# String walking/tab marks



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

Gentlemen and Ladies,

"Archers shooting Barebow style will use bow, arrows, strings and accessories free from any sights, marks or blemishes that may be used as a sighting aid."

Here is my question, does the above statement (NFAA rules for barebow) prohibit marking your tab with references for string walking? At face value it would appear that it does (marks, blemishes), however, wouldn't stiching on the tab also be considered a mark or blemish? Just curios what your thoughts are.


Thanks,
WTE


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I hear that it is illegal to add marks to your tab. My tab has never been checked, however. I notice that my serving gets worn from using my fingernail to measure my string crawl. I hope that it does not create a problem if I shoot a tournament where they are more particular. So far the NAA FITA tournaments (target) that I shoot do not do much of a check.


----------



## Floxter (Sep 13, 2002)

It is for this reason that most string walkers use tabs like Black Widow, Spigarelli Tab Amico Plus, or Cavalier Elite. I use an Elite and work off the screw heads. Others use the stitching on their Widows or Amicos. Some even go so far as to serve their string with monofilament and use their thumb nail to count wraps.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

which is a classic example of why barebow is a waste of time at best and cheating at worst.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

caspian said:


> which is a classic example of why barebow is a waste of time at best and cheating at worst.


Gee-why did I expect the person who made this comment has a blank profile.:wink:

People who post crap here without having a profile are a waste of bandwidth IMHO


----------



## engtee (Oct 2, 2003)

As a judge, if I had just put a barebow through the 122mm ring and then saw marks on the tab, I would certainly question them. Best solution, as already suggested, is to use a tab that will allow you to work off of screws, stitching, etc. that is part of the tab and cannot be questioned. Btw, just so everyone doesn't think I am a "hanging judge", if the culprit was the only one shooting barebow in the event (which is not unusual), I would point out the problem, but let him shoot with it. If not the only one, to protect the field, some solution would have to be reached.


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

Hank & Floxter,

Maybe the key is "add marks" I use a Black Widow tab and rely on the stiching for my references. Officials did check my tab once at a Fita event and deemed it ok as I had not added marks. I have never had a check at a NFAA event. My reason for asking is not to see how much I can get away with, rather, to see what is permitted and understanding. Checked or not, I still want to play fair. 


Caspian,

Why do you feel that barebow is a wast of time at best and cheating at worst?

Thanks,
WTE


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

Engtee,

We must have been posting at the same time. Thanks for your input from the standpoint of an official. 

WTE


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

engtee said:


> As a judge, if I had just put a barebow through the 122mm ring and then saw marks on the tab, I would certainly question them. Best solution, as already suggested, is to use a tab that will allow you to work off of screws, stitching, etc. that is part of the tab and cannot be questioned. Btw, just so everyone doesn't think I am a "hanging judge", if the culprit was the only one shooting barebow in the event (which is not unusual), I would point out the problem, but let him shoot with it. If not the only one, to protect the field, some solution would have to be reached.


Concur-I am a RJ who worked the latest nationals but I was on the youth field-no BB (though young Hardy Trafford shoots w/0 a sight and may have had a memorandum or markings-which is legal since he was shooting in the olympic division where a memorandum is permitted).

My wife uses the spig tab and yes, uses the thread holes. Perhaps the top BB archer in the country has a homemade tab with lots of thread holes for the same reason.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

wte said:


> Caspian,
> 
> Why do you feel that barebow is a wast of time at best and cheating at worst?
> 
> ...


Well, I'm obviously not him but I can most likely tell you the answer. He is probably one that has an idealized perception of what barebow is (if you have read much in the traditional forums you will know what I mean). Barebow was/is meant to not use a "sights" be they pins, rings, marks on the bow, or the point of the arrow. It is supposed to be some quasi-mystical thing wherein the arrow suddenly appears in the target.

In this particular case I never have seen why stitches on your tab or counting threads on your serving is OK but make your own marks and off you go. I rather suspect that some "purist" got their way at some point but couldn't get away from reality (and reality is that there are always going to be ways to count/mark your spots that must be legal).

I, personally, have never really enjoyed competing in BB divisions for a similar reason, I just do not call it cheating or a waste of time. It's the rules and we are all under the same ones. Nor do I fool myself into having some notion that they didn't do all that in the old days. I simply do not enjoy shooting that way any more than I do using pin sights on a compound (and do not find anything wrong with either style, I just do not enjoy it)

If you are wondering I shoot "instinctive" in the majority of venues I shoot. I do shoot some Field, so around 40 yards or so I do start to gap shoot. But the "fun" factor of shooting the longer targets (especially the 80 yard one) outweighs the non-fun of using a point of aim method. Nor does it bother me that someone string walking beats me, it is my choice to do it the "harder" way.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Entry for Barebow in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

Harmless.

Updated entry transmitted just prior to the destruction of the Earth:

Mostly harmless.


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim, Strcpy, Hank,

I have often felt like I just did not quite fit in. My name is Todd and I am a String Walker. Most of the time and on a local level, I compete by myself in the barebow class. Because I choose to shoot with a oly style recurve, I fall into one of three NFAA classes... Recurve/Longbow limited, barebow, or traditional. Because I also string walk, I am now down to two classes... Recurve/Longbow Limited or Barebow. Don't get me wrong. I am in no way complaining, I happen to love it and came to it after many years of trying everything else and have no plans on going back. Before yesterday, I had no reason to believe that I was in the wrong class, however, now wonder if maybe I should be in the Recurve/Longbow Limited class. I do not feel handicaped because I choose not to use a sight. Just the opposite, I could be just as competitive either way.

Just a thought,

WTE


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Sound like an intervention is in order.

Actually, I started shooting barebow right from the start -- I never shot any other way. I thought it was easier not having all that stuff hanging off my bow. There was nothing traditional about it. I do not even own a wooden bow. I did this for three years before I decided to get serious -- that is when I discovered string walking.

In my opinion barebow is about creativity -- solving a problem with a smaller and "seemingly" less effective tool set. The invention of string walking demonstrates the level of creativity that can rise like a phoenix out of the ashes of necessity.

Like you, I do a lot of shooting with and against oly shooters. Believe it or not, they have a lot of respect for folks that can do what we do without sights and stabilizers. Just shooting 90 M with a barebow is enough to gain admiration (and sympathy) from the oly and compound shooters.

And most of all, I shoot barebow because it is a better value. I get more use out of my targets because I am able to use the entire paper plus the bail and the grass behind it. This makes barebow shooting the prudent choice in these times of economic downturn.

Keep your chin up, keep competing and don't tell your kids that you won the gold medal because you shot unopposed.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Sound like an intervention is in order.
> 
> Actually, I started shooting barebow right from the start -- I never shot any other way. I thought it was easier not having all that stuff hanging off my bow. There was nothing traditional about it. I do not even own a wooden bow. I did this for three years before I decided to get serious -- that is when I discovered string walking.
> 
> ...


LOL great post-bravo:beer:


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

Hank,

Very well put, I could not agree more.

Thanks,
Todd


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

Jim C said:


> Gee-why did I expect the person who made this comment has a blank profile.


the profile is blank because I rarely post here, and can't be bothered filling it in.



> People who post crap here without having a profile are a waste of bandwidth IMHO


so having a filled out profile would make it less of a waste? or is the waste a function of your belief structure only?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

caspian said:


> the profile is blank because I rarely post here, and can't be bothered filling it in.
> 
> 
> 
> so having a filled out profile would make it less of a waste? or is the waste a function of your belief structure only?


Nah, I just have zero use for people who post provacative nonsense and won't back it up with a profile. You insult a style of archery and those who practice it and you don't have the stones to stand behind what you post. That makes you a troll in my book and I tend to find that those who do such things have little expertise or standing in the sport. The people who do who post here-such as John Magera, Rick McKinney, Vittorio Frangilli, Bob Pian, Dee Falks, etc-don't hide who they are


----------



## nyamazan (Jan 31, 2008)

Silly question but how do you transfer your marks from your tab to your string?


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

wte said:


> I have often felt like I just did not quite fit in. My name is Todd and I am a String Walker. Most of the time and on a local level, I compete by myself in the barebow class. Because I choose to shoot with a oly style recurve, I fall into one of three NFAA classes... Recurve/Longbow limited, barebow, or traditional. Because I also string walk, I am now down to two classes... Recurve/Longbow Limited or Barebow. Don't get me wrong. I am in no way complaining, I happen to love it and came to it after many years of trying everything else and have no plans on going back. Before yesterday, I had no reason to believe that I was in the wrong class, however, now wonder if maybe I should be in the Recurve/Longbow Limited class. I do not feel handicaped because I choose not to use a sight. Just the opposite, I could be just as competitive either way.


It sounds to me like you are shooting in the barebow division, just because someone has some idealized view of it or (as I do) choose to shoot something less accurate doesn't mean you ought to leave. It sounds more like a personal problem on the side of the person complaining.

I choose to shoot what I do because I enjoy it and the tournament director sticks me where I should go. In my case that is either "Traditional" or freestyle limited recurve depending on which bow I choose to play with. Overall the gap/point of aim shooters beat the instinctive shooters (though of course in an individual match shooter ability is more important), I still shoot instinctive because it is what I enjoy. I do not whine about it but many do (and I think they deserve less love than Jim C was giving to our non-profiled poster - mostly whining because they lost).

Heh, go to a traditional forum and as "what is traditional" and claim you are using a bow manufactured in the 50's and have taped pins (the sewing kind) on the riser for sights and see what kind of reception you get  That setup is more "traditional" than the idealized version yet you will get flamed (I understand and agree with separating out "traditional" equipment, just do not like the name).


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

nyamazan,

I place my tab up under the nock and count the stiching on the tab down to the stich that references the distance I want to shoot . Then I slide my thumbnail down the string to mark that position. I then slide my tab down to where the top of the tab is at the same location on the string that I marked with my thumbnail. The stich on the tab and the coresponding distance is arrived at throught trial and error. If you are just starting out, I would recommend close distances (5-15 yrds) at first. those will generally be close to the bottom of your tab. The middle distances (20-30 Yrds) are generally in the middle of the tab and the longer distances (40-50 Yrds) are generally at the top of the tab. You will most likely come to a point where your tab is at the nock and the and the arrow will max out in distance. For me that is 50 yrds. For distances beyond that I will rely on the riser shelf as a reference and not the arrow point. another alternative is to use the gap meathod. I have done that as well for the longer distances but have not had as much success.

Hope this helps
Todd


----------



## wte (Apr 18, 2006)

Strcpy,

Or showup to a noncompetetive traditional shoot. Been there done that and enjoyed all of the wispering. 

Like you,
I have come to this place after being on the road for some time now, I like it here and I think I will staywhile


Thanks,
Todd


----------



## nyamazan (Jan 31, 2008)

Thanks for the explanaition wte.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*Barebow*



Hank D Thoreau said:


> Sound like an intervention is in order.
> 
> Actually, I started shooting barebow right from the start -- I never shot any other way. I thought it was easier not having all that stuff hanging off my bow. There was nothing traditional about it. I do not even own a wooden bow. I did this for three years before I decided to get serious -- that is when I discovered string walking.
> 
> ...



Darn straight! I want to see Caspian come and shoot barebow at NTC next year...then let's see who has the last laugh!
People who think like he does really irk me, because they have no clue!
No sight, no stabilizer, no point of aim, no anything to help you reach the target! THAT IS CHEATING? Tell me how, when I cannot see the 70M target face I am shooting at when I loose the arrow>>>Geez, sounds like Caspian needs to try before you speak!

Women's BAREBOW 50+ NTC Champion posted the above reply to Hank Thoreau's post.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

I think another poster had it right. If you go to some of the trad sites you will see that sort of mentality--accuracy is Bad cultists.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*Back on subject!*

Tabs/Stringwalking:
Ok, I shoot a spigarelli three fingers under tab, and the stitching if it is done correctly, equals 5 meters for me, so each stitch is 5 meters, and I only use that when I get closer than 30 meters! So I only string walk for field.

I am trying something else out for longer distances, which is anchoring under my chin (FITA style)m no ledge, three fingers under Spig. tab. It's awesome to see the target at 70M! :wink:

At 60, I'm aiming (arrow point) in the middle and it was going there or close to there! 

I have to figure out 50M with this new anchor. and 30M, my anchor is my cheekbone, and point in the middle!

BTW, any "instinctive shooter worth his salt would admit that they do have some form of point of aim, or some system they use to hit the target! They can't possibly be that arrogant to think that they can "look at the middle of the target" and have the arrow go there by Zen methods! 

I just thought I'd put my method here so maybe it will help someone out! 
Those SPIGARELLI tabs are fabulous! Really like them, but you have to get them through Alternative Sportng Services in GB www.altservices.com, and you have to order a few so you get two that are close in stitching!


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

lizard said:


> BTW, any "instinctive shooter worth his salt would admit that they do have some form of point of aim, or some system they use to hit the target! They can't possibly be that arrogant to think that they can "look at the middle of the target" and have the arrow go there by Zen methods!


"Instinctive" is a difficult thing to define and a lot of it depends on what you mean by a point of aim. First off is that nothing learned is truly instinctive, but like the class "traditional" not really being traditional that is for another argument.

For instance - the normal discussion centers around throwing a ball. It is also something learned and you tend to sorta "zen" that ball to where you want it. However in that case it is obvious you have *no* point of aim and yet you still orient your body towards the target and slow motion shows the hand/ball generally travel in a line towards the target, especially at the end. You still *have* to point towards the target in some method. You are using hand-eye coordination - a person who has poor/limited vision is going to typically do poorly for a lack of visual queues you sub-conscious uses

For myself it is more similar to pointing my finger (which, incidentally, is actually instinctive). I do not know how whatever part of my mind that "points" does it, all I know is I point towards the target and let it go. I couldn't tell you to save my life where the point of the arrow is and, like pointing my finger, I can even keep some level of accuracy without the arrow lining up with my eye. Indeed if I think about it much then my shooting goes all to crap. I guess I do not call it a point of aim or a system any more than "pointing the arrow like I would my finger" - for those that have shoot skeet you know exactly what I mean. Then again I wouldn't call it "stare at the target and zen it there" either. 

For one thing I generally think that 30 yards and below your ability to point the arrow at the target is the least part of your misses and you *can* sorta "zen" your aiming and still shoot decent scores. Form, follow through, and concentration account for more of your score (indeed, my NFAA blue face scores with a fully rigged Oly Bow are not *that* much higher than shooting the same rig without sights). Above 30 and you will find VERY few instinctive shooters that actually hit something other than the ground very much and how fine grain you can aim starts to become MUCH more important. Indeed I find 35-40 my toughest distance in that it is difficult to "point" at that distance and my gap is so far off the target it is hard to gap (traditional must have a finger touch the arrow and a single anchor).

So, you can call it what you want. As before I shoot the way I enjoy and the tournament officials stick me where they think I need to be. I can also explain how I "aim" and leave it for the reader to decide if that is "instinctive" or not. I can, however say, that I do quite well in **** shoots so there is *some* level of instinctive feel


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

Jim C said:


> You insult a style of archery and those who practice it and you don't have the stones to stand behind what you post.


*shrug* I care little of your opinion of me.

barebow is supposed to be shot unsighted. any form of sighting reference is cheating. I happily shoot both recurve and traditional, and full power to those who shoot barebow *within the spirit in which it was intended.*

for those who effectively cheat by utilising methods to circumvent this spirit, I have no time for them, nor those who defend them.

and that's utterly without regard for distractionist crap about whether someone has filled out a couple of boxes in their profile page or not.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

caspian said:


> *shrug* I care little of your opinion of me.
> 
> barebow is supposed to be shot unsighted. any form of sighting reference is cheating. I happily shoot both recurve and traditional, and full power to those who shoot barebow *within the spirit in which it was intended.*
> 
> ...


Yawn-another nobobdy who wants to massage his/her self esteem by denigrating how others shoot. Your decree of what barebow is supposed to be is obviously not shared by those who practice the art and are known to do so.


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

I started archery recently. My beginners course included the use of sights but, for me, archery was about a stick and string and sights didn't fit in with my perconception of what it would be like before I started. 
While I'd never say never, for now I'm happily managing without sights.
Whilst a bare bow fits my expectations, I see no reason an aiming system can't be used with it. 
I believe everyone uses a system of some sort and my take on it is this: 

The instinctive boys will use an adaptive visual system, possibly with some subconscious referencing to the riser/arrow built up over time and experience. Even throwing a ball uses a system, its not done randomly and under/overthrowing leads to the adoption of changes to increase accuracy.

Next up are the gap shooters, instinctive (distance judgement) with a touch of science based on that distance estimation.

Stringwalking would be a different form of gap shooting where the gap used to allow for distance is the distance walked down the string. The distance judgement element still being 'instinctive' where the distances are unknown.

Shooting with sights is merely another variation of gap shooting with the sights determining the gap of the arrow from the target by mechanical means.

To me, we all use a system. Some more calculating than others, that's all.

Consequently, there's no way I would conclude "barebow is a waste of time at best and cheating at worst."

From my point-of-view, using sights, a mechanical means, rather than your 'loaf' is what would constitute cheating, if I were to feel I had to make a categorisation of shooting methods.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> Nah, I just have zero use for people who post provacative nonsense and won't back it up with a profile. You insult a style of archery and those who practice it and you don't have the stones to stand behind what you post. That makes you a troll in my book and I tend to find that those who do such things have little expertise or standing in the sport. The people who do who post here-such as John Magera, Rick McKinney, Vittorio Frangilli, Bob Pian, Dee Falks, etc-don't hide who they are


Hmm...I have to disagree...

It is the content of posts that determine whether somebody is a troll, not whether they have their profile filled out or go by their real name...

I don't agree with caspian ill reasoned tendentious post, but I don't agree with the contention that such is the function of a blank profile. There are trolls go by their real names and/or have fully filled out profies and there are excellent posters who don't. One does not determine the other.


----------



## LoveMyHoyt (Nov 29, 2008)

Warbow said:


> Hmm...I have to disagree...
> 
> It is the content of posts that determine whether somebody is a troll, not whether they have their profile filled out or go by their real name...


Yes, but some people find it is easier to leave a negative post if they can stay anonymous.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> Hmm...I have to disagree...
> 
> It is the content of posts that determine whether somebody is a troll, not whether they have their profile filled out or go by their real name...
> 
> I don't agree with caspian ill reasoned tendentious post, but I don't agree with the contention that such is the function of a blank profile. There are trolls go by their real names and/or have fully filled out profies and there are excellent posters who don't. One does not determine the other.


we will agree to disagree to some extent. Opinion testimony in a civil or criminal trial is allowed if the person making it has established "expertise". someone with a blank profile has less credibility in my mind when offering what is clearly an opinion which is not subject to factual verification. You are right to some extent-if someone is a 1350 level archer and posts nonsense, it is still nonsense and if a rank beginner notes that X10 arrows dominate the olympic games that would be an accurate comment.

if someone who has never broken 800 in a FITA were to say claim that the technique of M Frangilli is extremely flawed, his opinion would have far less weight than the same opinion coming from say Viktor Ruban or David Barnes.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> we will agree to disagree to some extent. Opinion testimony in a civil or criminal trial is allowed if the person making it has established "expertise". someone with a blank profile has less credibility in my mind when offering what is clearly an opinion which is not subject to factual verification. You are right to some extent-if someone is a 1350 level archer and posts nonsense, it is still nonsense and if a rank beginner notes that X10 arrows dominate the olympic games that would be an accurate comment.
> 
> if someone who has never broken 800 in a FITA were to say claim that the technique of M Frangilli is extremely flawed, his opinion would have far less weight than the same opinion coming from say Viktor Ruban or David Barnes.


I generally agree with your contention and agree that one can give more weight to the informed opinions of experts, as in the examples you gave, though it depends on the topic. The example you gave of an opinion on form is different category than the claim that "Barebow is a waste of time at best and cheating at worst"--which is strictly a matter of opinion that anybody can have an opinion on, even if poorly reasoned and intemperate. And since archery is empirically based, even a non expert could argue on form based strictly on results and say that who ever wins the most has the best "form" be default. 

I'd say that some posts stand on their own based on the facts and reasoning contained therein, and others may have some credibility on a history of good posts. One of the mods at AT is scary smart, and it shows in his posts--his CV backs that up, but the posts stand on their own, no profile needed.

However, I'd also add the caveat that we sometimes give too much deference to the opinions of experts and fail to challenge them, and I find that people reflexively defend them rather than necessarily looking at claims based on the merits. Archery is an endeavor that has some very sound science backing it but also a lot of lore, especially in "Trad" archery, where people who shoot well may think they fully understand why they shoot well. Being a talented archer doesn't necessarily mean somebody has a full understanding of how to teach others how to shoot well, or of the physics and kenesiology of archery. And being a talented coach doesn't necessarily mean that everything one says is true. I believe that all claims should be subject to scrutiny. I think you agree with that to some degree considering your own outspoken views.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

LoveMyHoyt said:


> Yes, but some people find it is easier to leave a negative post if they can stay anonymous.


That is probably true, but being "negative" doesn't mean a comment is invalid or inappropriate. Archery can be quite a political arena and being able to post reasoned criticisms without fear of retribution can allow for more open and honest discussions, with less tap dancing around politically sensitive areas like USA Archery politics and policies.


----------



## st8arrow (Apr 25, 2005)

I'd like this thread to be more about tab marks and stringwalking than Philosophy.

But thats just me.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> That is probably true, but being "negative" doesn't mean a comment is invalid or inappropriate. Archery can be quite a political arena and being able to post reasoned criticisms without fear of retribution can allow for more open and honest discussions, with less tap dancing around politically sensitive areas like USA Archery politics and policies.


what sort of retribution would you think exists? I think those who claim that as a grounds for sniping from behind a facade use that excuse to be cowards. I sure haven't seen any retribution and you may recall I sure ripped into the administration over several issues such as making us coaches have to basically repeat what we had already paid for. BTW that was changed to some extent based on the lambasting Parrish and others took on this forum.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

st8arrow said:


> I'd like this thread to be more about tab marks and stringwalking than Philosophy.
> 
> But thats just me.


Well, I think the OP's question has already been answered, but this thread really is about philosophy.

But back to string walking and marks:



strcpy said:


> Well, I'm obviously not him but I can most likely tell you the answer. He is probably one that has an idealized perception of what barebow is (if you have read much in the traditional forums you will know what I mean). Barebow was/is meant to not use a "sights" be they pins, rings, marks on the bow, or the point of the arrow. It is supposed to be some quasi-mystical thing wherein the arrow suddenly appears in the target.
> 
> In this particular case I never have seen why stitches on your tab or counting threads on your serving is OK but make your own marks and off you go. I rather suspect that some "purist" got their way at some point but couldn't get away from reality (and reality is that there are always going to be ways to count/mark your spots that must be legal).
> 
> ...


This is an old issue. Back in Victorian times when Horace A Ford popularized point offset **aiming** for target archery there was debate over whether POA was "true" archery or if it was cheating. The question of marks and string walking is a variation on an old theme, essentially the **philosophy** of archery and the philosophy of competitive sports in general since the question of putting marks on a tab is not an issue for non-competitive archery.

I'd say that string walking is a calibrated, adjustable mechanical aiming system. All competitions are about performing a task within certain rules, the only thing we are really arguing is about where the boundaries for those rules should be. People generally want the rules to favor their own talents and methods, and some want to game the rules to give them an advantage over others who do not push the boundaries. Whether you should be able to put distance marks on your tab is simply an argument over setting the rules, favoring people who have the time, patience and talent to memorize the correspondence of factory marks on their tabs to the empirically derived offsets for various distances. *Given that various classes specifically do or don't allow written memoranda, it makes perfect sense to prohibit custom sight marks on a tab in classes where written memoranda are prohibited,* for if you allow memoranda on tabs then, for consistency's sake, you also need to allow sight marks and written memoranda on the bow itself--which breaks down the whole concept of "barebow."


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> what sort of retribution would you think exists? I think those who claim that as a grounds for sniping from behind a facade use that excuse to be cowards. I sure haven't seen any retribution and you may recall I sure ripped into the administration over several issues such as making us coaches have to basically repeat what we had already paid for. BTW that was changed to some extent based on the lambasting Parrish and others took on this forum.


Oh, I don't think I'm necessarily thinking of overt retribution, or even necessarily conscious malicious reprisals, but I do think that publicly criticizing certain coaches and/or policies could certainly result in disfavor of some sort. I think you are sufficiently successful, resourceful and valuable as to be largely able to buck such a possibility, but I'm not certain that everybody is in the same league you are.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> Oh, I don't think I'm necessarily thinking of overt retribution, or even necessarily conscious malicious reprisals, but I do think that publicly criticizing certain coaches and/or policies could certainly result in disfavor of some sort. I think you are sufficiently successful, resourceful and valuable as to be largely able to buck such a possibility, but I'm not certain that everybody is in the same league you are.


Thanks


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Warbow said:


> This is an old issue. Back in Victorian times when Horace A Ford popularized point offset **aiming** for target archery there was debate over whether POA was "true" archery or if it was cheating. The question of marks and string walking is a variation on an old theme, essentially the **philosophy** of archery and the philosophy of competitive sports in general since the question of putting marks on a tab is not an issue for non-competitive archery.


Oh I agree, nor is it anything specific to archery. I have not been in a shooting sport ever that didn't argue all the time over similar things.



> People generally want the rules to favor their own talents and methods, and some want to game the rules to give them an advantage over others who do not push the boundaries.


Very true and in a roundabout way what I was saying too, your just more direct in saying it.



> Whether you should be able to put distance marks on your tab is simply an argument over setting the rules, favoring people who have the time, patience and talent to memorize the correspondence of factory marks on their tabs to the empirically derived offsets for various distances.


My issue is more that it seems to me that "no marks" for stringwalkers has more to do with trying to make it a more "organic" method of finding your string position. That is they are trying to force you to use your calibrated eyeballs to gauge an inch down on the string, not know 32 strands or 4 stitches is an inch. Which, in a way, is also what caspian is saying about "barebow", but in this case I *do* think that is what the rule was trying to achieve and not me wanting any specific thing. 



> *Given that various classes specifically do or don't allow written memoranda, it makes perfect sense to prohibit custom sight marks on a tab in classes where written memoranda are prohibited,* for if you allow memoranda on tabs then, for consistency's sake, you also need to allow sight marks and written memoranda on the bow itself--which breaks down the whole concept of "barebow."


That is a separate issue. For instance if my tab is smooth metal and my serving is smooth then I just have to guess. Someone else can count stitches and serving. So, why can I not put evenly spaced markings on my tab too. It is no different that having a custom tab with fine stitches on it. Or why not have the rule that barebow has about laminate in the sight window on tabs and make counting stitches illegal (it is fairly obvious someone doing that). That would have me be no more or less inhibited by the "no written memorandum" than the ones with custom tabs with small stitches. Heck, as is someone could conceivably have custom stitches that aren't evenly spaced and set exactly where they need to hold.

It's not really something I worry about, for one thing I do not shoot that class. However it always seemed strange to me, that *did* feel like cheating as people were choosing tabs (and I bet some tab manufacturers think about that in their design too) based on something the rules were trying to prohibit. There are also people sorta laughing and making comments about "custom made tabs". IMO either prohibit it or not. I'm not particularly arguing either way as the correct way, I'm arguing that the current system is inconsistent and fails miserably at what it is trying to achieve.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

strcpy said:


> Or why not have the rule that barebow has about laminate in the sight window on tabs and make counting stitches illegal (it is fairly obvious someone doing that). That would have me be no more or less inhibited by the "no written memorandum" than the ones with custom tabs with small stitches.


In IFAA Longbow they do prohibit you from having any distinctive grain near the sight window, nor can you use a "tennis wrapped" handle, nor cresting or marks near the arrow tips, etc. all for that reason. I didn't mention that because IFAA Longbow doesn't allow string walking and is a stricter class than FITA Barebow, which does, and I didn't want to confuse the issue.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*tab to string*



nyamazan said:


> Silly question but how do you transfer your marks from your tab to your string?


Here's the scoop, you grow your thumb nail a little and from the STICH on your tab, grab the serving with your nail, lower your anchor "hook" grip on the string to that point!

If you ever have a chance to watch the Trafford clan shoot you'll learn a ton!

SOmeone ahs probably posted this already, so sorry if it is redundant!


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*barebow philosophy!*



st8arrow said:


> I'd like this thread to be more about tab marks and stringwalking than Philosophy.
> 
> But thats just me.


Gotta agree here but we can add a little philosophy to the discussion! Doesn't hurt, but I think it should be constructive!

Barebow involves a lot of variations, just like all forms of archery! It is a personal thing and isn't it great that we can have a discussion about it!

Now, back on topic...oh, where were we? 

Tabs and string walking!


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I learned my method for grabbing the string either from the Masters of Barebow 1 or Modern Traditional DVD -- can't remember which. I use finger widths as my primary reference. It just happens that most of my major distances are around a finger width apart. I make small adjustements as necessary.

Place three fingers under the nocking point.
Move your thumb (keeping your other fingers in place under the nocking point) as described below.
Place your thumbnail on the fletching at a location that corresponds to the appropriate spot on my tab for the distance you are shooting. At this point your fingers are still three under touching the nocking point and your thumb is somewhere below your top finger with the thumbnail touching the fletching.
Move your fingers under your thumb without changing the position of your thumb on the serving.
Remove your thumb from the string.

This method works whether you are using tab marks or serving stitches. I do not count stitches. Using the thumb on the serving tends create a slight groove or white spot where the color scrapes off.

I have done this with many different types of tabs including the Wilson Blackwidow that is so popular with barebow shooters. The only requirement for me is that there is a split at one figure width.

This is more complicated to describe than it is to do. I would recommend viewing the Modern Traditional DVD.

P.S. It is great to see so much barebow action on the forum. I have noticed a pickup ever since Scarlet Arrow ran his survey. If we represent 16% of the shooters then we should contribute 16% of the discussion.


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Warbow said:


> In IFAA Longbow they do prohibit you from having any distinctive grain near the sight window, nor can you use a "tennis wrapped" handle, nor cresting or marks near the arrow tips, etc. all for that reason. I didn't mention that because IFAA Longbow doesn't allow string walking and is a stricter class than FITA Barebow, which does, and I didn't want to confuse the issue.


I do not think that any of the barebow classes allow grain or markings in the sight window nor do they allow rests that go much above the arrow. FITA may, but I doubt it.

But then, that was sorta my point there - for a string walker the string is the sight. If you allow people with tab x, y, and z to use marking why not allow people who use tab a, b, and c? As is right now one brand of tab can, another can not. I do not think that is right. Stitches on the tab are the equivalent of markings on the riser.

But then, as we see above some use finger widths too, though since that is obvious one could disallow it. Or, even better, allow us even markings on the tab and maybe even on the string.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

strcpy said:


> I do not think that any of the barebow classes allow grain or markings in the sight window nor do they allow rests that go much above the arrow. FITA may, but I doubt it.
> 
> But then, that was sorta my point there - for a string walker the string is the sight. If you allow people with tab x, y, and z to use marking why not allow people who use tab a, b, and c? As is right now one brand of tab can, another can not. I do not think that is right. Stitches on the tab are the equivalent of markings on the riser.
> 
> But then, as we see above some use finger widths too, though since that is obvious one could disallow it. Or, even better, allow us even markings on the tab and maybe even on the string.


Yeah, I have to agree. If grain isn't allowed in the sight window then marks that would allow visual calibration should not be allowed on tabs either, for consistencies sake. Finger widths? Well, that would be too hard to police, I would think...

I think the answer to to require plain tabs, not to allow markings on tabs. Allowing written memoranda on tabs defeats the purpose of barebow class, which is a class that prohibits sights, calibrated markings and written memoranda.

If people are just shooting for the pleasure of shooting, they can always shoot up a class. They could create a special string walking class, but would string walkers agree on marked tabs or not?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> Yeah, I have to agree. If grain isn't allowed in the sight window then marks that would allow visual calibration should not be allowed on tabs either, for consistencies sake. Finger widths? Well, that would be too hard to police, I would think...
> 
> I think the answer to to require plain tabs, not to allow markings on tabs. Allowing written memoranda on tabs defeats the purpose of barebow class, which is a class that prohibits sights, calibrated markings and written memoranda.
> 
> If people are just shooting for the pleasure of shooting, they can always shoot up a class. They could create a special string walking class, but would string walkers agree on marked tabs or not?


 You cannot really stop people from using their tabs. Screw holes, stitching etc.. Same with counting servings. 

I note none of the people who actually shoot fita barebow are complaining. Its the faith based instinctive cultist who was whining


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> You cannot really stop people from using their tabs. Screw holes, stitching etc.. Same with counting servings.
> 
> I note none of the people who actually shoot fita barebow are complaining. Its the faith based instinctive cultist who was whining


Hmm...if I was a non string walking barebow shooter and string walkers were allowed to put marks on their tabs I'd argue that I should be allowed to have marks on my sight window.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> Hmm...if I was a non string walking barebow shooter and string walkers were allowed to put marks on their tabs I'd argue that I should be allowed to have marks on my sight window.


Confused you are

Marking tab never suggested did I

Yoda


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Jim C said:


> Confused you are
> 
> Marking tab never suggested did I
> 
> Yoda


I didn't think you did. It was not my intent to imply that. I was merely expanding on my comparison of marks/memoranda on a tab vs. a bow.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Warbow said:


> I didn't think you did. It was not my intent to imply that. I was merely expanding on my comparison of marks/memoranda on a tab vs. a bow.


Sense you make


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

You know that this tab marking string walking controversy has the potential to divert attention from the steroid scandal in baseball.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> You know that this tab marking string walking controversy has the potential to divert attention from the steroid scandal in baseball.


Now that is truly funny. The other three people who care will be posting shortly:wink:


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

Jim C said:


> Yawn-another nobobdy who wants to massage his/her self esteem by denigrating how others shoot. Your decree of what barebow is supposed to be is obviously not shared by those who practice the art and are known to do so.


nice display of arrogance. so you support the cheating that goes on through not following the spirit of the rules, eh?


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Jim C said:


> You cannot really stop people from using their tabs. Screw holes, stitching etc.. Same with counting servings.


I agree, therefore I see nothing wrong with equivalent markings on other tabs that do not have them. I just see an issue that Brand X has that type of advantage over brand Y.



> I note none of the people who actually shoot fita barebow are complaining. Its the faith based instinctive cultist who was whining


Maybe, I'm one of the faith based instinctive cultist as that is how I tend to describe my shooting method. Not sure I'm whining as not only do I not compete in that class but even if I did my whole "shoot what I like" and not caring if I win or loose thing makes it a personal non-issue. 

Further I rarely shoot outside of goofing for relaxation so tournament rules matter even less to me (and those that do are for local tournaments and have little to nothing to do with national or international orgs). Indeed I'm more likely to shoot my so called "traditional" bow in our leagues and compete (well, if you want to call it that) against the open class compounds (and I'm able to actually compete with in that class locally if I so choose so it is not a matter of not being able to shoot the scores, it is a matter of enjoyment). 

I think it is a bad rule, but then I also have felt the scoring of Olympic Gymnastics sucks. Being a 300lb 6'1" male that really isn't something that affects me either. Nor do I have to be in the position of being tortured to figure that kinda sucks. This is, after all, a forum where such things are regularly discussed.

In this case I note the rule set really doesn't make sense. Barebow shooters shrug and purchase equipment based on those and do not complain much - still doesn't make said rules make any sense. I do not expect it to be "fixed" in my lifetime as most realize the fix isn't going to be allowing said marking. Which is kinda sad in and of itself too, that the orgs will not do something sane that makes the shooters happy but would instead cater to those "faith based instinctive cultist" is a sad situation in my mind. Instead everyone turn their heads and pretend it doesn't happen.

But then isn't that kinda par for the course of pretty much every governing body out there be it the NFAA, FITA, or the US govt?


----------



## skip 613 (Jun 14, 2007)

Rookie Stringwalkers who need to put marks on there tab are really no threat in any competition. Stringwalkers who shoot regularly don't even have to look to crawl down the string.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

caspian said:


> nice display of arrogance. so you support the cheating that goes on through not following the spirit of the rules, eh?


Nice projection you got going there. 

And playing the rules to the max is not cheating, especially when it is a known issue. Trying to call JimC a supporter of cheating is an accusation that hurts **your** credibility, not Jim's.

You can argue for new rules, but to claim playing within the current rules is cheating is quite a foolish thing to argue.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

strcpy said:


> I agree, therefore I see nothing wrong with equivalent markings on other tabs that do not have them. I just see an issue that Brand X has that type of advantage over brand Y.


It is a nuanced thing to be sure, those advantages that are on the edge of the rules. But if people should be able to mark their tab should I be able to put pencil marks on my sight window?

People should shoot how they like for fun. Competitions, though, are about rules. You can argue to include or exclude written memoranda on Tabs, but to be fair, non string walkers should have equivalent rights to mark their sight windows.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

caspian said:


> nice display of arrogance. so you support the cheating that goes on through not following the spirit of the rules, eh?


No profile=no credibility. Enlighten me as to 

1) your status as a judge

2) your status as a national class BB competitor


3) the conversations you have had with world class FITA Barebow archers


Since it is obvious the answer to all three will be O its time for you to stop making a donkey of yourself


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*barebow*

Okay, now I'm getting downright tired of all this sniping on FITA barebow shooters, Of which I am the 50+, female champion, because I am the only one who chose to shoot it!

If I follow the rules set out by F.I.T.A. (they call it standard bow) and followed by the N.A.A. how in blue blazes am I cheating?

If anyone shoots barebow and says they have no method but looking at the target and then shooting the arrow and it hits, then they are lying!

I've heard of an instance where someone told another BB shooter here in Ohio, that they shot instinctive and so this guy took the BB shooter into a dark range at night and only lit the target, guess what happened? The guy couldn't hit the target! Therefore, I am guessing that that person had a method of "aiming."

I have shot compound, recurve and barebow. I prefer barebow because of the challenge of hitting and scoring well at 70M, 60M, 50M, & 30M.

If you, who snipe, are champions, where were YOU ate the NTC? You could have shot TRADITIONAL SHOOT which was before NTC, but part of NTC, or you could have shot FITA barebow, where were you?

Tab stitching is part of the manufacturing of the tab. If those stitches work for "meterage" marks, so be it. If you are good at leather working and make your own tabs AWESOME, I'd like to learn how to do that! 

You are FORBIDDEN to have any marks on your bow riser or limbs to help you sight in on the target.

Stop your moaning and groaning and go out there and figure out how you get the arrow to the target and let us know! If I put the arrow point in the middle of the target at every distance and hold the same bloody anchor point, the arrow DOES NOT go into the target at the same place! It is not "physically" or "scientifically" possible. Your argument is idiotic!

I have basis to say this because I SHOOT BAREBOW, AND FOLLOW THE RULES! So do many others.

Quit your insinuations of cheating and shoot and figure your own game out.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

standard bow is something slightly different-something not shot here in the states. Since we are hosting nationals again next year let's hope Caspian shows up and competes. HE can tell Skip Trafford that Skip is cheating. I am sure that there are lots of things Caspian can edify Skip on when it comes to BB archery:wink:


----------



## firetrev (Feb 25, 2008)

*barebow*

IMHO,
stringwalking works the same as gap shooting only in reverse. We still use the point of the arrow as a reference relatve to the target. It is only that the elevation is managed at the other end of the arrow.
It is my belief that marks on the tab are allowed in FITA barebow, as long as there is no information to interpret to which distances they are relative to. (hope that made sense)
In ABA, (Australian Bowhunters Association) and IFAA no marks are allowed so you must memorise the landscape of your particular tab or glove.
It is only cheating if you deliberately try to circumvent the established regulations by adapting one method to another situation.
I have shot all types of barebow, it is my method of choice for all my shooting but to enter a national level field shoot (FITA over here) and not stringwalk I will have just wasted my entry fee and travel cost because I will get hammered, tab marks or not.
Being called a cheat is strong language just because someone does not shoot how you think they should. Not necessary. Maybe a separate thread on the merits of different types of barebow is called for, there is not enough of us to be so devisive.
Just my modest contribution to the discussion.
Cheers
Trev


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*tabs*



firetrev said:


> IMHO,
> stringwalking works the same as gap shooting only in reverse. We still use the point of the arrow as a reference relatve to the target. It is only that the elevation is managed at the other end of the arrow.
> It is my belief that marks on the tab are allowed in FITA barebow, as long as there is no information to interpret to which distances they are relative to. (hope that made sense)
> In ABA, (Australian Bowhunters Association) and IFAA no marks are allowed so you must memorise the landscape of your particular tab or glove.
> ...


I do not believe you are correct! No Marks are allowed on a FITA Barebow Tab! The officials do check tabs & bows to make certain there is no violation.
If I am wrong I stand corrected, but I did read the rules before the tournaments and JIM C is a judge, and since we are married, he makes certain I tow the line :wink: Any way, it would be no fun to CHEAT in any way shape or form! :wink::wink:


----------



## strcpy (Dec 13, 2003)

Warbow said:


> It is a nuanced thing to be sure, those advantages that are on the edge of the rules. But if people should be able to mark their tab should I be able to put pencil marks on my sight window?


That is a good argument - I do not know. Given what I have said so far, then yes that is so. Yet I do feel there is a difference between marks on the riser and marks on the tab/string and it is more a failure of my ability to express things than a technical one. For one thing marks on the riser have a much higher degree of precision than counting stitches/serving threads. I guess I figure that using the pile to aim vs using marks associated with the riser is the more defining attribute here in barebow.

I will point out that, once more, I do not really feel like arguing one way or another as to which is the "correct" method - indeed you can talk me into either way. I only note that the current rule set is highly inconsistent and I think most of us can agree on that. I'm more than happy to argue/discuss what *is* consistency and why, but please do not take me as arguing something is cheating, wrong, or whatever. 

Well, that being said if you *truly* think what we have now is consistent that I have a grievance with that, but it's not because I think any particular style is better than another. I just do not think our current rules create and even playing field.

As much as I agree that most of those complaining are mad they lost I will point out that those wining with custom tabs and such are protecting their turf. If I am (and, again to be fair I'm not) claiming that you only win nationals because you are doing something unfair then demanding I win nationals before I can talk is, well, not really useful. I'm not so inclined to believe that the whining is one way only.


----------



## Rick G (Jan 12, 2007)

*BB tabs*

Book 4 Section 9.3.8.5 you may not have marks on the tab to identify finger placement but 9.3.8.5.1 - symmetrical stitching or screws ect are allowed provided they are used by the manufacturer for the purpose of holding the layers of the tab together. Nothing in the rules prevents you from learning the ranges approximated by those stitches, or being the manufacturer of your own tab and placing symmetrical stitches to hold your tab together and controlling the width of those stitches. This is not cheating and in BB shooting it is the most used method of aiming in both fita and nfaa barebow classes, recurve or compound. Since the game is to hit the target and to score well at various distances people who use stringwalking shoot together. Trad and long bow classes exist for gap shooters and zen masters( instinctive shooters ) who think the arrow in to the target and keep their index finger touching the nock. Their rules also state that they can only have one anchor point and all arrows must match in length and weight. Learning to shoot your bow and arrow well is not cheating and following the rules as they are written is not either.


----------



## firetrev (Feb 25, 2008)

lizard said:


> I do not believe you are correct! No Marks are allowed on a FITA Barebow Tab! The officials do check tabs & bows to make certain there is no violation.
> If I am wrong I stand corrected, but I did read the rules before the tournaments and JIM C is a judge, and since we are married, he makes certain I tow the line :wink: Any way, it would be no fun to CHEAT in any way shape or form! :wink::wink:


You may be correct as I am basing my information on opinions gathered from people that have competed at the world champs.
There is conflicting info between the AA rules and the FITA rules as I read them so I'm not pretending to have the definitive answer.
I just wanted to put out there that shooting one way is no more cheating than shooting another is deliberately dumbing it down.
I shoot all kinds of barebow, stringwalking is my method of choice at the moment, thats all.
Cheers
Trev


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

firetrev said:


> You may be correct as I am basing my information on opinions gathered from people that have competed at the world champs.
> There is conflicting info between the AA rules and the FITA rules as I read them so I'm not pretending to have the definitive answer.
> I just wanted to put out there that shooting one way is no more cheating than shooting another is deliberately dumbing it down.
> I shoot all kinds of barebow, stringwalking is my method of choice at the moment, thats all.
> ...


Rick G's post is accurate. I think there is some confusion or different meanings as to what "marks" means

if you use symmetrical stitch or screw holes as supplied by the maker that is not "marking" your tab but certain do constitute "marks" you can use to measure your walk on the string. As a judge, such "marks" are legal and would not result in an issue

On the other hand, to others-such as my wife-marks would be something the archer added in order to facilitate the walk. For example-if you put 5M on your first screw hole, 8 Meter on your second, 25 M etc on another hole that would be illegal. same as if you drew a bunch of marks that would say correspond to 5M increments.

so it depends on what someone means by a marked tab.

a marked tab is most definetely cheating if it refers to the latter

if you have "marks" on your tab that are part of the manufacturing end product and you USE those to walk-then its not cheating and its clearly within the rules.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

ah, then that makes *all* the difference.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

It does. Of course you not being a judge, or having any credentials as a FITA barebow archer you wouldn't know.

In 2000 I was shooting at the Ohio State Field, a Star FITA (Look it up). Mark Applegate, who has been the top FITA BB archer in the US at least the last ten years was explaining how he shot. He showed me his tab and noted the even holes that held the stitching He explained what each hole meant in terms of yardage. Later, at the World Trials in Cedar Canyon, he showed me how he determined how much he would take off for severe downhill shots. He shot a sky conquest at the time and he would use the lettering on the limb to judge the angle.

Now if this was cheating I'd doubt he'd explain his technique to someone he had never met before even though at that time I was the Ohio #1 recurve field shooter (every other year in that era it was Doug Pritchett)

He also was the one who outshot his counterpart as the USA won the team gold medal at a recent FITA world

Now if you want to really continue to prove yourself the moron, go ahead and claim Mark is a "cheater". It will only demonstrate to others what I already know about you. 


Now go back to pretending the "force is with you".


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*Thanks for your support!*



Rick G said:


> Book 4 Section 9.3.8.5 you may not have marks on the tab to identify finger placement but 9.3.8.5.1 - symmetrical stitching or screws ect are allowed provided they are used by the manufacturer for the purpose of holding the layers of the tab together. Nothing in the rules prevents you from learning the ranges approximated by those stitches, or being the manufacturer of your own tab and placing symmetrical stitches to hold your tab together and controlling the width of those stitches. This is not cheating and in BB shooting it is the most used method of aiming in both fita and nfaa barebow classes, recurve or compound. Since the game is to hit the target and to score well at various distances people who use stringwalking shoot together. Trad and long bow classes exist for gap shooters and zen masters( instinctive shooters ) who think the arrow in to the target and keep their index finger touching the nock. Their rules also state that they can only have one anchor point and all arrows must match in length and weight. Learning to shoot your bow and arrow well is not cheating and following the rules as they are written is not either.


Rick,
Thanks for pin pointing the rule! I like having people like you around who are willing to set the record straight!
Bravo!:clap2:


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*make a goo argument?*



caspian said:


> ah, then that makes *all* the difference.


Caspian,
Instead of sniping, why don't you tell us how you magically make your arrow go into the target by merely aiming at the target?! Like what distances do you shoot? How and where do you aim? What kind of tab do you use? DO YOU EVEN SHOOT? What kind of bow do you shoot? What type of archery, FITA, field, NFAA, IBO, traditional? Do you stringwalk? Do you facewalk? Or do you use some sort of combination?
I think if you don't answer some questions then you should not comment or criticize on what people have developed for their own usage to hit the target at which they are aiming!
If you cannot expound on your methods then SILENCE may be your best answer!:jeez:
I don't often go off on someone. If you accuse FITA Barebow shooters of cheating then we have every right to "put you in your place."


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

Lizard. We don't even know if Caspian shoots a bow.

Why bother with trolls? It only empowers them.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Isn't it great to see so much interest in barebow and stringwalking. 72 replies!!! I bet this thread goes quaduple digit views. This should make for some nice light summer reading pleasure. I will have to set aside some time to go through it.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

This picture is from the FITA beginners manual. I suspect it must have come from the chapter on cheating. I have not yet had a chance to check the table of contents to be sure.


----------



## McDougles (Nov 25, 2009)

I think, markings on the tab gives You no advantages. Because You are not using them to measure the distance. It's same like the gague marks on the sight of OL / CU bows. In this case they should remove their marks also!  You can imagine how they will set the scope without it?


----------



## McDougles (Nov 25, 2009)




----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> which is a classic example of why barebow is a waste of time at best and cheating at worst.


Yea, it sure feels like cheating when it's so pure... Do it for a while and it will make you wonder why everyone else needs so many aids to shoot an arrow 

Pure baby. Like a 5 iron from 195 to a tucked pin over water... 

John.


----------



## Zane Smith (Nov 27, 2005)

At the FITA Field World championships 08 they allowed marks on the tabs. I have a photo of them checking my tab on the fieldarchery.org. I do not know how to post the link?


----------



## McDougles (Nov 25, 2009)

The 7. icon in the Quick Reply box. The yellow one with the mountian and sun --->









Come to Hungary next Year....we will build nice hard tracks!


----------



## Zane Smith (Nov 27, 2005)

http://http://www.fieldarcher.org/index.php?set_albumName=WC_Wales_2008_Sun&id=DSC_2039&option=com_gallery&Itemid=12&include=view_photo.php


----------



## Zane Smith (Nov 27, 2005)

Zane Smith said:


> http://http://www.fieldarcher.org/index.php?set_albumName=WC_Wales_2008_Sun&id=DSC_2039&option=com_gallery&Itemid=12&include=view_photo.php


----------



## McDougles (Nov 25, 2009)




----------



## warped Arrow (Sep 20, 2005)

what about those of us that use a combination of aiming methods? I shoot "instinctivly" out to 15 yds, then I stringwalk out to 30, 30~60 yds I gap, past that I guess, hope, and pray. 

I havent ever shot in any "sanctioned" event, only a few local 3~D shoots. Just curious about what would happen to someone that shoots like I do.


----------

