gets intolerable and I can tell the shot's not developing as it should,.... then it's time to let down. the key is to pay attention to that feeling, that the shot's not developing and not fight it.
it's really about how well developed your shot is and whether the basic foundation of a shot's structure is well ingrained into your process.....in other words.... just how well, or "properly" you learned to shoot.
there is certainly room for "personal preference"..... but the basics, " the fundamental process" that produces a good shot, is well established and universally the same for everyone. if one doesn't learn those fundamentals to develop their shot around, they will have problems that will come back to haunt them at some time, sometimes many years later, when they try to take that next step of development in their shooting.
if that issue presents itself, the best thing to do, is break down and re-establish that fundamental process from the beginning. skipping steps is leaving holes in the internal structure of the fundamental process.


----------



## EPLC

Lazarus said:


> Just me personally, I love to shoot a bow. I love the intricacies of it. I love to examine and dissect the intricacies of the shot and work on perfecting them. I enjoy thinking about what's going on while the shot is operating. Oh sure, a lot of it happens without conscious thought, but on every single shot I am thinking about (at least) that one thing I am working on at the time. Always working, thinking, never just "shooting." And certainly never singing a song in my head.
> 
> Since I like to think about shooting (while shooting) does that mean I'll never be any good?


I certainly hope not as that would mean we both are screwed! 



N7709K said:


> I don't have a list of steps I go through, not a cognitive list anyway. I've done enough cycles of the same shot that it just runs itself, all I need to do is aim- due to only needing to aim and how my personality works regarding aiming my shot won't start until the dot is in the middle.... There is ZERO point for to shoot a shot where my dot isn't in the middle because it will miss, and shooting a miss purposefully doesn't get you very far.
> 
> More or less I put my dot in the middle and then screw off until the shot breaks- I dont need to think about the shot to any degree to make it happen.


I honestly have never been able to shoot that way. My conscious mind WANTS TO BE INVOLVED! It is obvious that we are wired differently and that isn't going to change. This is why this will never be an exact science. 



Sasquech said:


> One thing I forgot to mention based on your personality type you may as elpc and Lazarus say think your way all the way through the process. Type a's don't try this.! But there are some personality types that can run the engine with their conscious mind and let aiming go auto. Oh and there are women which I swear can do two things at one time. The reason for the attempt to run the firing engine comes down to the following science based fact for the mind to recognize a pattern make a decision send a signal to the hand and cause an action takes approximately 250 milliseconds. Unless your hold is rock solid, the dot is not where it was when your mind said go. Thus what we need to be focusing on is getting the float inside the baby x and keeping it there to allow whatever engine conscious or sub conscious to keep the dot in the x till the arrow arrives . Flame away now please!
> 
> P.s. Merry Christmas


I am a type A... Same question as Lazarus?


----------



## Ned250

Lazarus said:


> Just me personally, I love to shoot a bow. I love the intricacies of it. I love to examine and dissect the intricacies of the shot and work on perfecting them. I enjoy thinking about what's going on while the shot is operating. Oh sure, a lot of it happens without conscious thought, but on every single shot I am thinking about (at least) that one thing I am working on at the time. Always working, thinking, never just "shooting." And certainly never singing a song in my head.
> 
> Since I like to think about shooting (while shooting) does that mean I'll never be any good?


I'm a type A and thinking is my worst enemy. I shoot my best when I sing during the shot. My brain is too overactive and I can't remember to sing for 60x in a row!

I smashed my release hand in a ladder this past weekend - thought I broke it.  The swelling subsided quite a bit by Tuesday, so I tried to shoot. The ring finger area is really sore, so of course that's all I could think about when trying to shoot. Just thinking about that ring finger screwed up my shot so much that the hinge was firing as soon as I took my thumb off the peg. No matter how sure I was that I was executing the "correct" way, the hinge still went off when I took off the thumb. Just being conscious about my ring finger completely changed the dynamics of my shot. 

Its incredibly fascinating to me just how powerful the mind can be.


----------



## thawk

I'm the same as Ron w and N7709k, I just aim, my shot just happens, when I was asked how I shoot my release I had to think about what is going on and when. For me this is why I shoot a hinge. With a button I feel the pressure on the trigger building and can't help but think about it, while thinking about the release I loose focus on my aiming.
The other side of that coin is if I'm not aiming good that day it becomes very hard for me to fire a button release, I will stop the Firing process every time the pin moves (and at 50 years old my pin moves a lot) this takes all the fun out of shooting for me.

That is also a hard thing for me when helping teach someone to shoot. I want to make them a world champ right out of the gate, I would like to see them shoot a hinge so they can learn what a proper shot feels like, but I never think they might have more fun just hammering a trigger hitting some, missing some and having a good time. This should be fun, and if we take the fun out of it in search of one point or a couple more x's is it worth it? I know doing nothing but blank bail and aiming drills for a month would help most everyone including myself, but it could never do it cause it's just not fun to me.


----------



## unclejane

> I honestly have never been able to shoot that way. My conscious mind WANTS TO BE INVOLVED!


The conscious mind *is *involved. It's simply not *completely *involved - that's what 09K and the others have been saying repeatedly. No one has ever said you go unconscious when shooting, that's just not what happens.

The problem is there's a limit to what the brain (via the conscious mind) can handle. Aiming a bow is actually a very high computational-load activity for the brain, it doesn't seem like it is but there's a lot of CPU power consumed when doing that. And it turns out, that multitasking the aiming process and the decision to release is not generally something within the brainpower of most shooters. 

So, what we try to do is* automate* as many parts of the shot as possible - this is done by a) rote learning followed by b) repetition/practice until we achieve c) automaticity of the activity. 

That way, we only have to actively think about as much as our brains can handle. The rest is automated. Alistair Whittingham in other videos talks about this - namely that, it's been shown that when we're performing well-practiced activities subconsciously, there are actually no measurable brain waves associated with the activity. Which is exactly what you want - as much brainpower as possible leftover for the *conscious* activities that you *must* perform when shooting (such as aiming)

To me, it's that simple. I've been learning motor skills my entire adult life and that has been my experience with the few that I've been able to achieve automation with.

LS


----------



## EPLC

Part of my problem is that I take things literally and I have a very good memory. There has been, from a literal sense, a lot of contradiction. The root of the problem is that "holding the pin in the middle" is the basis of much of what has been recommended here. "More or less I put my dot in the middle and then screw off until the shot breaks" Must be nice to be able to do that. Meer mortals such as myself need a workaround. I'm going full circle on this one as I came into these discussions with my best shooting coming as a result of shooting with movement. If I let down every time my "pin" left center I would never shoot an arrow. I can think of only a handful of times that my bow had no perceivable movement while shooting. I literally did not know what to do.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> Part of my problem is that I take things literally and I have a very good memory. There has been, from a literal sense, a lot of contradiction. The root of the problem is that "holding the pin in the middle" is the basis of much of what has been recommended here.


Again, we're talking about a simple motor skill in this case. Part of it can be automated - for example, consciously looking at the gold and automating keeping the pin on it (AKA the "float"). This can come with practice, even if it has to be done fully consciously at first.



> "More or less I put my dot in the middle and then screw off until the shot breaks" Must be nice to be able to do that. Meer mortals such as myself need a workaround.


There *is* one. The item that has already been discussed at length - *practicing* the parts of the shot that you want to automate (the operation of the hinge, the setup of the shot itself, etc) until they become automatic and thus amenable to subconscious control. That frees the conscious mind up to do those operations that need to be done consciously. That's how you achieve "screwing off until the shot breaks". 

It's not a hard concept. Of course, the performance is an entirely different matter lol.....



> I'm going full circle on this one as I came into these discussions with my best shooting coming as a result of shooting with movement. If I let down every time my "pin" left center I would never shoot an arrow. I can think of only a handful of times that my bow had no perceivable movement while shooting. I literally did not know what to do.


That's why that part of aiming is something that should be practiced to automation. It's impossible to keep the pin on the gold firmly - nobody can do it, the feedback mechanism in our bodies is simply too slow and unwieldy. So that's definitely something you want to practice to automation - it needs to be as good as it get, since it'll never be perfect. The rest - keeping one's eye on the gold for example, or the pin itself (depending on the preference of the shooter) - then can be done consciously without overload.

That's the method I've adopted personally - I just focus on the gold; keeping the pin as close to on top of it as possible is a skill I'm practicing to automation. I don't care if I perceive the pin to be on the gold when the shot goes; I already know the chances of that happening on any one shot are less than 100%.

LS


----------



## ron w

conscious mind doesn't do anything but think about aiming, not "controlling aiming", just "think about aiming"....focus and concentration is on the X, nowhere else. that is all the distraction my process needs to let the subconscious do it's job. you see, the conscious activity of aiming, is the distraction to the shot process, that lets the subconscious run without being distracted by conscious attempts to control the shot.
if you can't do that, it's because you haven't ever learned the basic fundamental of letting the subconscious run the shot by itself. you may apply the subconscious to running your shot, but the application in itself is consciously controlled and therefore, you are consciously running the shot and you don't realize it.

of course, this doesn't apply to, or respond to EPLC's post, as I am forbade to bother him, on his stern request. so EP....don't read this, it's not for you......probably way to fundamental for your level of shooting anyways.


----------



## unclejane

ron w said:


> conscious mind doesn't do anything but think about aiming, not "controlling aiming", just "think about aiming"....focus and concentration is on the X, nowhere else. that is all the distraction my process needs to let the subconscious do it's job. you see, the conscious activity of aiming, is the distraction to the shot process, that lets the subconscious run without being distracted by conscious attempts to control the shot.
> if you can't do that, it's because you haven't ever learned the basic fundamental of letting the subconscious run the shot by itself. you may apply the subconscious to running your shot, but the application in itself is consciously controlled and therefore, you are consciously running the shot and you don't realize it.
> 
> of course, this doesn't apply to, or respond to EPLC's post, as I am forbade to bother him, on his stern request. so EP....don't read this, it's not for you......probably way to fundamental for your level of shooting anyways.


This is generally aligned with my experience also. I should mention that it's ok for a particular skill to require conscious control when you're learning it - nothing at all wrong with that and in fact that's quite normal. 

Going back to the musical instrument example, the bassist Jeff Berlin (arguably the best in the world) advocates learning a bass part "out of time", without the use of a metronome. The idea is the fingering pattern *necessarily* is under conscious control at first, when it's being learned. So trying to play the piece in good time during this stage is not only a useless endeavor but can actually impede the learning process. Only after it's practiced to the point that the fingering is *automatic*, should any attempt to play the piece in time be attempted. That's because the artistry is more of a conscious pursuit; the craft of playing the piece is just the tool you use to create a work of art. But in no sense at all is there suddenly no skill behind it once it goes into the subconscious. 

As I relearn to shoot my bow with a hinge, a fair bit of my "release engine" with the hinge is still, admittedly, a conscious process. I still have to think about it in some senses. Why? Only because I haven't practiced it to the point of automation. I'm also still evaluating whether what I'm doing is actually right or not LOL. But that's just part of the whole process.

Again, a subconscious, automatic skill is not suddenly an unknown skill. It is not the case that it simply becomes forgotten and you're just doing X, where X is some unknown whatever. That's not what acquiring a motor skill is at all.....

And most importantly, that does not mean a skill necessarily *has* to remain under conscious control. That's what this entire thread has been about - the shot process, for well known reasons, is one of those skills that *practically must* be practiced to automation.
LS


----------



## N7709K

ron w said:


> conscious mind doesn't do anything but think about aiming, not "controlling aiming", just "think about aiming"....focus and concentration is on the X, nowhere else. that is all the distraction my process needs to let the subconscious do it's job. you see, the conscious activity of aiming, is the distraction to the shot process, that lets the subconscious run without being distracted by conscious attempts to control the shot.
> if you can't do that, it's because you haven't ever learned the basic fundamental of letting the subconscious run the shot by itself. you may apply the subconscious to running your shot, but the application in itself is consciously controlled and therefore, you are consciously running the shot and you don't realize it.
> 
> of course, this doesn't apply to, or respond to EPLC's post, as I am forbade to bother him, on his stern request. so EP....don't read this, it's not for you......probably way to fundamental for your level of shooting anyways.


Yup... this sums it up nicely

Eplc- do you trust your shot? legitimately trust it?


----------



## ron w

when you are learning something, you are running entirely in conscious process. your body only runs subconsciously when you either assign what has been learned consciously to the sub conscious, by acknowledgingly learning it, with the intent of assigning it to sub conscious process, in core driven survival actions, or in the case of high frequency repeat actions. combining "intended assignment learning" and "high frequency repeated action learning", are basically what we are doing when we blind bale. in either case, we have to learn the movements and their process consciously, before they are assigned to sub-conscious process. 
this is the element that is so important in the fundamental development of a good shot execution. skipping steps in this learning curve, leaves holes on the sub-conscious process, that come back to bite you at a later date and many times, requires a complete abandonment of what has been learned and assigned to the sub conscious previously, and then re-learned, including what-ever step was skipped over.


----------



## EPLC

I'm outa here. Merry Christmas!


----------



## unclejane

I'm still not seeing what the objection is about this... Maybe it sounds kind of new-agey and impenetrable because of words like trust, conscious and subconscious kind of flying around in the discussion - as if the subject is something just completely inaccessible through normal rational thinking and action.

But it's really not; it's no different than any other motor skill we may have acquired and practiced until it was automatic. Ron's point about having learnt something completely wrong is a good one also; it's what I'm dealing with in my own shooting, in fact. I've had target panic for my entire archery "career", partly because I learned the incorrect way to do a release. In fact, I'd never been exposed to the idea of a "surprise shot", where the actual release isn't explicitly commanded. I thought you just got over it somehow and eventually learned how to command a shot without jerking and anticipating..... 

But instead, I've had to totally relearn a new shot process where the release is automated through a completely different activity (rotating a hinge in my case). So sometimes you just have to start over from scratch and go from the ground up all over again. 

But the learning process is still the same and it's not mysterious at all: a) rote learning, b) practice until c) it's an automatic skill.... Am I missing anything?

LS


----------



## Sasquech

Nope right on the money. I rotated also up until a couple of weeks ago when a great coach put me on the straight and narrow. Going to take time to get it solid but it is coming along.


----------



## unclejane

Well I just buy more stuff until I shoot better, that's what I do. For my xmas present this am, I installed a new peep and converted my trusty Shibuya Ultima recurve sight into a CPX 520 with a new compound sight block from Lancaster. Also went to a scope with a 3x lens. It's amazing how much more secure I feel now that I can actually see the target LOL....

LS


----------



## Rick!

unclejane said:


> *So sometimes you just have to start over from scratch and go from the ground up all over again. *
> 
> But the learning process is still the same and it's not mysterious at all: a) rote learning, b) practice until c) it's an automatic skill.... Am I missing anything?
> 
> LS


Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner. 

For me, it's taken a lot of arrows to get to where the shot break is tipping over towards automatic. During the last 5000 arrows things have started to fall into place to where I understand how my shot needs/wants to run.


----------



## ron w

exactly, there's no "mysterious voodoo" about it. you simply have to learn the right way. i'll wager that 95% of the people who have problems are because they are learning incorrectly. I don't mean "learning the wrong things", I mean "not learning the way they should learn what are learning". you have to reach your process correctly...that means teaching it in a way it can learn what you want it to learn and doing it in the correct steps that result in it "learning it in a logical order of process".
as said, the actual activity is simple . it's been designed that way so that, "simple muscles".....muscles that are skeletal and only have to deal with moving major bone groups around, can learn to do it. they learn in a simple fashion from uncomplicated, "easy to understand" lessons. hence the importance of not skipping over fundamental drills as you learn.


----------



## Lazarus

So, I read earlier that a person should learn a process wrong until you know how to do it right. Now I read that the biggest problem that a high percentage of people have is not learning it right. 

If that is true, what I gather is that the highest percentage of people are just one minor tweak away from massive success. 

Very interesting and insightful discussion.


----------



## ron w

I don't know about it being "one minor tweek away", but many times, a minor tweek or two, in the right place and at the right time, really turns the light bulb on. many times, it's getting that tweek at the right time in the learning process, that magically opens the whole picture. it stimulates that, "aha moment" when all of a sudden, everything comes together and your shot process suddenly understands "why" it's doing what it's doing.
from that point on, people usaully have clear sailing to successful executions. that's why I always stress that people have to understand why they need to train the shot process in a particular way and why, when I post about this subject, my posts are usually a bit long, because I try to explain the "why and how it works" as well as the "what".


----------



## SonnyThomas

Lazarus said:


> So, I read earlier that a person should learn a process wrong until you know how to do it right. Now I read that the biggest problem that a high percentage of people have is not learning it right.
> 
> If that is true, what I gather is that the highest percentage of people are just one minor tweak away from massive success.
> 
> Very interesting and insightful discussion.


So I'm sitting here trying to figure out what I'm reading..... "should learn wrong." I don't believe that. I believe people start out wrong and find a better way.
"have not learned it right." Well, learned habits are sometimes hard to break from, which could mean the "minor tweak" could be a "monster" to overcome.


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> So, I read earlier that a person should learn a process wrong until you know how to do it right. Now I read that the biggest problem that a high percentage of people have is not learning it right.
> 
> If that is true, what I gather is that the highest percentage of people are just one minor tweak away from massive success.
> 
> Very interesting and insightful discussion.


If you substitute "wrong" and "right" with "consciously" and "subconsciously/automatically" in your first sentence, that would be my reading of the proceedings so far. Learning a skill with conscious, deliberate rote movements, making as many mistakes as needed along the way, is not only not the wrong way but is absolutely the right and normal way to learn it.
The skills themselves and the process of learning them are almost orthogonal.

For example, it is possible to acquire an incorrect/inappropriate/inapplicable skill consciously, practice it to automation and then shuttle it off to the subconscious. That's what I've done - I used a good process to learn some "bad" skills LOL. So some of that I'm simply having to redo with skills that are more effective at accomplishing a good shot than the ones I'd learned previously.

So we're sort of talking about two different things here - the skill sets themselves and the methods for acquiring them. They're not really the same thing.

LS


----------



## Lazarus

unclejane, Put a more simplistic way, I think Zig Ziglar said; "Anything worth doing is worth doing *pooorLY* until you learn to do it *weeeell,*" (emphasis mine.) If that is the case, I completely agree. 

The part of this whole discussion that I struggle with, no, more accurately I disagree with is this; the proper shot Process is a sub-conscious process that can be compared to a sub-conscious function like breathing. (Yes, I've heard that comparison made.)

I just don't believe the proper Process is as difficult as a lot of you folks make it seem, and needs to be quite conscious. No offense, that's my opinion. I won't try to take your's from you...........until I write the book that is. When that happens you won't be able to talk back. :wink:


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> unclejane, Put a more simplistic way, I think Zig Ziglar said; "Anything worth doing is worth doing *pooorLY* until you learn to do it *weeeell,*" (emphasis mine.) If that is the case, I completely agree.


I don't agree with that phrasing of it. In my view, consciously learning a skill is not doing it "poorly". In fact, quite the opposite - doing it by rote, fully thinking about it, putting the arrow into the wall from time to time in the process..... That's perfectly OK and normal, the way I see it.
So if that's what you really mean here, I'm in agreement with you.



> The part of this whole discussion that I struggle with, no, more accurately I disagree with is this; the proper shot Process is a sub-conscious process that can be compared to a sub-conscious function like breathing. (Yes, I've heard that comparison made.)... I just don't believe the proper Process is as difficult as a lot of you folks make it seem, and needs to be quite conscious.


First, any activity involving motor skills is really a *combination *of consciously executed items and automatic skills typically executed subconsciously. The examples we've already talked about, like driving a car, flying an airplane, etc., exemplify this very well.

Second, there do develop a set of best practices on what parts of the activity, whatever it is, should be practiced to automation/shuttled to the subconscious and what is OK to continue to execute consciously. 

Finally, it is my experience, that these best practices a) have a core invariant in terms of what tends to be successful for everyone that is successful, but b) are not hard and fast, must-always-be-followed rules. 

So think about it like this: computing power in our brains is a precious resource - it is finite and has to be managed. We can't do very complex activities like shooting a bow totally consciously because we simply do not have that much CPU power available. That's what target panic is, for example - an overload condition on the brain where it simply cannot do everything that's required consciously.

So some of the skills involved in an activity like shooting tend to be best practiced to automation and assigned to the subconscious, while others can remain conscious activities. This division of labor, so to speak, is what allows us to work around this limitation in our computational resources. It's a balancing act like I alluded to before. 

Finally, thinking in extremes either way is, I think, an incorrect approach: Insisting on consciously doing everything or insisting on subconsciously handling everything. Neither of those alternatives are workable. Instead, we have to find a compromise, a balance between conscious processes and automated/subconscious ones. That's the basic idea here in the thread, in my view....

LS


----------



## thawk

I agree with Laz, the process is not that difficult and does not have to be learned in one particular mannor. I "just learned it" I didn't have someone tell me how to hold the release, how to set it up, what mussels to engage and when, how and when to focus on the dot or pin or the x. I was handed a Stan and told to shoot it, I did and figured out what worked for me. It didn't take long, I never punched myself, I was never afraid of it, iust learned to shoot it.

My opinion is the biggest problem today is that everyone the takes up archery learns with an index finger release. I haven't had any urge to punch a hinge in over twenty years, but I hammer an index finger release. So to me if its that hard for a person who knows what a good shot feels like to shoot one how can we expect a newbe to shoot one right. by the time they decide they want their scores to go up and learn to shoot the "right way" they have ingrained bad habits so deep it's very hard to retrain their brains.


----------



## unclejane

thawk said:


> I agree with Laz, the process is not that difficult and does not have to be learned in one particular mannor. I "just learned it" I didn't have someone tell me how to hold the release, how to set it up, what mussels to engage and when, how and when to focus on the dot or pin or the x. I was handed a Stan and told to shoot it, I did and figured out what worked for me. It didn't take long, I never punched myself, I was never afraid of it, iust learned to shoot it.


I also feel the need to defend this POV as well. You know the old, wise saying: A Man's Gotta Know His Limitations..... There are activities that some of us just slap cannot learn "correctly". I for example just cannot shoot a bow with fingers. That's not a bad attitude, but a hard finding that I've arrived at after years and years of, er, solid research LOL. When finger shooters/oly recurve shooters talk about how to learn it, how to automate it and so on, something in my mind just goes "ERROR: try again?". Even with a clicker, I just can't get it.
Blind baling is another activity that I've found to be ineffective, if I don't see a result in a few days. Again, if I go to the bail and I'm not off it and gotten a target involved in a couple of days, I know that I've encountered that "ERROR: try again?" condition. 

So I fully sympathize and take it seriously when someone really does have a block against something. Part of being wise about learning a skill is recognizing when one is going down an unproductive road and doing it in what is an "incorrect" way for them. 

Now, that's not the same as something simply being difficult and requiring a lot of work and dedication to do - I'm talking about activities, methods, etc., where it's just clear that you're just not going to get it. Me with a finger tab and a recurve/longbow is one of those conditions, for example.

In cases like that, it's perfectly OK to appeal to technology and look for another way. I went back to compound and bought a hinge release - I was on the blind bale for 2 days, but the sight was back on the bow on the 3rd and I had a basic shot process in place by the end of that day. I've been working on it ever since. That was never my experience with fingers/recurve - I fought it and fought it and never made progress. 

So I have to side with you guys on this in part as well.



> My opinion is the biggest problem today is that everyone the takes up archery learns with an index finger release. I haven't had any urge to punch a hinge in over twenty years, but I hammer an index finger release. So to me if its that hard for a person who knows what a good shot feels like to shoot one how can we expect a newbe to shoot one right. by the time they decide they want their scores to go up and learn to shoot the "right way" they have ingrained bad habits so deep it's very hard to retrain their brains.


By way of trivia, I was pleasantly surprised to find that I could shoot my Scott index finger release after about a week with my hinge. The "ah-hah" of a surprise release/auxiliary-command type of shot was the mental leap I needed to figure out how to use one. I've not gone back to it because I'm committed to the hinge for now, but I now think I could develop a workable technique with my IF releases if I chose to. 

So you might have a go with it again now that you know what a surprise shot feels like, you might find you can use them with a pull-pull-pull technique without punching....
LS


----------



## ron w

correct, the application is actually consciously applied, and then the conscious moves out of the way to let the subconscious run it's program. consider a first baseman, catching a ball, he sees the ball coming and just before it hits the glove, he's looking at second base or home plate, relying on the subconscious to "glove the ball" from the information it received when he took a look at the ball coming in. 
similarly, tennis players are taught to not worry about looking at where to return the ball, they keep their eyes fixed on the ball for good contact and let their subconscious align the swing to return the ball where they want it to go. their subconscious is fully aware of where they are located on the court and makes the angular adjustment of their body, to return the ball in the "thought of" area.
both of these actions are learned , simply through repetitive training drills. the conscious application of repeated thought process eventually forms a subconscious series of commands that only need to be though about to be initiated. once initiated, they run by them selves, leaving the conscious mind to attend to other activities.


----------



## unclejane

ron w said:


> correct, the application is actually consciously applied, and then the conscious moves out of the way to let the subconscious run it's program. consider a first baseman, catching a ball, he sees the ball coming and just before it hits the glove, he's looking at second base or home plate, relying on the subconscious to "glove the ball" from the information it received when he took a look at the ball coming in.
> similarly, tennis players are taught to not worry about looking at where to return the ball, they keep their eyes fixed on the ball for good contact and let their subconscious align the swing to return the ball where they want it to go. their subconscious is fully aware of where they are located on the court and makes the angular adjustment of their body, to return the ball in the "thought of" area.
> both of these actions are learned , simply through repetitive training drills. the conscious application of repeated thought process eventually forms a subconscious series of commands that only need to be though about to be initiated. once initiated, they run by them selves, leaving the conscious mind to attend to other activities.


Agree and one last thing and I'll shutup lol. Frequently, the automation of an activity happens naturally and escapes our notice. That itself happens subconsciously - we just realize one day that we're no longer thinking about a part of an activity that we used to have to think about even quite strenuously. Using the rudder pedals in my plane for example; at first I ran with sweat trying to do the right thing with my feet when making a turn or, worse, when having to do a slip, etc. After a while, I realized that I didn't have to think about it at all - it had become automatic.

So sometimes, the best thing to do is just keep doing it, go ahead and think about it and run with sweat while trying to do it and just do it. Let the arrow go into the wall from time to time and just keep buying arrows for a while. Often, the parts that need to become automated become automated on their own without our prompting....

LS


----------



## thawk

My problem with an index finger release might have a lot to do with the way I shoot a hinge, I don't engage my back and shoot more of a relax type shot. So when I have to "pull a trigger" I don't have the fundamental back tension to default to and I pull the trigger with my finger. Now I can make the conscious mind pull the trigger without punching it or anticipating the shot but any lapse in concentration and I punch.
A little different with a thumb button, I never punch it, but sooner or later maybe 30 arrows in or maybe 100 arrows in I will have the urge to punch it. It's sad because sometimes I really do shoot it better, I once ran 28 targets at the western classic with a thumb but at some point during the day I could no longer get it to fire


----------



## Lazarus

I've came to the point that I have absolutely nothing to offer this discussion. Maybe after I think about it a while I'll be able to put some thoughts into words. That's not an indictment on this group but on myself. 

I went from shooting fingers to shooting a rope n spike release when I was 14 in about 1972. I was taught to shoot it "right" in about 30 minutes on a blank bale one night by an NFAA Instructor. I honestly can't relate to a lot of what I see written here. That's not to downgrade this talk, that's an honest admission that I just don't get it. It's not that I don't "get" what is being said, I just don't understand the necessity of some of this science. None of what I read here was ever taught to me. Several of my mentors during that time period are names that if I dropped them everyone would know. I'm glad I was taught the way I was. 

Again, It just doesn't seem that it needs to be this complicated.


----------



## unclejane

thawk said:


> My problem with an index finger release might have a lot to do with the way I shoot a hinge, I don't engage my back and shoot more of a relax type shot. So when I have to "pull a trigger" I don't have the fundamental back tension to default to and I pull the trigger with my finger. Now I can make the conscious mind pull the trigger without punching it or anticipating the shot but any lapse in concentration and I punch.


Try resting your finger carefully on the trigger and slowly relax it while you aim - let the weight of your IF fire the trigger. Not a long-term solution, but that gave me an "ah-hah" on how to simulate -ish what one does with a hinge. Worth a try to see if it works. It's easy to see how you can come up with a better method like wrapping the finger around the trigger and have it be engaged by expanding the back muscles.


> A little different with a thumb button, I never punch it, but sooner or later maybe 30 arrows in or maybe 100 arrows in I will have the urge to punch it. It's sad because sometimes I really do shoot it better, I once ran 28 targets at the western classic with a thumb but at some point during the day I could no longer get it to fire


Yeah this is why I stick with a hinge. It's the shortest route for me to an automated-release method. I don't use "back-tension" with mine either - back-tension is how you draw/hold/expand with any bow. Instead, I'm currently converging on an "expansion" method where I relax the index finger, but not so much the middle and ring fingers....

I think I could eventually develop a method with an IF release, but I'm already further ahead with the hinge, so.....
LS


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> I've came to the point that I have absolutely nothing to offer this discussion. Maybe after I think about it a while I'll be able to put some thoughts into words. That's not an indictment on this group but on myself.
> 
> I went from shooting fingers to shooting a rope n spike release when I was 14 in about 1972. I was taught to shoot it "right" in about 30 minutes on a blank bale one night by an NFAA Instructor. I honestly can't relate to a lot of what I see written here. That's not to downgrade this talk, that's an honest admission that I just don't get it. It's not that I don't "get" what is being said, I just don't understand the necessity of some of this science. None of what I read here was ever taught to me. Several of my mentors during that time period are names that if I dropped them everyone would know. I'm glad I was taught the way I was.
> 
> Again, It just doesn't seem that it needs to be this complicated.


Well remember that the science is just the description of what happens underlyingly; you don't have to understand the description in order to actually be a practitioner. It can help but it's not required. I agree with you that whatever you do end up doing should feel natural. If it really does feel like reaching around the back of your neck, down between your legs and then up your chest to touch your nose, then it may not be the right approach for you. 

As I said, that's what I feel like when I hear finger shooters talk about automating their releases. It's just a Does Not Compute kind of thing for me - but I also have the awareness now that I'm just not wired that way and probably never will be.

In the end, simple repetition will reveal if something is right for you or not. At some point, either the wall appears and your head is just banging against it, or you just realize you're not thinking about it at all and it has become subconscious....

LS


----------



## thawk

Lazarus said:


> I've came to the point that I have absolutely nothing to offer this discussion. Maybe after I think about it a while I'll be able to put some thoughts into words. That's not an indictment on this group but on myself.
> 
> I went from shooting fingers to shooting a rope n spike release when I was 14 in about 1972. I was taught to shoot it "right" in about 30 minutes on a blank bale one night by an NFAA Instructor. I honestly can't relate to a lot of what I see written here. That's not to downgrade this talk, that's an honest admission that I just don't get it. It's not that I don't "get" what is being said, I just don't understand the necessity of some of this science. None of what I read here was ever taught to me. Several of my mentors during that time period are names that if I dropped them everyone would know. I'm glad I was taught the way I was.
> 
> Again, It just doesn't seem that it needs to be this complicated.


That's because your old, most of the kids that post on here don't know releases used to come with a rope attached and no one used a d-loop.
I have never seen so many terms used in an archery discussion, as I read this I think it's either a medical or psychological forum not archery.

It's funny how people seem to know what is going on at every point during their shot, not that it's a bad thing, just different then when I learned. I was asked "how do you shoot your release" once a long time ago at a shoot, I responded "I don't know, I just aim and it goes off" two (both who were national champions) said "now that's someone who has this game figured out, never try to think about your release" so I'm with you Laz, don't over think it.


----------



## thawk

Unclejane, I could never understand how an archer can relax, pull through, make a good clean release AND shoot a clicker. I never came close to mastering "fingers" either.

Funny story and shows how much things have changed, while hunting one year my buddy had his tab on and we were talking to some other hunters when one asked him " what kind of release is that and who makes it?" When Mark told him "its a tab, I shoot fingers" the guy had no idea what he ment.


----------



## Mahly

That's because many don't know what the click is for. Do you you flinch when the string touches your nose? I use a click somewhat in the same way. It doesn't say your shooting, it says your in position to shoot. Like an anchor point. My click tells me I'm in position to start my engine...nothing more.
I'm using it to train myself to BE in position, and am hoping to move away from it some day. But for now, I know it helps me hit a consistent anchor, with a consistent hand position. If it clicks at the "wrong" time, I know exactly what it is telling me.
NEVER does it click while I am aiming or running my firing engine. That to me is just like starting your aiming/engine before the string touches your nose.

I am learning better ways to set up the hinge to make this all much more natural (Thanx again Padgett), but for me the function of the click has never changed.


----------



## thawk

Mahly said:


> That's because many don't know what the click is for. Do you you flinch when the string touches your nose? I use a click somewhat in the same way. It doesn't say your shooting, it says your in position to shoot. Like an anchor point. My click tells me I'm in position to start my engine...nothing more.
> I'm using it to train myself to BE in position, and am hoping to move away from it some day. But for now, I know it helps me hit a consistent anchor, with a consistent hand position. If it clicks at the "wrong" time, I know exactly what it is telling me.
> NEVER does it click while I am aiming or running my firing engine. That to me is just like starting your aiming/engine before the string touches your nose.
> 
> I am learning better ways to set up the hinge to make this all much more natural (Thanx again Padgett), but for me the function of the click has never changed.


Ok, that was funny to read. It was a good explanation of a "click" on a hinge type release, but it was 110% wrong for what the last couple posts were about. We were talking about clickers used for finger shooting, most common on recurves to make each shot the exact same draw length.


----------



## Mahly

LOL! Didn't take it as a recurve. We've been bouncing between hinges, fingers, and trigger releases... Wasn't sure to which you were referring.


----------



## montigre

Lazarus said:


> I was taught to shoot it "right" in about 30 minutes on a blank bale one night by an NFAA Instructor. I honestly can't relate to a lot of what I see written here. That's not to downgrade this talk, that's an honest admission that I just don't get it. It's not that I don't "get" what is being said, I just don't understand the necessity of some of this science. None of what I read here was ever taught to me. Several of my mentors during that time period are names that if I dropped them everyone would know. I'm glad I was taught the way I was. Again, It just doesn't seem that it needs to be this complicated.


I agree 100% and why I have often voiced the opinion that sometimes too much time is spent dissecting every minutia of the game instead of hitting the range and shooting one's bow. I was taught the hinge old school also and really could not sit down and explain exactly how I get it to go off... I can explain all of the ways to cheat one, but that is another topic all together. 



thawk said:


> That's because your old, most of the kids that post on here don't know releases used to come with a rope attached and no one used a d-loop.


You mean like one of these thawk??? This is the first release I learned to use; had to eventually shoot it with the pinky off of the thing cuz I learned really quickly how to use it for extra leverage....lol!!
View attachment 2117143


----------



## thawk

I had to keep reading your post, I read the first sentence or two, then went back and re-read them, and couldn't figure out what the heck you were trying to say. Then it "clicked" in my brain.


----------



## thawk

Montigre, yes sir. Isn't that a carter Colby? Nice hinge just to small for my fat hands. Back then we didn't have release bags, we hung them off a hook or snap ring. When I started using a bag there were no archery release bags, we used chalk bags for rock climbing


----------



## montigre

Yes, it is a Cater Colby. I think when I used it I just put it in a quiver pocket. I did not have one of those large release bags (still don't) and it was just too long to fit into the smaller release bag I have.


----------



## Sasquech

I think I understand where the fuss from elpc and laz is coming from. Like throwing a baseball we learn the skill practice it picture the catchers mit and execute we don't think lift my leg to here turn my foot like this or point my hand like this . Nope once you are a good pitcher you set your feet set your grip look at the target and run the throw program it is the same for all sports making it more complex is silly. What does need to happen is the learning part first then after the 10,000 pitches comes the full on auto. Same it is with archery.


----------



## rn3

Lazarus said:


> I've came to the point that I have absolutely nothing to offer this discussion. Maybe after I think about it a while I'll be able to put some thoughts into words. That's not an indictment on this group but on myself.
> 
> I went from shooting fingers to shooting a rope n spike release when I was 14 in about 1972. I was taught to shoot it "right" in about 30 minutes on a blank bale one night by an NFAA Instructor. I honestly can't relate to a lot of what I see written here. That's not to downgrade this talk, that's an honest admission that I just don't get it. It's not that I don't "get" what is being said, I just don't understand the necessity of some of this science. None of what I read here was ever taught to me. Several of my mentors during that time period are names that if I dropped them everyone would know. I'm glad I was taught the way I was.
> 
> Again, It just doesn't seem that it needs to be this complicated.


I would have to agree with you, shooting a bow is not as complicated as people make it out to be.


----------



## Lazarus

Sasquech said:


> I think I understand where the fuss from elpc and laz is coming from.


I hate that it seems like I might be making a fuss. I'm really pretty good with where I'm at right now skills wise. I just don't believe it does the sport any good to make it sound like you need a masters in psychology to effectively develop and execute an advanced shot Process. Also, some have said it takes two years to become a "hinge shooter." I believe that's inaccurate and it does people a disservice to suggest that it does. Frankly, it's not too big of a stretch to take someone who is a 290'ish 5 Spot shooter, give them a hinge and some VERY basic training and in a month (if they are committed to practice) they'll be shooting 300's on a 5 Spot regularly. If they want to get better than that they just have to commit to more attention to detail and perfect practice. All of this provided that they have a certain amount of skill/talent, are again, committed, and are teachable.


----------



## unclejane

thawk said:


> Unclejane, I could never understand how an archer can relax, pull through, make a good clean release AND shoot a clicker. I never came close to mastering "fingers" either.
> 
> Funny story and shows how much things have changed, while hunting one year my buddy had his tab on and we were talking to some other hunters when one asked him " what kind of release is that and who makes it?" When Mark told him "its a tab, I shoot fingers" the guy had no idea what he ment.


Personally, I think it's a talent that some of us just lack LOL. I will say that it did help me to finally diagnose my target panic - with a clicker, I did find I was able to actually hold the pin on the 10 ring before the clicker went off. I had never been able to do that ever before with a compound - that was where I clued in that something was wrong with actually commanding a release. I didn't find the solution until just a few weeks ago LOL, but I did at least learn that from oly recurve.

But even with a clicker it was arrows everywhere. About 1 in 6 shots were what I felt like good shots; I'd try to remember those and replicate them, which only worsened it to 1 in 10. Tried harder, 1 in 20. Tried harder and well, let's just pack up and go home, this isn't getting me anywhere lol.

So I totally salute finger shooters who can really do it...

LS


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> I hate that it seems like I might be making a fuss. I'm really pretty good with where I'm at right now skills wise. I just don't believe it does the sport any good to make it sound like you need a masters in psychology to effectively develop and execute an advanced shot Process.


Good point. I mean, I do think something is missing if you can't describe, even in a rough way, something you're doing even if it has become a subconscious process, but I think you're quite right about this. It is possible to get a bit too Mt. Sinai and new-agey about it too. 

In the end it's all about shooting and I have seen in the past that the best way to get good at shooting is to shoot. I found a couple "optimizations" in my release today on the line at the shop that I discovered just in the process of consciously working on it. That's a good thing about it still being a conscious thing at this point, I can detect errors and try out different changes and ideas before they become too engrained. 


> Also, some have said it takes two years to become a "hinge shooter." I believe that's inaccurate and it does people a disservice to suggest that it does.


Whoa. I really don't agree with that either lol. I'd be sympathetic with 2 years to become a certain level of shooter, but not a "hinge shooter". It took me one week to start outshooting myself with a hinge. When a change results in me outshooting me prior to the change, I tend to adopt it and continue with it. So I'd call myself a hinge shooter now. 

LS


----------



## Sasquech

Laz I totally agree I shot my average after switching from vegas Thursday night practice to Friday line it just takes practice. Fortunately my thumb trigger technique was not a lot different than hinge. But if people make it sound mystical not everyone will try it and become better. You are right it is quite simple . Simpler if you are taught right when you first pick it up fortunately Brandon Reyes gave me my first lesson at the truball booth.


----------



## EPLC

Per the link provided by unclejane, the following is a portion of the Alistair Whittingham discussion on conscious vs. subconscious skills.

*"...this idea of "let's make this go click on a recurve by rotating this elbow or tightening these muscles; that level of cognitive control is not there in a skilled performer, and never has been. All of the discussions of how it is done come from a self report, they come from when skilled athletes, skilled performers, are asked: "How do you do this?". And they (got) to say something. It's not what they do, it's them trying to put into words what they do. Hence the idea of back tension is invented or of a controlled rotation to make a clicker go off or a squeeze to make a trigger go off. These are not what are done..." Alistair Whittingham *

So much for this being an exact science...


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> Per the link provided by unclejane, the following is a portion of the Alistair Whittingham discussion on conscious vs. subconscious skills.
> 
> *"...this idea of "let's make this go click on a recurve by rotating this elbow or tightening these muscles; that level of cognitive control is not there in a skilled performer, and never has been. All of the discussions of how it is done come from a self report, they come from when skilled athletes, skilled performers, are asked: "How do you do this?". And they (got) to say something. It's not what they do, it's them trying to put into words what they do. Hence the idea of back tension is invented or of a controlled rotation to make a clicker go off or a squeeze to make a trigger go off. These are not what are done..." Alistair Whittingham *
> 
> So much for this being an exact science...


That's why I'm such an AW fan... He's like listening to the buddha or something....
PS: another great AW video on target panic and "back tension" releases:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAyMA_VpgOo&list=PLAVFmM4j7zpa1SLMJlmlJ1wtXexZtJS6S&index=21

LS


----------



## Sasquech

By the way just to be clear I did not mean fuss more of the source of the disagreement and issues with conscious vs subconcious


----------



## unclejane

Well looks like we might have run the other guys off, sorry about that if so. But to reiterate my position, I thought I saw an objection to the notion of a subconsciously running "firing engine" - correct me if I'm wrong - and I was only expressing some bewilderment about it. I'm not an kinesiologist, but I don't think there's any controversy about this division of labor - conscious and subconscious - in any motor skill, particularly complex ones like shooting a bow/arrow. Not in academia or among practitioners. Because our CPU power is limited, complicated skills have to be divided up; we have the conscious executed part and the subconsciously executed part. That's just a limitation that we all have.

I guess there can be some variation in what parts are automated and what are not, but it seems to me uncontroversial that at least some of what we do has to be practiced to automation.

I also tend to disagree that a highly developed skill becomes "unknown" somehow and can't be described. It had to be consciously acquired in the first place and, at least in my experience, with some effort and recollection, I can reproduce in words roughly what I'm doing. I dont think there is a mystery here, or if there is, the skill may be incomplete....

Anyway, that's my backserve/tieoff on this subject for now LOL...

LS


----------



## SonnyThomas

Not run off, just shooting a bunch with the incredibly wonderful weather the past few days. And that's where it's at, shooting.

"I also tend to disagree that a highly developed skill becomes "unknown" somehow and can't be described." It can, but one has to take it a part to realize what is happening every movement made and not made. Where does the tension begin? Where does automation begin? Automated, but if a shot doesn't go off some how the brain halts all. Well, if you practice it..... My "just hall back and shoot" works cause I ain't thinking. Then, when I think I get into all kinds of trouble. I'm going to have a talk with me and myself to stop the arguing


----------



## Sasquech

You know bees I would be offended by your comment but since I consider it a personal asault I will ignore and simply chalk it up to your unwillingness to consider a discussion on the subject . I understand as much of back tension as any of the rest of you do. Likely as least as much on physics and neuroscience. And you may well have a great reaction time . If you read my post I was not talking reaction timeI was talking pattern recognition and analysis and decision making combined with reaction time. And if you had bothered to read further posts before deciding to flame away . You would look a lot more respectable.


----------



## Sasquech

Most drive by punchers don't hold on the x they sent the signal to shoot as the ********* towards the x


----------



## Lazarus

There's something wrong with a bow that doesn't shoot where it's pointed. Even if it's accidently hitting the middle when it's not pointed there. Are we going to have to address this myth of "perceived" movement next? Kinda off topic but it appears maybe so.


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> There's something wrong with a bow that doesn't shoot where it's pointed. Even if it's accidently hitting the middle when it's not pointed there. Are we going to have to address this myth of "perceived" movement next? Kinda off topic but it appears maybe so.


I thought we already had... I may be remembering another thread. But yes, this is a strangely common myth; this isn't the first time I've heard it.

LS


----------



## unclejane

Bees said:


> I can see the basic concept of back-tension method eludes you.
> I can't hold on the baby X, and my sight doesn't have to be on the baby X for me to hit it either.
> but then I actually shot my hinge with back tension, I shoot my thumb trigger with back tension, I shoot my index finger with back tension.
> I shoot any bow I pick up with the back tension method.


In your prior post, though, you said you didn't really know how your arrow gets released or how it got sent downrange. However, I don't think that's true - I'd be willing to bet if you thought about the skill itself and really picked it apart, you'd find back tension isn't really what's setting your release off at all. This has been discussed fairly extensively in this thread, BTW.

LS


----------



## unclejane

Bees said:


> I have been studying the back tension method for 12 almost 13 years now.
> since I have a subconscious release I really don't know exactly what sets it off.
> How can you know if your subconscious is doing it?
> 
> it could be my rhomboid, it could be my hand, it could be a push of the bow forward.
> don't really know, and I won't know until I hook my self up to a computer equipped with the correct program's and sensors to actually read my subconscious brain and my neuron's and find out what muscles are actually sending the arrow down range.
> but I don't have the money for that so I am left to suspect but not really knowing.


You mean don't know what you're doing on your release even after 12 or 13 years of study? How do you know you're using "back tension"? This is partly a rhetorical question to make a point, but partly an honest one too.

LS


----------



## N7709K

I have a very subconscious release... but i have a very good idea of how it is being activated... It doesn't take much to figure out how the shot it happening from an outside perspective and its very easy to tell when the shot is being cheated


----------



## SonnyThomas

I get the drift of the 250 milliseconds. Brain sees, makes decision, muscles react, release fires, string begins to move (how fast?), follow through. In all a reality....

Mechanical side; Fastest lock time of the Remington 3200 O/U shotgun, 3 milliseconds. Recorded results. 1200 fps 1 1/8 ounce payload leaving 30" barrel before the payload leaves the shell in another shotgun. That's pretty fast. I bought my 3200 just because I wanted it for Doubles in Trap. The barrel sleeve wallowed out for the bottom barrel and the pivot pins wore. Remington was nice and replaced all with updated improvements at no charge.


----------



## Mahly

Let's please keep personal attacks out of this.
Not pointing at anyone in particular, just saying, keep it civil.


----------



## Sasquech

Well I have a coach and have used high speed video to ensure my hand is not activating the release and that the rhomboids are or at least a combination of them and the front half.


----------



## ron w

you can perceive how a subconscious action proceeds, but the fact is that sub conscious process, is "un recollectable", that's why people have a hard time describing what goes on when they try to describe one.
consider....can you recollect the process of commands that makes your heart beat or your diaphragm expand and collapse your lungs ?. these a re ourely and the deepest forms of "subconscious process". you can't recall them, because the formation of the commands is done without conscious thought or guidance. 
as you learn an action that is going to be filed into the sub conscious process, it is initially learned consciously, but once the sub conscious has a grasp on the process, the conscious mind discards the set of commands that were processed to learn the action. at that point, we have to think about what we do in that subconscious action and formulate a synthetic process by demand, that explains the action of the subconscious process. 
consider that you don't actually remember learning how to breath, do you ?. if you know a little about anatomy and how it works, you can perceive what muscles are at work when you breath, because at some time kater in life, you learned it consciously, but you have to , for lack of better terminology, "make up an imaginary process" that explains what happens.


----------



## TDS

Just rookie speaking here but is it possible the conscious thought that causes the movement pattern (sequence) to draw the bow could determine or impact how we execute the shot?


----------



## EPLC

Interesting that you can plant a seed, hear all the objections and then watch and listen as the planted seed then becomes the argument of the objectors. 

And here's another perspective for the academic archer*: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEHL8WD27MU&list=PL1C1CE900FE9C0346&index=3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxW-yYJyIHs&list=PL1C1CE900FE9C0346&index=6

**There are those that can actually shoot, the rest become teachers.*


----------



## EPLC

And here's another which seems contradictory to much that has been said here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5BYtDLFcKM&list=PL1C1CE900FE9C0346&index=7


----------



## unclejane

Bees said:


> I know exactly what I do consciously with it.


ok.



> I don't know what I do subconsciously with it.


Nonsense. You describe what you do right here:


> I can feel my rhomboids work inside me, that's how I know I'm using them
> I suspect my arrow gets release by my subconscious mind controlling at least the three things I mentioned in the other post.
> Can't prove it but that is what I suspect. doesn't really matter because whatever it is, its working..


The point being, you *do* know what you're doing with it. That you do it subconsciously is actually irrelevant. You may have some trouble describing it exactly, but in no sense are your subconsciously operating skills unknown or mysterious.

LS


----------



## ron w

I just watched the video,....what has he said that is contrary to what is being said here ?. a hinge will not fire if there is no rotation, pulling straight back, will not fire a hinge, unless finger presures are regulated to do so. that regulation takes conscious thought to guide it's consistency. the anatomy of your ams, are simply a series of levers, you canot make one end of that series , travel 20 or so inches without some rotational movement somewhere in the series of levers, when the opposite end is in a fixed location, such as at the shoulder joint. any 9th grade geometry class will teach you that.
again, you are using someone's words and twisting them in the application to your argument.


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> ok.
> 
> 
> Nonsense. You describe what you do right here:
> 
> The point being, you *do* know what you're doing with it. That you do it subconsciously is actually irrelevant. You may have some trouble describing it exactly, but in no sense are your subconsciously operating skills unknown or mysterious.
> 
> LS


Once again: *"...this idea of "let's make this go click on a recurve by rotating this elbow or tightening these muscles; that level of cognitive control is not there in a skilled performer, and never has been. All of the discussions of how it is done come from a self report, they come from when skilled athletes, skilled performers, are asked: "How do you do this?". And they (got) to say something. It's not what they do, it's them trying to put into words what they do. Hence the idea of back tension is invented or of a controlled rotation to make a clicker go off or a squeeze to make a trigger go off. These are not what are done..." Alistair Whittingham *


----------



## ron w

as I've said before, when a pitcher catches a hot liner that comes right back at him, he does whatever action is necessary faster than he has time to think about doing the action. the process of that action is known, because he has learned consciously what that action is, but it is not consciously generated or consciously recorded. he can only respond to the question of "what did he do to catch that ball?", by replying with what he has learned consciously about how the anatomy works and responds to subconscious process. be cannot answer it an analytical voice, because there was no conscious analysis, that prompted the action, so there was no evidence of analytical conscious process present, to be recorded, at the time the action happened.
his explanation is based totally on conscious understanding of learned detail. he knows what he did, but cannot recall any conscious thought that prompted his catching the ball.


----------



## EPLC

It seems pretty clear that the Alistair Whittingham position on the major difference separating the Skilled Performer from everyone else is that the Skilled Performer really can't really tell you exactly what they did, they can only tell you what they think they did. Here, the intermediate archer and the academic archer alike seem to have a pretty good handle on exactly what they did... or what YOU should be doing. Hence the true difference.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Sasquech said:


> Well I have a coach and have used high speed video to ensure my hand is not activating the release and that the rhomboids are or at least a combination of them and the front half.


Not disagreeing, but offer that a few thousands of hand movement can be awfully hard to see. Say if the hand doesn't move, but the release arm/elbow moves. Understand? If nothing else, something to think about....

Terry Wunderle once penned of muscling a hinge release. Essentially, this pulling so hard and things stretch to allow the release to fire. Terry said these type of shooters that do shoot good in this manner don't last very long.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> Once again: *"...this idea of "let's make this go click on a recurve by rotating this elbow or tightening these muscles; that level of cognitive control is not there in a skilled performer, and never has been. All of the discussions of how it is done come from a self report, they come from when skilled athletes, skilled performers, are asked: "How do you do this?". And they (got) to say something. It's not what they do, it's them trying to put into words what they do. Hence the idea of back tension is invented or of a controlled rotation to make a clicker go off or a squeeze to make a trigger go off. These are not what are done..." Alistair Whittingham *


That in no way contradicts the fact that the archer still *knows *what he's doing (and knew what he was doing when acquiring the skill). Again, a subconsciously operating skill is *not* the same thing as an unknown or mysterious behavior. Those are still two different things entirely.

LS


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> That in no way contradicts the fact that the archer still *knows *what he's doing (and knew what he was doing when acquiring the skill). Again, a subconsciously operating skill is *not* the same thing as an unknown or mysterious behavior. Those are still two different things entirely.
> 
> LS


_*
"It's not what they do, it's them trying to put into words what they do. Hence the idea of back tension is invented or of a controlled rotation to make a clicker go off or a squeeze to make a trigger go off. These are not what are done..." *_Alistair Whittingham


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> _*
> "It's not what they do, it's them trying to put into words what they do. Hence the idea of back tension is invented or of a controlled rotation to make a clicker go off or a squeeze to make a trigger go off. These are not what are done..." *_Alistair Whittingham


See my previous response.

LS


----------



## thawk

I usually never get involved in these discussions because no matter what someone will tell you your doing it wrong. I was once at redding bs-ing with Dave cousins and some other friends when a total stranger came up and clearly wanted to join the conversation. We greeted him and he joined in, but his purpose wasn't to join the conversation he went right after Dave, he asked Dave why he teaches back tension when he punches. Turned out the guy had seen a video of Dave shooting in (I think) Texas and felt Dave was punching. After a little conversation Dave knew what tournament the video was from and explained the wind was gusty and blowing 40mph and agreed he was punching that day.
This topic reminds me of that day. That guy couldn't on his best day beat Dave on his worst, but felt he had the right to attack how Dave shot.
Why are people arguing about who knows what? How you should do things? And who is shooting a release right and who is shooting it wrong? 
I can say this, sense I found this topic I find myself thinking about what my release is doing during the shot more often then I have in years, I'm scoring a couple points worse then I was before I started reading this topic, and have even shot three 8's this week while trying things mentioned in here.
To much information is not always a good thing, if your shot works for you, shoot it, and don't worry about what others are doing


----------



## EPLC

thawk said:


> I usually never get involved in these discussions because no matter what someone will tell you your doing it wrong. I was once at redding bs-ing with Dave cousins and some other friends when a total stranger came up and clearly wanted to join the conversation. We greeted him and he joined in, but his purpose wasn't to join the conversation he went right after Dave, he asked Dave why he teaches back tension when he punches. Turned out the guy had seen a video of Dave shooting in (I think) Texas and felt Dave was punching. After a little conversation Dave knew what tournament the video was from and explained the wind was gusty and blowing 40mph and agreed he was punching that day.
> This topic reminds me of that day. That guy couldn't on his best day beat Dave on his worst, but felt he had the right to attack how Dave shot.
> Why are people arguing about who knows what? How you should do things? And who is shooting a release right and who is shooting it wrong?
> I can say this, sense I found this topic I find myself thinking about what my release is doing during the shot more often then I have in years, I'm scoring a couple points worse then I was before I started reading this topic, and have even shot three 8's this week while trying things mentioned in here.
> To much information is not always a good thing, if your shot works for you, shoot it, and don't worry about what others are doing


Funny, I was thinking the same thing... and my shooting has dribbled down from a very respectable personal best this past November to a very controlled mess right now... I'm sure the AT academic archers will proclaim or at least think I've done it wrong and have not followed their precise instructions to the letter... or you can lead a horse to water... or something of the like. Academic knowledge is a wonderful thing... there seems to be an abundance of it on here lately.


----------



## unclejane

Speaking for myself, since I'm relearning how to shoot from scratch anyway, as well as having to do it totally DIY (no coach), thinking about what I'm doing hasn't been a bad thing. I've adopted one method discussed here and discarded a few others. I'm not a stranger to learning motor skills, though, so I'm familiar with, and have no anxieties about, the general process of acquiring them.

I've never encountered a situation yet where thinking carefully about something I'm doing has been detrimental, even with pretty refined skills. Commonly, I either a) discover a refinement that ends up improving what I do or b) come full circle and rediscover that what I was originally doing was already pretty optimal and didn't need any significant change. But it's not rare to have to take a skill off the shelf for reexamination; things do go wrong and occasionally need addressed. So you do have to bring them back into the realm of conscious thought from time to time for that reason.

I do think also that it's possible to get bogged down in the discussions of the science of what we do. That's OK, but we have to keep that in perspective; in the end, I agree that what works for you is what you need to stick with. Exploring different options is a good thing, but it's OK to stick with what works.

LS


----------



## Mahly

Perhaps we should start a new thread or 3.
This has evolved into something completely different than the original intent of the thread.
Currently closed as things were getting a bit personal, and off topic.


----------



## Mahly

Opened.
OK, lets stay ON topic, and avoid insults.
Disagreeing with an argument is one thing, challenging the intelligence of a poster is another.
This one is on a short leash.


----------



## ron w

thanks for re-opening the thread,.....sort of hard to decipher where this thread goes "off topic" in my opinion. issues of "firing engines'" are so interrelated with issues regarding the shot process in general, that it's somewhat hard to stay on that specific road without bringing other subject matter into the discussion. the personal stuff, of course, can and should be avoided.
I've found that thinking about what i'm doing at the line during a shot, has always been advantageous to producing a good shot in reality. the more you think about the process, the clearer the elemental content of the process gets in your production of the process. the better you understand it, the easier it is to produce only the commands that need to be processed to form a good shot. you cannot form these sets of commands without carefull and deep thought about doing the action. the key is to be able to not let that deep thought override your process as you shoot. being able to recall what you thought about and then apply it to your shooting, is how we come to understand what needs to be done.


----------



## Lazarus

ron w said:


> thanks for re-opening the thread,.....sort of hard to decipher where this thread goes "off topic" in my opinion. issues of "firing engines'" are so interrelated with issues regarding the shot process in general, that it's somewhat hard to stay on that specific road without bringing other subject matter into the discussion. the personal stuff, of course, can and should be avoided.
> I've found that thinking about what i'm doing at the line during a shot, has always been advantageous to producing a good shot in reality. the more you think about the process, the clearer the elemental content of the process gets in your production of the process. the better you understand it, the easier it is to produce only the commands that need to be processed to form a good shot. you cannot form these sets of commands without carefull and deep thought about doing the action. the key is to be able to not let that deep thought override your process as you shoot. being able to recall what you thought about and then apply it to your shooting, is how we come to understand what needs to be done.


Interesting. I agree completely with the above. Based on all of the previous posts I've read I would have guessed ronw was saying just the opposite.

Guess the net just isn't the best way to have a discussion. People are misunderstood very easily.


----------



## EPLC

I've decided to completely abandon the idea of building a completely new shot, firing engine, etc. in favor of transferring an already established firing engine into an entirely subconscious execution. I have felt for some time that this has been the issue and after going through several of the Alistair Wittingham videos on YouTube I am convinced. I know how to shoot, I just need to channel my conscious mind in a direction that will keep it busy and out of the way. My shot process will be used as a setup tool and at the point of commitment I will execute the shot subconsciously... and that is the entire execution, including the aiming part. Some initial testing has been successful so I do know how to do this now.


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> Interesting. I agree completely with the above. Based on all of the previous posts I've read I would have guessed ronw was saying just the opposite.
> 
> Guess the net just isn't the best way to have a discussion. People are misunderstood very easily.


I also fail to see where the discussion ever went off topic, seems to me we were still discussing issues related to it. And I think we were converging on some areas of agreement, in fact. 

As for ron's comment, I don't see any difficulties personally. In shooting, like anything else, some of it you think about when executing (conscious) and some of it you don't (subconscious). I don't think we ever reached agreement that you go totally unconscious when shooting or that you have no subconscious/automatic skills involved either....

LS


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> That in no way contradicts the fact that the archer still *knows *what he's doing (and knew what he was doing when acquiring the skill). Again, a subconsciously operating skill is *not* the same thing as an unknown or mysterious behavior. Those are still two different things entirely.
> 
> LS


My original position/theory on this was that the subconscious mind has physical ability that goes way beyond the abilities of the conscious. While you certainly train using the conscious, the subconscious then takes these individual parts and constructs them into a whole process that it can manage all at once, making any adjustments as needed to the individual parts. The conscious mind is only capable of 1 task at a time and cannot manage the complexities of multitasking... there can be no rebuttal on this as it is a well known scientific fact. The problem with the conscious mind is that it is the stronger personality and can take charge whenever it wants... hence the problem. 

Nobody has said this should be an unconscious activity, that would be ridiculous. I do believe the entire process of physically aiming and executing can be tasked to the subconscious and I am currently working to perfect this ability. My initial findings are extremely positive as I have found a simple method to actually do this. I can't believe how easy it truly is. Your comment above leads me to believe you do not truly understand Mr. Whittingham's discussions with regard to this matter.


----------



## ron w

the key is that it is a consciously applied, subconscious process. the only truly self generated subconscious processes are associated with survival responces. ....things like putting your hand out when you trip, ducking something seen in your periphery. that hot liner that the pitcher catches, is actually a survival driven subconscious response. anything we learn consciously, with the intention of applying it to the subconscious has to decided upon, as to when it is applied. that decision is conscious. the process of the subconscious action is self generating, once the conscious mind decides to use the set of commands that that are learned and are filed in the "subconscious bank" of established command sets, the conscious process then gives way to let the subconscious run whatever musculature is necessary to perform the action. the entire series of events that comprise a shot, as assumed and assigned when we step to the line with our bow in hand. at that time, the routine is recalled and the mind has already decided what elements of the shot will be consciously controlled and when it will step aside and let the subconscious run the show. it has learned the routine through the repetition of the shooting itself. 
at the time of learning the command set consciously, it must be known and assumed that it will assigned to the subconscious bank by repetition. it is then there to be recalled every time it's needed. that's why it is important to not skip steps in learning something that will be stored in that subconscious bank. it can only do what it knows how to do and if it doesn't learn a specific element of the processed set of commands, it will stall. people who are having a hard time getting the right rotation out of their back tension, are victims of this stalling. somewhere along the learning process, they either skipped a step, thinking they don't need to work on that particular element, or possibly did not assign enough repetition to allow the sub conscious to develop the set of commands completely, or possibly doing the repetitious drill incorrectly, such as guys who think back tension is simply pulling straight back with their back muscles.
as firing engines go, the "straight back pullers", have to include an element of finger tension variation to effect the release's rotation, the problem with that, is that the variations of pressure between fingers, requires conscious monitoring, in order to repeat the process consistently, from shot to shot.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> My original position/theory on this was that the subconscious mind has physical ability that goes way beyond the abilities of the conscious.


Explain. What do you mean by this exactly? Give a specific example or set of examples that leads you to this conclusion. Perhaps exemplify


> making any adjustments as needed to the individual parts


? Give an example of a skill that was "adjusted" by the subconscious without your (conscious) knowledge or input?



> Your comment above leads me to believe you do not truly understand Mr. Whittingham's discussions with regard to this matter.


I'm only contesting your apparent claim that there's some kind of mystery about a skill once it's automated and executed subconsciously; that it takes on a kind of life of its own and develops into something else than the original training. AW makes no such claim and his comments don't support that. If that's not what you're claiming, please correct me.

LS


----------



## EPLC

It's simple, the conscious mind can only do one thing at a time, it cannot multitask. When a set of individual tasks are learned by conscious activity but need to be performed as a unit of simultaneous tasks the subconscious will make the necessary adjustments to make the entire process work. The conscious mind is not capable of doing this as it is not a very good coordinator. *Per Alistair Whittingham; "It can not be, I will do this and then I will do this and then I will do this." "If you do not have this changeover then you will never be able to perform and access the automatic skill." * Those are not my words, they are Mr. Whittingham's and I believe he is correct. I also believe that any archery process that contains conscious activity at the point of execution will never be world class for most. Of course there are exceptions to everything and there are some excellent command shooters out there. But they are the exception, not the rule.

Example: I was at the NFAA Outdoor Nationals and was fortunate to be in a group with Larry Wise. I do tend to shoot my best in these situations. On the first half of the first day I was at the top of my game, my confidence was very high and I "knew" that each arrow would find its mark. Everything just flowed and I was on track for a 275 half. On target 14 I lost track of how many arrows I had shot and shot one too many. I ended up with a 272 as I lost my highest scoring arrow and a penalty point. The second half was a different story as I felt the need to repeat my performance of the first half. Once my conscious mind got involved I could not repeat as I truly did not know what I did during that first half. Of course I have no scientific way of proving this but I have felt for some time that my conscious and subconscious do not agree with my shot execution. The times I'm able to just let them rip I shoot with very reasonable proficiency. The more my conscious is involved the worst I shoot. I can truly tell you that my conscious does not know how to do what my subconscious has done when I let it.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> It's simple, the conscious mind can only do one thing at a time, it cannot multitask. When a set of individual tasks are learned by conscious activity but need to be performed as a unit of simultaneous tasks the subconscious will make the necessary adjustments to make the entire process work. The conscious mind is not capable of doing this as it is not a very good coordinator.


Ok, then I was hearing something that you weren't saying. I stand corrected....

LS


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> Ok, then I was hearing something that you weren't saying. I stand corrected....
> 
> LS


No offence taken. Do yourself a favor and listen again to those talks on subconscious execution. I believe A.W. is right on the money with this.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> the key is that it is a consciously applied, subconscious process. the only truly self generated subconscious processes are associated with survival responces...


Actually, the entire execution can be 100% subconscious. I have done it, it works and when I've perfected it I'll share it.


----------



## Sasquech

Interesting how we all ended up at the similar place I think we were all headed there just with different paths and different words.


----------



## EPLC

Sasquech said:


> Interesting how we all ended up at the similar place I think we were all headed there just with different paths and different words.


Actually, I don't think we are. There are some subtle but distinct differences in what we have out there right now which is fine. I don't expect ever having 100% consensus on this as there are too many variations that work for people.


----------



## ron w

EPLC said:


> Actually, the entire execution can be 100% subconscious. I have done it, it works and when I've perfected it I'll share it.


 the entire physical part of the execution should be 100 % subconscious. the only conscious part of a shot should be aiming and the evaluation of how the shot is progressing. the key is to keep the conscious at that and only that level of participation. sight alignment cannot be sub conscious, it takes analytical evaluation of the present condition of the sight's alignment as the shot proceeds, this cannot be done by the sub conscious because it has no analytical capabilities. it learns a process and repeats that process when called on, because that process is the only set of commands it knows to produce, for the action called on. 
if you are walking, you are running on subconscious input. if you decide to change your cadence or walk with a skip, the conscious mind interjects the change in command set for the time that change of cadence or step is called for. as soon as you return to "regular walking< you don't have to think about what is needed to return to your regular step, because the sub conscious knows what to do because it is the only thing it knows. in the case of something like piano or drums, or different dance steps, when you are might be doing two things at the same time, the subconscious has a separate set of commands for each activity that has been learned and all you need to do to bring that command set into action is consciously decide to assign the specific set of commands the subconscious should use, while the conscious mind is also sending commands the subconscious does not decide which set to use by itself, except under survival conditions, when it overrides the conscious , in interest of preservation..
the only part od a shot that can be fully sub conscious, is the physical aspect or element of instrumenting the activity of a shot.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> ...the only conscious part of a shot should be aiming and the evaluation of how the shot is progressing...


There is no right or wrong here. That said, I believe my entire process, aiming included, should be tasked to the subconscious... as mentioned I am doing this and working to build the necessary trust to make it fruitful.


----------



## ron w

the physiological process of "seeing", is of course, subconscious, we cannot avoid seeing if our eyes are open and if we don't want to see, we can't do that without consciously making the decision to close our eyelids, because we cannot consciously stop our eyesight from seeing. the process of interpreting what we see and then designing the commands, internally, to align the sight is conscious, we cannot do that without thinking, up, down, or left or right. if we don't think of the directions we need to move the sight, it doesn't move by itself. it is the whole basis behind moving the release process to the sub conscious and leaving the conscious to deal with sight alignment. you said it yourself,...."the conscious mind can only do one thing at a time". that leaves the conscious mind to run the alignment that requires analysis, which the sub conscious can't do and the sub conscious mind to run the physical end of shot, which it is designed to do..... 
trust, is a product of analytical thought. internally, you analyze the action in question and make a conscious decision to either trust it. or not trust it. there is no physical element to trusting or not trusting, it doesn't get produced by some set of commands that run a muscular system, it gets trusted by consciously seeing an activity that is being evaluated repeatedly. when your conscious mind is satisfied that the activity it sees happen, is worthy of trust, by it's doing the same thing repeatedly, it assumes trust in the activity to do the same thing (produce the same picture of events) every time it's called on. you can't build trust by imagining an activity and having the conscious mind evaluate an imaginary action....it has to physiologically see the action and consciously evaluate it's results, to formulate trust in the activity and it's set of commands. 
one might say, "yea, but we write without seeing what we write". we don't need to see what we are writing, because the set of commands to form the letters are trusted by the conscious mind. if you try to listen to someone while writing or talk about something cerebral while writing,... what happens to the writing.....it stops. it stops because we are consciously spelling as we write and when we try to think about something else, something has to give way.
there most certainly is a right or wrong way, here. the standard practice of submitting the release process to the subconscious has been developed and established as the easiest way or best way to shoot a bow for the very large majority of shooters . that establishment, supports the idea that it is the right way. of course there will always be those that disagree, some, if not most of them, go years without figuring out that they are approaching the whole task, the wrong way.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> the physiological process of "seeing", is of course, subconscious, we cannot avoid seeing if our eyes are open and if we don't want to see, we can't do that without consciously making the decision to close our eyelids, because we cannot consciously stop our eyesight from seeing. the process of interpreting what we see and then designing the commands, internally, to align the sight is conscious, we cannot do that without thinking, up, down, or left or right. if we don't think of the directions we need to move the sight, it doesn't move by itself. it is the whole basis behind moving the release process to the sub conscious and leaving the conscious to deal with sight alignment. you said it yourself,...."the conscious mind can only do one thing at a time". that leaves the conscious mind to run the alignment that requires analysis, which the sub conscious can't do and the sub conscious mind to run the physical end of shot, which it is designed to do.....
> trust, is a product of analytical thought. internally, you analyze the action in question and make a conscious decision to either trust it. or not trust it. there is no physical element to trusting or not trusting, it doesn't get produced by some set of commands that run a muscular system, it gets trusted by consciously seeing an activity that is being evaluated repeatedly. when your conscious mind is satisfied that the activity it sees happen, is worthy of trust, by it's doing the same thing repeatedly, it assumes trust in the activity to do the same thing (produce the same picture of events) every time it's called on. you can't build trust by imagining an activity and having the conscious mind evaluate an imaginary action....it has to physiologically see the action and consciously evaluate it's results, to formulate trust in the activity and it's set of commands.
> one might say, "yea, but we write without seeing what we write". we don't need to see what we are writing, because the set of commands to form the letters are trusted by the conscious mind. if you try to listen to someone while writing or talk about something cerebral while writing,... what happens to the writing.....it stops. it stops because we are consciously spelling as we write and when we try to think about something else, something has to give way.
> there most certainly is a right or wrong way, here. the standard practice of submitting the release process to the subconscious has been developed and established as the easiest way or best way to shoot a bow for the very large majority of shooters . that establishment, supports the idea that it is the right way. of course there will always be those that disagree, some, if not most of them, go years without figuring out that they are approaching the whole task, the wrong way.


First, aiming can be subconscious, so can execution. Not unconscious, subconscious. Your statement about moving the sight all over the place is just plain wrong. The sight will center itself if you let it and aiming is a whole different matter. Tonight I drove the car into the garage without worrying about left right, etc. I just drove it in. My wife on the other hand does it your way... she struggles to get the car into the garage.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> First, aiming can be subconscious, so can execution. Not unconscious, subconscious. Your statement about moving the sight all over the place is just plain wrong. The sight will center itself if you let it and aiming is a whole different matter. Tonight I drove the car into the garage without worrying about left right, etc. I just drove it in. My wife on the other hand does it your way... she struggles to get the car into the garage.


Your wife related to mine? I put a hanger guide for side to side and stopping. She misses the sucker by a foot one way or the other. She backed out once and clipped the garage door jam....

Well, I see to get on target...Ain't no doubt....I focus on the target. Something lets the pin come to center. Centered, execution begins. For me, that little bit of draw or tightness or whatever you want to call it makes that pin stop or stay floating close to center. On a 3D target I can't see the pin float. it's just there. I flinch, I execute stupid the pin moves and the arrow goes other than where I wanted it.


----------



## Padgett

I haven't posted on this thread in a while but just read through the last couple pages to get caught up, I have shot with a variety of firing engines over the last few years daily during my training sessions, during those years some of them seemed promising in the beginning but would end up being a dead end street. Some of the firing engines just always worked and proved to be a method that I wanted to continue doing along with the other ones and I kept on learning how to shoot while switching releases and firing engines.

Well I am in the second week or so of my peaking effort and I chose my scott longhorn pro and one of my engines that had always ended up being my best one and they are the only ones that I am using period during warm up and scoring and general training. I really couldn't be happier because right now from day to day the consistant feel is allowing me to get up to speed right from the first shot. I am not having to switch gears in my head to go from release to release or engine to engine and it is making me very very repeatable.

Guess what, all the training allowed me to find a engine that:

1. runs smoothly
2. fires within my optimal float window
3. is very well defined and easy to remember
4. eliminated the drop out the bottom of the x
5. reduced my overall float pattern
6. stays strong against the wall without a feeling of creep wanting to happen.
7. has little to no felt rotation

These are some of the issues that always crept up on my shooting over the last three years and I saw thousands of arrows find a way to miss 12 rings and x's because of each and every one of them, by shooting hundreds of thousands of shots I use my training as a learning thing and the longhorn pro in combination of my current firing engine just kept catching my attention. Right now every day on the shooting line is just a joy.


----------



## EPLC

I'm still unclear about your use of multiple firing engines and subconscious execution. It would seem to me that it would require some degree of conscious intervention to do this? Just the decision of which one to use is conscious. This leads me to assume you are commanding at least a portion of the actual execution?


----------



## ron w

where did I make a statement about "moving the sight all over the place" ?. if you want to get ambiguous about quoting someone for the sake of rhetorical condescendence, the sight can't "move itself", you have move it, am I right ?. 
when you do, you need to process a command that tells your muscles what to do. that type of command is analytically processed by what your conscious eyesight sees. you may think you're not thinking "move it up", or "move it right", but your are. because it is never in the same place and the moves are never the same for each shot, there is no learned set of commands that the sub conscious can rely on to move the sight into alignment, like there is for the physical manipulation of the your release. a process like that is the same for every shot, so it is something that can be applied to the subconscious library of command sets. 
you have a very poor understanding of the concepts involved in how thought runs your body, both consciously and sub consciously. that lack of understanding is why you have not learned to trust your float or your shot.


----------



## EPLC

My post was a "reply with quote". Your assertion that conscious manipulation of the sight to position it is necessary is just plain wrong. Not only are you so wrong on this but your latest comment about not knowing that you moved it is a complete reversal on your position.


----------



## ron w

again, where did I say, or infer the idea of "not knowing that you moved" ?. 
these two threads are hopeless, you guys go on thinking what you will, I give up trying to help you understand. just continue on, thinking you'll never be able to shoot good.
this entire site, is the blind, leading the blind, being supported by the even more blind.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> I'm still unclear about your use of multiple firing engines and subconscious execution. It would seem to me that it would require some degree of conscious intervention to do this? Just the decision of which one to use is conscious. This leads me to assume you are commanding at least a portion of the actual execution?


Padgett may not be answering you because this is pretty obvious - of course the choice of which tool to use to accomplish a particular task is conscious. Some of shooting a bow is consciously done and some of it isn't. I'm not certain what's unclear about that?

LS


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> My post was a "reply with quote". Your assertion that conscious manipulation of the sight to position it is necessary is just plain wrong. Not only are you so wrong on this but your latest comment about not knowing that you moved it is a complete reversal on your position.


No, ron is right and he's telling us the truth. Aiming has an analytical component that has to be in the domain of conscious execution. That's why the simpler, rote tasks like the release are practiced to automation - to free up CPU capacity in the brain for those tasks that have to be done consciously. There's no such thing as a 100% subconscious shot, just doesn't happen.

LS


----------



## bowfisher

Going to have to agree to disagree. Aiming can be just as subconscious as the back end. One of the best to ever shoot a bow has been saying for years that aiming is way overrated. I tend to agree. If I let go and just watch everything happen Im much better off, if im aiming im controlling my pin and it just doesn't work.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> My post was a "reply with quote". Your assertion that conscious manipulation of the sight to position it is necessary is just plain wrong. Not only are you so wrong on this but your latest comment about not knowing that you moved it is a complete reversal on your position.


Your eyes open, everything you see fires back to the brain. Only the conscious mind sees. That we have peripheral vision we see things that we don't look at. Our peripheral vision is acute, can see things that if we look at we can't see. Hence, we can adjust that which we want to come together.
Look up on the Internet about eyes and brain. I did.....
" The brain and eyes are equal partners in vision"
" This is an example of teamwork at its very best!"
" The photoreceptor nerve cells of the retina change the light
rays into electrical impulses and send them through the optic nerve to the brain where an
image is perceived."


----------



## unclejane

bowfisher said:


> Going to have to agree to disagree. Aiming can be just as subconscious as the back end. One of the best to ever shoot a bow has been saying for years that aiming is way overrated. I tend to agree. If I let go and just watch everything happen Im much better off, if im aiming im controlling my pin and it just doesn't work.


Well the idea is it is not completely one or the other which is what the experienced folks here have been trying to tell us. You don't go completely unconscious when shooting nor do you do it completely consciously. Both of those ideas need to be taken back to the dealer from which they were purchased for a refund because they're defective.

Some tasks require extra analysis to perform such that they're best left to conscious execution; some do not and are best practiced to automation and subconscious execution. That's true of virtually any motor skill we ever learn and learn well.

What seems to be wanted here is a set of simple, pat answers and, well, there just aren't any LOL. As 09K says, at the end of the day, you just have to shoot the fricking bow and work it out. There's just no other way - we have to shoot and then work out problems as they come up. That's what the guys and gals who really get good at this do. They know what they're talking about...

LS


----------



## SonnyThomas

bowfisher said:


> Going to have to agree to disagree. Aiming can be just as subconscious as the back end. One of the best to ever shoot a bow has been saying for years that aiming is way overrated. I tend to agree. If I let go and just watch everything happen Im much better off, if im aiming im controlling my pin and it just doesn't work.


Same as I just replied. Aiming (force) and "let aiming" (relaxed) are two different things. How many times have you heard; "let the shot happen"? Same difference....


----------



## ron w

unclejane,
you'll never make the "nay sayers", believe that, because somewhere some pro said it can be done completely sub consciously. no-one on this site, except for a very few exceptions, has any real self learned knowledge of the science involved in the process of an archery shot. all they have is what some pro said, or what they learned from "other mislead sources" on this site. anyone who says something that is the least bit implicating of genuine knowledge, but is not a "pro" is demanded to provide "internet proof" of the source of that knowledge. if they can't provide that proof, they're just shooting their mouth off as "know-it-alls" and are then reprimanded with the condescending "escape goat" of literal criticism, or asked if they are better than the person generating the rebuttal. it is essentially what "internet intelligence has come to be....I prefer to call it, "Internet ignorance".
they all want to earn how to become better, but refute any advice or attempts to be taught how to. it is this exact attitude that has lead to there being no top professionals, even so much a visiting this sight any more.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Mahly said:


> Opened.
> OK, lets stay ON topic, and avoid insults.
> Disagreeing with an argument is one thing, challenging the intelligence of a poster is another.
> This one is on a short leash.


You should have left it closed and closed the one you suggested before it opened


----------



## Lazarus

ron w said:


> unclejane,
> you'll never make the "nay sayers", believe that, because somewhere some pro said it can be done completely sub consciously. no-one on this site, except for a very few exceptions, has any real self learned knowledge of the science involved in the process of an archery shot. all they have is what some pro said, or what they learned from "other mislead sources" on this site. anyone who says something that is the least bit implicating of genuine knowledge, but is not a "pro" is demanded to provide "internet proof" of the source of that knowledge. if they can't provide that proof, they're just shooting their mouth off as "know-it-alls" and are then reprimanded with the condescending "escape goat" of literal criticism, or asked if they are better than the person generating the rebuttal. it is essentially what "internet intelligence has come to be....I prefer to call it, "Internet ignorance".
> they all want to earn how to become better, but refute any advice or attempts to be taught how to. it is this exact attitude that has lead to there being no top professionals, even so much a visiting this sight any more.


Wow. Just wow. 

Pot, meet kettle. 

I would rather think the reason most top Pro's don't visit here is because they know better than to argue with a mid-level freestyle shooter that pretends to know EVERYthing! And will twist even HIS OWN direct quote to pretend not to say precisely what he said! 

Hopefully, In before this one's shut down.


----------



## Lazarus

Mahly, I apologize for campaigning to open this one back up. Never thought it would go this sour this fast. 

I'd vote to lock it down right now.


----------



## bowfisher

SonnyThomas said:


> You should have left it closed and closed the one you suggested before it opened


:lol3:


----------



## ron w

"transfer".....to move one object or condition from one location or process to another location or process. 
when you draw with your rhomboids in the draw process, there is no need to make any "transfer", your rhomboids are already at tension as you reach full draw. 
what is "twisted" or "unclear" or 'ambiguous" about that wording. the only... "twist"... I see, is that of several people trying to infer I mean something other than what I typed.
simple high school level comprehension of the English Language , is all one needs to have, to understand my posts.
maybe this post should have been kept closed,....evidently, it would eliminate a lot of blank stares.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Lazarus said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> I would rather think the reason most top Pro's don't visit here is because they know better than to argue with a mid-level freestyle shooter that pretends to know EVERYthing! And will twist even HIS OWN direct quote to pretend not to say precisely what he said!
> 
> Hopefully, In before this one's shut down.


Well, maybe something lost in translation... When some archery wiz, coach or Pro knows more than medical science doctors you'll get some off the wall stuff and some getting hot under the collar stuff.......... Betcha if we shot more than shoot off in here we'd be better off all around, me included... I'd be shooting now except it's 10 degrees outside.....


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> No, ron is right and he's telling us the truth. Aiming has an analytical component that has to be in the domain of conscious execution. That's why the simpler, rote tasks like the release are practiced to automation - to free up CPU capacity in the brain for those tasks that have to be done consciously. There's no such thing as a 100% subconscious shot, just doesn't happen. LS





ron w said:


> again, where did I say, or infer the idea of "not knowing that you moved" ?.
> these two threads are hopeless, you guys go on thinking what you will, I give up trying to help you understand. just continue on, thinking you'll never be able to shoot good.
> this entire site, is the blind, leading the blind, being supported by the even more blind.


Now you are both wrong. This rigid idea that the conscious and subconscious are restricted to certain tasks and are incapable of doing it in just the opposite is SOOOOO wrong it makes my head spin. As far as not being possible to shoot the entire execution subconsciously, I've done it. You simply have to give the conscious mind a unrelated task just after the point of commitment. Can it be perfected, don't know. Can it be done, yes. And as far as subconscious aiming being impossible... well I think Braden would disagree... 

_*“I approach my shot as I believe an NBA player would approach a free throw. Each shot is a chance for perfection and for that one moment, nothing exists except me and the target. After setting my feet, I try to recreate my perfect shot every step of the way, beginning with removing my arrow from my quiver. Physically, I focus on recreating the same situation as best I can. Mentally, I subconsciously aim while talking my way through the execution of my release.” ~ Braden Gellenthien* _


----------



## ron w

Lazarus said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> Pot, meet kettle.
> 
> I would rather think the reason most top Pro's don't visit here is because they know better than to argue with a mid-level freestyle shooter that pretends to know EVERYthing! And will twist even HIS OWN direct quote to pretend not to say precisely what he said!
> 
> Hopefully, In before this one's shut down.


 it is directly from all those pros that were once on here, that my knowledge is based. I was one who, at the time, listened to them and practiced what they preached. now, years later, my posts are simply forwarding what they said, and/or taught me.
you are the one that seems to want to twist what I post, into something that fits your disagreement of what is considered accepted standard knowledge of a shot's process and execution. I don't intend this to a personal attack, but rather a defense, in interest of the personal attack you made on my post. 
as always, you can disagree with my posts all you want, it doesn't bother me at all. all I ask is that if you are going to disagree or condescend the information in it's context, you should have some supporting context that displays your disagreement as factual, instead of simply condescending . to disagree with no supporting argument, is like a 10 year old saying "because" when asked for a reason why he doesn't want to do something.
you see, it cannot be a "discussion", if there is only one side to the issue at hand. discussion requires at least two points of view and simply disagreeing....condescendingly at that, suggests a lack of knowledge in the content of the discussion.
no criticism, no flames,.....just fact.


----------



## ron w

EPLC said:


> Now you are both wrong. This rigid idea that the conscious and subconscious are restricted to certain tasks and are incapable of doing it in just the opposite is SOOOOO wrong it makes my head spin. As far as not being possible to shoot the entire execution subconsciously, I've done it. You simply have to give the conscious mind a unrelated task just after the point of commitment. Can it be perfected, don't know. Can it be done, yes. And as far as subconscious aiming being impossible... well I think Braden would disagree...
> 
> _*“I approach my shot as I believe an NBA player would approach a free throw. Each shot is a chance for perfection and for that one moment, nothing exists except me and the target. After setting my feet, I try to recreate my perfect shot every step of the way, beginning with removing my arrow from my quiver. Physically, I focus on recreating the same situation as best I can. Mentally, I subconsciously aim while talking my way through the execution of my release.” ~ Braden Gellenthien* _


 there we go, I figured you'd fire something off......quoting a pro does not constitute knowledge in a subject matter, it demonstrates skill in computer use..... "internet ignorance". what do you yourself, personally know about the issue at hand. yes, we all have to learn from someone with more knowledge that ourselves. but we all also formulate our own views based on that learned knowledge. I have admitted that what I know I learned from years back, you were there too, you know what i'm talking about. I have also provided as good a content to my posts as I can produce, from my own interpretation of those teachings back then. all I see from you is disagreement with no anecdotal evidence of support for the disagreement, other than what someone else said. 
there is a saying that goes...."you can't talk about what you don't know".


----------



## ron w

EPLC, you just don't seem to get it, you keep referring back to what someone else said, and basing your argument on that, yet the content in your posts indicate you aren't improving by emanating what all those other people are saying. 
there comes a time when you have to admit that you need to simply disregard what they say and disassemble you shot to establish a basis of fundamental process to build off of.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> there we go, I figured you'd fire something off......quoting a pro does not constitute knowledge in a subject matter, it demonstrates skill in computer use..... "internet ignorance". what do you yourself, personally know about the issue at hand. yes, we all have to learn from someone with more knowledge that ourselves. but we all also formulate our own views based on that learned knowledge. I have admitted that what I know I learned from years back, you were there too, you know what i'm talking about. I have also provided as good a content to my posts as I can produce, from my own interpretation of those teachings back then. all I see from you is disagreement with no anecdotal evidence of support for the disagreement, other than what someone else said.
> there is a saying that goes...."you can't talk about what you don't know".


Wow, finally an honest self reflection.  You just proved that in your own words. " I have also provided as good a content to my posts as I can produce, from my own interpretation of those teachings back then." The sad part is that you are so busy trying to prop yourself up to a level you've never experienced you can't even see the constant contradictions in your own postings. Since coming on this forum a couple of months ago I've found it impossible to post anything without you slamming it. Doesn't matter what it is, you will find fault. You claim to want to help... I think you have a funny way of showing it.


----------



## ron w

understanding a concept is not "propping one's self up". again, if I am wrong about what I post, disagree, and provide some support to the disagreement, that some anecdotal substance, not what someone else says. as I said, one cannot talk about what one does not know.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> Now you are both wrong. This rigid idea that the conscious and subconscious are restricted to certain tasks and are incapable of doing it in just the opposite is SOOOOO wrong it makes my head spin.


You're the only one making such a claim, that I can see. The 100% subconscious idea is truly bizarre; no idea where you ever got that from.


> As far as not being possible to shoot the entire execution subconsciously, I've done it.


I've never heard of this being a successful method for any motor skill or even a desirable one. Very strange.

LS


----------



## cbrunson

ron w said:


> there we go, I figured you'd fire something off......quoting a pro does not constitute knowledge in a subject matter, it demonstrates skill in computer use..... "internet ignorance". what do you yourself, personally know about the issue at hand. yes, we all have to learn from someone with more knowledge that ourselves. but we all also formulate our own views based on that learned knowledge. I have admitted that what I know I learned from years back, you were there too, you know what i'm talking about. I have also provided as good a content to my posts as I can produce, from my own interpretation of those teachings back then. all I see from you is disagreement with no anecdotal evidence of support for the disagreement, other than what someone else said.
> there is a saying that goes...."you can't talk about what you don't know".


I had planned on being done here, but this is too much to pass on.

So you think that you are right, and everyone else needs to prove you wrong, and you discredit current top professional’s quotes with what you remember from the teachings of the old pros? Where’s the sense in that. Why would ELPC’s statement be invalid with a quote from Braden that somewhat supports what he is saying?

and to quote you, ...."you can't talk about what you don't know", put up or shut up. Let's see what you can do with all your wisdom.


----------



## bowfisher

cbrunson said:


> I had planned on being done here, but this is too much to pass on.
> 
> So you think that you are right, and everyone else needs to prove you wrong, and you discredit current top professional’s quotes with what you remember from the teachings of the old pros? Where’s the sense in that. Why would ELPC’s statement be invalid with a quote from Braden that somewhat supports what he is saying?
> 
> and to quote you, ...."you can't talk about what you don't know", put up or shut up. Let's see what you can do with all your wisdom.


:thumbs_up


----------



## Lazarus

ron w said:


> there we go, I figured you'd fire something off......quoting a pro does not constitute knowledge in a subject matter, it demonstrates skill in computer use..... "internet ignorance".


That's really funny. That's exactly the concept that you based your entire post #247 off of. And you're calling a respected forum member out for it. 

Classic.


----------



## Mahly

I see multiple trains of thought. 
Both believed to be the one true way.
Both with "support" for those that believe them, from shooters (pros) that are at a level most will never reach.
I still think some of this is semantics. And I see validity in both sides.
I understand the idea that we are not great multitaskers, and we can not put much focus on too many things at a time. I think it's slightly inaccurate to say we can only do one thing at a time consciously. I believe we can only focus intently on one thing at a time. I do think we can focus on one thing intently, but still do other things consciously. You have a certain amount of conscious brain power. If you focus 100% on something, you truly can not consciously think of anything else. If you concentrate 51% ( and I'm not saying we can divide our attention that accurately ) we can not think of anything else with equal devotion.
One can aim so intently that nothing else significant can be thought of. One can also aim less intently, and think of something else. It's possible (perhaps not as effective) but surely possible.
I have on occasion, shot without full mental dedication to aiming. I did aim, and I did direct my thoughts elsewhere. 
I'm not sure as to exactly how EPLC is aiming subconsciously. What ARE you doing consciously? Are you just focusing on the X and letting aim happen?
I won't say he is not subconsciously aiming, as only he knows (though if only given a small amount of brain power, aiming may SEEM subconscious when that might not be 100% accurate). 
What I see here is a couple philosophies that both have evidence of working.
Philosophy "a" might be the only thing that works for some. They have proof it works for them, and have seen it work for others. Naturally, this becomes the one true way. When they veer from the path, they see negative results, reinforcing the concept that philosophy "a" is the "right" way. And for many it is.
For others, either because of how it is taught, or because their brains work differently, struggle with philosophy "a".
Perhaps they were taught differently, or had to look "outside the box". But they have found philosophy "b".
It works for them, and they see that it works for others they wish to emulate (pros). When this happens, they are now of the mind that philosophy "b" is the one "true" way.
BOTH have evidence, experience, and proof "their" way is better. When you have proof, that your way has worked for you, and other top shooters, it's gonna take an act of God for you to buy a different philosophy, one with contradictory ideas.

My experiences tell me that I can focus some conscious thought on more than one thing at a time. Both tasks may suffer, but it is possible. I have seen it, I know it to be true, but I won't convince everyone.
I believe aiming has conscious and sub conscious elements. I think much of your float is based on your subconscious. Hence the idea of letting it happen. However, there IS conscious thought put in aiming, if I focus strictly on the X and NOTHING on aiming, just let it happen, my ring will leave the X, the 5, and even the blue. SOME brainpower needs to be spent putting the float where you want it.
I don't think "up, down, left, right" for each little movement.... They happen too quickly. I DO think "up, down, left, right" when I see my average float move away from the X.

In the end, I agree, and disagree with parts of the argument from BOTH sides. Logically, both sides will think I am wrong, or just don't get it. And that's fine. When you start attacking me (or anyone else) because of it. We have a problem.
I'm not going to lock down every thread that people disagree on. That is not how we as a group learn anything.
I WILL start deleting posts that are just insults. I don't care how good a shot you are, or who you have coached, if you can't be civil, your getting edited. Make it a habit, and I will have to go beyond deleting a post here and there.

I respect you all as archers, and I enjoy learning about how each of you find ways to improve. I just ask you treat each other as if you were at the range, vs. what we have on occasion been doing here.

Keep it civil, and if you simply disagree, just disagree. If you know your right, that's all that matters. If someone does it a different way, so what? Say why your way works for you and others, but if someone has another view, remember that they just may have just as many reasons to believe they are right as you do.

I apologize for this last bit being off topic, but I wasn't going to PM that to everyone involved.

If it is NOT on topic, PM whomever needs to hear it. Otherwise it WILL be be deleted, or edited. No offense meant to any, and I might even agree with you, but if it doesn't help anything, send it in a PM, or don't say it at all.

Thanx!


----------



## cbrunson

As far as subconscious aiming goes, I’m about fifty/fifty when I try it. I usually prefer to consciously hold it in the middle. For me, it’s the difference between an inner ten and a half shaft ten or nine. When I let my mind leave the spot for any reason, the shot goes to crap. 

I have been trying to let the back end take care of itself more and trusting the release, which has made a little difference. Mostly with tighter grouping.


----------



## EPLC

One point of clarification: I never said subconscious aiming was the only way to do this. My position has always been that this is not an exact science and there are many variations that work equally well. It is this position that some on here have taken exception to. I do not support their position that there is only one way to shoot. I'm all in support of what ever makes you boat float. Sorry, I just needed to clear that up.


----------



## ron w

no one ever said you said subconscious is the only way to do it. what was said is that there is no such thing as "subconscious aiming".....it cannot be done. we , as humane beings are not capable of turning our conscious eye sight off and seeing subconsciously, it is simply something that cannot be done, if our eyes are open, we are seeing and consciously analyzing, what we are seeing. we simply cannot do it, any other way. our physiology is built that way, in order to provide guidance when do things exactly like aligning the sights on our bows. there is no situation where the alignment of the sights is exactly the same every time it happens, there can be no specific set of commands that processes the manipulation of the sights, because there is never a reproduced condition to formulate the set of commands.

you absolutely right in thinking there is more than one way to shoot a bow. in that same respect, there is also more than one way to learn how to shoot a bow, I have doubt about that, 
incontrast, there is a finite definition of the term "fundamentals" and the definition implies one accepted basic process by which something is come to be known. there isn't a sport, or activity, or for that matter, a thought, that doesn't have a fundamental base upon which it's derivations are developed.


----------



## unclejane

ron w said:


> no one ever said you said subconscious is the only way to do it. what was said is that there is no such thing as "subconscious aiming".....it cannot be done. we , as humane beings are not capable of turning our conscious eye sight off and seeing subconsciously, it is simply something that cannot be done, if our eyes are open, we are seeing and consciously analyzing, what we are seeing. we simply cannot do it, any other way. our physiology is built that way, in order to provide guidance when do things exactly like aligning the sights on our bows. there is no situation where the alignment of the sights is exactly the same every time it happens, there can be no specific set of commands that processes the manipulation of the sights, because there is never a reproduced condition to formulate the set of commands.
> 
> you absolutely right in thinking there is more than one way to shoot a bow. in that same respect, there is also more than one way to learn how to shoot a bow, I have doubt about that,
> incontrast, there is a finite definition of the term "fundamentals" and the definition implies one accepted basic process by which something is come to be known. there isn't a sport, or activity, or for that matter, a thought, that doesn't have a fundamental base upon which it's derivations are developed.


Absolutely, positively +1. As I said, this example of a "100% subconscious" process is, as far as I can tell, completely unattested as a best practice (or any practice period) for any activity that I'm aware of. I've been learning motor skills of various sorts for my entire adult life (one to nearly a professional level) and I've never encountered a situation where there wasn't some division of labor between consciously applied and subconsciously executed skill sets. Agreed, there is some variation in how much of one or the other comprises the overall activity. And I agree that that balance is found more or less through trial and error later on as you progress through the learning process. But I'm not aware of one extreme or the other ever being a norm for anything I've ever learned how to do.

As for the fundamentals of an activity, it's difficult to see how there can even be an argument about that. This is such an established principle in any activity for which there's a lot of history and institutional knowledge, like archery or any other sport you can think of. There is of course an element of personal interpretation and adaptation, but there's always, repeat always, a core set of established practices that yield the best results in terms of learning and later enjoying the activity, period. They have the authority on their own of being the "right" way to do it because of hard experience and learning of those who've developed the sport before us. This subset of principles just simply works better than any other approach and that's basically that. This is the core invariant I talked about earlier. Stray for these core principles at your own risk LOL!

So regardless of how anyone may feel about it, ron is completely right here. There's "anything goes" and then there's "anything goes" and the twain shall never meet! As I said, it's just very strange to me that this is even being argued about....

LS


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> no one ever said you said subconscious is the only way to do it. what was said is that there is no such thing as "subconscious aiming".....it cannot be done. we , as humane beings are not capable of turning our conscious eye sight off and seeing subconsciously, it is simply something that cannot be done, if our eyes are open, we are seeing and consciously analyzing, what we are seeing. we simply cannot do it, any other way. our physiology is built that way, in order to provide guidance when do things exactly like aligning the sights on our bows. there is no situation where the alignment of the sights is exactly the same every time it happens, there can be no specific set of commands that processes the manipulation of the sights, because there is never a reproduced condition to formulate the set of commands.
> 
> you absolutely right in thinking there is more than one way to shoot a bow. in that same respect, there is also more than one way to learn how to shoot a bow, I have doubt about that,
> incontrast, there is a finite definition of the term "fundamentals" and the definition implies one accepted basic process by which something is come to be known. there isn't a sport, or activity, or for that matter, a thought, that doesn't have a fundamental base upon which it's derivations are developed.


I was not referring to anything you said, I was referring to: 

"I see multiple trains of thought. 
_* Both believed to be the one true way.*_ 
Both with "support" for those that believe them, from shooters (pros) that are at a level most will never reach.
I still think some of this is semantics. And I see validity in both sides."




unclejane said:


> Absolutely, positively +1. As I said, this example of a "100% subconscious" process is, as far as I can tell, completely unattested as a best practice (or any practice period) for any activity that I'm aware of. I've been learning motor skills of various sorts for my entire adult life (one to nearly a professional level) and I've never encountered a situation where there wasn't some division of labor between consciously applied and subconsciously executed skill sets. Agreed, there is some variation in how much of one or the other comprises the overall activity. And I agree that that balance is found more or less through trial and error later on as you progress through the learning process. But I'm not aware of one extreme or the other ever being a norm for anything I've ever learned how to do.
> 
> As for the fundamentals of an activity, it's difficult to see how there can even be an argument about that. This is such an established principle in any activity for which there's a lot of history and institutional knowledge, like archery or any other sport you can think of. There is of course an element of personal interpretation and adaptation, but there's always, repeat always, a core set of established practices that yield the best results in terms of learning and later enjoying the activity, period. They have the authority on their own of being the "right" way to do it because of hard experience and learning of those who've developed the sport before us. This subset of principles just simply works better than any other approach and that's basically that. This is the core invariant I talked about earlier. Stray for these core principles at your own risk LOL!
> 
> So regardless of how anyone may feel about it, ron is completely right here. There's "anything goes" and then there's "anything goes" and the twain shall never meet! As I said, it's just very strange to me that this is even being argued about....
> 
> LS



For someone with your skill level you are really up on your high horse don't you think? With regard to your statement that subconscious aiming cannot be done, tell that to Braden Gellenthien...


----------



## unclejane

> For someone with your skill level you are really up on your high horse don't you think?


Aren't you the one with the original complaint about the level of your shooting? Shouldn't you be listening a little more and instructing a little less?

LS


----------



## Sasquech

Look I respect you all but once again you are getting personal. I believe most of hitting a baseball or shooting skeet or trap is sub or at least instinctive reaction based process. I believe shooting at a very high level is similar in nature. It just happens so much slower we think we can control it with the conscious mind. The setup I believe is conscious but the adjustment should be more like hitting a ball let it happen and trust your shot


----------



## cbrunson

I'm not buying the fundamentals bandwagon. Yes there are some basics that will help get beginners past the initial learning curve in this sport, but from what I have seen and heard, most of the top shooters have variations in form, execution, and style that shoot holes in most of the textbook "fundamentals".

The point being, a guy comes on here to share his experience with trying some new ideas he has, whether they will work or not, and a few guys start ripping him apart. How do you know it won't work, if you've never shot any better than the guy trying it does? I can understand a little suggestion based on what you have heard or read, but to sit and argue over whether or not a guy can tune out conscious aiming is stupid. Any other thread on this forum, everyone would be screaming "don't aim", but not this one. Go figure. 

I think there should be a rule on this forum that if you do not agree on a suggestion, or input from other members, you offer your suggestion and walk away.


----------



## ron w

their "hole shooting variations" are based on those "text book fundamentals", that they had to learn long before developing the own variations. the "fundamentals are exactly what you say are the basics that will help beginners get past the initial learning curve, in this sport". there's no reason what so ever to think that those same fundamentals cannot be adhered to as further development of someone's shot progresses beyond beginner status, is there ?. all of the elements of a good shot process are there , in the fundamentals and they do not need to be varied or changed to be successful, no matter what the level of the shooter.
case in point, if you could compile the shooting styles of 100 pros that use a hinge, what do you think the percentage of shooters that are still using fundamentally typical traditional back tension would be ?.


----------



## Lazarus

cbrunson said:


> I'm not buying the fundamentals bandwagon. Yes there are some basics that will help get beginners past the initial learning curve in this sport, but from what I have seen and heard, most of the top shooters have variations in form, execution, and style that shoot holes in most of the textbook "fundamentals".


^ And contrary to what the forum god said earlier, this is why the very top shooters no longer offer their opinions/suggestions. It's pretty pointless for someone who is _doing it_ to argue with someone who read about it on archery talk several years ago when all they hear back is "that's not right," it doesn't go by the textbook. 

But then if you really think about it this isn't so unrealistic. Can you imagine Phil Mickelson frequenting a golf forum with several folks that were just talking theory about the perfect golf swing? :embara: Yeah.


----------



## Padgett

Right now I am simply shooting every day and when I go into the range and set up my stuff I remind myself two things as I get ready to shoot my first shot.

1. Follow through into the center of the baby vegas x

2. Be smooth and strong against the wall

Then during the hour and a half of shooting I keep reminding myself to follow through into the center and that is it, nothing more or less.

Now this is different than when i am training and working on firing engines and setting up a hinge or studying my float or tweaking my form or shot routine. During all of those hours of training there are many times that I am consciously doing things in my shot specifically to feel how they respond to all of the things that I am trying to accomplish. It takes a little time to turn a idea into muscle memory and then it will run by itself but until it becomes muscle memory I do have to think about it to make it happen. I really don't think some people are able to let go of their accuracy or scoring and they do their training based on results so much that they never allow themselves to train and learn the lessons to be learned. I have a ability to to let go of scoring for weeks if not months and pound x's and let go of the bad shots and not worry about them so that I can do the training that takes me to a new level.

I just came off of a long stretch from september through mid december of basically banging x's without scoring, I did a couple scoring rounds but not very many and right now I am doing a couple scoring rounds per week but still most of my shooting is just banging x's. Banging x's allows me to relax and enjoy my shooting and get into a groove where I shoot 80 or 200 or 400 x's in a row. Then when I go home I wish that I had shot a scoring round so I could see a 60x round or so but that wears off by the next day and I bang some more x's. During this time I shot subconscious and conscious because I was just training and working on things.

I really think you have to earn the right to shoot subconscious, if you haven't nailed down the fundamentals and your choices of how to do things and formed a solid shot routine then you haven't earned that right. It was hard for me to commit to a peaking period because I was still training things but I am glad I did because it turned out where I really was ready to stick to specific shot routine and firing engine.


----------



## cbrunson

Lazarus said:


> It's pretty pointless for someone who is _doing it_ to argue with someone who read about it on archery talk several years ago


That might even extend down below the top level pros to some degree.


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> Aren't you the one with the original complaint about the level of your shooting? Shouldn't you be listening a little more and instructing a little less?
> 
> LS


As far as my level of shooting I've been very open about my successes and weaknesses. I did not come here as a beginner and I've openly posted my averages for the past 7-8 years. I've held State and regional titles and hold a few state records. What I didn't do was come here straight off shooting a Genesis kids bow and put myself in a position of authority. That said, I'm a much better than average shooter, no more, no less. I'm not hiding anything nor do I have any illusions that I am a world class shooter. As far as academic knowledge of this sport... well let's just say I haven't heard anything new in quite some time. Shouldn't you be the one doing the listening?


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> ...I'm not sure as to exactly how EPLC is aiming subconsciously. What ARE you doing consciously? Are you just focusing on the X and letting aim happen?


When I am aiming subconsciously, or more correctly stated, allowing my aim to be subconscious, I consciously focus on my shot process. Part of my shot process is "Acquire The X". At that point I continue looking at the X while my conscious mind turns to the next step in my process. When it comes to the commit part I focus consciously on pulling through the shot. A variation of this is what I am working on. At the point of commitment I'm experimenting on giving my conscious mind something to do unrelated to the shot process. I'm finding that like anything new there are ups and downs but the ups are encouraging.

As far as conscious mind truly multitasking... I do not believe that is possible. I don't even think the conscious mind can even think 2 things at once let alone carry them out. Try this: Two separate thoughts, 1. Lift my right arm, and 2. Lift my left arm. Sure you can lift your both arms together with one command but that is cheating. You must do it as two separate commands done at exactly the same time.


----------



## Mahly

I see what your saying. I've been doing similar things as I work on my hinge and firing engine.
I'm not convinced that is what I want to be thinking about when I have my new technique "down"....but I get it.

As for the 2 things at once...some people can rub their bellies, and pat their heads... some can not. Those that can not can't understand how some people can. Same goes here. Some CAN think about multiple things (women specifically are better at it on average than men....on average). Those who can MAY or MAY NOT be able to use that to an advantage in archery. If they can, it will be by doing something others can't and don't understand...and those others may tell them they are doing it "wrong". 

Honestly, I think we are all really a lot closer on this topic than it may seem. Our brains have different strengths and weaknesses, but there ARE some universal things that help us all.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> As far as my level of shooting I've been very open about my successes and weaknesses. I did not come here as a beginner.... As far as academic knowledge of this sport... well let's just say I haven't heard anything new in quite some time.


Then why are you here? If you don't think you're going to hear anything new, or you don't think that you have anything to learn from the folks on here who do shoot well, why are you asking the questions you're asking? Seriously - what's the point?

LS


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> I see what your saying. I've been doing similar things as I work on my hinge and firing engine.
> I'm not convinced that is what I want to be thinking about when I have my new technique "down"....but I get it.
> 
> As for the 2 things at once...some people can rub their bellies, and pat their heads... some can not. Those that can not can't understand how some people can. Same goes here. Some CAN think about multiple things (women specifically are better at it on average than men....on average). Those who can MAY or MAY NOT be able to use that to an advantage in archery. If they can, it will be by doing something others can't and don't understand...and those others may tell them they are doing it "wrong".
> 
> Honestly, I think we are all really a lot closer on this topic than it may seem. Our brains have different strengths and weaknesses, but there ARE some universal things that help us all.


For the record, I can rub my belly and pat my head at the same time, but it requires a single command from the conscious mind... or it has to be done subconsciously. I assume the reason that some people can't do this simple task is because they are trying to do it with 2 separate commands, which I do not believe possible with the conscious mind. I do agree that the strengths and weakness are different in all of us... not so sure on the closer than it seems part though.


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> Then why are you here? If you don't think you're going to hear anything new, or you don't think that you have anything to learn from the folks on here who do shoot well, why are you asking the questions you're asking? Seriously - what's the point?
> 
> LS


And who are these folks that shoot well that I have rejected their input? 

In fact I have picked up a few things that have been very helpful from some of the contributors here. Building "one" shot is one of those things. The Alistair Whittingham links that you provided is another. You may want to listen to them again as you seem to be missing some of his words that contradict some of the very rigid positions posted here. 

Also, I'm not as closed minded as you think, but that said, I've been around the block more than once, drank the Kool-Aid and have actually attempted most of the academia that has been written here and elsewhere. Some has worked out, some has not. When something is suggested that I've already exhausted and found little or no value I share that. Between 2000-2002 I followed an archery site that preceded this one called AIN, I joined this site on day 2 of its existence. The back-in-the-day conversations that ron w like to bring up are very familiar to me as I was a frequent contributor. 

In August 2002 I developed a tremor that all but destroyed my game. For at least the next 6 years I fought this problem, trying everything but to no avail. About 7 years ago I switched to lefty and had to completely rebuild my game. I'm also 69 years old... so if you truly want to be helpful, share your experience with the things that you have found that have been helpful to build your game. 

So, why am I hear? Actually, I was hoping to gather some information that might help me make decisions to improve my shooting. I also come here because I like to experiment with things that are not your typical solutions. What I didn't come here for was the constant roasting that I've had to put up with from just a few. I'm also not here to be talked down to, scolded or mocked because I won't drink from the bowl.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> And who are these folks that shoot well that I have rejected their input?


Ron, 09K, Sonny, Padgett, montigre? What have you learned from these shooters?


> What I didn't come here for was the constant roasting that I've had to put up with from just a few. I'm also not here to be talked down to, scolded or mocked because I won't drink from the bowl.


Being told that you're either wrong or not listening to the input that you asked for is not scolding, mocking or roasting. It's simply being told that you're wrong or that you're not listening. Listening to advice from someone as or more experienced than you is not "drinking from the bowl".

So that would be my piece of advice to you - be quicker to see the message before you jump to conclusions about the packaging of the message or the attitude of the messenger. If someone tells you you're wrong or that you're ignoring what they're saying, take that in the spirit in which it is given - virtually always it's only an attempt to be helpful and actually provide you answers that you're looking for. It's an opportunity to learn something, whether it's also humbling at the same time or not.

I've been in the learning business almost as long as you have, most likely, and if there's one thing above all else that has facilitated my "career" it's that. 

LS


----------



## N7709K

If there are trust issues with allowing the shot to progress completely using only the subconscious there are going to also be trust issues with the information presented about how and why "x" is the methods that will likely provide the best results...

certain aspects of the shot are shared among the top shooters- i'll go ahead and be that ass, but what sets the pros apart from the rest is the understanding of the game and how to play the game.... time is better spent building upon what is "known" as productive and putting the tens of thousands of arrows downrange that it takes to truly learn the shot. The mental program is unique to each shooter; you gotta find what works for you... but form transfers, approach to how to shoot the release transfers, how to hit the middle transfers, its not a complicated deal. 

truth be told, if your practice scores are fluctuating more than one point/x indoors screwing the conscious/subconscious portions wont really do much. The variation in the shot itself is too much; and the shot hasn't been mastered to where it should be committed to the subconscious; at the same time the conscious cannot become disengaged due to the shot being in an infantile stage and needing the step by step progression. When scores plateau, then dick with the mental stuff....


----------



## SonnyThomas

"The word "subconscious" represents an anglicized version of the French subconscient as coined by the psychologist Pierre Janet (1859-1947), who argued that underneath the layers of critical-thought functions of the conscious mind lay a powerful awareness that he called the subconscious mind."
-----How about that? The Subconscious didn't exist until Pierre came up with it....

"The subconscious mind is a composite of everything one sees, hears and any information the mind collects that it cannot otherwise consciously process to make meaningful sense."
-----There are more senses, but most give of the 5 major senses, hearing, smelling, seeing, tasting, touching. These are "hard wired" into the brain and the subconscious can instantly sort out things and bring forth a response. What is the subconscious? Nothing more than a giant warehouse to store stuff. How fast can the mind fully comprehend a image?
In January 2014 it was found the brain can comprehend a flash given of 13 milliseconds, whereas before it was thought 100 milliseconds.
How fast is the subconscious? It can be instantaneous or even have a answer before a question is fully out.... Those girls in the ASA registration booth were like that, had a answer for me before I got the question out... 

"The subconscious mind is a composite of everything one sees, hears and any information the mind collects that it cannot otherwise consciously process to make meaningful sense. The conscious mind cannot always absorb disconnected information, as it would be an information overload, so the subconscious mind stores this information where it can be retrieved by the conscious mind when it needs to defend itself for survival (and for other reasons, such as solving puzzles)."
-----I just said that, right? A store house?

"The subconscious mind stores information that the conscious mind may not immediately process with full understanding, but it stores the information for later retrieval when ”recalled” by the conscious mind, or by an astute psychoanalyst who can draw out information stored in the subconscious, bringing it to the individual's conscious awareness."
-----There it is again, stored.

"Your conscious brain…
The amount of information your conscious brain processes is about one-half of the one-millionth of one percent of the amount your subconscious brain processes.
For all its brilliance, the conscious brain has a major weakness—follow through.
The conscious brain is great at imagining things and thinking them through, but it’s next to useless when it comes to actually getting things done.
Your conscious brain is amazing at coming up with ideas, but useless when it comes to carrying them out because it is easily distracted. *The average person changes focus every six to 10 seconds.*
Goal-setting is something your conscious brain can do."
-----The average "good" shot is gone around 7 seconds, right?

"Your subconscious brain…
The subconscious brain can remember billions of things in perfect sequence, not only for minutes at a time, but for your lifetime. How often does it get distracted? Never, but it can make mistakes..."
------I didn't get into the mistake part.

At no time searching out Subconscious was memories spoke of. What are memories? Stored information. What is a ingrained shot process? A memory, stored information.


----------



## EPLC

Yes, I read that.


----------



## Padgett

Dang, I hope you guys are listening to n7709k. I read through all of the posts and then he will drop a bomb like his last one and it is exactly the one that we need to be listening to.


----------



## unclejane

Padgett said:


> Dang, I hope you guys are listening to n7709k. I read through all of the posts and then he will drop a bomb like his last one and it is exactly the one that we need to be listening to.


Yep, he pins the tail right on the donkey with his statement on trust issues. When learning a new skill, we usually don't know what we don't know yet. So when someone tells you a) you don't in fact know X even tho you think you know X and b) here's the correct way to approach X, there's a temptation to resist it and argue with it. The example from this thread shall remain nameless , but I think it's become clear who that is. 

But it really is true and the best thing to do is sit down and listen. That's why I pore through ron's threads for example. And 09K's and Padgetts... and Sonny's post above ain't no slouch either. 

There's a gold mine of good info here, all of it free for the taking if we want it.

LS


----------



## Lazarus

unclejane said:


> Yep, he pins the tail right on the donkey with his statement on trust issues. When learning a new skill, we usually don't know what we don't know yet. So when someone tells you a) you don't in fact know X even tho you think you know X and b) here's the correct way to approach X, there's a temptation to resist it and argue with it. *The example from this thread shall remain nameless , but I think it's become clear who that is.*
> 
> But it really is true and the best thing to do is sit down and listen. That's why I pore through ron's threads for example. And 09K's and Padgetts... and Sonny's post above ain't no slouch either.
> 
> There's a gold mine of good info here, all of it free for the taking if we want it.
> 
> LS


To each their own. Rather than taking a shot at a guy that is almost 70 years old you might should be listening to him in some cases. It's likely he's shot more good arrows in a some five year periods of his life than some of the one's you have mentioned have in their ENTIRE lives. That's not to discount anyone's contribution in any way. 

I haven't wanted to ever say it but the forum member you are pointing out just might be shooting as good as he ever will. However, I totally respect him for trying to better himself in any way at what most would consider an advanced age. Yes, he has frustrated me at times but I sure don't see the need to make him a constant whipping boy! It's very possible he knows more about this game than some of the ones you mentioned. I can't say for certain, but my guess is when it comes to hitting the x his skills just might just have dwindled a bit. That could be his biggest challenge. 

Probably need to lighten up on him a bit. Oh, by the way, yes, I have personally gotten frustrated with him on occasion, mainly for listening to a lot of the crap he sees on this forum.


----------



## unclejane

Lazarus said:


> To each their own. Rather than taking a shot at a guy that is almost 70 years old you might should be listening to him in some cases. It's likely he's shot more good arrows in a some five year periods of his life than some of the one's you have mentioned have in their ENTIRE lives. That's not to discount anyone's contribution in any way.
> 
> I haven't wanted to ever say it but the forum member you are pointing out just might be shooting as good as he ever will. However, I totally respect him for trying to better himself in any way at what most would consider an advanced age. Yes, he has frustrated me at times but I sure don't see the need to make him a constant whipping boy! It's very possible he knows more about this game than some of the ones you mentioned. I can't say for certain, but my guess is when it comes to hitting the x his skills just might just have dwindled a bit. That could be his biggest challenge.
> 
> Probably need to lighten up on him a bit. Oh, by the way, yes, I have personally gotten frustrated with him on occasion, mainly for listening to a lot of the crap he sees on this forum.


As I told him, being told that you're wrong and you're not listening is *only* being told that you're wrong and you're not listening. Anything else about "you're wrong" or "you're not listening to what I'm telling you" is inferred and not implied. Just don't read the other stuff - concentrate on what you're wrong about and the suggestion about how to correct it. That's all you ever need to do.

It's never too late to learn something new or abandon an approach that prevents you from learning something new. I don't think you can ever stop improving. I'm also an old dog (with a whole slew of my own injuries, conditions, post-op conditions, etc), but I have to learn new tricks all the time. That's just life; we either keep on keeping on or not.

LS


----------



## Mahly

Perhaps if we looked at it as "your wrong, and you choose not to believe what I am telling you", rather than "your not listening" we would understand each other better.
I don't think it's not listening....if it was that, repeating yourself would be futile. 
If it's not believing, you have an opportunity to reinforce your argument.

I'm sure we are reading (listening) but I'm equally sure there is some disbelief.
Either you adjust your argument (or instruction) in a manner than would sway his/her belief, or you allow them to simply not believe you.

You will find experts that say you must transfer, other experts will say you shouldn't have to transfer (consciously) anything.
perhaps this transfer occurs subconsciously as we experience let-off. Honestly, I don't know. I follow the Method A.W. describes. Maybe I'm transferring, maybe not. All I know is that doing it "his" way, I don't feel any need to consciously transfer anything anywhere.


----------



## SonnyThomas

For the bow and arrow being in use for some 60,000 years you'd think we'd have something down pat  Probably back then they were arguing over which rock made the best arrow point.


----------



## cbrunson

Lazarus said:


> To each their own. Rather than taking a shot at a guy that is almost 70 years old you might should be listening to him in some cases. It's likely he's shot more good arrows in a some five year periods of his life than some of the one's you have mentioned have in their ENTIRE lives. That's not to discount anyone's contribution in any way.
> 
> I haven't wanted to ever say it but the forum member you are pointing out just might be shooting as good as he ever will. However, I totally respect him for trying to better himself in any way at what most would consider an advanced age. Yes, he has frustrated me at times but I sure don't see the need to make him a constant whipping boy! It's very possible he knows more about this game than some of the ones you mentioned. I can't say for certain, but my guess is when it comes to hitting the x his skills just might just have dwindled a bit. That could be his biggest challenge.
> 
> Probably need to lighten up on him a bit. Oh, by the way, yes, I have personally gotten frustrated with him on occasion, mainly for listening to a lot of the crap he sees on this forum.


Excellent post. ^^^^^

Good points on age. There is a reason they have senior and master senior classes. The physical ability is a big factor.

The other thing I've noticed is that some people seem to confuse frequent posting with actual ability. That's not meant to stir the pot. It just is what it is. I see several alluding to the coach not needing to be a shooter, but I'm not seeing many successful coaches posting either. We can claim all day long that we have seen success based on the standard "fundamentals", but I will tell you all right now, that none of it makes any sense, until you see it happen from behind the string. That's where the growth beyond fundamentals begins. You say you can never achieve zero float? That's probably because you've never seen it. You say you can't trust a subconscious aim? Again you've never done it successfully. The fact of the matter is exaclty what EPLC has been trying to say through all of the chest thumping from a few that probably don't shoot any better than he does, some things may work for you that will not work for others.

It seems to me that this forum has become more of a place where people just want to be right, rather than helpful. That's not everyone of course. Just a few. It's too bad really.


----------



## unclejane

Mahly said:


> Perhaps if we looked at it as "your wrong, and you choose not to believe what I am telling you", rather than "your not listening" we would understand each other better.
> I don't think it's not listening....if it was that, repeating yourself would be futile.
> If it's not believing, you have an opportunity to reinforce your argument.
> 
> I'm sure we are reading (listening) but I'm equally sure there is some disbelief.
> Either you adjust your argument (or instruction) in a manner than would sway his/her belief, or you allow them to simply not believe you.
> 
> You will find experts that say you must transfer, other experts will say you shouldn't have to transfer (consciously) anything.
> perhaps this transfer occurs subconsciously as we experience let-off. Honestly, I don't know. I follow the Method A.W. describes. Maybe I'm transferring, maybe not. All I know is that doing it "his" way, I don't feel any need to consciously transfer anything anywhere.


There is a difference, though, between not believing what someone is telling you and simply not listening to them. You can take a suggestion, claim, etc. seriously and consider it carefully, but still reach a conclusion of disbelief - if the reasons offered for the claim or suggestion are insufficient or not justified, you can reject it on that basis.

However, if you simply don't listen to what's being said - simply because of the presentation, or you think you already know the answer, or you may have a personal axe to grind with the messenger, etc. - you're doing something entirely different. Namely, yes, you avoid this possibility of hearing something you end up rejecting for a good reason, but you also deny yourself the opportunity to learn something from what they're saying if in fact it *does* have some basis in fact and experience.

But some are ok with denying themselves access to experience and answers to their questions, because of personal sensitivities or I don't know what. I just happen not to be one of those people. I vigorously defend my access to knowledge; if the presentation is laced with other superfluous stuff like personal attacks or insults I a) in a written modality simply ignore the ugly stuff and address only the kernels of information until we just plain run out of road or b) in a personal face-to-face interaction tell the person in no uncertain, no polite terms, to stop the ugly stuff and concentrate only on the problem, the diagnosis and the proposed resolution. Again, I do that until we run completely out of road, then I move on.

Again, that's just how I'm wired. Others may not be, but that's ok.

LS


----------



## unclejane

cbrunson said:


> Excellent post. ^^^^^
> 
> Good points on age. There is a reason they have senior and master senior classes. The physical ability is a big factor.
> 
> The other thing I've noticed is that some people seem to confuse frequent posting with actual ability. That's not meant to stir the pot. It just is what it is. I see several alluding to the coach not needing to be a shooter, but I'm not seeing many successful coaches posting either. We can claim all day long that we have seen success based on the standard "fundamentals", but I will tell you all right now, that none of it makes any sense, until you see it happen from behind the string. That's where the growth beyond fundamentals begins. You say you can never achieve zero float? That's probably because you've never seen it. You say you can't trust a subconscious aim? Again you've never done it successfully. The fact of the matter is exaclty what EPLC has been trying to say through all of the chest thumping from a few that probably don't shoot any better than he does, some things may work for you that will not work for others.
> 
> It seems to me that this forum has become more of a place where people just want to be right, rather than helpful. That's not everyone of course. Just a few. It's too bad really.


It's worth mentioning that this afflicts virtually all of these online forums. I participate in a bunch of them, since I have multiple hobbies, and I see the same thing on all of those. Music/musical instruments, flying, rc-helicopters, even computer operating system forums - they all have the same problems and in seemingly the same distributions and densities.... 

So, AT isn't unique in this regard. Nothing to worry about really, IMO.

LS


----------



## Mahly

I think we have now fully covered the hows and whys of people believing or disbelieving or listening.
Valid posts, but from here on out, can we please stay on the topic/s this thread is addressing as far as shooting goes?
Thank you.


----------



## Padgett

I was blind for decades and even when I had two awesome shooters in my area tell me exactly what I needed to hear I ignored what they were saying, I didn't do it on purpose. I simply didn't have any good knowledge inside my brain that would allow me to accept the suggestions that they were offering to me, at the same time I was here on archery talk doing the exact same thing.

For me the saving grace was that every once in a while I would accidentally have 10 or 15 minutes of awesome shooting with my hinge release where I shot awesome, then I would go right back to struggling but what those little bouts of awesome shooting did was force me to look a little closer into what was being said here on archery talk. Then one special day in Kentucky in a motel room saturday night after suffering all day in open B shooting down I was sitting in a chair watching tv with Sam Woltius and I remember thinking to myself I have got to stop being so closed minded, I asked him a couple questions and he opened up and said some things to me that for the first time I actually listened to. I didn't really understand what he was saying and it took a few days for me to put my thoughts together but that was the week that I wrote my HINGE SETUP ROUTINE, from that point on things have changed for me and it wasn't overnight success by any stretch but what it did do was send me in the right direction and it opened me up to what I was hearing right here on archery talk so I could actually use what I was reading about.


----------



## EPLC

N7709K said:


> If there are trust issues with allowing the shot to progress completely using only the subconscious there are going to also be trust issues with the information presented about how and why "x" is the methods that will likely provide the best results...
> 
> certain aspects of the shot are shared among the top shooters- i'll go ahead and be that ass, but what sets the pros apart from the rest is the understanding of the game and how to play the game.... time is better spent building upon what is "known" as productive and putting the tens of thousands of arrows downrange that it takes to truly learn the shot. The mental program is unique to each shooter; you gotta find what works for you... but form transfers, approach to how to shoot the release transfers, how to hit the middle transfers, its not a complicated deal.
> 
> truth be told, if your practice scores are fluctuating more than one point/x indoors screwing the conscious/subconscious portions wont really do much. The variation in the shot itself is too much; and the shot hasn't been mastered to where it should be committed to the subconscious; at the same time the conscious cannot become disengaged due to the shot being in an infantile stage and needing the step by step progression. When scores plateau, then dick with the mental stuff....


Yes, I believe there is a lot of truth in Jacob's opinion. But... the criteria of a 1 point variance? I don't think this criteria is very realistic for most of us. Had you said, "build a solid foundation before you worry about the mental stuff", we'd be completely on the same page. In my case I've had to step back and look at where I am now as compared to last October. The conclusion I have come to is that I do have a solid shot process that has been developed over the course of several years that meets the meets a criteria that I am satisfied with. I do not think my issues are, for the most part, physical, but mental. 

This morning I shot a while to warm up at a used 3 spot from 20 yards. During this 15-20 minute period I went back to my original shot process which uses subconscious aiming. I think I missed the 10 ring once, possibly twice. I then hung a fresh face and shot 10 arrows, one at a time at a single spot. I missed 3 due to taking back control of the front end. I am convinced that my issues are addressed when placing my conscious mind on my shot process and putting complete focus on pulling straight through the shot without hesitation while "looking" at the X.


----------



## N7709K

here is why I brought up the +/- 1pt spread in the average and use that as a measure of consistency... and why I didn't reiterate building a foundation...

To truly be able to address the issues and flaws if you will that separate average and above average shooters from high level shooters, the shooter needs to be at a point of stagnation with a consistent average. Day in and day out, over and over they shoot score "x" plus or minus one point; they have reached their skillset plateau BEFORE changes are made.... they have THEIR shot mastered (noted by the very minimal fluctuation in scores), they are at a point where they can address a single aspect and isolate the rest of the process (again, goes back to the mastery of the shot and the minimal variation in scores), and they have consistency (biggest thing here). Its hard to make the changes that bring about the shift from an intermediate shooter to a high level shooter off only the groundwork being set and still not hammered out. 

If the shooter cannot shoot the "same" set of shots from game to game (correct or incorrect doesn't matter, its about CONSISTENCY) then introducing them to intricacies and fine points will only make things worse. The cart gets put infront of the horse so to speak; you cannot overnight make your shot subconscious and have lasting success, if your shot was at the point where it is mastered it would already be subconscious... if that makes sense. Its huge strides, then very small baby steps after the big plateau. 

as to why i didn't say build a foundation.... 1) its easy to misjudge the stability of that foundation of some short term successes and 2) it requires a very high level of discipline to look inward and tell oneself that "i am not ready to move on because i must first master the basics". 

I don't enjoying using my shooting as an example, but seeing as its the shooting I know best i'm kinda stuck with it. I've hit a level where I am refining the shot between the two shooter personalities and bringing the margin between them to nil... its arduous, its dull, its a pain in the ass to be honest... its getting better, pressure isn't there where it used to be, etc etc... Its draining to self evaluate after 28 and 29x games looking as to where the scoring personality took over and how to bring it more inline. But I can also take 3 months off and be back at my average within a week; the muscle memory is there, the shot mastered, I can put a dot in the middle and I know how to score arrows.... It only took me close to 200k shots over quite a few seasons and the correct coaching at the CORRECT time to get to that point. 

Everyone gets an opinion and everyone it seems has shared his or hers... yall can keep getting into a pissing match over who can find the best quote from a pro... or who truly knows best... but i'm out


----------



## EPLC

Thanks Jacob, that makes much more sense.


----------



## Sasquech

Although this thread has wandered a bit . There is a lot to benefit from reading it.


----------



## ron w

well, here's some "wander"....
I would like to know what the ability to shoot well, has to do with, "knowing what it is we have to shoot well ?. 

a few on here, criticize my posts by saying that I can't shoot as well as they can. "shooting" is a physical condition, as well as a mental capacity. if your physical ability isn't up to the level of your mental capacity, it doesn't mean you don't know what you're talking about.
the irony of this, is those that criticize, don't seem to be able to expound on their disagreements, when asked to do so, to justify the disagreement, yet their disagreement seems to be justified and supported......by those who also have that same inability. there has also been many instances where some post is accepted as "good" from someone who has the physical ability, but can't expound on what was posted, because of a lack of mental capacity to do so. 
hence, "the bling leading the blind". 
there ahs never been a single post I've made, that I was not ready, willing and able, to support what I posted with a sensibly evident explanation.


----------



## ron w

you can't, "build a solid foundation", until you are mentally prepared to accept and participate in the elemental properties, that build that foundation".


----------



## erdman41

I look back at myself when I was shooting high 40s low 50xs and I didn't know much.
Then when I was shooting low to mid 50s I thought I knew more but still didn't know much.
Then shooting 56-58x I again thought I knew more but still wasn't much.
Now I'm shooting 58-60x and confident that I didn't know much before and still don't know as much as the ones who are shooting better than me.
Just my opinion.


----------



## EPLC

erdman41 said:


> I look back at myself when I was shooting high 40s low 50xs and I didn't know much.
> Then when I was shooting low to mid 50s I thought I knew more but still didn't know much.
> Then shooting 56-58x I again thought I knew more but still wasn't much.
> Now I'm shooting 58-60x and confident that I didn't know much before and still don't know as much as the ones who are shooting better than me.
> Just my opinion.


That's great shooting and I love the progression of your journey. I'd really love to hear what you did along the way to get to where you are now as I'm about a tad under where your post started out and have been stuck there for some time. I get in the 50+ sometimes but is the exception to the norm.


----------



## unclejane

ron w said:


> well, here's some "wander"....
> I would like to know what the ability to shoot well, has to do with, "knowing what it is we have to shoot well ?.
> 
> a few on here, criticize my posts by saying that I can't shoot as well as they can. "shooting" is a physical condition, as well as a mental capacity. if your physical ability isn't up to the level of your mental capacity, it doesn't mean you don't know what you're talking about.
> the irony of this, is those that criticize, don't seem to be able to expound on their disagreements, when asked to do so, to justify the disagreement, yet their disagreement seems to be justified and supported......by those who also have that same inability. there has also been many instances where some post is accepted as "good" from someone who has the physical ability, but can't expound on what was posted, because of a lack of mental capacity to do so.
> hence, "the bling leading the blind".
> there ahs never been a single post I've made, that I was not ready, willing and able, to support what I posted with a sensibly evident explanation.


Speaking for myself, the notion of a solid set of basics in your approach come, frankly, from other skills I've acquired. I learnt at one point a musical instrument to a level high enough that I could at least start thinking about playing it professionally. Injuries in my left wrist and hearing damage put the Kaibosh on the Kaiser on that unfortunately, but I did get the perspective on a skill from a high level there. 

It just seems uncontroversial to me in general that, tho we may argue about exactly what that firm foundation is, there has to be a foundation of basic principles in anything we do. That's the only point I'd still say I'm a little mystified about at this point in the thread. 

I think all sides have made pretty good cases for what should be in that foundation....

LS


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC; "I find Padgett's firing engine articles interesting. I was trying to use his "release the thumb pressure" and it came to me to try a simple variation on his thumb peg theme. Instead of relaxing the pressure on the thumb peg, why can't I reverse the process and actually push on the peg while putting pressure on the middle and ring fingers?" 

I believe the above is what the Post was about and then spread out to other areas. Poster's post he or she may take his or her Thread anywhere and others may follow suit. Where are we ? 



unclejane said:


> I think all sides have made pretty good cases for what should be in that foundation....
> LS


Crap! You mean there's more than hauling back and shoot? :mg:


----------



## unclejane

SonnyThomas said:


> Crap! You mean there's more than hauling back and shoot? :mg:


Er, ok, maybe a *little* more than that lol....

LS


----------



## Mahly

Where are we?
We are IMHO discussing why this, or other different takes on a firing engine may or may not work.
Does it eradicate the point of shooting a hinge?
Can a variation on a method to get a hinge to release help the shooter? Why or why not.
The why or why nots have become more in depth and a larger part of debate than one may have expected, but in the end, it's all linked in one way or another.
The OP may have given up on his original firing engine variation, but the debate continues as to what fundamentals must remain intact, when choosing a firing engine, and/or modifying one.


----------



## ron w

Sonny, actually you can, . Carter's "Solution" series of hinges were designed for just that manipulation. the have a lever that has a thumb peg on it that is normally up. in that condtion the moon is unlocked and free to rotate to keep the sear engaged as you draw. 
drawing in a normal hinge fashion, with thumb and forefinger taking most of the load, makes the release "safe". then, at anchor, the thumb peg, is pushed on, to lock the moon in place and engage the break of the sear, by the typical rotation that fires a hinge. people that have trouble developing rotation with their rhomboids, might get a little added input with this release.
it is somewhat of a "work around" for those who are in the "varying finger pressure" camp, in regard to back tension and a hinge. they can be shot by fully depressing the thumb peg and locking the release up before you start your rotation, or as described above, in an attempt to augment the rotation, by pushing on the thumb peg as you flex your rhomboids. 
they do work. I have two of them. but not to be used as they are designed.....I have modified them to be fully locked with no pull on the thumb peg and fully on safe, when you pull on the thumb peg during draw. basically reversing the lever's function.
what this does for me, is allow me to draw with the release fully safe and then simply release my thumb pull on the peg, and the release goes to fully "locked and loaded". this allows me to run my back tension without any finger pressure variation, as should be done in traditional rotational back tension.
again, as I will usually stand, ....varying finger pressure is a function that requires conscious attention, in a area of shot execution, that should not steal conscious attention from the aiming process.


----------



## Rick!

erdman41 said:


> I look back at myself when I was shooting high 40s low 50xs and I didn't know much.
> Then when I was shooting low to mid 50s I thought I knew more but still didn't know much.
> Then shooting 56-58x I again thought I knew more but still wasn't much.
> Now I'm shooting 58-60x and confident that I didn't know much before and still don't know as much as the ones who are shooting better than me.
> Just my opinion.





EPLC said:


> That's great shooting and I love the progression of your journey. [BOLD]I'd really love to hear what you did along the way to get to where you are now as I'm about a tad under where your post started out and have been stuck there for some time. [/BOLD]I get in the 50+ sometimes but is the exception to the norm.


I hear him pretty loud and clear. Once you adjust your self assessment and listening filters, things will become much clearer as to what will improve your shooting. It may or may not be a firing engine that provides the stepping stone. Will it be a fundamental "aha"?, more than likely. Along the way, please don't piss off the remaining pros that visit here so the rest of us have a chance to gain a few tips for the upcoming indoor season.


----------



## unclejane

ron w said:


> it is somewhat of a "work around" for those who are in the "varying finger pressure" camp, in regard to back tension and a hinge. they can be shot by fully depressing the thumb peg and locking the release up before you start your rotation, or as described above, in an attempt to augment the rotation, by pushing on the thumb peg as you flex your rhomboids.


For what it's worth, I shoot this style of release from Carter - mine is the Honey Do which has the safety action reversed from the regular Honeys. That is, it's a "normally off" safety - you press/hold the thumb peg to engage it and it releases the safety automatically when you release the thumb peg.

However, what I'm finding is that it does *not *relieve me of the burden of drawing with consistent finger pressure. I'm actually kind of surprised by this, but it shows good design, IMO, in the release. Namely, if I do draw with inconsistent pressure or at least am still maintaining inconsistent pressure when I come to anchor and release the safety, it screws up my shot. The "heat" of the release is the same regardless of the position it's in at anchor. So, if for example I have it rotated too far (uneven pressure in favor of ring/middle fingers) at anchor, I tend to hang up. If it's rotated not enough (too much index finger pressure), it's too "hot" and the release happens faster than normal.
In other words, while it does allow a custom fitted hand position on every shot, it does not permit inconsistent finger pressure technique without a consequence in the shot release itself.

So one of the items in my "checklist" is consistent finger pressure on the draw and coming to anchor before I release the safety. Strange but true.....

LS


----------



## unclejane

Mahly said:


> Where are we?
> We are IMHO discussing why this, or other different takes on a firing engine may or may not work.
> Does it eradicate the point of shooting a hinge?
> Can a variation on a method to get a hinge to release help the shooter? Why or why not.
> The why or why nots have become more in depth and a larger part of debate than one may have expected, but in the end, it's all linked in one way or another.
> The OP may have given up on his original firing engine variation, but the debate continues as to what fundamentals must remain intact, when choosing a firing engine, and/or modifying one.


Personally, please please let the thread continue.... The OP may have given up on me and ron (so sad!) but I'm still getting lots of value out of the rest of the commentary. I'm still learning loads and loads... 

LS


----------



## Padgett

Since I have learned everything without a coach I am glad that I didn't just listen to the first guy that I ran into and stuck with that one firing engine for the last 4 years, I am sure that I would have perfected it by now but by learning on my own I have became very well rounded in shooting with any and all methods out there. This has allowed me to enjoy all of them and become proficient with them instead of just saying that this method sucks and this one doesn't, they all work getting the job done of sending the arrow on its way to the target. 

For me though one of the methods has just proven to have more positive attributes than all the others and it produces the most solid repeatable releases and the highest accuracy for me, it isn't the easiest or smoothest engine that I have used because for me the Yield of the hand produces the smoothest and easiest release. For me the problem with yielding is that it isn't as strong of a engine against the wall and it has a wandering around feel which seems to allow my float pattern to increase just a little bit. The firing engine that I am using right now in my peak is the one that is super strong against the wall without any extra effort and it shrinks my float and never wants to drop out the bottom which to me is so valuable to not stand there worried that at any moment the pin might dip under the x. 

So to me this kind of thread is beyond valuable to more than one level shooter, for the new guy it can give him the confidence that he has choices and also the insight to what he will experience when using certain firing engines. To the experienced hinge guy it can give him the confidence that there are subtle little tweeks in his chosen method to enhance or tighten up his shooting just enough to a new and even better level of daily shooting.


----------



## Padgett

THE YIELD AS FELT BY ME, PADGETT

For me yielding my hand which is allowing it to stretch as I apply a constant amount of back tension on the wall is a awesome way to fire a hinge, it has proven to me to be the smoothest and most reliable method I have ever used because it promotes the use of a soft hand that wants to allow things to happen instead of freezing up and bringing your shooting to a halt. To me I get the most awesome surprise releases when using this engine along with very relaxed and pleasant shooting where I feel strong but relaxed and smooth.

My issue with the yield is that it just comes in second for me in accuracy and I mean after tens of thousands of shots between it and my other dominant engine, I didn't make this decision in a weekend. I have came to this conclusion over good time spent on the range and competing because I did use this engine competing on many occasions winning many tournaments with it. I believe that I am not as solid at anchor with it because of the softer hand and the stretching of the hand and fingers to me causes me to feel a little weak on the wall and wishy washy, basically this feeling translates into a float pattern that likes to wander around inside the x a little bit more and more fluid not solid.


----------



## Padgett

SQUEEZE AND PULL BY ME, PADGETT

This is my current most dominant firing engine, it makes me feel very strong against the wall without putting out extra effort and it shrinks my float pattern and makes my pin feel sticky. That's right it feels sticky like a magnet is in the x and that magnet is holding onto my pin helping me float very small on the x. This engine is slightly slower to fire than my yielding engine but only about a half second or so which isn't a really bad thing.

This engine isn't a rotate the hinge engine, I come to anchor and settle in and when my pin reaches the x and slows down I release my thumb peg gently and just as my thumb leaves the peg I smoothly pull into the wall with my ring and middle finger giving them the sensation of squeezing. I really am not just consciously squeezing or tightening my ring and middle finger, I just smoothly increase the tension on them and the arrow is gone.

Now what makes this engine so valuable to me? It drastically shrinks the float and makes the float pattern sticky like it wants to stay in the middle even though i am not forcing it to stay there, it just wants to stay there. It also eliminates the feeling that at any moment the pin might drop out the bottom and I have thought about this a long time and I think it is because I am basically pulling with the ring and middle finger which are above the arrow and the index finger and thumb are in neutral on the bottom of the arrow which puts more down pressure on the release. What this does is keeps me from allowing the anchor to want to creep up my cheek which promotes the stabilizer to want to dive out the bottom.. By keeping my anchor planted very solid the pin just doesn't have the chance to want to drop out the bottom.

This engine also pulls straight back into the wall just like the yield engine, what this does is allows me to not pull the pin off the x to the left or right as I am shooting because i am pulling straight back.

As far as a engine goes this one is the one that find myself not missing a 5-spot x for a week at a time with or at least a hundred or so shots on a daily basis, in the past I would shoot this engine until it would start to lock up and not fire and I would go to my yield engine for 10 or so shots and it seemed to be a reset button to my system. Right now I have gotten past this issue and this squeeze and pull engine fires even when I am under pressure next to a pro shooter or the last shot at the asa classic trying to be on the podium.


----------



## Padgett

Scissors engine, by Padgett


This little engine is one that got me up and shooting and I still recommend it to new shooters from time to time because it just works, it is a engine that primarily works off of the index finger extending or relaxing which allows the hinge to rotate. I call it scissors because I also pull into the wall with my ring and middle finger as I relax the index finger.

This little engine has its demons and I don't promote it for high end shooting, it isn't very solid against the wall and it wants to creep forward as you shoot with it. That doesn't mean you can't shoot well with it because the first year I shot 10 60x rounds a few years ago this was the engine I was using. But in the end it just isn't something to spend 10 years shooting with.


----------



## thawk

EPLC said:


> That's great shooting and I love the progression of your journey. I'd really love to hear what you did along the way to get to where you are now as I'm about a tad under where your post started out and have been stuck there for some time. I get in the 50+ sometimes but is the exception to the norm.


EPLC, if you mentioned it I missed it but how is your aim? Do you stay in the x?
If you float around the 9/8 (vegas target) then you might be looking in the wrong place. Your shot or firing method might not need changing. If you aim all over the place you might need to spend your time on setup, draw length. Holding weight, stabilizers, ect.


----------



## Padgett

Pure Back Tension, by Padgett

This is the one that got me started probably 6 years ago when I was lurking here on archery talk before becoming a member, I read about back tension and it seemed so mystical and awesome that I finally got my first hinge. Lets just say my suffering began the day that stepped on the line with my first hinge, the standing there wondering if it was going to fire then forcing it to fire and pathetic accuracy was enough to allow me to give that hinge to a buddy for zero dollars. Just getting it out of my sight was priceless, just over a year later I got that hinge back and it is still one of my favorites.

Back tension is a cool thing and I enjoy shooting with it, to me it is a strong engine without any wasted movement and this is why it is so appealing to some high end shooters. It basically has less moving parts than all the other methods, your back muscles contract and create enough rotation in your hinge for it to fire and the arrow is gone. 

For me I still train with back tension but it has proven to me to have the same personality over and over again, it is the one engine where I am not pulling straight back into the wall. With back tension you are squeezing your back muscles and rotating your elbow which is pulling at a angle and for me it produces a pull the pin off to the side miss. I have a feeling that if I committed to this engine for months and shot nothing but this one I could overcome the issue but I never have because even when I am shooting good with this method I am simply better with my other methods.

One of the things that I never did like about back tension was the feeling mentally that my grip on the hinge was off limits, back tension is the one engine that relies on your back to do 100% of the work so you get the feeling that your hand absolutely must not be used and for me this creates stress, in my other methods nothing is off limits so my mind feels more at ease to do the job at hand instead of avoiding.

Back tension is by far the most subtle of the engines that I have used and again I think that the lack of moving parts is what makes it so appealing but for me now my squeeze and pull engine rivals back tension even though it sounds like it has many moving parts it doesn't and what is moving is moving straight back behind the arrow not off to the side.


----------



## Padgett

I know there are a lot of new guys lurking on this thread and not posting, there are a few of us who post over and over so do your homework and then get to training and keep a open mind and watch what is happening to your arrow and float and anchor as you shoot. Also pay attention to your stress levels, when you have a engine that is producing stress to get it to fire or because you are worried about the arrow dropping out of the x you can work on these things and sometimes by changing to a better firing engine you can eliminate something that has plagued you and move on to something else.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Padgett said:


> Scissors engine, by Padgett
> 
> 
> This little engine is one that got me up and shooting and I still recommend it to new shooters from time to time because it just works, it is a engine that primarily works off of the index finger extending or relaxing which allows the hinge to rotate. I call it scissors because I also pull into the wall with my ring and middle finger as I relax the index finger.
> 
> This little engine has its demons and I don't promote it for high end shooting, it isn't very solid against the wall and it wants to creep forward as you shoot with it. That doesn't mean you can't shoot well with it because the first year I shot 10 60x rounds a few years ago this was the engine I was using. But in the end it just isn't something to spend 10 years shooting with.


I've gave two attempts of relaxing the index finger. The first was with my ST360 thumb release, thumb holding middle and ring finger pulling and relaxing the index finger. It was kind of hairy and probably could be got use to. Around Christmas, day after, it was warm, I tried my Stan MagMicro Trio, no pulling post/barrel. 15 yards. The shot went off pretty darn smooth, but about 6 inches low. I thought it was me. Another shot, smooth, and again 6 inches low. In fact, in the same hole. 5 or 6 shots and I had a hole I could stick my finger in.... I don't know why the shots went in low. Normally, the MagMicro Trio shoots pretty close if not dead on with my ST360, has before anyway.

This is what's bad about people bringing stuff up  Me, retired, my target range is about 35 feet from my computer, my bows hanging at the ready.


----------



## Mahly

Another bit about the pure back tension engine. Seems to be much harder to get it to fire if you have a bow with positive limb stops.
Something to consider if wanting to try these different engines if you have limb stops or an otherwise rock solid back wall.

I learned the pure back tension method way back in the day. My old Martin Firecat has a very mushy ( by today's standards ) back wall that allowed the elbow to move, firing the hinge. 
My current bow has the option for limb stops. When used, you can "keep pulling" but nothing happens. You either need to relax a finger, rotate (squeeze) a finger or 2 or a combination (Padgett's "scissors").


----------



## SonnyThomas

Yeah, I've been shooting limb stop bows since summer of 2010. 3 Shadowcats with bottom limb stop with a hard, but something of a little give. 3 Pearsons with top and bottom limb stops and rock, rock hard wall, no give. I haven't tried it, but the 2009 on Pearsons are said that you can shoot them without draw stops, won't lock up.....


----------



## Mahly

Unfortunately... Well, both fortunate, and unfortunate, I let a friend check out my bow, and he wanted to see what it felt like with the draw stops. On the Moxie, you can just move that cable stops to match the limb stops.
I did that (adding a small amount to the DL, while reducing holding weight) and after he gave me the bow back, I fired a round set up like that.
Here's the good. My hold/float was MUCH better.
The bad, I was still using more of a pure back tension style engine.
Gonna have to order some longer mods to try to get my softer back wall back... Till then, guess we try out the "pull and squeeze" for a bit


----------



## ron w

Mahly said:


> Another bit about the pure back tension engine. Seems to be much harder to get it to fire if you have a bow with positive limb stops.
> Something to consider if wanting to try these different engines if you have limb stops or an otherwise rock solid back wall.
> 
> I learned the pure back tension method way back in the day. My old Martin Firecat has a very mushy ( by today's standards ) back wall that allowed the elbow to move, firing the hinge.
> My current bow has the option for limb stops. When used, you can "keep pulling" but nothing happens. You either need to relax a finger, rotate (squeeze) a finger or 2 or a combination (Padgett's "scissors").


 I know what you mean, but I never seemed to have that problem. I learned early on, to come to the wall and just stay on, with enough pressure to maintain contact, but not try to pull the bow apart. 
getting your draw length perfect and then modulating your back tension to allow the production of rotation while just staying positively on the stops, facilitates not having to deal with whether the bow has a rock hard or a slightly soft wall. there's no need to pull into the stops like want to pull the bow apart. of course, you can, and many authorities say to do it, but it's just not necessary and all it does is fatigue you, that much faster. once you're on the stops, you're there, you can't get more on them by pulling harder and there's no advantage in it. the reason draw length is so critical is exactly for this reason. as a matter of fact, there is disadvantage, in terms of how much disruption to the sight picture you cause and how smoothly your shot breaks, by trying to pull the bow apart.


----------



## EPLC

thawk said:


> EPLC, if you mentioned it I missed it but how is your aim? Do you stay in the x?
> If you float around the 9/8 (vegas target) then you might be looking in the wrong place. Your shot or firing method might not need changing. If you aim all over the place you might need to spend your time on setup, draw length. Holding weight, stabilizers, ect.


My hold has never been the best. On good days my float generally stays within the gold. If I pay no attention to it I'm fine. I'm a decent bow mechanic and have tweaked my equipment to death without any real range of motion improvements. That said, I actually learned how to shoot properly after having some fairly decent successes around Y2K and a couple years later. In August of 2002 I developed some sort of strange tremor in my shot. Over the next 6 or so years I fought this demon with every trick I could find here on AT and elsewhere. There are still a bunch of threads on here where I would try this or that and think I was cured. Unfortunately nothing worked and I ended up switching to LH about 7 years ago. I have no tremor shooting lefty.

That said, during this period of tremors, as I said I learned how to shoot with proper form, did 1000's of arrows short range, etc., etc. One of the biggest lessons I learned was that you did not have to be rock solid to shoot decent scores (of course it does make it a lot easier). One shoot really comes to mind. I'm not sure what year it was but the shoot was an IBO qualifier at the Big E in Springfield MA. They had a novelty shoot for money at some point between shooting times where they placed a small orange dot on a few black animals at unknown distances. It was a shoot off, last man standing type of venue. Even though my shaking had really progressed into something that made people do a double take when they watched me shoot I decided to shoot. I didn't win the event but I was still there after all but 3 of us were left standing. I don't remember if I finished 2nd or 3rd but that really doesn't matter. My point is: You can shoot through a lot of movement if you don't let it bother you. Unfortunately mine was so bad It did bother me most of the time.

There are some here that assume because I asked for some direction that I don't know how to shoot, etc., which isn't the case. I'm just looking to put a little more consistency into my game which has been lacking as of late. I found today that my sight picture may be giving me difficulties as I changed to a different template not that long ago. My eyes are very fussy as to what they like to see when shooting.


----------



## SonnyThomas

ron w said:


> I know what you mean, but I never seemed to have that problem. I learned early on, to come to the wall and just stay on, with enough pressure to maintain contact, but not try to pull the bow apart.
> getting your draw length perfect and then modulating your back tension to allow the production of rotation while just staying positively on the stops, facilitates not having to deal with whether the bow has a rock hard or a slightly soft wall. there's no need to pull into the stops like want to pull the bow apart. of course, you can, and many authorities say to do it, but it's just not necessary and all it does is fatigue you, that much faster. once you're on the stops, you're there, you can't get more on them by pulling harder and there's no advantage in it. the reason draw length is so critical is exactly for this reason. as a matter of fact, there is disadvantage, in terms of how much disruption to the sight picture you cause and how smoothly your shot breaks, by trying to pull the bow apart.


Yep, something like that. Difference; Let off. Me, I swear there is no let off as most understand let off and then difference in cams. Lord! I have both my bows set to 80% let off. 10.6 lbs and 11.0 lbs. Pull into the wall you get to shaking from the stress because of no give. Two different cams and same limb draw stops, one set of cams actually feeling like dropping off into a nice valley, but bow ready get with the program, the other cams drop off but seems like a dragster trying to get out of the hole - again, 80% let off.


----------



## erdman41

EPLC said:


> That's great shooting and I love the progression of your journey. I'd really love to hear what you did along the way to get to where you are now as I'm about a tad under where your post started out and have been stuck there for some time. I get in the 50+ sometimes but is the exception to the norm.


Well when I was high 40s to low 50xs was about 4 years a go. I was doing so much wrong I don't know where to begin.

As I read a lot of these posts I can remember when I was doing/thinking the same things. I do think the long journey is rewarding and almost something one must go through. I think Churchill said the Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried everything else. I look at archery like that as well.

Couple things that stick out to me from the last 4 years is.

Get good arrow flight and leave the bow the heck alone. Work on you. I used to have tinkeritis and it led me no where. 

True self assessment. Don't ever think something is working better than it actually is. Make sure it will work for the long term. Lots of things will seem to work for a day or week but not long term.

I know short games are all the rage. But all last summer I shot numerous 600 rounds at 65 yards on a 80cm face. This is where I experimented with different release techniques and grips. This kinda ties into Jacob's dislike of the blue face. I can do a lot wrong and still hit the x on a 5 spot. That doesn't happen at 65 yards.

Worked on my mental side. Read "With Winning in Mind". Developed a shot routine. Have a daily notification set on my phone that is my shot routine. Reminder goes off at 4:50 every day that says Grip Shoulder Back Relax.

Now here is where I buck the trend on AT. Every shot I go through a check list that is my shot routine. I don't think about aiming much like I don't think about steering while driving a vehicle.

I actually think Grip, Shoulder, Back, Relax.

Grip-Both bow and release grip how I want them.

Shoulder-Keeping shoulders low and relaxed.

Back-Keep my back engaged. Both halves with a nice even push pull.

Relax-Everything relaxed especially soft hands (both of them)

Now I'm not sure which part trips the release and honestly I don't care. If it is just my back or back and relaxing/soft hands so be it. My release is set cold enough that if everything isn't right it won't go. So then I let down and start over.

Being relaxed I don't think is stressed enough. Being relaxed to me has a wonderful effect on my float. Just like stress has a bad effect on float which in turn causes more stress. Being relaxed makes my float better which in turn is more relaxing.

This also keeps me process orientated. I know if I do these things that I have control over correctly there is no doubt where the arrow is going. Score then takes care of itself.

Now I don't know if any of this will help anybody or if 6 months from now I'll be doing something completely different.

Oh yeah and shoot a lot with a purpose.

Flame away


----------



## TNMAN

erdman41 said:


> ------and shoot a lot with a purpose. Flame away


Who's going to flame??? Sounds like you got it going. :set1_applaud:


----------



## SonnyThomas

erdman41 said:


> Oh yeah and shoot a lot with a purpose. Flame away


What's to flame? Sounds like I sort of follow along though I prefer 3D. Those ASA circuit bonus rings are 1.500" in diameter, never as the same distance (some out to 40 yards for me and longer for others) and sort of hide. Practice, study, practice, study, practice....


----------



## EPLC

erdman41 said:


> Well when I was high 40s to low 50xs was about 4 years a go. I was doing so much wrong I don't know where to begin.
> 
> As I read a lot of these posts I can remember when I was doing/thinking the same things. I do think the long journey is rewarding and almost something one must go through. I think Churchill said the Americans will always do the right thing after they have tried everything else. I look at archery like that as well.
> 
> Couple things that stick out to me from the last 4 years is.
> 
> Get good arrow flight and leave the bow the heck alone. Work on you. I used to have tinkeritis and it led me no where.
> 
> True self assessment. Don't ever think something is working better than it actually is. Make sure it will work for the long term. Lots of things will seem to work for a day or week but not long term.
> 
> I know short games are all the rage. But all last summer I shot numerous 600 rounds at 65 yards on a 80cm face. This is where I experimented with different release techniques and grips. This kinda ties into Jacob's dislike of the blue face. I can do a lot wrong and still hit the x on a 5 spot. That doesn't happen at 65 yards.
> 
> Worked on my mental side. Read "With Winning in Mind". Developed a shot routine. Have a daily notification set on my phone that is my shot routine. Reminder goes off at 4:50 every day that says Grip Shoulder Back Relax.
> 
> Now here is where I buck the trend on AT. Every shot I go through a check list that is my shot routine. I don't think about aiming much like I don't think about steering while driving a vehicle.
> 
> I actually think Grip, Shoulder, Back, Relax.
> 
> Grip-Both bow and release grip how I want them.
> 
> Shoulder-Keeping shoulders low and relaxed.
> 
> Back-Keep my back engaged. Both halves with a nice even push pull.
> 
> Relax-Everything relaxed especially soft hands (both of them)
> 
> Now I'm not sure which part trips the release and honestly I don't care. If it is just my back or back and relaxing/soft hands so be it. My release is set cold enough that if everything isn't right it won't go. So then I let down and start over.
> 
> Being relaxed I don't think is stressed enough. Being relaxed to me has a wonderful effect on my float. Just like stress has a bad effect on float which in turn causes more stress. Being relaxed makes my float better which in turn is more relaxing.
> 
> This also keeps me process orientated. I know if I do these things that I have control over correctly there is no doubt where the arrow is going. Score then takes care of itself.
> 
> Now I don't know if any of this will help anybody or if 6 months from now I'll be doing something completely different.
> 
> Oh yeah and shoot a lot with a purpose.
> 
> Flame away


That's great, thank you so much for sharing that. Your flaming comment is interesting, but expected for obvious reasons. This is exactly the kind of experience sharing that this forum needs! I know you're a very good shooter, but it really doesn't matter the level of shooter when you share things that have helped you. You never know when something will click for someone else.


----------



## erdman41

EPLC said:


> That's great, thank you so much for sharing that. Your flaming comment is interesting, but expected for obvious reasons. This is exactly the kind of experience sharing that this forum needs! I know you're a very good shooter, but it really doesn't matter the level of shooter when you share things that have helped you. You never know when something will click for someone else.


Well I'm not yet where I want to be. I live in a tough state to compete in. Amateur Indoor at state usually takes 118x's for the two days to have a chance.
One field shoot this past year the top 6 were all 550+ including a 560.

It's all relative to what your goals are. I have a friend who is happy pounding out 300 low 50x games and doesn't care if he gets any better.

I have some loftier goals and if what I'm doing isn't going to get me there can't be afraid to try something different.

Gotta be willing to do the work as well.


----------



## unclejane

Padgett said:


> Scissors engine, by Padgett
> 
> 
> This little engine is one that got me up and shooting and I still recommend it to new shooters from time to time because it just works, it is a engine that primarily works off of the index finger extending or relaxing which allows the hinge to rotate. I call it scissors because I also pull into the wall with my ring and middle finger as I relax the index finger.
> 
> This little engine has its demons and I don't promote it for high end shooting, it isn't very solid against the wall and it wants to creep forward as you shoot with it. That doesn't mean you can't shoot well with it because the first year I shot 10 60x rounds a few years ago this was the engine I was using. But in the end it just isn't something to spend 10 years shooting with.


interesting, this is very similar to what I'm currently doing. Since I'm just re-starting out shooting again, well why not?.... I'm thinking of it as sort of the index finger being tugged towards the target and that seems to be helpful for some reason.

One thing I'm already finding is pulling into the wall with increasing force seems to send arrows to the left eensy bits, for me, from time to time. I seem to do better with just achieving and then maintaining a particular pressure against the wall. Then I let the target tug the index finger towards it and maintain the pressure. The arrow goes in a reasonable amount of time after that. 

So I think I'll keep on with this for a while. I'm not finessing it yet tho since I'm still monitoring pain and still only shooting a limited number of shafts per day, etc...

LS


----------



## SonnyThomas

ron w said:


> I know what you mean, but I never seemed to have that problem. I learned early on, to come to the wall and just stay on, with enough pressure to maintain contact, but not try to pull the bow apart.
> getting your draw length perfect and then modulating your back tension to allow the production of rotation while just staying positively on the stops, facilitates not having to deal with whether the bow has a rock hard or a slightly soft wall. there's no need to pull into the stops like want to pull the bow apart. of course, you can, and many authorities say to do it, but it's just not necessary and all it does is fatigue you, that much faster. once you're on the stops, you're there, you can't get more on them by pulling harder and there's no advantage in it. the reason draw length is so critical is exactly for this reason. as a matter of fact, there is disadvantage, in terms of how much disruption to the sight picture you cause and how smoothly your shot breaks, by trying to pull the bow apart.


Draw length....The old saying, you can shoot too short draw length better than one too long.....Truth there. My MarXman checks 28 1/2". My MX2 checks 28 1/4" and I can feel it short [tried to lengthen, but it didn't work out]. I don't change my anchor point for either or alter my shot execution. I adjust my bow arm. I've been alternating between these two bows almost daily and accuracy hasn't proven a issue.

All of us say something of...relaxing or no pressure in some manner.... I forget the day, sometime this past week, one of the 50 degree days we had. I just wanted to fling some arrows, nothing special. Got to shooting and the arrows just fell in. Can't remember doing anything different. I used a single spot 20 yard target for both 20 and 25 yards. I can't remember really trying, but the X ring sure got chewed up. It was a pleasing day. 3 spoiled rotten dogs. Clara and Missy on the picnic table at 25 yards and our lab, Crackers, laying beside my target butt. Yeah, up to get some loving when I pulled arrows.


----------



## ron w

we all have those days when our head is just in the right mood !. those days are the ones that make you feel like you couldn't miss of you tried .
very close association between your physical draw length, (the spread between your bow hand and your anchor point, that you naturally establish with out a bow in your hand) and the set draw length of your bow. that natural anchor point, is your "sweet spot" and should be duplicated in the setting of your bow, so you arrive at that same point, with the bow at full draw and your body under the tension of it's holding weight.
the closer you can establish that association, the more at ease your shot process will be. it's very critical and sometimes narrows down to only a twist or two of the bow string between "perfect" and "good, but not perfect". it takes a while to establish that "perfect setting". the biggest problem is that most guys don't want to take the time to find it by making thos small changes and shooting for a while at each changed length. 
many times people don't understand that theory and think it could be that critical and closely associated, but the association between your anatomy and your repeatable sub conscious process, develops a precise set of commands that controls your movement to miniscule resolution.
when your bows draw length is not set to that resolution, every time you draw, there is an amount odf added tension between what your subconscious is trying to make your body do, and the limits that the bow's set drawlength places, on what your body does.


----------



## tuckarch

ron w said:


> we all have those days when our head is just in the right mood !. those days are the ones that make you feel like you couldn't miss of you tried .
> very close association between your physical draw length, (the spread between your bow hand and your anchor point, that you naturally establish with out a bow in your hand) and the set draw length of your bow. that natural anchor point, is your "sweet spot" and should be duplicated in the setting of your bow, so you arrive at that same point, with the bow at full draw and your body under the tension of it's holding weight.
> the closer you can establish that association, the more at ease your shot process will be. it's very critical and sometimes narrows down to only a twist or two of the bow string between "perfect" and "good, but not perfect". it takes a while to establish that "perfect setting". the biggest problem is that most guys don't want to take the time to find it by making thos small changes and shooting for a while at each changed length.
> many times people don't understand that theory and think it could be that critical and closely associated, but the association between your anatomy and your repeatable sub conscious process, develops a precise set of commands that controls your movement to miniscule resolution.
> when your bows draw length is not set to that resolution, every time you draw, there is an amount odf added tension between what your subconscious is trying to make your body do, and the limits that the bow's set drawlength places, on what your body does.



Good info bud!


----------



## Padgett

I had a feeling that once I listed out the firing engines that I chose that Scissors was the one that got the most comments, scissors is just so good at getting rid of the arrow that it give a guy the ability to enjoy shooting with a hinge early on. I also used the scissors engine as my let down engine, basically I would be using my favorite engine that I shoot best in competitions and if I had to let down for any reason I would take a couple breaths and then use the scissors engine to shoot the shot. Then I used my normal engine on the next shot. For me this was a awesome way to give myself a job to do instead of suffering and standing there wondering if the bow was going to fire. With the scissors engine the bow always fires.

Again the one thing I think you have to always remember is that firing the hinge is only one job that we have to learn how to do, sure it is the most talked about job and very very important but it is still just a job to be done. Choosing a engine only because it fires the hinge easily really shouldn't be the highest priority, maximum accuracy along with a smooth effortless effort to me is the top priority. The problem is the more advanced methods or engines don't work well with a new shooter most of the time and they end up suffering or giving up on hinge shooting. Scissors allows a guy the ability to at least fire the hinge easily and enjoy hinge shooting and as time goes by he can then choose to move on to a method that sends him on to new levels.


----------



## Unk Bond

Hello

? whats your thoughts on the type and shape of a release effecting or bringing on a type fire-ing engine. One yields to. [ Later


----------



## unclejane

Padgett said:


> The problem is the more advanced methods or engines don't work well with a new shooter most of the time and they end up suffering or giving up on hinge shooting. Scissors allows a guy the ability to at least fire the hinge easily and enjoy hinge shooting and as time goes by he can then choose to move on to a method that sends him on to new levels.


Well again speaking for myself, I'm not an advanced shooter. I might have been approaching that at one point in the past, but today honesty demands that I consider myself basically a beginner starting over. So I'm ok with something deliberate like simply "rotate the hinge" that definitively causes the release to go off (without freezing up etc). I have enough to worry about just doing something that hits the target right now LOL. So I couldn't take advantage of an advanced technique right now anyway.

I am finding more and more that any technique that increases pressure against the back wall gives me problems. It starts showing up in the bare shaft (I shoot one as a diagnostic on every end, an old habit from the old days), which begins to do strange things, then it deteriorates from there. If I just come back to, and maintain, a light pressure against the wall and "rotate" the release, the bow goes off like it's in a hooter shooter and the bare shaft is utterly perfect with the fletched. Up close, the bare and fletched will go right in the X every time with it.

To test that, I got out my Evolution + where you have no choice and must pull against the back wall. Sure enough the bare shaft got squirrely on approx. every other shot..... That was interesting for me to find out...

LS


----------



## SonnyThomas

unclejane, I don't think anything is all the "advanced," just different things to try. Your Evo+, they can be set super light provided you draw to the wall so that you just know you're on the wall. How much have you experimented?


----------



## Rick!

Padgett said:


> I had a feeling that once I listed out the firing engines that I chose that Scissors was the one that got the most comments, .


There was a pro, I think he even posted on this forum a while back, that promoted this style of hinge shooting. I also read about it on his website several years ago. When a person has well developed hinge skillls, this style is easily adapted. Eventually, all you have to do is think about relaxing your index finger and the shot breaks without manual manipulation. YMMV.


----------



## unclejane

SonnyThomas said:


> unclejane, I don't think anything is all the "advanced," just different things to try. Your Evo+, they can be set super light provided you draw to the wall so that you just know you're on the wall. How much have you experimented?


Actually a lot, I've tried out a bunch of the different ideas folks have discussed and I've learned a truckload. Looking at what I'm doing now, I think it's pretty close to Shawn's "Scissors" idea. I've come full circle back around to a more deliberate "rotate the release" at the end, which, when I look at what I'm actually doing is the "Scissors", not rotating with the wrist or anything like that. So I'm still working out what seems to work the best and so far that seems to be the front runner. It's like Shawn says, don't lie to yourself LOL - I'm still not even able to do 60 shafts in a sitting, so I have to work where I'm at with what I got lol...

As for the tension experiment, I have my Evo backed off as far as it'll go, tho I think I still have a weaker spring, I'll have to dig around and see. I'm shooting very low weight so my holding weight is even lighter (about 10 to 12lbs by my estimation) so I have to heave on it pretty good to make it go off. That's probably what I'm seeing in the bare shaft.
I may try again tomorrow if I can find my extra springs....

LS


----------



## Sasquech

Boy has this thread come around you folks have put together some awesome food for thought. Switched to my sons bow yesterday snd a lot of what has been said here about double limb stops comes home I think I am doing a combination of back tension and pull straight back my fingers are just there and it is going off consistently. It was much different than gtx feel totally opposite solid wall stabilized everything . The release timing got very consistent. Draw length was a bit longer a that made things much more natural. Did not need to think about the release at all just focus on aim and staying in the wall.


----------



## EPLC

I've been experimenting with various firing engines combined with the use of a new release (BT GOLD). I went back to my Sweet Spot and found that the SP doesn't rotate as easily as the BT GOLD. As a shooting drill I've been shooting from 20 yards, one arrow at a time in sets of ten then switching to a clean face when I get 3 sets complete. While I do not actually score it becomes obvious how many misses are dropped. I also took Jacob's advise on target healing and find it to be very helpful to clean up bad holes. I even made up a tool for this and it works quite well. The two target pictures are of the same face after 10 and 30 arrows. I missed 2 of the first 10, 3 during the second and 2 more of set 3. This isn't great by any means but it is better than I've been shooting since I started messing with my firing engines a couple months ago. There have been some positive steps forward though, even though my scores haven't caught up yet. My new draw process (Alistair Whittingham) is simpler as I just close my release arm elbow. I've also incorporated this into my firing engine. Using the thumb peg to relax into the click I then continue closing the elbow until the shot breaks. It seems to be a simple to repeat engine.

My misses seem to be a consistent low left or high middle. I understand the low lefts but the high misses are eluding me. I'm thinking it is the grip on my Supra Max as I don't seem to have the issue with my Dominator.


----------



## EPLC

Padgett said:


> Since I have learned everything without a coach I am glad that I didn't just listen to the first guy that I ran into and stuck with that one firing engine for the last 4 years, I am sure that I would have perfected it by now but by learning on my own I have became very well rounded in shooting with any and all methods out there. This has allowed me to enjoy all of them and become proficient with them instead of just saying that this method sucks and this one doesn't, they all work getting the job done of sending the arrow on its way to the target.
> 
> For me though one of the methods has just proven to have more positive attributes than all the others and it produces the most solid repeatable releases and the highest accuracy for me, it isn't the easiest or smoothest engine that I have used because for me the Yield of the hand produces the smoothest and easiest release. For me the problem with yielding is that it isn't as strong of a engine against the wall and it has a wandering around feel which seems to allow my float pattern to increase just a little bit. The firing engine that I am using right now in my peak is the one that is super strong against the wall without any extra effort and it shrinks my float and never wants to drop out the bottom which to me is so valuable to not stand there worried that at any moment the pin might dip under the x.
> 
> So to me this kind of thread is beyond valuable to more than one level shooter, for the new guy it can give him the confidence that he has choices and also the insight to what he will experience when using certain firing engines. To the experienced hinge guy it can give him the confidence that there are subtle little tweeks in his chosen method to enhance or tighten up his shooting just enough to a new and even better level of daily shooting.


Your still haven't really answered this question, or at least not to a level of understanding on my part: _I'm still unclear about your use of multiple firing engines and subconscious execution. It would seem to me that it would require some degree of conscious intervention to do this? Just the decision of which one to use is conscious. This leads me to assume you are commanding at least a portion of the actual execution? _ Please explain how a conscious decision to do something with subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, differences can produce an automatic response at will to each? To me this would seem next to impossible. I've used different firing engines and this always require a conscious effort on my part. I'm not saying it can't be done but I'm not seeing how this is possible.


----------



## unclejane

SonnyThomas said:


> unclejane, I don't think anything is all the "advanced," just different things to try. Your Evo+, they can be set super light provided you draw to the wall so that you just know you're on the wall. How much have you experimented?


K, found my springs and am playing with it with a lighter activation force. Still prefer the hinge since I seem to do better not monkeying around with the pressure at the wall. Most important, the tune stays perfect and the arrow goes where it's aimed. Well, most of the time... 
But still a good thing to find out, I guess. 

LS


----------



## EPLC

All this discussion about conscious vs. subconscious got me thinking and searching around for different definitions and examples of each. The conclusion that I've come to is that we are not really being accurate when using the terms conscious and subconscious. What we are really talking about is the stages of learning and applying motor skills. Here are a couple of links that I found interesting: 

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerp...ring-motor-skills-similar-for-all-individuals
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/attention-and-motor-skill-learning


----------



## bowfisher

EPLC said:


> Your still haven't really answered this question, or at least not to a level of understanding on my part: _I'm still unclear about your use of multiple firing engines and subconscious execution. It would seem to me that it would require some degree of conscious intervention to do this? Just the decision of which one to use is conscious. This leads me to assume you are commanding at least a portion of the actual execution? _ Please explain how a conscious decision to do something with subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, differences can produce an automatic response at will to each? To me this would seem next to impossible. I've used different firing engines and this always require a conscious effort on my part. I'm not saying it can't be done but I'm not seeing how this is possible.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> EPLC, check out Padgetts thread on Disengage.


----------



## EPLC

Here's another interesting link on multitasking myths: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/224943

and an excerpt...

Counter to common belief, you can't do two cognitively complicated tasks at once, Meyer says. When you're on the phone and writing an e-mail at the same time, you're actually switching back and forth between them, since there's only one mental and neural channel through which language flows. "If you have a complicated task, it requires all your attention, and if you're trying to spread your attention over multiple tasks, it's not going to work," ~ David Meyer, a cognitive scientist at the University of Michigan


----------



## EPLC

bowfisher said:


> EPLC said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your still haven't really answered this question, or at least not to a level of understanding on my part: _I'm still unclear about your use of multiple firing engines and subconscious execution. It would seem to me that it would require some degree of conscious intervention to do this? Just the decision of which one to use is conscious. This leads me to assume you are commanding at least a portion of the actual execution? _ Please explain how a conscious decision to do something with subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, differences can produce an automatic response at will to each? To me this would seem next to impossible. I've used different firing engines and this always require a conscious effort on my part. I'm not saying it can't be done but I'm not seeing how this is possible.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> EPLC, check out Padgetts thread on Disengage.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that does seem to validate my assumption.
Click to expand...


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> All this discussion about conscious vs. subconscious got me thinking and searching around for different definitions and examples of each. The conclusion that I've come to is that we are not really being accurate when using the terms conscious and subconscious. What we are really talking about is the stages of learning and applying motor skills. Here are a couple of links that I found interesting:
> 
> http://www.humankinetics.com/excerp...ring-motor-skills-similar-for-all-individuals
> http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/attention-and-motor-skill-learning


That's the problem with us searching out "brain stuff." Search with in one manner and get tons of sites giving their answers. Search in another manner and get tons of sites giving their answers. Search in any manner and eventually you get a site that fits what you or I or any one else wants as proof of what we think. One fact remains, these specialists of the brain still don't have all the answers... Something triggers something. How can we be dead set focused on a deer coming in that we are set to shoot and see something out of the corner of our eye? Hearing can be "tuned out" with practice so long as it is within boundaries.
I would guess you could subconscious anything, but somewhere in the brain are so these tiny little "safety switches" at the ready to allow corrections or stop a subconscious routine. And that "Sixth Sense," a feeling that has us "back up." Example; "There was something, I don't know what. I turned and there was a deer right behind me." 
Just so dang much the brain does and what we should do is accept it as is. Whatever you think works for you, use it.....


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> That's the problem with us searching out "brain stuff." Search with in one manner and get tons of sites giving their answers. Search in another manner and get tons of sites giving their answers. Search in any manner and eventually you get a site that fits what you or I or any one else wants as proof of what we think. One fact remains, these specialists of the brain still don't have all the answers... Something triggers something. How can we be dead set focused on a deer coming in that we are set to shoot and see something out of the corner of our eye? Hearing can be "tuned out" with practice so long as it is within boundaries.
> I would guess you could subconscious anything, but somewhere in the brain are so these tiny little "safety switches" at the ready to allow corrections or stop a subconscious routine. And that "Sixth Sense," a feeling that has us "back up." Example; "There was something, I don't know what. I turned and there was a deer right behind me."
> Just so dang much the brain does and what we should do is accept it as is. Whatever you think works for you, use it.....


So are you saying you disagree with this assessment?


----------



## SonnyThomas

No. Just saying the mysteries of the brain are there. For us shooting, accept what you believe. I thought it was really stupid for these specialist to have 14 different versions of Consciousness. "You're awake." No chit? "Aware of that around you." Yes, I can buy that.


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> No. Just saying the mysteries of the brain are there. For us shooting, accept what you believe. I thought it was really stupid for these specialist to have 14 different versions of Consciousness. "You're awake." No chit? "Aware of that around you." Yes, I can buy that.


Not talking about consciousness Sonny, talking about learning motor skills. There is a process that lends itself to archery and the things we have been discussing in the thread. Are you saying the following isn't true? Are you saying the mind can issue two cognitive commands at the same time? This isn't voodoo, it's a pretty well established consensus.


----------



## SonnyThomas

I Googled "Attention and Motor Skilling Learning and Google shows; "About 1,160,000 results." Which one do you want me to believe, just yours? 

So I Googled "attention and motor skill learning at adult level" and got; "About 4,370,000 results." Within, I clicked on one; "Scholarly articles for attention and motor skill learning at adult level." This one gave; "About 201,000 results."

Like I said, you can put in the right Search words and eventually find what you believe or fits your needs. Believe what you want, I'm not stopping you. I'm going to haul back and shoot....Works for me.


----------



## EPLC

Google aside do you think what I posted Is wrong? Personally I believe discussions concerning the mental aspects of our game are necessary and appropriate in a forum dedicated to intermediate and advanced archers. Of course we could all move over to the general forum and beat to death how high a nock should be set and the like. Or, how many of the thousands of Google hits did not concurs with the opinion that I posted.


----------



## unclejane

SonnyThomas said:


> I Googled "Attention and Motor Skilling Learning and Google shows; "About 1,160,000 results." Which one do you want me to believe, just yours?
> 
> So I Googled "attention and motor skill learning at adult level" and got; "About 4,370,000 results." Within, I clicked on one; "Scholarly articles for attention and motor skill learning at adult level." This one gave; "About 201,000 results."
> 
> Like I said, you can put in the right Search words and eventually find what you believe or fits your needs. Believe what you want, I'm not stopping you. I'm going to haul back and shoot....Works for me.


Sonny, you're scaring me, man.... reading all that heavy stuff and then going shooting in all that cold rain and with all those dogs around. I don't know whether you're freaking me out or if you're suddenly my hero... 

LS


----------



## EPLC

EPLC said:


> While you provide solid reasoning I'm not so sure that this is entirely true. I don't believe the conscious mind truly knows anything about the subconscious activity. Sure, for simple tasks you can somewhat duplicate the effort, but complex tasks... forget about it. Take for example driving a car. I can think of many instances but one really stands out. I was driving fast and headed south, just north of the NY line where the highway splits. Suddenly a car changed his mind at the split and cut directly in my path. I went through a very complex maneuver in just a few seconds that I couldn't possibly repeat using the conscious mind. I was aware of what was happening but I couldn't duplicate it in slow motion or tell you exactly what I did. What I can tell you is that it was an adventure but I missed the other car.
> 
> I don't know what the scientific answer is to the connection of the conscious and the subconscious but I've suspected for some time that some of the truly top pros don't actually know what their subconscious mind's role actually is when they shoot that perfect X. Take the one's that have been shooting since they were very young... sure they can intellectualize and tell you what their conscious mind thinks is going on but I don't think they really know. In my own shooting some of my best performances have not been repeatable as I truly don't know what I did. Of course there are exceptions to everything and variations galore in archery so who really knows?
> 
> I believe it is possible that the conscious mind provides the basic instruction, training, etc., then over time the subconscious figures out the best, most efficient ways to perform the task at hand. In emergency situations this really stands out. Anyway, food for thought.


Sonny, this was my original post. At the time I had done no research but felt that my suspicions had some validity. This line of thinking was met with a lot of dispute, and some outright mockery, so I did some research on the subject and found several sources that validate my initial thoughts on this matter, including Alistair Whittingham. I find it interesting that each time I present evidence to support my original assumption it is met with more non-supported resistance... Now that I've done the research I feel even stronger that the more the shot becomes automatic the better the performance will be. The only thing I had wrong was the terminology... as conscious and subconscious are not a very good fit for the mental aspect as I had originally posted.

As far as the chart below, the 3 stages of learning can easily be applied to archery. Beginners are definitely stage 1 performers. Stage 2 is where you start seeing some pretty good shooters. Most really good archers are probably between 2 and 3 with the elite few having mastered enough of level 3 to make them special. Those are the ones I spoke of above that have been doing this autonomously for so long they really don't know exactly what they do.


----------



## Sasquech

I think I found a place where in elpc and I are on the same page and in technical agreement a skill practiced to the point of autonomy can be executed with out conscious active direction . Ever drive for a few minutes and not remember those few minutes? Sure you do we all have and guiding a shot if we spend as much time at it as learning and practicing driving will be the same thing easy and done properly with out detailed conscious thought.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> All this discussion about conscious vs. subconscious got me thinking and searching around for different definitions and examples of each. *The conclusion that I've come to is that we are not really being accurate when using the terms conscious and subconscious. What we are really talking about is the stages of learning and applying motor skills.* Here are a couple of links that I found interesting:
> 
> http://www.humankinetics.com/excerp...ring-motor-skills-similar-for-all-individuals
> http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/attention-and-motor-skill-learning





EPLC said:


> Google aside *do you think what I posted Is wrong?* Personally I believe discussions concerning the mental aspects of our game are necessary and appropriate in a forum dedicated to intermediate and advanced archers. Of course we could all move over to the general forum and beat to death how high a nock should be set and the like. Or, how many of the thousands of Google hits did not concurs with the opinion that I posted.


Trying my best here. Yes, I agree we were using words/terms wrongly, but meaning well... Going way back we when first took up archery. As we practiced we learned, brain and body. Back then I hung on for dear life just to draw a 50 pound bow. Within weeks the same bow was nothing to draw. Weeks more and I was shooting that bow better than the original owner. He gave me the bow. I didn't think conscious or subconscious. 14 years later (2 years total out for injuries and surgery) over 140 awards in 3D, Indoor, Outdoor, Field and ASA DAIR. And like you, I'm lopsided. I am all left handed, left eye dominant, shoot firearms left hand and shoot a bow right handed. 

I shot Trap and competed with pistols and rifles and we didn't talk conscious or subconscious. It was practice to get everything together. Yes, I had instructions. 

Wife doesn't like me shooting archery as I have more dust collectors than anything else to show for it. She liked it when I came home from Trap with a car load of goodies and enough cash to cover all my shooting and shotguns. ??? She doesn't say a thing about the wall of shotgun, pistol and rifle trophies. 

Motor skills...I don't know if you can search it. Basketball Wiz Pistol Pete Maravich was said to have some one drive a car while he dribbled outside the door. Now that's going to extremes....


----------



## Unk Bond

SonnyThomas said:


> Trying my best here. Yes, I agree we were using words/terms wrongly, but meaning well... Going way back we when first took up archery. As we practiced we learned, brain and body. Back then I hung on for dear life just to draw a 50 pound bow. Within weeks the same bow was nothing to draw. Weeks more and I was shooting that bow better than the original owner. He gave me the bow. I didn't think conscious or subconscious. 14 years later (2 years total out for injuries and surgery) over 140 awards in 3D, Indoor, Outdoor, Field and ASA DAIR. And like you, I'm lopsided. I am all left handed, left eye dominant, shoot firearms left hand and shoot a bow right handed.
> 
> I shot Trap and competed with pistols and rifles and we didn't talk conscious or subconscious. It was practice to get everything together. Yes, I had instructions.
> 
> Wife doesn't like me shooting archery as I have more dust collectors than anything else to show for it. She liked it when I came home from Trap with a car load of goodies and enough cash to cover all my shooting and shotguns. ??? She doesn't say a thing about the wall of shotgun, pistol and rifle trophies.
> 
> Motor skills...I don't know if you can search it. Basketball Wiz Pistol Pete Maravich was said to have some one drive a car while he dribbled outside the door. Now that's going to extremes....


============

Hello
Quote = shoot a bow right handed. 

? Right or left handed bow. Thanks [ Later


----------



## SonnyThomas

Right handed bow.


----------



## ron w

the terminology we use,.. "sub conscious", or "conscious" , is the "accepted terminology" in the sport of archery. it really doesn't matter what the literal definitions of the words are. when we use these words, we are referring to specific mental processes that are understood in their functionality.
now, some people will shout that the terms, "back tension release" and " hinge", fall under the same assumed condition, but they are in fact, decidedly different in nature. a "hinge" is an object and "back tension", is a muscular process.....two completely different subjects and not necessarily associated in process, or origin.


----------



## EPLC

Sasquech said:


> I think I found a place where in elpc and I are on the same page and in technical agreement a skill practiced to the point of autonomy can be executed with out conscious active direction . Ever drive for a few minutes and not remember those few minutes? Sure you do we all have and guiding a shot if we spend as much time at it as learning and practicing driving will be the same thing easy and done properly with out detailed conscious thought.


Yes, there is tons of evidence to support the end goal of automation. The chart that I have posted several times really drives this home. As you progress through the stages of learning a motor skill the higher the performance will be. I don't think there can be much argument about this, no matter what you want to call it.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Sasquech said:


> I think I found a place where in elpc and I are on the same page and in technical agreement a skill practiced to the point of autonomy can be executed with out conscious active direction . Ever drive for a few minutes and not remember those few minutes? Sure you do we all have and guiding a shot if we spend as much time at it as learning and practicing driving will be the same thing easy and done properly with out detailed conscious thought.


All of us were probably on the "same page" all along....


----------



## unclejane

SonnyThomas said:


> All of us were probably on the "same page" all along....


I was fixin' to say, we arrived at this on approx. page 2.. . The areas of contention never involved that particular fact; the disagreements centered around what is practiced to automation and what isn't. As well as the question of is "anything goes" a legitimate approach to becoming a good shot. And etc.

LS


----------



## SonnyThomas

unclejane said:


> I was fixin' to say, we arrived at this on approx. page 2.. . The areas of contention never involved that particular fact; the disagreements centered around what is practiced to automation and what isn't. As well as the question of is "anything goes" a legitimate approach to becoming a good shot. And etc.
> 
> LS


I prefer to haul back and shoot


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> All of us were probably on the "same page" all along....


No, actually we were not, but if it makes you comfortable to believe that, go for it.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> All this discussion about conscious vs. subconscious got me thinking and searching around for different definitions and examples of each. *The conclusion that I've come to is that we are not really being accurate when using the terms conscious and subconscious. What we are really talking about is the stages of learning and applying motor skills.* Here are a couple of links that I found interesting:





EPLC said:


> No, actually we were not, but if it makes you comfortable to believe that, go for it.


????????????????????


----------



## unclejane

SonnyThomas said:


> ????????????????????


Ok correction: all of us except one were and now are on the same page....

LS


----------



## EPLC

unclejane said:


> Ok correction: all of us except one were and now are on the same page....
> 
> LS


No, I think you had a consensus of 2, possibly 3. The evidence is clear that the more the entire shot can be made automatic, the better the performance will be. There is also overwhelming evidence that there are many successful shooters performing at a very high level with the front end being automated with the back end being the point of focus. I believe your position on these two items was very specifically the same as ron w's. At first, when I brought up Alistair Whittingham's, statements that backed up full automation you said you didn't want to discuss it anymore. Alistair was wrong, Braden was wrong, even Padgett was wrong. Now you seem to agree with what you disagreed with before and still want me to be the dissenter. Since I have not changed my position on these methods, and there are plenty that have agreed with me on this, what consensus are you referring to? So what are you saying? Are you saying that you still believe the process can not be elevated to a stage 3 and are you still saying that the back end is the only possible solution for automation? Or have you taken my position as your own original thought? I've seen that before.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> No, I think you had a consensus of 2, possibly 3. The evidence is clear that the more the entire shot can be made automatic, the better the performance will be. There is also overwhelming evidence that there are many successful shooters performing at a very high level with the front end being automated with the back end being the point of focus. I believe your position on these two items was very specifically the same as ron w's. At first, when I brought up Alistair Whittingham's, statements that backed up full automation you said you didn't want to discuss it anymore. Alistair was wrong, Braden was wrong, even Padgett was wrong. Now you seem to agree with what you disagreed with before and still want me to be the dissenter. Since I have not changed my position on these methods, and there are plenty that have agreed with me on this, what consensus are you referring to? So what are you saying? Are you saying that you still believe the process can not be elevated to a stage 3 and are you still saying that the back end is the only possible solution for automation? Or have you taken my position as your own original thought? I've seen that before.


I thought you were never going to read or respond to any of my posts anymore?

LS


----------



## Mahly

I thought we were going to stay on topic....
Does it matter who agreed with whom at the start? No.
Here's a thought.
Seeing that we can switch back and forth effortlessly (i.e. Typing and talking at the "same" time) I believe that some archers could actually focus on aiming AND their engine... while also running both subconsciously, and have that work for them.
Honestly, that's pretty much what I am doing as I learn a new engine, and still try to focus as much brain power as possible on aiming.


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> I thought we were going to stay on topic....
> Does it matter who agreed with whom at the start? No.
> Here's a thought.
> Seeing that we can switch back and forth effortlessly (i.e. Typing and talking at the "same" time) I believe that some archers could actually focus on aiming AND their engine... while also running both subconsciously, and have that work for them.
> Honestly, that's pretty much what I am doing as I learn a new engine, and still try to focus as much brain power as possible on aiming.


Actually I believe this discussion "is" on topic and we have come around to a lot of folks agreeing that my initial positions on these matters have validity. With regard to your belief that focusing on two things simultaneously is possible, I don't think you'll get much support there. But... with regard to running both "subconsciously" (automatic) and simultaneously, that's been my position all along... and it's been one of the points of contention ever since I brought it up. This is an important debate as there are a lot of misleading conversation that has been floated around on this subject which tends to confuse people trying to improve their game.


----------



## Mahly

Again, not both simultaneously subconsciously. But alternating conscious effort (cognitive) between aiming and firing engine.
Might not be the best idea, just thinking this could be possible even if only during training.


----------



## unclejane

Mahly said:


> I thought we were going to stay on topic....
> Does it matter who agreed with whom at the start? No.
> Here's a thought.
> Seeing that we can switch back and forth effortlessly (i.e. Typing and talking at the "same" time) I believe that some archers could actually focus on aiming AND their engine... while also running both subconsciously, and have that work for them.
> Honestly, that's pretty much what I am doing as I learn a new engine, and still try to focus as much brain power as possible on aiming.


This... I stated earlier in the thread my agreement with ron w concerning what is typically automated and what isn't. Namely, skills that tend to be repetitive and not normally requiring a lot of analysis tend to be the types of skills that we practice to automation and use subconsciously. However, skills that do require a lot of analytic input tend to remain under conscious control. Is that a hard and fast rule? Of course not - but it is a general tendency I think.

For example, in music, when I'm improvising a solo there tends to be a division of labor there. The fingering of the scale I use and the pattern at a particular position on the instrument tend to be composed of automated skills that I developed in practice, whereas the actual choice of the scale I'll use is an artistic (conscious) one. I may choose a minor scale in a closed position further up on the neck for tonal reasons - notes played further towards the bridge on lower strings have a "mellower" sound than the same notes near the nut on higher strings. I might flat a few notes here and there for artistic reasons, but the actual underlying pattern I'll use will be from a fully practiced drill. I won't need to think about how I'll play my note choice; the scale "machine" in my skill set does it for me.

Basically, the subconscious/automatic skills are a set of tools that are available for use through conscious choice. 

It's essentially the same kind of idea, I think, as Shawn's notion of "firing engine". They're simply a set of tools that he has available that he can pick from on a conscious, deliberate basis, based on what he thinks is appropriate for the job at hand at the time. 

This is just a roundabout way of saying that some of what we do is subconscious and some of what we do is more deliberate and conscious. Exactly which is which is generally up for debate, but there's never been a debate that I've seen that no such division exists in favor of one extreme or the other.

LS


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> Again, not both simultaneously subconsciously. But alternating conscious effort (cognitive) between aiming and firing engine.
> Might not be the best idea, just thinking this could be possible even if only during training.


Alternating cognitive thought between aiming and execution is actually why most archers will never excel at this wonderful game. Not saying it "can't" be done, but the only way I see it as possible would be to have "Hooter Shooter" stability. This is pretty basic stuff. Non automated activity cannot multitask, but it can switch back and forth between multiple tasks rapidly. The problem is the speed in which this switching happens. when you switch from aiming to execution the bow moves before you can trigger the shot. Study this chart as it truly represents the learning process to higher levels of performance. I truly think this will help you if you are switching back and forth.

This afternoon I was making up a couple sets of stabilizers. During the machining of the end caps I was thinking about this topic. My eyes were following the machining process and my hands were making the correct moves but my mind was elsewhere. The only time I had to intervene with cognitive thought was when I had to count something. Everything else went on without a hitch automatically. The reason I had to break in to count was that there is only one channel for conversation in the brain. Once the conversation was over the complete automation was back in full swing. Note that my eyes were directing the activity but my conscious thought was elsewhere.


----------



## Mahly

I get that, what I am saying isn't that we do both at one time, but we can switch back and forth (and not saying that is necessarily a good idea).
I guess it would be like during your improve solo, you switch to a conscious effort, to throw in a lick you've been wanting to use.
Both the improved notes (scale) and the lick are subconscious tools, but for an instant, you put thought into where you can insert the latest lick you wanted.
I have always believed that you can do more than 1 concious thing at a time... They just at can't both be very cognitive.
When you put a lot of conscious thought into 1 thing, there isn't enough left for much else. Using the chart, you could probably do a couple associative tasks at the same time, but if you start focusing on one, the other will have to go to autopilot... But you can then reverse and switch which gets the focus, and which has to take a back seat.


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> I get that, what I am saying isn't that we do both at one time, but we can switch back and forth (and not saying that is necessarily a good idea).
> I guess it would be like during your improve solo, you switch to a conscious effort, to throw in a lick you've been wanting to use.
> Both the improved notes (scale) and the lick are subconscious tools, but for an instant, you put thought into where you can insert the latest lick you wanted.
> I have always believed that you can do more than 1 concious thing at a time... They just at can't both be very cognitive.
> When you put a lot of conscious thought into 1 thing, there isn't enough left for much else. Using the chart, you could probably do a couple associative tasks at the same time, but if you start focusing on one, the other will have to go to autopilot... But you can then reverse and switch which gets the focus, and which has to take a back seat.


We seem to be talking over one another. I understand you were saying "switching back and forth". Personally I wouldn't go down that path for the reasons listed in my post above.


----------



## Mahly

Yep, like talking in a crowded room. 
Again, maybe not a good idea, but for those who wish to focus on the aiming, and also learn a new engine, it's an option.
Perhaps that's a benefit of wanting to look at the engine consciously, you can try new engines without messing with your aim.
Kinda on the fence with those 2.
Have always heard to make the engine subconscious, but now the idea of subconscious aiming has merits as well.
I guess my former experience with target panic makes me want to NOT focus on the engine.


----------



## unclejane

Mahly said:


> I get that, what I am saying isn't that we do both at one time, but we can switch back and forth (and not saying that is necessarily a good idea).
> I guess it would be like during your improve solo, you switch to a conscious effort, to throw in a lick you've been wanting to use.
> Both the improved notes (scale) and the lick are subconscious tools, but for an instant, you put thought into where you can insert the latest lick you wanted.


Yep, my experience pretty much. Unfortunately, that's the only case where I've developed a skill to an advanced (and almost professional at one point) level, but I have found that the "engine" idea seems to carry over into other skills as well. I think your point is well taken...
BTW, you can still choose to consciously execute a well-developed skill - you don't have to always do it subconsciously even after practicing it to that level. I do this to refine a part in my bass playing for example; if a bit is sloppy, I run through the passage slowly and deliberately in an effort to find where the mistake is and fix it. It then resumes being a conscious activity that I again practice to automation (with the fix hopefully intact lol).


> I have always believed that you can do more than 1 concious thing at a time... They just at can't both be very cognitive.
> When you put a lot of conscious thought into 1 thing, there isn't enough left for much else. Using the chart, you could probably do a couple associative tasks at the same time, but if you start focusing on one, the other will have to go to autopilot... But you can then reverse and switch which gets the focus, and which has to take a back seat.


Well perhaps conscious multitasking is more of a time-sharing/round-robin type of MT rather than a true parallelism? I'm not a neuropsychiatrist, but perhaps that's why the number of things we can handle cognitively at the same time is so limited? Just a thought...

LS


----------



## SonnyThomas

Well, what coach preaches this stuff? I'd say he or she tells it layman's terms, like, "This is what I want you to do."


----------



## unclejane

SonnyThomas said:


> Well, what coach preaches this stuff? I'd say he or she tells it layman's terms, like, "This is what I want you to do."


Well that's true too. There's the science and then there's the practice. A music teacher will say, ok to play C major, put your index finger here.... ok next finger here.... next one here..... And that's pretty much it. The rest is kind of gravy lol...

LS


----------



## ron w

most coaches don't bother preaching this stuff, because it scares people away. I think they all know this stuff, if they are at that level of advanced coaching, but they also realize people don't want to hear this "mish-mash", just like you can spot those on here that don't want to hear it, from some of us on here, that know and understand it.
as far as thread drift goes, I don't think you can separate issues of the "mental process" and "different firing engines".....the term "firing engines", is exactly that subject matter. you have to look at the whole picture.


----------



## Rick!

If you research the author of the motor skills paper, you'll find the golf teachers haven't bought into her professing. They also ended their discussions in about eight posts. I read Jack Nicklaus' cartoon lessons to get to a 5 handi. If I knew archery would need this level of mental masturbation, I probably would have never endeavored into it. 

I'm going to the range now, you guys keep doin' what yer doin' and report back on yer improvements.


----------



## SonnyThomas

unclejane said:


> Well that's true too. There's the science and then there's the practice. A music teacher will say, ok to play C major, put your index finger here.... ok next finger here.... next one here..... And that's pretty much it. The rest is kind of gravy lol...
> 
> LS


Wait a minute. You lost me with C major


----------



## EPLC

Rick! said:


> If you research the author of the motor skills paper, you'll find the golf teachers haven't bought into her professing. They also ended their discussions in about eight posts. I read Jack Nicklaus' cartoon lessons to get to a 5 handi. If I knew archery would need this level of mental masturbation, I probably would have never endeavored into it.
> 
> I'm going to the range now, you guys keep doin' what yer doin' and report back on yer improvements.


Shoot well, I wish I could do the same but I have other plans for this evening


----------



## erdman41

So is it the subconscious part or the fact it takes 1000's of shots to get it to that point.


----------



## EPLC

erdman41 said:


> So is it the subconscious part or the fact it takes 1000's of shots to get it to that point.


Yes  No  Possibly  I do know that one can give two completely opposing opinions in one post. Happens here all the time. We're kind of in one of those loops now.


----------



## EPLC

ron w said:


> most coaches don't bother preaching this stuff, because it scares people away. I think they all know this stuff, if they are at that level of advanced coaching, but they also realize people don't want to hear this "mish-mash", just like you can spot those on here that don't want to hear it, from some of us on here, that know and understand it.
> as far as thread drift goes, I don't think you can separate issues of the "mental process" and "different firing engines".....the term "firing engines", is exactly that subject matter. you have to look at the whole picture.


So what is the all knowing and understanding ron saying? Someone is wrong? Everyone is wrong? Somebody has to be wrong, don't they?


----------



## SonnyThomas

Didn't see where he noted right of wrong, just agreeing with me and unclejane.


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> Didn't see where he noted right of wrong, just agreeing with me and unclejane.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the same thing?


----------



## Mahly

Topic gentlemen...


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> Topic gentlemen...


I've been putting a lot of thought into this motor skill learning process and the example of me working on my lathe earlier today may have given me some deeper understanding of this process. I hope I can put it into words. I believe that an automated skill can range in depth within the brain, the deeper it is the less awareness there is. I believe archery requires less depth than some other basic activities so therefore there can be a lot of awareness involved. Today when running the lathe I was aware of the movements, knew what was happening but was not controlling the activity. The eyes were controlling everything without any language driven commands. As mentioned the only time I had to break into the automation was when language was need to count. Other than that I was free to think anything I wanted to without interrupting the activity. Even when counting much of the activity was still running automatically. When I apply this to the archery shot I believe if you just look at the spot you want to hit and simply let the process run it will work. Everything will be performed automatically if you can just trust it enough to get out of the way. I believe that due to the high degree of awareness present many think they are using cognitive control. Are they just confusing this with awareness? Don't really know, but I assume it is possible. My problem is the trust just isn't there most of the time and I don't know how to "will" it. I have tastes of it now and then and it is amazing when it's there.


----------



## unclejane

EPLC said:


> My problem is the trust just isn't there most of the time and I don't know how to "will" it.


But you've been told any number of times *how you can build* that trust in a shot process - your real problem seems to be that you either can't or won't absorb the suggestions that you've been asking for for no discernible reason. There's no "will" involved in trusting a skill - you have to build that trust and your skills have to earn it.

So again: the way you build that trust in a skill is through a) trying out (which means learning) a new skill, in the usual, rote way (coach or other consultant says "do this X", you do that X as suggested, etc). If it seems to solve the problem or at the very least seems to be an effective treatment for it, go to b) practicing it. If all goes well, it will become automatic and therefore trustworthy. If it fails at the a) stage, ditch it and try something else. Repeat until a solution is found that works.

It's simple. But you have to be receptive and willing to try to change what you're doing. If you're neither of those things, which seems to be the case, nothing will change for you. Not easy, but simple.

LS


----------



## Mahly

From what I have read here, that's pretty much what he has been doing.
The "usual" way was tried, and didn't work for him, so he is ditching it to try something else.
The in depth discussion of WHY it is working or not working is leading him to try s new path with reason vs. trying something different for being different's sake.
I see why many would say his way is not THE way. THE way works for most people... But for whatever reason, doesn't work for him. One can speculate that he didn't give it a fair shot, but only he knows if that is true.
He HAS found support for his theoretical new was to do things, and I think it may be best to let him try it to see IF it can work for him, where it might not have for others.
If he succeeds or fails, we can use that to determine if it is worth trying ourselves if we seem to have similar troubles doing it the "usual" way.
Succeed or fail, I wish him the best of luck. I only hope he learns enough about this different way of doing things, to be able to tell us that he now KNOWS if it works for him (meaning possibly for others) or if it does not, and he must continue trying new strategies.


----------



## unclejane

Mahly said:


> From what I have read here, that's pretty much what he has been doing.
> The "usual" way was tried, and didn't work for him, so he is ditching it to try something else.
> The in depth discussion of WHY it is working or not working is leading him to try s new path with reason vs. trying something different for being different's sake.
> I see why many would say his way is not THE way. THE way works for most people... But for whatever reason, doesn't work for him. One can speculate that he didn't give it a fair shot, but only he knows if that is true.


I'd be more inclined to think as you do if I saw more evidence that he was actually listening to suggestions and actually trying them, rather than the "contempt prior to investigation" method of simply rejecting them out of hand prior to actually giving them a "shot" (so to speak LOL). The flaw is his progress clearly isn't in the solutions being offered, is all I can conclude about that right now.

But as far as I'm concerned, what he does with the suggestions on the thread are ultimately neither here nor there, so my complaints in that regard basically stop at this point. I *can* say *I've *certainly benefitted greatly from the output here and have tried virtually every firing engine or other approach I've had time to investigate in the meanwhile. I can definitely report some improvements in my technique as a result. 


> He HAS found support for his theoretical new was to do things, and I think it may be best to let him try it to see IF it can work for him, where it might not have for others.
> If he succeeds or fails, we can use that to determine if it is worth trying ourselves if we seem to have similar troubles doing it the "usual" way.
> Succeed or fail, I wish him the best of luck. I only hope he learns enough about this different way of doing things, to be able to tell us that he now KNOWS if it works for him (meaning possibly for others) or if it does not, and he must continue trying new strategies.


Well, I'll only say that if I can improve my technique with a bow and arrow, there's no reason anyone else couldn't. If you saw me shoot in person you'd instantly understand why I say that LOL. Still an excellent thread overall, despite the derailments here and there...

LS


----------



## ron w

I don't think it's a matter of "giving it a fair shot", I think that some shooters, simply don't/didn't learn to trust their shot process, because they didn't use the drills and exorcises that teach the necessary trust, during their fundamental learning period.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Well, I said it before and..... You know, talk, talk, talk, talk. Shooting is where it's at. You can't prove something "overnight." Something really wrong, yeah, it shows and shows quick. Border line may take a week or more. And then something new, like the "push thumb" may take weeks to have down pat or find isn't a improvement.
Running discussion, just into this "push thing" and talk, talk. Post #14 and I feel argumentative coming. Time frame. Post #16, talk, talk and argumentative coming. Post #18 and still talk, talk. Post #20....Post #23. One day! My Post, #24, the same single day. So the original Post and 29 replies on the same day and "heat" showing.... 2nd day and my Post #38...And I got caught up in the.....Well..... 

Me, I said it. I'd be shooting, getting things ironed out to the new "push" and not worrying about Posting and then no getting up in the air about who's replying whatever. Damn! I set up my bow with new stabs and first thought it good and later I didn't think it good and started anew. Shooting both my bows for how long and I still can't decide which draw length I really like, one seems right, one seems short and both shooting great. And I'm on hold until I can get new modules in....


----------



## WV Tree Ninja

I use the peg to draw then slide my thumb behind the peg then shoot the X..


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> From what I have read here, that's pretty much what he has been doing.
> The "usual" way was tried, and didn't work for him, so he is ditching it to try something else.
> The in depth discussion of WHY it is working or not working is leading him to try s new path with reason vs. trying something different for being different's sake.
> I see why many would say his way is not THE way. THE way works for most people... But for whatever reason, doesn't work for him. One can speculate that he didn't give it a fair shot, but only he knows if that is true.
> He HAS found support for his theoretical new was to do things, and I think it may be best to let him try it to see IF it can work for him, where it might not have for others.
> If he succeeds or fails, we can use that to determine if it is worth trying ourselves if we seem to have similar troubles doing it the "usual" way.
> Succeed or fail, I wish him the best of luck. I only hope he learns enough about this different way of doing things, to be able to tell us that he now KNOWS if it works for him (meaning possibly for others) or if it does not, and he must continue trying new strategies.


This is absolutely correct. The fact is I've picked up enough from some of the folks on here, combined with some research outside of AT, to have a solid direction and plan. While there are some that do not care for my style, it works for me. With my persistence I dig until I get to a point of understanding that I can do something with. Not everything posted is cut and dry and there is certainly contradiction on every position or method. Where some folks are too ashamed or embarrassed to continue prodding when they aren't getting what they need, I continue asking questions until my understanding is satisfied. Thanks to prodding N7709K and Padgett, two of the truly good shooters that post a lot, we now understand that N7709K is performing most of his shot automatically... while focusing on the X... we now also understand that Padgett is performing somewhat less of his shot automatically and places at least some of his cognitive thought on the firing engine. The common link is that he also is focused on the X... He may be thinking about the execution more than Jacob, but I assure you they both are just as focused on that X. Where the eyes go, so does the arrow go... or at least to the limits of your physical and mental capabilities. I do not believe this is anymore complicated than eye hand coordination.

The direction I have chosen is simple and the goal is to get engrained to an automated state as much as possible. My other goal is to trust that the automated shot will work without my control. As far as mechanics go, my firing engine and setup is based on a Alistair Whittingham draw cycle and final execution will be a variation of several different firing engine techniques found here and elsewhere. The firing engine uses dynamic tension combined with a relaxing of the thumb on the peg and index finger. My initial training will be targeted toward Padgett's method of execution, which has proven to be best for me at this point. Still I need to continue letting my eyes direct the show. Where the eyes are looking the arrow goes. My long term goal is to get to a point where I am confident enough in my execution that it becomes automatic without the need for cognitive thought. I believe Jacob is very close to this point.


----------



## N7709K

I would tread VERY lightly in the assumptions to the inner workings of other's shots... and be very careful in how you word YOUR interpretation of how their shot progress and the mechanics behind it. Clarification is one thing; asserting oneself as the "expert" and changing what is said to fit into your methods IN ADDITION TO tossing aside anything that doesn't fit your lines of thinking will burn lots of bridges.


----------



## scootershooter1

Wow...Interesting..... 

Let everyone think about this just for a few seconds. Do what YOU do. Shoot YOUR bow. Use what works for YOU. 

I understand all of us are better than the next guy. But seriously, there is no right or wrong. No 1+1=2 

IT ALL WORKS IF DONE CORRECTLY AND REPEATEDLY

If we all could leave that little thing betweek our ears in the car for 3hrs we'd all be world champions.

Just sayin....


----------



## ron w

yes and no,....
there are certainly specific methods in archery that have been established a s standards, by which to learn to shoot and standards by which a good shot is processed. these are fairly detail oriented and work best when done as the should be done. just by the fact that there are so many shooters on here asking how to shoot better in general, supports that they haven't learned those basic fundamentals, because if they did, there would not be so many questions, because the fundamental details that make the difference would be unanimously understood.


----------



## cbrunson

Well this just got interesting.


----------



## EPLC

N7709K said:


> I would tread VERY lightly in the assumptions to the inner workings of other's shots... and be very careful in how you word YOUR interpretation of how their shot progress and the mechanics behind it. Clarification is one thing; asserting oneself as the "expert" and changing what is said to fit into your methods IN ADDITION TO tossing aside anything that doesn't fit your lines of thinking will burn lots of bridges.


Not sure what got your feathers ruffled on this but this was only my perception of what you said in your many posts. If my assumption/perception is incorrect my ears are wide open. Assuming you have most of your shot down to automation was nothing more than an attempt to be complimentary. And yes, I had to all but dig it out of you. 



N7709K said:


> learning and mastering your shot to a point of automation has NOTHING to do with what the eyes see; there is no stimuli from the eyes that governs learning and committing the running of your shot the non-cognitive portion of the brain. You learn your shot independently from aiming and merry the two together after the shot is learned; then you polish that pairing to get to where everything works exactly the same day in and day out. Shawn shoots multiple executions of his shot; I do not... Where he changes the finer points of execution and works those during the shot, I trust my shot will put arrows in the middle because it has done its job with a very high success rate for the last 15000 cycles...
> 
> As for the rest... You can pick things apart how you want; i've put all of it out there several times and nothing has changed from when i put it up. It seems that what you are trying to get out of the information given has changed and you are looking for the "correct" answers from certain people.... The short of it is this: i aim in the middle and let the shot happen. There isn't more too it that than; I don't trust my dot, and especially I don't trust it to sit still when i let it have free run. My approach to aiming is much the same as looking through the corner while driving; I don't focus on the dot[the road in front of me], I focus on the end point [end of the corner] but I am still very well aware of what my dot is doing [the road in front of me].
> 
> When you shoot at a high level and have things mastered there aren't hard lines on anything: there is no "i'm gonna start my shot now", "that is how i have to set my grip", etc... through cyclic happenings of shooting the actions become learned behaviors and require no thought... its like breathing in that when you think about it and consciously do the task it becomes much more difficult and things slip up; thats how shooting a bow is for me- I can do a whole number of things that I cannot teach because when it comes down to breaking the process into steps and not a learned behavior I cannot repeat the action (arrow twirl is one of them....). Truth be told my shot just happens; I get to the line, think about what I'm gonna think about, and go score arrows when they tell me to go score....


----------



## bowman72

what happened to laz. post?


----------



## Lazarus

bowman72 said:


> what happened to laz. post?


Edited. And probably should have been. It was a little over the top for a public forum.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Lazarus said:


> Edited. And probably should have been. It was a little over the top for a public forum.


Well, yeah, I saw and was thinking (dangerous thing).... Keep your cool, Laz. We need someone to stay sane in here


----------



## bowman72

We all max out once in awhile. I do learn a lot in the threads where people have strong feelings/opinions however.


----------



## scootershooter1

SonnyThomas said:


> Well, yeah, I saw and was thinking (dangerous thing).... Keep your cool, Laz. We need someone to stay sane in here


Laz is the guy to stay cool about 99% of the time. If he gets all worked up about something its usually for good reason......


----------



## Sasquech

We need laz around gives a different perspective


----------



## Sasquech

I have changed my mind the positions have little merit and are generally confrontational . I believe in what I do to shoot a release and study the art intensively I believe it is a matter of doing more and talking on the Internet less.


----------



## Lazarus

Sasquech said:


> I believe in what I do to shoot a release and study the art intensively I believe it is a matter of doing more and talking on the Internet less.


Interesting considering that was said by a guy that pulled up a dead topic from four months ago. :becky:

I "did" about 16 hours of archery yesterday, 5 of that was shooting or tweeking, and I still somehow found the time to see your post. :cheers: Wha'd you do? :becky:


----------



## reddogjack

some good posts - need to read them all


----------



## 1Warthog

to much info, I'm more confused now.....


----------



## Mahly

1Warthog said:


> to much info, I'm more confused now.....


What is confusing you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------

