# The difference between a 'true' Dead Release and a Dynamic Release



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I thought I would try and discuss this on this forum since I was 'taunted' :teeth: by one of our illustrious members on another forum to discuss these 2 types of releases here with the FITA group.

I think he regards the FITA forum more highly than he does the trad group.

I just think of you guys as a different...yet equal breed 

So the question was brought in the Trad Forum in regards to these 2 releases.

Which is better and why and some people have indicated that they don't believe it's possible to execute a 'true' dead release without collapsing or becoming dynamic.

The key to understanding how this can be done is with undertsanding isometric contractions, the involvement of oppossing/antagonistic muscles and the stength of the individual doing the shooting.

One of the primary keys in archery regarding accuracy is attaining and maintaining consistentcy and consistency can be attained and maintained with BOTH a 'true' dead release and a dynamic release...with the former being easier and more natural to execute.

So with that being said...would anyone like to add to this or even disagree.

I'm open to anything anyone may have to share. Healthy debate can be a good thing.

There's always room to learn new things...and I'm no exception to that.

Ray :shade:


----------



## hooktonboy (Nov 21, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Which is better and why and some people have indicated that they don't believe it's possible to execute a 'true' dead release without collapsing or becoming dynamic.
> 
> The key to understanding how this can be done is with undertsanding isometric contractions, the involvement of oppossing/antagonistic muscles and the stength of the individual doing the shooting.
> 
> ...


Hi Ray.

I think you need (for me at least) to describe a "true" dead release so I'm sure I understand what you're saying. I think of a dead release as a situation where the fingers relax on release, and nothing else moves, yes? And nothing collapses....

I guess we are talking about a skill to be learned - and it's one that isn't often taught. A dead loose is viewed as a form fault (or indicator of other form faults) and we generally set out to teach people not to do it.... so I think it would be pretty rare you would find someone who has worked on it so as to make it effective (we'll have beaten it out of them long before that . That being the case I guess it would be hard to offer people an example of a highly succesful "dead release" target shooter? And I'd find it very hard to picture how you'd combine it with clicker usage?

Amongst the guys I shoot with, there's one recurve shooter who consciously and deliberately shoots with a dead loose - and no clicker. He says its more consistent (I understand why he says that)....but realistically...it isn't.

When I watch new archers I often see "dead loosing". With them it usually results in low arrows. So if you adjusted your sight in order to get consistent golds with the dead loose, that tells me you're always going to be compromised for distance?

So are we suggesting that a dead-loose can be consistent (form doesn't have to be "right" to be consistent) - but maybe doesn't make for good distance shooting?

I think I need you to convince me a bit more.....:teeth:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Ricky Welch has a pretty dead release... he's pretty consistent too might I add. 

I've been trying out new anchors lately... string on eyebrow, thumb knuckle on jaw bone and cock feather on nose... when I hit all three anchors I'm fairly stretched out and any further movement will rotate the elbow of my draw arm beyond being in line with my arrow... shooting the way I do now sorta forces me to shoot a dead release... I'll give this style a go for a bit since it seems to have helped my left/right misses a good deal.


----------



## crolla (Feb 3, 2011)

take ricky welch off the 3-d course and he is just another shooter. never seen him shoot past 30 yards. most good fita and field archers shoot as well or better. i think what he is good at is taking the average guy and making him consistent. as far as the release, i do not believe that one is better than the other. it is simply which one works the best for you. in addition most of the best archers seem to use a dynamic release, that cant be coincidence.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Just an observation, not a 'posit' one way or the other ...

If you watch this slow motion clip of Park Sung Hyun's release ( click here) you'll see that as her fingers release the string, the arrow is gone before anything else moves a millimeter (watch her watch in relation to her ear ring).

Does this suggest that she's exerting back tension that is 'exactly equal' to the weight of the limbs, and that the backward movement of her hand after the release is a result of the fingered release of this limb tension, as opposed to her hand moving back as a result of dynamically increasing back tension?


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

I've watched that clip many times... I'm very interested to hear what people have to say about it.


----------



## hooktonboy (Nov 21, 2007)

lksseven said:


> J
> 
> Does this suggest that she's exerting back tension that is 'exactly equal' to the weight of the limbs, and that the backward movement of her hand after the release is a result of the fingered release of this limb tension, as opposed to her hand moving back as a result of dynamically increasing back tension?


Poetry in motion....

But maybe I've misunderstood the OP then... I was thinking that the dynamic release BW referred to is the natural result of the release of the string (for every action etc....), exactly as we see in the video. With a dead release it is only the relaxation of the fingers?

I "get" the idea of the balanced forces in the front and back half. But if the forces are balanced then how can the back half not move backwards some when the string is released? Wouldn't that be the same as the bow not moving forward...

Maybe we mean the same thing - e.g. not a forced backward fling of the draw hand? Never seen much benefit to that...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

hooktonboy said:


> I think you need (for me at least) to describe a "true" dead release so I'm sure I understand what you're saying. I think of a dead release as a situation where the fingers relax on release, and nothing else moves, yes? And nothing collapses....


Yes...you got it 



hooktonboy said:


> I guess we are talking about a skill to be learned - and it's one that isn't often taught.


It is definitely a learned skill...tough to learn, tough to be consistent and one I personally don't recommend.



hooktonboy said:


> Amongst the guys I shoot with, there's one recurve shooter who consciously and deliberately shoots with a dead loose - and no clicker. He says its more consistent (I understand why he says that)....but realistically...it isn't.


For him it may be...how does he typically score?



hooktonboy said:


> So are we suggesting that a dead-loose can be consistent (form doesn't have to be "right" to be consistent) - but maybe doesn't make for good distance shooting?


I'm just trying to show how it is possible to have a dead/static release to those who believe it's impossible. It can be consistent...BUT...it is much harder to attain and maintain that consistentcy when compared to a well executed dynamic release.

Ray :shade:


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Finger compound shooters usually shoot with a dead release...which does not mean they are not applying back tension. A dead release is just a relaxing of the fingers with no further movement. Frank Pearson teaches a dead release, he's a multi-national title winner. A dead release is much easier to shoot consistently for the beginner than a dynamic release if they are shooting without a clicker. Most traditional archers shoot without a dynamic release since no clicker is used. A dynamic release happens due to the force necessary to get an arrow through the clicker.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

lksseven said:


> If you watch this slow motion clip of Park Sung Hyun's release ( click here) you'll see that as her fingers release the string, the arrow is gone before anything else moves a millimeter (watch her watch in relation to her ear ring).
> 
> Does this suggest that she's exerting back tension that is 'exactly equal' to the weight of the limbs, and that the backward movement of her hand after the release is a result of the fingered release of this limb tension, as opposed to her hand moving back as a result of dynamically increasing back tension?


Great video.

Yes...she is exerting back tension that is exactly equal to her bow's draw weight...which is why there is a 'hold' at anchor. For many archers....once they have reached anchor point and hold...the contraction no longer is dynamic but becomes static.

The video indicates that the increase in back tension doesn't occur until a split second after the draw weight of the bow is released from the fingers.

I believe if back tension was increased as the fingers were relaxed you should see the arm begin to move reward sooner than what that video shows.

This also shows how the oppossing/antagonistic muscles don't have to time it perfectly to counter the effects of the loose. There appears to be a split second window of time to achieve this.

One of the other key components I personally stress regarding form and aiming...is timing. Creating a rythem and timing to your shot sequence can help in improving your overall consistentcy.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

ArtV said:


> Finger compound shooters usually shoot with a dead release...which does not mean they are not applying back tension. A dead release is just a relaxing of the fingers with no further movement. Frank Pearson teaches a dead release, he's a multi-national title winner. A dead release is much easier to shoot consistently for the beginner than a dynamic release if they are shooting without a clicker. Most traditional archers shoot without a dynamic release since no clicker is used. A dynamic release happens due to the force necessary to get an arrow through the clicker.


I have also seen many compound finger shooters use a dead hand release, and many shoot very well. I shoot my compound finger bow the same as my recurve. I have seen some folks take their thumb and put it on the back of their neck as part of their anchor. You might want to try this post out on the finger forum and see what they have to say. Compound fingers is a dying art -- though my 17 year old son picked it up and is helping to seed the next generation.

And Blackwolf, some day I will actually learn how to shoot my longbow and wood arrows. That is my biggest challenge today.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I believe if back tension was increased as the fingers were relaxed you should see the arm begin to move reward sooner than what that video shows.


It never happens in recurve


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Vittorio said:


> It never happens in recurve


Never? Why?

Ray :shade:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Can you increase back tension while keeping your draw arm's elbow in line with the arrow? The draw arm rotates so the elbow does not move in a linear motion... which means that an increase of back tension during the release could cause an over rotation... or am I over thinking this?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grapplemonkey said:


> Can you increase back tension while keeping your draw arm's elbow in line with the arrow?


Yes...if it's an isometric contraction.



grapplemonkey said:


> The draw arm rotates so the elbow does not move in a linear motion... which means that an increase of back tension during the release could cause an over rotation... or am I over thinking this?


I don't think an archer, with healthy shoulders can over rotate their shoulder under typical shooting circumstances...even if they tried as hard as they could upon releasing/loosing the bowstring.

To over-rotate a healthy shoulder usually involves an outside force placed on it. Someone who is tight or doesn't have the proper shoulder stability of the rotator cuff may injure themselves when the shoulder is in a position where the muscles, tendons and ligaments are not strong enough and/or flexible to move within that range of motion.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

I was asking about an over rotation of the elbow. 

I understand about isometric contractions... my mom made me work out with a towel when I played baseball as a youth... my friends always gave me weird looks when they watched me work out.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grapplemonkey said:


> I was asking about an over rotation of the elbow.


The closest thing to elbow rotation is when the elbow supinates or pronates. Is that what you are asking about?

Ray :shade:


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Okay maybe not the best, or better yet proper, description.

At full anchor your elbow is directly in line with the arrow. Drawing back any further will cause you elbow to go, depending on what handed you are, left or right of the arrow... unless I'm built differently, lol.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grapplemonkey said:


> Okay maybe not the best, or better yet proper, description.
> 
> At full anchor your elbow is directly in line with the arrow. Drawing back any further will cause you elbow to go, depending on what handed you are, left or right of the arrow... unless I'm built differently, lol.


OK...that's what I thought. I described it above as it pertains to shoulder rotation and not elbow rotation. It's not a problem for the elbow to follow the shoulder after release. That's the preferred way and best way, IMO in regards to follow through/conclusion of the shot.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

There are substantial differencies between recurve and compound shooting, because of the very different distribution of the forces needed to keep the sight steady in the gold while aiming and executing the final action (release). Compound final action tends to be similar to recurve one in one case only: when you need to increase back contraction/expansion to get release. This happens only with a real cliker like the recurve ones (it was quite popular in the 90's when wheels were round) or with a release at increment of power (I don't know if it can have a name, I have seen it called "real back tension release" sometime).
There are books to read, including mine, about how to manage the aiming phase and the expansion in recurve. But in any case, if you are in the aiming phase with recurve and you go to expansion, the expansion is obtained by contraction/expansion of the back that does not involve any more any movement of the drawing hand. When cliker says "relax" , fingers relax, string moves around the fingers an the arrow is gone already when drawing arm starts showing any kind of movement because of the deco-contraction of its back shoulder. 
Compound use of back tension is different depending on release used, as mentioned. In case of use of a voluntary releases, and I include rotation releases among them, you can of course use them all in a dynamic back tension action,trying to mentally avoid to activate them consciously. But, another probably more effective way to use them, in my opinion, is to activate them consciously. What you call "dead release". 
Conscius activation involves first to reach a good stable balance of the forces at the aiming phase, then to introduce a slow movent inside your drawing hand to activate the trigger by th proper finger or to rotate the entire release or, better, to relax your drawing hand (cascade release). 
The static balance needed to do this kind of action needs stability of the front arm despite the fact that you will be trying to activate release much closer to the wall than in a so called "dynamic release". So, you will probaly need to add more weights to the stabilizers, first, and to bend your body a little to the back as consequence of it, second. Something very similar to rifle shooting. 
I don't want to give you examples of world top compound archers using this kind of action with different releases (that by themselves influence the stance of the archer because of different activation procedure): you can do the analysys by yourself spending some time on youtube. But they are surely the majority.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> _I believe if back tension was increased as the fingers were relaxed you should see the arm begin to move reward sooner than what that video shows._
> 
> Never? Why?
> 
> Ray :shade:


No doubt there are all sorts of physiological effects (leave that to the coaches) but there's a simple mechanical viewpoint. If you have a system under (constant) external tension (limbs and muscles) and the system is broken (release) then the distance the separated parts travel in a given time is proportional to their relative masses.

So say you need the bow hand to move one tenth of an inch before you can detect the movement on a video. if say the arrow/string mass is around 0.02Kg and the equivalent drawing arm mass is 2.5Kg, this gives you a mass ratio of 125:1. So by the time the bow hand has moved 0.1" (detectable) the arrow has moved 12.5" i.e. it's already left the bow.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Joe T said:


> No doubt there are all sorts of physiological effects (leave that to the coaches) but there's a simple mechanical viewpoint. If you have a system under (constant) external tension (limbs and muscles) and the system is broken (release) then the distance the separated parts travel in a given time is proportional to their relative masses.
> 
> So say you need the bow hand to move one tenth of an inch before you can detect the movement on a video. if say the arrow/string mass is around 0.02Kg and the equivalent drawing arm mass is 2.5Kg, this gives you a mass ratio of 125:1. So by the time the bow hand has moved 0.1" (detectable) the arrow has moved 12.5" i.e. it's already left the bow.


Thanks for sharing that.

One of the other interesting observations I saw in that video was how the hand curled back into position when being relaxed after the release/loose quicker than the muscles of the back and shoulder responded when under tension.

For me...it indicates the use of other muscles (oppossing/antagonistic) involved with maintaining anchor.

My question than is...how does the muscles and joints of the hand, while dynamically relaxing, appear to be moving faster in the opposite direction (curling back up) in response to the loose after the string has left the fingers than the muscles of the back and shoulder that are still under tension and are suppose to be increasing their pull as the energy is released?

Ray :shade:


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Thanks for sharing that.
> 
> One of the other interesting observations I saw in that video was how the hand curled back into position when being relaxed after the release/loose quicker than the muscles of the back and shoulder responded when under tension.
> 
> ...


 Look up Inertia. . . It is the ability of a object to say in a static position when a force is applied to it.

A HEAVY object has a LOT of inertia. Thus, it takes a LOT of force change to make it move from its present position.

For example. . .

A train car. You and I cannot move a train car with our bodies. WE cannot overcome the mass and friction.

A Regular Car. . . much less mass. . .we can over come.

A Motorcycle. . .Much less mass. . .we can over come.

A Bat. . .very easily to overcome. . .But some of us do not have the strength to take that bat and overcome the inertia fast enough to hit homers all the time.

Your muscles in your back are huge with lots of inertia in them. Your arrow is a piece of paper with very little inertia to overcome. This means if you have 100 pounds of force (for talking sake) the items that are of less mass and rigidity will be overcome much faster than the objects of heaver mass. Your arrow will be well past the point of "Moment of truth" before your hand and back respond to the sudden 100 pounds of released pressure.

Not only that, your muscles are pulling/contracting in order to hold back all that pressure. You muscles are not fast enough to switch from pulling to pushing, or contracting to neutral in the time it takes place to keep a dynamic release from happening.

Maybe the whole thing is the "terminology" of Dead release, and what you consider dead verse dynamic. . .or static vs dynamic.

I refer to releases as what your release hand is doing.

Dynamic. . .it moves 
Static/Dead. . .it doesn't move not one fraction of an inch.

Now, how much of a Dynamic release you have is up to the person. . .It can be VERY little, or it can be a HUGE arm swing. But your hand *must* by laws of physics move backward some degree, or some fraction of a inch.

Dwayne


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

DwayneR said:


> Maybe the whole thing is the "terminology" of Dead release, and what you consider dead verse dynamic. . .or static vs dynamic.
> Dynamic. . .it moves
> Static/Dead. . .it doesn't move not one fraction of an inch.


Awesome response Dwayne!

This may be the key to finding some understanding.

I tried a simple test of isometrically contracting my arm is a punch like position and lightly taped my fist to see what kind of reaction my arm would have.

Even with light tapping my arm would move back and spring back into position...which is what I now believe is happening with most if not all archers trying to execute a dead/static release.

The fact is...it may be dynamic because their is movement BUT it is NOT a collapse and is NOT the same kind of release as the dynamic release taught by most archery coaches. It's characterized by the type of contraction of the back and shoulder muscles while at anchor and during the release/loose.

So what do you think?

Ray :shade:


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Awesome response Dwayne!
> 
> This may be the key to finding some understanding.
> 
> ...


 Ok, let me start with any kind of release. (ignoring any kind of terminology for the sake of explanation).
At the moment of truth, nothing can counteract the forces that are being relieved by the limbs. The forces must "expel" themselves to a zero state.

When a human releases the string, at the moment of truth, the shooters hand *must* move backwards, it has no choice. It *MUST* move backwards. Now, the question lies in "How far does a archer allow it to move?"
1. Does he hold his hand on his face (as a friction block), so that his hand moves very VERY little? Thus what happens, is at the moment of truth, his hand DOES move back, but moves back very little because the archer is holding it against a friction block, trying not to fling his hand back too much, and it looks like his hand moves very little if any? (Like a burp).

2. Does he hold his hand next to his face, and because of his form, body, or whatever, the "recoil of the hand is more than #1, but maybe moves up to 5 to 8 inches before coming to a stop (and/or returning forward a little). This would be like a medium recoil.

3. Does the Archers hand fling way back (more than 1 foot, maybe 2 feet!) at the moment of truth?

One of the above *must happen*. But NONE of the above are a collapse, and NONE of the above are static or dead. They all have a dynamic release, the difference lies in the movement of the hand, and how much it "flings" or "recoils" back.

#1 to the naked eye can look like it never moved, or moved so very little and quickly, that it is extremely difficult to see. But the physics still took place. You HAD to have a dynamic release, but because of your hand position, you were not allowing your hand to move much at all. Thus, this could look very close to a "static" release with the eyes, but not in slow motion.


Now the real problem comes in the Archer. Not everyone can do a "low recoil" release. the lower the recoild of a release, certain things must be true.

1. a persons face is being used as a friction block to help keep that hand as still as possible.
2. A person must fight to attempt to keep his hand from flinging back. (face friction reduces this tremendously)
3. A combination of the above two.
4. They are in proper back tension, and at the moment of truth, the bone to bone contact in the shoulderblades helps reduce the flinging of the hand.

Since we are all built differently, you will find it is much more "natural" for some people to have a medium recoil, and some a heavier recoil.

The most important thing an archer must realize, that anytime he or she "fights" or "purposely" produces a certain "recoil", they are introducing a new variable in the equation. THAT means accuracy will be hindered until that variable is controlled.

Now, please add or subtract what you agree with our disagree with.

Dwayne


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

DwayneR said:


> At the moment of truth, nothing can counteract the forces that are being relieved by the limbs.


I'm not completely sold on that...yet? If there is an equal an opposite reaction for everything...than to me...that means there is a counter force that exists to match every action and reaction.



DwayneR said:


> When a human releases the string, at the moment of truth, the shooters hand *must* move backwards, it has no choice. It *MUST* move backwards.


I think you already agree with me on this...but just for clarification I'll mention it. An archer can release the string without moving the hand backwards, which is called a collapse. Agreed?



DwayneR said:


> 1. Does he hold his hand on his face (as a friction block), so that his hand moves very VERY little? Thus what happens, is at the moment of truth, his hand DOES move back, but moves back very little because the archer is holding it against a friction block, trying not to fling his hand back too much, and it looks like his hand moves very little if any? (Like a burp).


LOL...I'm not sure I would describe that as a 'burp'. I guess you could have just as easily used the word 'fart' too...but...yes, I believe the face can act as a friction block...but I believe the limited amount of movement that is created with a release like that is more dependent upon the type of muscle contraction rather than the amount of friction placed upon the hand and face.



DwayneR said:


> 2. Does he hold his hand next to his face, and because of his form, body, or whatever, the "recoil of the hand is more than #1, but maybe moves up to 5 to 8 inches before coming to a stop (and/or returning forward a little). This would be like a medium recoil.


I believe this to be the more common reaction to a release and the type of reaction I personally believe is more natural and not forced.



DwayneR said:


> 3. Does the Archers hand fling way back (more than 1 foot, maybe 2 feet!) at the moment of truth?


This type of conclusion is more forced, IMO. In other words...it's an overexaggeration of what is required or natural.



DwayneR said:


> One of the above *must happen*. But NONE of the above are a collapse,


I agree for the most part. Non of those above are a collapse but the first one limits the amount of recoil primarily based on the intensity of the isometric contractions of the muscles involved with the shoulder and back.



DwayneR said:


> and NONE of the above are static or dead.


I also agree for the most part if we are describing static/dead release as a total lack of movement within the shoulder upon release of the bowstring. Again...I'm still not 100% confinced that it's not possible to counter the effects with antagonistic muscles and the type of contractions being applied to the shoulder and back muscles.



DwayneR said:


> #1 to the naked eye can look like it never moved, or moved so very little and quickly, that it is extremely difficult to see. But the physics still took place. You HAD to have a dynamic release, but because of your hand position, you were not allowing your hand to move much at all. Thus, this could look very close to a "static" release with the eyes, but not in slow motion.


I agree. I have yet to watch myself or Ron LaClair in slow motion video...BUT...what I presently believe is that movement or lack of movement of the arm and shoulder is based on the type of contraction being applied and whether antagonistic muscles are enguaged, that will determine how much the shoulder moves and whether the muscles and shoulder rebound back to their original anchor position...similar to how a rubberband can respond based on the elastic properties of muscle.

I asked one of my clients this morning, who is an orthopedic surgeon and specializes on shoulders this very question. He told me it was muscularly possible and that it was based on specific training...so I'm still on the fence with this. This may be better answered through someone with a greater knowledge of physics as you seem to possess than a surgeon or a medical exercise specialist/fitness trainer like myself.



DwayneR said:


> 1. a persons face is being used as a friction block to help keep that hand as still as possible.


Agreed. The face can be used as a friction block.



DwayneR said:


> 2. A person must fight to attempt to keep his hand from flinging back. (face friction reduces this tremendously)


I agree concerning how the archer must work harder to keep his hand from moving reward upon release. I don't agree with the face reducing it tremendously. Again...I feel it has more related to the type of contrction and the antagonistic muscles involved.



DwayneR said:


> 3. A combination of the above two.


Agreed.



DwayneR said:


> 4. They are in proper back tension, and at the moment of truth, the bone to bone contact in the shoulderblades helps reduce the flinging of the hand.


I'm not sure what you mean by the bone to bone contact of the shoulder blades slowing down the movement???



DwayneR said:


> Since we are all built differently, you will find it is much more "natural" for some people to have a medium recoil, and some a heavier recoil.


Agreed.



DwayneR said:


> The most important thing an archer must realize, that anytime he or she "fights" or "purposely" produces a certain "recoil", they are introducing a new variable in the equation. THAT means accuracy will be hindered until that variable is controlled.


Agreed. What requires more energy, will generally be harder to attain and maintain consistentcy...BUT...that absolutely doesn't mean it can't be done and be done very effectively once mastered.

Again...thanks for your response...especially for not making any egocentrical remarks such as implying that everyone should know and understand this because it was written in our grade school and/or highschool books.

This is how I believe a good debate should transpire rather than talking to down to people.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

This thread is why so many archers have target panic, just because some guys with actual talent can do the wrong thing and be successful doesn't mean that the rest of us should be doing it.

If you tell your brain to hold perfectly still and then you tell your finger or fingers to make your release go off you are going to flinch sooner or later. Any person who purposely holds the bow from jumping forward is going to have some form of target panic and they can't avoid it, a nationally ranked person is just better than us and they can win at their level. They just have more control over their target panic than us but it is still there. I shot a 3-d shoot the other day in the worst wind I have ever shot in and shot 19 12's out of 40 targets and shot a awesome score winning the shoot, I left my back tension in the truck and used my scott silverhorn and I punched the crap out of it as the wind blew my pin across the target all day long and I shot my high score for all the wrong reasons.

I was a division 1 baseball full ride baseball player and watched the same thing happen there, some of us did the work and tried to be mechanically correct and then there were the stinking all americans who could show up and kick the crap out of us without lifting weights or taking grounders or batting practice. I don't have the talent that some of the pros have so I have to do things right.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

From what I had read or heard, I had inferred that a 'dynamic release' described a method whereby the hand was drawn back through back tension/expansion and simultaneously the fingers were relaxed, so that the backward movement of the hand canceled out the forward movement of the fingers, thus ensuring that the draw length was not altered at the precise moment that the string cleared the fingers. 

But watching her hand in this video, there is nothing in the frame that moves backward at all until the string is off her fingers - the clicker goes off and her fingers so softly and efficiently and quickly relax to release the string, and it seems to me that whatever she does with her hand after that is irrelevant - obviously the released force that was holding back the pull of the limbs will cause some movement but she could scratch her head, or wave at her mom on TV ... the arrow is already well on its way to the target. So is it possible that Park Sung is pushing/expanding that last millimeter through the clicker with her bow hand/shoulder - as opposed to pulling through the clicker (which there's no visible evidence of in this slo-mo)?


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

> > Quote Originally Posted by DwayneR View Post
> > At the moment of truth, nothing can counteract the forces that are being relieved by the limbs.
> 
> 
> I'm not completely sold on that...yet? If there is an equal an opposite reaction for everything...than to me...that means there is a counter force that exists to match every action and reaction.


 Ok, If I am reading you correctly, I think the above is the entire crux of our message. 

The reason why I say this, is because if this not true, than a "true" dead release exists.

The statement I am referring to (so we/I will not be confused/forget/ or misguided in our thoughts)

*At the moment of truth, nothing can counteract the forces that are being relieved by the limbs.[/QUOTE]
that there is an equal an opposite reaction for everything*




> > Quote Originally Posted by DwayneR View Post
> > When a human releases the string, at the moment of truth, the shooters hand *must* move backwards, it has no choice. It *MUST* move backwards.
> 
> 
> I think you already agree with me on this...but just for clarification I'll mention it. An archer can release the string without moving the hand backwards, which is called a collapse. Agreed?


 This is where the disagreement is, I believe. But please hang on to this thought, along with the first thought of this message.




> LOL...I'm not sure I would describe that as a 'burp'. I guess you could have just as easily used the word 'fart' too...but...yes, I believe the face can act as a friction block..*.but I believe the limited amount of movement that is created with a release like that is more dependent upon the type of muscle contraction rather than the amount of friction placed upon the hand and face.*


 Ok, I will agree with you on that also! Let me add a little bit more, and tell me if you agree or disagree (I am referring to THIS statement only, NOTHING else)
When a person holds their hand against their face similar to a friction block, a few things happen. You actually change the amount of "movable" mass by increasing it (You now have your head, hand, and arm now), and the amount of Inertia to move that much more mass allows your hand to move less when the moment of truth comes.) Thus, your "recoil" on your release hand is much less, and (for your sake) we can get closer to what you call a "Dead/static" release without a collapse. (and for my sake, for those who do not have the muscles to stop a recoil :smile: )

What I am doing, is applying physics to what is actually happening on that "face Friction". Result is the same, but just seeing if we agree with each other.





> > Quote Originally Posted by DwayneR View Post
> > 2. Does he hold his hand next to his face, and because of his form, body, or whatever, the "recoil of the hand is more than #1, but maybe moves up to 5 to 8 inches before coming to a stop (and/or returning forward a little). This would be like a medium recoil.
> 
> 
> I believe this to be the more common reaction to a release and the type of reaction I personally believe is more natural and not forced.


 Ok! we are in agreement in quite a few things based upon this statement. . .

1. Natural is better than forced. (is this true for you also? Are we in agreement here?)
2. A (for sake of better words) "Medium recoil" is far more natural out there, a heavy recoil is probably forced. (and for the record I will NOT comment on a dead release or no recoil, for this is what we are discussing, lets leave that one alone).





> > One of the above *must happen*. But NONE of the above are a collapse,
> 
> 
> I agree for the most part. Non of those above are a collapse but *the first one limits the amount of recoil based on the intensity of the isometric contractions of the muscles infolved with the shoulder and back.*


 Aha! We are still in agreement! 





> > Quote Originally Posted by DwayneR View Post
> > #1 *to the naked eye* can* look like it never moved*, *or moved so very little and quickly*, that it *is extremely difficult to see*. But* the physics still took place*.* You HAD to have a dynamic release*, but because of your hand position, you were not allowing your hand to move much at all. Thus,* this could look very close to a "static" release with the eyes, but not in slow motion.*
> 
> 
> *I agree. I have yet to watch myself or Ron LaClair in slow motion video.*..BUT...what I presently believe is that movement or lack of movement of the arm and shoulder is based on the type of contraction being applied, which will determine how much the shoulder moves and whether the muscles and shoulder rebound back to their original anchor position...similar to how a rubberband can respond based on the elastic properties of muscle.


 I highlighted this, because when I read that you "agree", you are agreeing to the highlighted portions. Did I misread and misunderstand your message? By the way, I do agree with you, and I do like your rubberband analogy. 




> I asked one of my clients this morning, who is an orthopedic surgeon and specializes on shoulders this very question. He told me it was muscularly possible and that it was based on specific training...so I'm still on the fence with this. This may be better answered through someone with a greater knowledge of physics as you seem to possess than a surgeon or a medical exercise specialist/fitness trainer like myself.


 I have had lots of physics. . in college as well. I will have to admit its been 30 years, but numbers still add up. I also may be a little rusty on the nitty gritty, but the apple still falls. :smile:




> > Quote Originally Posted by DwayneR View Post
> > 4. They are in proper back tension, and at the moment of truth, the bone to bone contact in the shoulderblades helps reduce the flinging of the hand.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by the bone to bone contact of the shoulder blades slowing down the movement???


 When in proper form, there is very little "extra" extension that can be done. When you release in proper form, your recoil is more your forearm, not your entire arm.

For example, a person who is not in full draw and releases, at the moment of truth, their arms will be flung apart, past their Draw length, and apart. the result is a extremely poor shot. When you are properly drawn, at the moment of truth, your arms (at the most) will only fling apart the amount of available movement that is beyond your drawlength. It is like drawing back a bow, and when you get halfway drawn, your string breaks, your release goes off, or something. . .your arms fly apart and you say "Holy @#$#" :smile:

In actuallity it isn't really important on this discussion, just another example.





> > Quote Originally Posted by DwayneR View Post
> > The most important thing an archer must realize, that anytime he or she "fights" or "purposely" produces a certain "recoil", they are introducing a new variable in the equation. THAT means accuracy will be hindered until that variable is controlled.
> 
> 
> Agreed. What requires more energy, generally will be harder to attain and maintain consistentcy...BUT...that absolutely doesn't mean it can't be done and be done very effectively once mastered.


 Ok, we are in agreement here.

Now lets summarize the first two "thoughts" I asked you to hang on to. . .

This is where we disagree.

1. First thought. . .We both agree there is a equal and opposite reaction BUT!!! you mentioned because there is an equal an opposite reaction, you believe there is an "counter" reaction. And this counter reaction is what you are basing your premises of thought on.

Let me take this one step further (so you can correct me if I am thinking wrong!). You believe that at the Moment of truth, a skilled person can change their muscles from holding(contracting?) back X pounds of force to Expanding? fast enough to overcome the force at the moment of truth and overcome the force it takes to keep your arm from going back. (excuse me on my terminology on the muscles. . .I am no doctor, and haven't had human anatomy for over 30 years). Thus, the creation of a "dead" or "static" release.

Am I correct in my thought here? Am I understanding you correctly?

Thought 2, if Thought 1 is correct, you can claim a true dead release. And because it is claimed as a dead/static release, a collapse does not exist.


Can you please correct me on the above?

Dwayne ( I want to be on the same page of your understanding)


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

Wow Dwayne, that was a marathon effort to write that post for sure. 

As an anatomist, and someone who has been looking after beginner archers at my club for years, I can tell you that a lot of people manage to have a true dead release shooting recurve (we don't have enough compounders for me to say). Their hands simply don't move anywhere, nor do their arms. I have found that a primary reason why this happens is because they are using their biceps to draw, so instead of using their entire arm and the larger muscles on their backs (rhomboids, subscapularis), the strain is taken by biceps which at full contraction, can't contract any more, and so upon them opening their hands (note, not relaxing, since they are beginners and many find the concept of a relaxed release very challenging) their arm system doesn't go anywhere.

Further more, some of them experience strain on their pectoralis muscle of the draw arm because homeostasis of muscle use in a dynamic system naturally wants to stabilize sudden movements if you are not accustomed to relaxed muscle use. The sudden recoil from a release in beginners can often lead to an automated response to stabilize the shoulder, which uses pectoralis. If someone isn't taught correctly to relax, it too will assist in generating a dead release scenario (especially if they have massive massive pectoralis muscle) and also cause potential muscle strain.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Dwayne,

Just a quick question.

Does the mechanical physics you're suggesting apply to everything and every situation or may there be a difference when we are discussing issues such as living beings that can move, change direction at will and increase muscular tension at will.

I know there are certain physic laws that basically apply to everything but wasn't sure if there were certain circumstances where some of these theories primarily or only applied to in-animate objects.

I'll answer your questions later. I've got band practice tonight :drum:

Ray :shade:


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Dwayne,
> 
> Just a quick question.
> 
> ...


 Yes they apply to everything. . . Even the space shuttle when it takes off. Equal and opposite reaction It is the exact reason why we are able to move a ship in space without any air. When A rocket is fired in space, force is exerted out the muzzle. A equal and opposite reaction forces the rocket in a 180 degree direction.


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

Flehrad said:


> Wow Dwayne, that was a marathon effort to write that post for sure.
> 
> As an anatomist, and someone who has been looking after beginner archers at my club for years, I can tell you that a lot of people manage to have a true dead release shooting recurve (we don't have enough compounders for me to say). Their hands simply don't move anywhere, nor do their arms. I have found that a primary reason why this happens is because they are using their biceps to draw, so instead of using their entire arm and the larger muscles on their backs (rhomboids, subscapularis), the strain is taken by biceps which at full contraction, can't contract any more, and so upon them opening their hands (note, not relaxing, since they are beginners and many find the concept of a relaxed release very challenging) their arm system doesn't go anywhere.
> 
> Further more, some of them experience strain on their pectoralis muscle of the draw arm because homeostasis of muscle use in a dynamic system naturally wants to stabilize sudden movements if you are not accustomed to relaxed muscle use. The sudden recoil from a release in beginners can often lead to an automated response to stabilize the shoulder, which uses pectoralis. If someone isn't taught correctly to relax, it too will assist in generating a dead release scenario (especially if they have massive massive pectoralis muscle) and also cause potential muscle strain.


<chuckle> Ray and I disagree. I know what physics do, and how it works. I have coached for years, The laws of physics cannot be ignored. Thus, the only thing I can think of, is the definition of the terms being used. A clear understanding of each of our definitions could result in a better understanding for what each other is talking about. We may end up finding out it is only a "definition". 

But thanks for the compliment. Physics gotta work!. . .

Dwayne


----------



## Gene M (Nov 16, 2010)

As a new shooter (I started last Thanksgiving), I find this thread really interesting. Obviously I don't know much about archery, but I have a fairly practical understanding of Physics so if you don't mind I'll toss a few more thoughts in the pot. With respect to the laws of Physics, consider the following thought experiment. Pretend you're shooting indoors at a range where the back wall is just behind the shooting line. Draw you bow and shuffle back a few steps until your draw elbow is hard up against the back wall. Now release. Assuming your forearm was lined up with the arrow and the bone doesn't collapse or buckle, your forearm won't move at the instant of release. We're not violating Newton's third law here, it is just that the wall is exerting a force on your arm at the elbow exactly equal and opposite in direction to the force exerted when the string is released. And the wall is "stiff" enough so that amount of force generates virtually no movement in the wall. Now do the same experiment without your elbow against the back wall. If the muscles in your arm and back can exert a force at your elbow equal and opposite to the force generated by the release at the instant of release, your forearm won't move. I know if I hold my arms in the draw position with no bow, I can use my draw arm muscles to move my draw hand forward and backward. So I can generate some degree of force with those muscles. If I can generate arm muscle force equal to, opposite to and at the same rate the forces are generated by the release, I can keep my forearm from moving. I'm certainly not saying a dead release is better than a dynamic release (personally, I find my groupings somewhat better with a consistent follow through), I'm just saying it can be accomplished with near zero movement. Does that make any sense to anyone but me?


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

It does Gene, but its really bloody hard to exert that exact amount of force to maintain a zero movement scenario. Especially on a recurve when you are moving to expand through the clicker. On a compound, it might be easier once you reach the valley, however then it becomes an issue of how you engage/disengage your release device to what kind of movements occur afterwards.


----------



## shooter10x (Nov 13, 2008)

I have a related question. Every one has told me by just relaxing the fingers the string will clear them in the most efficient and consistant maner. This has always seemed not true to me. From studing martial arts a good part of my life I have learned that the when you rapidly contract a muscle the antagonist muscle will completely relax. It seemed therefore to make sense that if you flick the fingers open you will get less sideways movement of the string and a cleaner release. I dont mean pluck the fingers off the string and thrust the hand away from the face. The next thing my coaches say is you cant possibly move the fingers fast enough to get them out of the way of the string. This is correct but the instant that you contract the muscles used to open the fingers your brain is relaxing the holding muscles. To check this out I shot some high speed video of the famous bucked drop. When I relax my fingers the handle moves out and around them much like the string, however when i flick my fingers open the handle hardly moves to the side. The same thing happend when i shot high speed directly at my fingers from the front. I had about 3/4 inch right to left movement of the string while relaxing the fingers vs about 1/4 right to left for flicking the fingers open. Has anyone else tried this? Thanks


----------



## Flehrad (Oct 27, 2009)

What you should consider in your approach with the opening of your hand using contraction of the extensors is that can you do that exactly the same for however many shots you need to in a competition? Full contraction of any muscle system is very high energy, and you will tire your extensor muscles out, they'll also get quite sore and stiff most likely too though of course with much training and conditioning you might be able to avoid that. Having a relaxed release is far more energy efficient and consistent once you get it right.

The second thing is, when you fully contract a muscle, you are actually causing opposition to the homeostatic point of that muscle system. If you hold your fingers in a very tight hook, then fully contract your extensors to open, then relax, your fingers should naturally curl back in a little. When you apply this to the string release, in reality you will be fighting your own natural body instinct and muscle design by forcing your fingers past homeostasis to achieve a 1/2 inch clearance difference, which, isn't a huge deal. When you are in a tight hook position, and you simply relax, homeostatis helps you by opening the fingers to that natural mid-curl position, and the weight of the string-bow system will flick your fingers away as required.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how you make your release occur, so long as it is consistent, it's the same debate scenario with the dead or dynamic release, in that, so long as it is the same every single shot, you can tune your bow to group to that particular release pattern, and shoot great scores. What does make the difference in all of this is what is the most energy efficient, and easily repeatable method. Or as others put it, biomechanically correct.


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

Hello Gene,


> Now release.* Assuming your forearm was lined up with the arrow and the bone doesn't collapse or buckle, your forearm won't move at the instant of release. We're not violating Newton's third law here, it is just that the wall is exerting a force on your arm at the elbow exactly equal and opposite in direction to the force exerted when the string is released.** And the wall is "stiff" enough so that amount of force generates virtually no movement in the wall.* Now do the same experiment without your elbow against the back wall. If the muscles in your arm and back can exert a force at your elbow equal and opposite to the force generated by the release at the instant of release, your forearm won't move. I know if I hold my arms in the draw position with no bow, I can use my draw arm muscles to move my draw hand forward and backward. So I can generate some degree of force with those muscles. If I can generate arm muscle force equal to, opposite to and at the same rate the forces are generated by the release, I can keep my forearm from moving. I'm certainly not saying a dead release is better than a dynamic release (personally, I find my groupings somewhat better with a consistent follow through), I'm just saying it can be accomplished with near zero movement. Does that make any sense to anyone but me?


 You are absolutely 100 percent correct. Yes, your release *can* be accomplished with near "zero" movement. That is why I mentioned using the "face" as a Friction block. Your face will act similar to the wall. It will help hold your release hand to near zero movement. 

The biggest problem with attempting a dead release, is that your muscles are pulling apart at (X) pounds of pressure. The very second you release, in order to have a dead release, your muscles must almost instantly Go from pulling apart to pushing together. Not only are they counteracting the pulling part of 60 pounds, they must also counteract the movement of the mass of your arm moving backwards at the moment of truth. Then, you must counter THAT reaction, so that your release hand will not move forward beyond its initial point of release.

Using the face as a friction block helps this tremendously, and if you notice, most all people who have a very shallow or LOW recoil on their hand, use their face as a friction block.

And *IF* a true dead release is obtained, that means your fingers will be uncurling, causing a "creep" and/or a collapse until the string leaves the fingers. 

Either way, fighting to "obtain" a zero recoil is counter productive.

Laws of physcis must prevail. . . Our human anatomy is not fast enough to stop our arms from moving at the moment of truth. It may come fairly close, but it can't. At the moment of truth, our muscles must go from one end to the other. . .instantaneously. (unless you are backed up against a wall. . . . :smile: )

Dwayne


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

shooter10x said:


> I have a related question. Every one has told me by just relaxing the fingers the string will clear them in the most efficient and consistant maner. This has always seemed not true to me. From studing martial arts a good part of my life I have learned that the when you rapidly contract a muscle the antagonist muscle will completely relax. It seemed therefore to make sense that if you flick the fingers open you will get less sideways movement of the string and a cleaner release. I dont mean pluck the fingers off the string and thrust the hand away from the face. The next thing my coaches say is you cant possibly move the fingers fast enough to get them out of the way of the string. This is correct but the instant that you contract the muscles used to open the fingers your brain is relaxing the holding muscles. To check this out I shot some high speed video of the famous bucked drop. When I relax my fingers the handle moves out and around them much like the string, however when i flick my fingers open the handle hardly moves to the side. The same thing happend when i shot high speed directly at my fingers from the front. I had about 3/4 inch right to left movement of the string while relaxing the fingers vs about 1/4 right to left for flicking the fingers open. Has anyone else tried this? Thanks


 Archery is done with precision, because of relaxation. Anytime you take away the "relax", and start switching to force (for your fingers), you are opening up more variables. Not only will it be tough to have a constant "finger opening", but the string will leave your fingers differently. It will be much more pronounced at longer distances than short distances.

Not saying it can't be done, but it will be much harder to become accurate at longer distances.

Want to test your true form? Test it at LONG distance. Most people can do ok at 20 yards/Meters. This is where errors can be covered up, and where errors are less pronounced. Longer distance means one thing. . .amplification of errors, bad form, and poor consistency. 

Dwayne


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

DwayneR said:


> The biggest problem with attempting a dead release, is that your muscles are pulling apart at (X) pounds of pressure. The very second you release, in order to have a dead release, your muscles must almost instantly Go from pulling apart to pushing together.


That's IF they are pulling...BUT...if the muscles are isometrically contracting there are different contractile properties involved that react differently to a hold when compared to a dynamic pull....especially if any of the antagonistic muscles are involved.

I believe perfection has to do with 'timing'. If everything is timed properly to counter the forces, it can be done.

Can it happen consistently perfect everytime? No...but neither can a dynamic release be perfect everytime. It's just that a dynamic release will be more consistently closer to perfection for the general population.



DwayneR said:


> and *IF* a true dead release is obtained, that means your fingers will be uncurling, causing a "creep" and/or a collapse until the string leaves the fingers.


Could you please define exactly what you believe a 'collapse' is?

My understanding of a 'collapse' is when the shoulder girdle of the draw arm abducts and basically shortens the archer's draw length from their original anchor point. 

I believe if you were to video tape an archer, who used a well executed dead release and compare it to Park's video in slow motion, you wouldn't see any change in draw length/shoulder position until AFTER the string left the fingers. Basically...they would look nearly identical.



DwayneR said:


> Either way, fighting to "obtain" a zero recoil is counter productive.


I wouldn't say 'is' but I would say 'can be' and/or 'most likely will be for the general population'.

Ray :shade:


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

> > Quote Originally Posted by DwayneR View Post
> > The biggest problem with attempting a dead release, is that your muscles are pulling apart at (X) pounds of pressure. The very second you release, in order to have a dead release, your muscles must almost instantly Go from pulling apart to pushing together.
> 
> 
> That's IF they are pulling...BUT...if the muscles are isometrically contracting there are different contractile properties involved that react differently to a hold when compared to a dynamic pull....especially if any of the antagonistic muscles are involved.


 It doesn't make one BIT of difference if they are pulling, pushing, or WHATEVER!. . .Your muscles cannot instantaneously switch 180 degrees opposite of whatever they were pulling, pushing or whatever at the moment of truth.




> No...but neither can a dynamic release be perfect everytime. It's just that a dynamic release will be more consistently closer to perfection for the general population.


 Totally agree with you on this. . ..





> Quote Originally Posted by DwayneR View Post
> and *IF* a true dead release is obtained, that means your fingers will be uncurling, causing a "creep" and/or a collapse until the string leaves the fingers.
> Could you please define exactly what you believe a 'collapse' is?


 Already explained that in a earlier thread. . . I was teased about thread for my gallant effort of explaining. . . :smile:



> My understanding of a 'collapse' is when the shoulder of the draw arm adducts and basically shortens the archer's draw length from their original anchor point.


Yes, that is one kind of collapse. .. you can collapse with your bow arm too. It can be a combination of the two.



> I believe if you were to video tape an archer, who used a well executed dead release and compare the 2 videos in slow motion, you wouldn't see any change in draw length/shoulder position until AFTER the string left the fingers.


 Again, no such thing as a dead release. . cannot be done. You gotta understand the physics. . .That has been explained to you by me, and another person using the mass of the arrow compared to the mass of your body. That arrow will be on its way before you see the movement in your arms with the naked eye. Even in slow motion, the arms are widening and moving apart as the string leaves. Problem is, you are focusing as an optical illusion on the arrow. Ever hear the term the hands are quicker than the eye?. . . The arrow is a hell of a lot quicker than the hands. ( I know, bad analogy. . .but. . .I was typing this ready to go home. . . I had a "fart" as you would say).




> Quote Originally Posted by DwayneR View Post
> Either way, fighting to "obtain" a zero recoil is counter productive.
> I wouldn't say 'is' but I would say 'can be' and/or 'most likely will be for the general population'.


 And this is where terminology comes in. . . If a person considers a dead release something that is hard to see, but the hand still goes through the same motives of recoil, then what you say can be true. But on a true dead release, it will be counterproductive, will result in collapse, and cannot be humanly done. Our muscles ain't fast enough to switch instantly from holding 60 pounds of force from one direction, to 60 pounds of force the other direction in an instant. 

Thus, we have three kinds of recoil. . .

1. the extremely small recoil (dampended recoil), in which "face Planters" use. (People who use their face as friction blocks to deaden the recoil imposed on their hand.
2. The natural recoil. . .this is what most people will see and use. The amount of recoil you see will depend upon the weight of the bow.
3. Everything between 1 and 2.

And. . of course 

#4. Those people who fling past the natural recoil state. :smile:

Dwayne


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Dwayne,

What happens when you have 2 objects exactly identical pulling in opposite directions with the same amount of pull? They basically cancel each other out from moving? Correct?

Is it possible to create a counter force to keep the lever arm from moving upon the release of the bowstring?

I believe it is...but the timing would have to be perfect.

Ray :shade:


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

> What happens when you have 2 objects exactly identical pulling in opposite directions with the same amount of pull? They basically cancel each other out from moving? Correct?


 Yes Ray, that is correct. 



> Is it possible to create a counter force to keep the lever arm from moving upon the release of the bowstring?
> 
> I believe it is...but the timing would have to be perfect.


 It is not humanly possible to do such a thing. . Even at the speed that our neurons travel, our muscles going from one end of the spectrum , to 100 percent the the opposite. .. instantaneously. 

In fact, it would be extremely difficult doing it with a complete electronic setup made specifically for that situation. 

Dwayne


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

DwayneR said:


> It is not humanly possible to do such a thing. . Even at the speed that our neurons travel, our muscles going from one end of the spectrum , to 100 percent the the opposite. .. instantaneously.


How do you know this for sure? 

What is the speed that a muscle can contract? 

What if the musclar requirement needed to hold anchor is only 50% of what the muscle is actually capable of?

For example...I can dumbell row 150lbs. but I shoot a 70lbs. bow.

In Park's video there is 'clearly' an amount of time, even though it may be a fraction of a second, that elapses before the shoulder girdle adducts to cause movement reward.

Could that time be long enough for the pre-isometrically contracted anatagonistic muscles to respond properly to counter the forces of the release?

How long would it take the antagonistic muscle that is pre-isometrically contracted to 50% of it's capability to contract enough to counter the forces of the agonistic muscle that is only contracting at 50% of it's capability?

These are just some of the questions that truly need answering.

This where I believe isometric contractions come into play. With isometric contractions of the antagonistic muscles being pre-contracted to help stabilize the joints, the requirement of a muscle needing to go from 0 to 100 is reduced greatly if not nullified.



DwayneR said:


> In fact, it would be extremely difficult doing it with a complete electronic setup made specifically for that situation.


So in fact...it would be possible but very difficult. It appears you are saying it is in fact possible mechanically and that it doesn't break any physics laws or theories when involving a counter force.

It would than seem to be that 'timing' is what determines the actual outcome of whether or not this is possible.

I personally believe that the human body is capable of perfect timing. I just don't believe we are capable of it 'everytime'...which as I mentioned before...also applies to a dynamic release timing the increase of back tension with the relaxation of the fingers.

Ultimately what Park's video and this discussion has shown...is that wether executing a good dynamic release or trying to execute a good dead release...the string will aready be gone from the fingers before the shoulder joint of the draw arm shows any movement.

Mechanically it involves more variables trying to execute a dead release...which opens up the possibilty of more inconsistencies, so if an archer wants to choose a technique that is easier to execute...the dynamic release would be the choice to make...even though a dead release can be developed to be just as effective.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Gene M (Nov 16, 2010)

A quick google search suggests that our muscles can react reflexively (like when the doctor whacks your knee with a hammer) in something less than 50 milliseconds ( 0.050 seconds). If the brain gets involved in the decision to fire a muscle, the reaction time is more like 200 milliseconds( 0.2 seconds ). I'm sure it gets much more complicated to figure out how fast our arm/shoulder muscles can react after, or at the same time, the brain tells our fingers to relax/release. However, now that Casio has high speed digital cameras with frame rates up to 1000 frames per second for under $200, seems like some real world experiments would be in order. I don't think these experiments will make me a better archer, but it would make this discussion even more interesting. Anyone got a spare couple hundred bucks they're willing to invest in a camera instead of more archery gear? I still need to buy a sight or I'd volunteer :smile:.


----------



## grapplemonkey (Nov 2, 2005)

Is there a neurosurgeon in the house? :bounce:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

grapplemonkey said:


> Is there a neurosurgeon in the house? :bounce:


LOL...how about a lobotomist too?  Sometimes I feel I need to see one with how much I think about how and why things work or don't work 

Ray :shade:


----------

