# Transfer: Part of your shot cycle?



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

NTS/BEST talks about the step "Transfer" or "Transfer into Holding". Basically it's a very deliberate, very slight continuation of the draw after anchoring with the goal of removing excess tension from the draw arm in order to enter 'holding' - the phase before expansion.

However, Coach Kim's, Vittorio's and Rick's books make no mention of this action. Right after anchor you proceed into expansion/extension, release and follow-through.

I was thinking about this, grabbed my stretchband and did an experiment. Instead of transferring into holding then expanding, I anchored, held, then used my transfer as expansion. Seemed to be smoother and easier. 

Anyone *not do* transfer as part of their shot?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

k -

A lot of times with this stuff what's really being debated are semantics. 
I would venture to say that most people "set" themselves either at anchor or close to the anchoring process. 
What that "set" means may vary from person to person, but the net effect is the same, completing the expansion to the clicker break and shot. 

Now, personally, I don't think about any transfer or even back tension during my "shooting" shot sequence.
(I may during a training session, where I'm working on a specific component of my shot sequence.)
Most of the time, I figure after 45 years, if I don't have it by now, it ain't gonna happen. 

With my students, I have to find a way of getting them to do it, so it clicks/works. 
The same technique or thought process doesn't work for everyone, and I personally think, this a case, where the result is what matters - not th4e means.

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Not to be argumentative, but I can do lots of things with a stretch band that don't translate well to an actual competition bow. 

I think the "transfer" phrase actually means something else that was lost in translation.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

Good points. I figured that it might be semantics, just curious as to what others thought. NTS says transfer isn't something that automatically happens (you have to consciously make it happen every shot) but I guess some might be doing it 'earlier' than NTS prescribes in combination with other movements.

John, what's your interpretation of transfer?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Not to be argumentative, but I can do lots of things with a stretch band that don't translate well to an actual competition bow.
> 
> I think the "transfer" phrase actually means something else that was lost in translation.


Can you give us an NTS to English translation? :dontknow:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> John, what's your interpretation of transfer?


I can tell you what coach Lee told me and the other three original JDT coaches directly (but I've also been told that's not the current teaching any longer...) - that transfer meant the transferring of tension from the string hand and string arm to the back muscles. He said this was an invisible thing and couldn't be seen. 

So this is how I taught it for years to my students who wanted to learn the BEST method. I actually still think that explanation has merit, and as an archer, I can understand this even if I cannot physically demonstrate it.

I've also been told by a NTS level 4 coach recently that transfer really just means "alignment" and the words were confused in translation.

Guess you'd have to get it straight from the horse's mouth to know what it means today.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Your first definition is what is described in TA: inside the archer for the most part. Though if I recall correctly the is more movement - though slight - during transfer. One should already be in line at anchor and if transfer generAtes more movent it should move the elbow behind the line and in the same direction of movement that expansion would take place. 

I wish it was as easy to do as it is I write down.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I
> I've also been told by a NTS level 4 coach recently that transfer really just means "alignment" and the words were confused in translation.
> 
> Guess you'd have to get it straight from the horse's mouth to know what it means today.


Here is the latest on Transfer from THM in "Archery", ed. by USA Archery:



> Holding is the most important step in the shot cycle, but to reach the optimal level of holding, you must *shift any unnecessary tension from your drawing hand and forearm to your back muscles.* Shift this tension by making a definite movement with your drawing shoulder unit by focusing on moving the LAN 2 area back (behind you) and not by focusing on relaxing the biceps of your drawing arm or by focusing on moving your shoulder. From an overhead view the LAN 2 area moves directly behind you, down the shooting line. From a rear view, your drawing elbow and the LAN 2 moves slightly down and to the left in a straight line if you are a right-handed archer, and slightly down and to the right for a right-handed archer. From a front view, your drawing elbow should not extend directly away from the target during transfer, and from a rear view (viewing your back from the shooting line) your drawing-side scapula should move slightly closer to your spine during transfer. Transfer should be a visible yet subtle movement, with your LAN 2 and elbow not moving more than half an inch...
> 
> During transfer, maintain the length of the barrel of the gun and do not extend the barrel of the gun. The transfer causes you to increase back tension and the ratio of back tension to drawing-hand tension to approximately 90/10. It is highly critical that you maintain your hook position and finger pressure on the string.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

"shift any unnecessary tension from your drawing hand and forearm to your back muscles."
"Shift this tension by making a definite movement with your drawing shoulder unit by focusing on moving the LAN 2 area back (behind you)..."
"Transfer should be a visible yet subtle movement, with your LAN 2 and elbow not moving more than half an inch..."

I'm confused, if I have no unnecessary tension in my had or forearm after anchoring, there shouldn't be a movement. But the movement should be visible?

I like John's description which is what I think I was doing with my experiment. If I force a movement after I anchor my expansion introduces more tension into my hand and forearms as I struggle to get any movement to pop the clicker.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Some archers are already transferring the tension to their back without even realizing it. I was doing this already, for the most part, and I think that's why I understood it. I have seen MANY new archers who did not know how to transfer that tension to their back, and I can visibly see the tension in their string fingers and forearm at full draw.

I think the way I would describe this - or what's important to remember - is that it's not enough to simply TRANSFER that tension to your back, but you also must KEEP the tension transferred through the shot.

I do a real good job of transferring the tension, but not always a great job of keeping the tension transferred to my back on release. This is why I think Rick McKinney was so high on using the formaster - because it teaches you to maintain tension in your back for a longer period of time and not allow it to return to your arm and hand when the clicker falls.

John


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Not to be argumentative, but I can do lots of things with a stretch band that don't translate well to an actual competition bow.
> 
> I think the "transfer" phrase actually means something else that was lost in translation.


As you know, this last weekend I showed very well how much more difficult it is to translate form and stretch band stuff into a competition. I am a stretch band champion however. I learned a LOT this past weekend and am glad I did it. I improved through the weekend. I truly believe that with a lot more practice with light limbs I could be very effective.

There is some visible movement during the transfer, especially if you know what you are looking for, and it is taking the last remaining pieces of tension from the hand/forearm/bicep and everywhere else transferring it to the back. Your drawing arm will retain only enough tension to maintain your good hook.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Andrew, I want you to think about this, apply it and let me know what you think...



> I think the way I would describe this - or what's important to remember - is that it's not enough to simply TRANSFER that tension to your back, but you also must KEEP the tension transferred through the shot.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> I think the way I would describe this - or what's important to remember - is that it's not enough to simply TRANSFER that tension to your back, but you also must KEEP the tension transferred through the shot.


I have no argument with that statement at all. 

I think that is what will happen when you have completed the transfer and entered the holding state. If you fail to keep 95+% of the tension into your back and your draw scapula moving toward the target, you will be losing your backtension and that tension will be in other areas of your body. Being in the holding state or being "inside the bow" should allow this and it is important to maintain it through the shot, until your arrow hits the target. Preferably in the X.

Andrew


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

kshet26 said:


> Good points. I figured that it might be semantics, just curious as to what others thought. NTS says transfer isn't something that automatically happens (you have to consciously make it happen every shot) but I guess some might be doing it 'earlier' than NTS prescribes in combination with other movements.


It doesn't automatically happen, you do have to make it happen and by its definition I would argue that it can't be done earlier. It is the transferring of the remaining tension in your hand/forearm/arm after you are anchored.

I'm not saying other people don't call it other things, and haven't, but the concept of transferring the remaining tension after anchor into your back simply can't happen prior to anchor.

It is important during the shot cycle to focus on each part of the process and that should be your main focus when executing the shot cycle. This includes during competition.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

In Al Hendersons book, "Peak Performance Archery", he states, " I am often asked which way the draw elbow should move to make the clicker click. Many people say that you must pull the draw arm back, meaning directly in line with the arrow. That is simply not the case. I like to tell my students when they want the clicker to click, they should use that elbow to hit the competitor standing behind them in the mouth. If they followed that action, the elbow will be working in the direction it should. Many archers feel they pull the arrow for as much as six inches through the clicker. They must have a mental number of inches simply because of the way get tangled up and can't execute the shot. The fact remains if you have an arrow in the clicker correctly while you are aiming, what you actually do is tighten the muscles in your back enough to move the elbow and the point of the arrow and are using the clicker correctly.

The best way to deal with a clicker is not to call it a clicker in the first place. If you set your mind that you only desire to hear a noise, and that's all you are after, you will have no problem whatsoever".

Al Henderson, "Peak Performance Archery".

Best thing I ever did to achieve true BT was playing with a BT release and a piece of pararcord looped around my bow hand, when it is right the rope will fly across the room, explosion!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I am often asked which way the draw elbow should move to make the clicker click. Many people say that you must pull the draw arm back, meaning directly in line with the arrow. That is simply not the case. I like to tell my students when they want the clicker to click, they should use that elbow to hit the competitor standing behind them in the mouth. If they followed that action, the elbow will be working in the direction it should.


There is nothing new under the sun...


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

All great info! Thanks guys! This is what AT is all about! :whoo:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

kshet26 said:


> All great info! Thanks guys! This is what AT is all about! :whoo:


No, it's not. It's about squabbling, arguing, calling each other names, trying to discredit those who you have a difference of opinion with or that shoot a different brand, and throwing hissy fits. LOL! 

And don't you forget it.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

With no mention of the late great Al Henderson in past searches on AT, just had to quote the man. I bought the book back in 1987 and recently found it stored away on a bookshelf at my mothers, good read. No Best, or NTS, just good info.
http://www.archeryhalloffame.com/Henderson Al.html


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

No doubt great info there.

Another eye opener to many would be the tiny, and easily overlooked "user's manual" written by Richard Carella for the formaster training aid. It's over my head, but from what I can understand, it describes the BEST method long before the BEST method ever existed.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> No, it's not. It's about squabbling, arguing, calling each other names, trying to discredit those who you have a difference of opinion with or that shoot a different brand, and throwing hissy fits. LOL!
> 
> And don't you forget it.


----------



## Joe Schnur (Mar 22, 2012)

Nice thread guys


----------



## dylpickleeeeeee (Jun 6, 2013)

kshet26 said:


> However, Coach Kim's, Vittorio's and Rick's books make no mention of this action


hikkk


----------



## dylpickleeeeeee (Jun 6, 2013)

kshet26 said:


> However, Coach Kim's, Vittorio's and Rick's books make no mention of this action


Maybe I am wrong. However, if you read coach Kim's book carefully and watch park sung hyun video carefully, there is still transfer phase.
I think it is part of shooting cycle regardless which method.

For example, in Coach Kim's book (Inside the archer), (this is based on my understanding to compare.)
page 2-8: stance (ch 1-3: stance, posture, hip alignment, ch6: head position, cha 21: shoulder alignment)
page 9- 17: bow grip (ch5: grip)
page 18-32: hooking (ch4 hooking)
page 33-40: set up (ch 9: set up)
page 41-45 : draw the bow (ch 8: bow arm, ch 11: drawing, ch 12: loading)
page 46-51: the anchor (ch13: anchor)
page 60-70: full draw (ch 15: transfer, ch 16: holding)
page 52-58: aiming (ch 23: string alignment and aiming)
page 71-79: using a clicker 
page 80-85 : extending (ch 17: expansion)
page 87-94: release (ch 18: release, cha 19: bow hand release)
page 95-97: follow through (ch 20: follow through)

The missing chapters are
ch 8: set position
ch 10: angular motion
ch 14: rhythm
ch 22: breathing
ch 24: timing.

From content perspective, ch 8, ch 10 is not covered in Kim's book.
Ch 14,22,24 are covered scattered in Coach Kim's book.

On page 52, it said that aiming starts after full draw. 
So to me, full draw in Coach Kim is the holding after transfer. 

So I conclude that the shooting cycle is the same. 

However, since Coach kim's methods from setup to full draw is more continuous motion than NTS method.
(Maybe I am wrong, there are more distinct motions from set to anchor in NTS. It went through several "angular motions". Though it is continuous motion, it is not straight (or shortest distance). It seems to me that old NTS as in insider archery is more continuous motion.)
A lot of archery start aiming during draw phase in linear push-pull method because it is feasible.
Of course, it is not recommended and both books say aiming after holding (different term used),
In NTS, it is not practical to do aiming before anchoring due to angular motion as described above.
So it is one of the reason that Coach Kim's method from anchor to release is faster than NTS. The motion seems more fluid in Coach Kim's method.

Then the question is which method has more stable "holding" phase and stable "expansion" phase?
I think the answer is "depends on individual archer and coach".


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

You know that Inside The Archer is about KiSik lee's Shot cycle and not coach Kim's technique - you seem to be regarding two people interchangeably. Coach Kim's book - which looks like a college text book - is titled The Archery Book by Coach Kim, Hyung Tak

The two methods are quite different in their visual appearance but all archery has concepts that are shared so there are similarities.

Also you said is angular motion is not about going in a straight line - while some of that can be true in regards to raising the bow for instance - angular drawing does produce a straight line from setup to loading. Your draw hand/string should move from setup to your loading position in a straight line not an arching motion. However your 'LAN2 area will have an arching motion.

Perhaps I am just not understanding what you posted. As you Im having a hard time distinguishing between when you are talking about NTS/KSL shot cycle or Coach Kim's methods.


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

"Transfer into Holding" concept will lead most archers into shot anticipation, AKA target panic. One has to remember that other than bio-mechanics there is a physiology. This topic is not covered by Mr. Lee, it was mentioned in another thread that he does not know what the target panic is and they don't have this problem in Korea. In fact they do, but if they have 10 thousand archers aiming for their team, they can discard 90% of them due to target panic and still have plenty to choose from. Some people have a physiological ability not to develop shot anticipation or can control it. The only way to eliminate anticipation is to avoid any kind of holding in the shot cycle and keep it dynamic all the way.
If a concept of a shot cycle is bio-mechanically and physiologically correct, it should work every time for all students. If it works sometime for some, and the rest suffer from over aiming, difficulty to draw through the clicker, flinches, collapses, that means that concept is flawed. All this problems lead to frustration and losing an interest in archery. But unlike it is in Korea, benches around here are pretty short. 
As I have mentioned before I have learned the most about archery from Darrell and Rick, you can ask them too, learn and teach good American form so all of your students can enjoy archery. 
All the best,
S.B.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> The only way to eliminate anticipation is to avoid any kind of holding in the shot cycle and keep it dynamic all the way.


Not sure I can agree with this 100% as I myself, and one of my highest performing archers both achieve holding prior to breaking the clicker.



> If a concept of a shot cycle is bio-mechanically and physiologically correct, it should work every time for all students. If it works sometime for some, and the rest suffer from over aiming, difficulty to draw through the clicker, flinches, collapses, that means that concept is flawed.


Not to defend the method, but nobody can expect one method to work for everyone. Too much individual variation. All we can hope to teach is a method that works for most, with variations or modifications for each individual. I think the folks at the OTC have learned this - at least, that's what one well known JDT coach keeps telling me and I have no reason not to believe him.

Your suggestion that teaching "American form" so your students can all enjoy archery is not far from the mark however, but maybe not for the reasons you think. I would agree that teaching the conventional method we were teaching prior to Lee does often result in happier archers. So long as those archers don't base their enjoyment of the sport purely on score alone.

There is a lot that goes into whether an archer is happy with the sport and decides to stay with it. The method they learn is only one component. And believe it or not, learning the new Best/NTS method is strong motivation for many young archers who truly believe it's the path to the promised land. So by NOT teaching it, you run the risk of losing that % of the students too. 

A coach needs to be flexible and understand their student - what motivates them, what they are willing to do, what they are capable of doing, and what you can ask them to do. I don't put too much emphasis on teaching one method or another, because frankly, developing a complete archer who will participate in the sport long-term involves a lot more than what method they use to shoot the bow. 

Another thing that concerns me about going "all-in" on one method during an intensive training program is that every student learns at a different pace, and in a different way. Sending a group of students to a one-week camp or seminar may work for a % of those kids, but it's not going to work for all of them. And if the follow-up isn't there, then what you're left with is a young archer trying to use a half-method in a rather confused state. And any archer can tell you that trying to shoot in a state of confusion about your technique is no way to shoot your best.

But I always try to remember when the topic of "methods" comes up that regardless of the method being taught to any student, at any facility or program, usually 80-90% of what they are learning translates to any method. In other words, 80-90% of the BEST/NTS method is the same as McKinney's method, and 80-90% of his method is the same as Frangilli's method. Don't let the contortions or how the archer arrives at a particular point mislead you. It's the fact that they get to that point that is important, not how they get there.

Sorry for the tangent.

John


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

w8lon said:


> With no mention of the late great Al Henderson in past searches on AT, just had to quote the man. I bought the book back in 1987 and recently found it stored away on a bookshelf at my mothers, good read. No Best, or NTS, just good info.
> http://www.archeryhalloffame.com/Henderson Al.html


Amen! a great friend and my first coach.


----------



## w8lon (Jun 2, 2012)

Bob, having only the experience of reading Al Hendersons one book, did he put so much effort into all this technical stuff, or was it more of teaching method of helping the archer find within themselves,,,their form? This is the feeling I become aware of through his writing, a mental approach of self analysis. If an archer was not listening to his instruction he would not say a word, just sit back and watch them fall apart until the archer come back again willing to listen.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

S.B.,

You don't understand the NTS version of Transfer to Holding. When you get to Holding, the movement doesn't stop. It just slows down. The shot is still dynamic. Just not aggressively so. If you have good clicker control, as NTS requires, it doesn't lead to anticipation or target panic for those that do the shot correctly. 

The Koreans know what target panic is. They just deal with it differently. Coach Lee definitely knows what it is. Target panic is what stopped him from competing and drove him to coaching and developing a shot process to help deal with it and other issues archers have. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Not to defend the method, but nobody can expect one method to work for everyone. Too much individual variation. All we can hope to teach is a method that works for most, with variations or modifications for each individual. I think the folks at the OTC have learned this - at least, that's what one well known JDT coach keeps telling me and I have no reason not to believe him.


I was thinking along the same lines. I'm unsure of how much of NTS is truly "bio-mechanically efficient" and how much is merely asserted to be so, nor am I convinced that bio-mechanically efficient automatically means injury reduction, because there could be an "efficient" way to draw that also puts a lot of wear on the joints, or some such. However, people are different, and it is a bit over the top to claim "If a concept of a shot cycle is bio-mechanically and physiologically correct, it should work every time for all students." I'd say just about nothing works for everybody, all the time. We are all similar, but not identical, and I'd say no single archery system works for everybody, all the time.


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> It's the fact that they get to that point that is important, not how they get there.
> 
> John


It is what they DO after they get to that point is important. Execution is the priority, not preparation. Execution is the common denominator for all good archers. However, if preparation is simple and reliable it provides a base for a good execution. Focusing on complex preparation is hurting simple execution.
NTS is a big step forward due to creating a structure and bringing everybody on the same page, but it is not the last page. Execution and elimination of the shot anticipation should be there, but it is left blank. NTS is based on "swim or die" philosophy, sure, some will swim providing great PR and book selling opportunities, what about the rest of archers that are being mislead and confused? 
The choice is yours,
S.B.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

S.B. said:


> It is what they DO after they get to that point is important. Execution is the priority, not preparation. Execution is the common denominator for all good archers. However, if preparation is simple and reliable it provides a base for a good execution. Focusing on complex preparation is hurting simple execution.
> NTS is a big step forward due to creating a structure and bringing everybody on the same page, but it is not the last page. Execution and elimination of the shot anticipation should be there, but it is left blank. NTS is based on "swim or die" philosophy, sure, some will swim providing great PR and book selling opportunities, what about the rest of archers that are being mislead and confused?
> The choice is yours,
> S.B.


I have little doubt that there are possible issues with NTS, many of which have been discussed in this forum, but TP isn't one I've heard people bring up before. What reason do you have to believe that TP is more prevalent with NTS?


----------



## dylpickleeeeeee (Jun 6, 2013)

dylpickleeeeeee said:


> page 71-79: using a clicker


Coach Kim's book has specific instructions on how to practice on clicker control.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

I dont shoot NTS but for me, transfer and holding means, i have anchored and i am now holding back solidly enough to transfer my focus from pulling and anchor to aiming with little to no creep forward. It is not a step per se, but a change of focus from setup/draw/anchor to focus on target. The body is locked and waiting for me to decide to trigger the clicker and shoot. 

For me it is not an actual transfer of muscles or that i focus on my back muscles for holding. Once i get close to anchor, my back is already engaged and finishing what the draw arm began. my transfer from arm tension to back is done about an inch or so from anchor. 



Chris


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

Here is how the Lee method works. Here is my method. You miss understood me. Here is what I ment. Now here is my new method because the original method didn't work. Now here is my new method with the new changes. No wait, we have more changes. 

Holding can lead to anticipation which ultimately leads to collapsing. If this isn't true american archers would not have such a problem with collapsing. Why has so many archers that went to the OTC leave there worse then when they arrived. Very few have and any success with this method.

It was originally sold as a process that is better under pressure. There is no proof of that and actually has proven to be just the opposite. It's so complex it's like the space shuttle.

The rest of the world seems to already know what we refuse to see and have moved away from this method.

The coaches in the system have dank the koolaid. They have all the reasons why NTS is better but no proof. Terry's dissertation just shows that they are still making changes. If USAA put this much effort into any other method over the past 8 years we would have probably had more success. The changes will keep coming until we are actually shooting the method the rest of the world is using to win. 

It's great that a coach knows everything they can about the system they are teaching, but if don't know any other way or unwilling to study other systems how can they really help an archer reach their true potential.

I have heard the term hybrid. That to me is saying what was termed the BEST was not much.

But what do I know?

Shoot what's works for you. Believe in your self and don't let people tell you your doing it wrong when your putting them in the middle. We have been there and it ultimately set my boy back.

Gary


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

For those of you that might have read my response to Gary, I apologize. It isn't worth it so I deleted it.

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> For those of you that might have read my response to Gary, I apologize. It isn't worth it so I deleted it.
> 
> Terry


Understandable, but why did you put "changes" in quotes when you say they are preferred? That sounds like a real change, even if it isn't a required one.

I'd add that change isn't necessarily a bad thing. A change that actually fixes issues would be a good thing. 

There still seem to be communications issues around the NTS system and OTC/RA/JDT program. (The coach symposium should help those able to attend, of course, but I hope that other measures will also be taken. The new book "Archery" ed. by USA Archery is certainly a step in the right direction.)


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

gairsz said:


> Holding can lead to anticipation which ultimately leads to collapsing.
> Gary


Gary, thank you for your comment! I am pleased to see that I am not alone here being kicked by "true believers". They have been warned.
I just watched team final from London again. Here is Brady, who is a carbon copy of Darrell Pace, true American form regardless what anybody says, smooth solid execution. And there are NTS boys - Jake and Jacob. On one shot Jacob had such a bad collapse, but he managed to redraw and was lucky to hit the target at all shooting without a clicker. Jake had so many urges to shoot under the clicker it was painful to watch. To an untrained eye they both were shooting well, but it was far from solid execution. 
As for the rest of the world - surprisingly there are not too many definite schools, event Koreans that are perceived as one school are all over the place, in particular their own Heretic - Oh. He will never ever have a collapse! He is all constant motion and there is no room for "Hold" anywhere in his form. Hint: maybe that is why he is #1?
S.B.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I didn't think the thread needed to get into mudslinging at NTS, but here we are AGAIN.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Midway...

I agree. That's why I decided not to join in. If folks have questions about the process and want clarification, I'm happy to respond. Other than that, I won't. 

Terry


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

SB, if you're putting me in the "true believers" category, you are sadly mistaken.



> It is what they DO after they get to that point is important.


I'm not going to argue with you over what amounts to about 1% of being a successful archer. When you're a coach, you see the other 99% that goes into developing a whole archer.

Pick Jake and Jacob apart if you want. Just as long as you can outshoot them, I'm okay with that. 

Personally, I don't deal well with criticism from someone whose never shot at or above my level. But from those who have, I'll listen intently to whatever they have to say.


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> SB, if you're putting me in the "true believers" category, you are sadly mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, the opposite is true, I totally support your independent opinion and critical thinking.
I am not arguing with you at all, and as a coach I know what it takes.
Comment on the message, not the messenger. Facts that I mentioned are still there on YouTube for anybody to see. 
You might be missing out on some interesting conversations.
Thank you for all your input, it was lonely here when you were away.
Sincerely,
S.B.


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

S.B. said:


> Gary, thank you for your comment! I am pleased to see that I am not alone here being kicked by "true believers". They have been warned.
> I just watched team final from London again. Here is Brady, who is a carbon copy of Darrell Pace, true American form regardless what anybody says, smooth solid execution. And there are NTS boys - Jake and Jacob. On one shot Jacob had such a bad collapse, but he managed to redraw and was lucky to hit the target at all shooting without a clicker. Jake had so many urges to shoot under the clicker it was painful to watch. To an untrained eye they both were shooting well, but it was far from solid execution.
> As for the rest of the world - surprisingly there are not too many definite schools, event Koreans that are perceived as one school are all over the place, in particular their own Heretic - Oh. He will never ever have a collapse! He is all constant motion and there is no room for "Hold" anywhere in his form. Hint: maybe that is why he is #1?
> S.B.


So what you are saying is that Ellison - who has by everything I've ever read - worked very close with Coach lee is in fact not following any of the concepts of NTS. And has held the #1.
But that Kaminski and Wukie - as you say - are clearly following NTS and you think they are anticipating the release and jerking through?
What about Joe Fanchin? Who along with Kaminski and Ellison won the team gold at the WC this summer?


YOu seem to have a philosophical dislike with the NTS method - something that goes beyond just a different point of view. I don't think anyone here in this Forum will argue that if NTS is not working for someone and a individual wants to take the step to learn a different form then go for it and keep what works best for you. 


You seem to be highly critical of the top US archers - so why don't you tell us who you are, and what your credentials are so we can take your "trained" eye seriously.
As someone that trying to self coach at the moment and other that are reading this I think know the above will help you make your case - if you have one.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

This forum really would be a whole lot more useful if folks would just fill out their profiles. It's really tough for me to take anyone seriously who is afraid to do that.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> This forum really would be a whole lot more useful if folks would just fill out their profiles. It's really tough for me to take anyone seriously who is afraid to do that.


Entirely up to you who(m?) you wish to take seriously.

It certainly is true that knowing who someone is can lend credibility. That is the case for me with you, Jim C, Vittorio, Rick. But at the same time I respect your posts not because of "who you are" but because what you say makes sense. I know who "gt" is on the other hand, and by his credentials he should be one of the most credible and worthy posters here. However, his posts show he is mostly anything but. So I'm not convinced that the problem is entirely about knowing who someone is in meat space. :dontknow:


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Warbow said:


> Entirely up to you who(m?) you wish to take seriously.
> 
> It certainly is true that knowing who someone is can lend credibility. That is the case for me with you, Jim C, Vittorio, Rick. But at the same time I respect your posts not because of "who you are" but because what you say makes sense. I know who "gt" is on the other hand, and by his credentials he should be one of the most credible and worthy posters here. However, his posts show he is mostly anything but. So I'm not convinced that the problem is entirely about knowing who someone is in meat space. :dontknow:


YOu are right not everything in regards to credibility is about who is saying it necessarily - but if someone is going to criticize a group of Olympic silver medalist as being "painful to watch" and implying he has a trained eye .... you should say how you're eye is trained and why others should take your opinions seriously.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

There is so little that can be put into profiles what useful information will be provided anyway? A person with no credentials can point out mistakes in reasoning, construct good arguments, have valid opinions, all that good stuff. Sometimes a beginner asking, "Why will that help me become a better archer?" makes a coach reevaluate what he's teaching. I've never cared about credentials because appealing to credentials is a type of attacking the person rather than attacking mistakes in what the person is saying. Listening to what people say and figuring out if they are sincere and make sense is just what you have to do, whether it's on AT or in real life. I've never had the slightest difficulty figuring out who to take seriously on AT just by evaluating what they post. There is no shortcut to reality, you have to do the work/reasoning.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dacer said:


> YOu are right not everything in regards to credibility is about who is saying it necessarily - but if someone is going to criticize a group of Olympic silver medalist as being "painful to watch" and implying he has a trained eye .... you should say how you're eye is trained and why others should take your opinions seriously.


Or just make claims that stand on their own, or with solid supporting evidence. I haven't the expertise to know if SB's claims are credible for much the reason you mention, since I don't know enough about NTS I have to rely to an extent on authority and opinions of people who have proven themselves to be credible, such as John, who I find to be highly credible based not only on his credentials but on the quality of his posts and his penchant for no-nonsense practicality, independent thought, etc.

We can, however, go too far in the other direction, in assuming that because someone is such an authority that everything they say is unquestionably true. I find this to be the case with Coach Lee, who is, I think people agree, a talented coach and very knowledgeable. However, if he says something which is on its face highly improbable, such as his claim about looking too far to the side of your "eye openings" and a decrease in "neurological strength", people reflexively defend his claim without bothering to examine it independently or critically.

For everyday practicality is useful to assume that people who are generally right are, well, generally right. But we should never assume that because they are generally right that everything they say is correct. If we do that we get an echo chamber where all sorts of nonsense can seem to be credible.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

I want to make this clear. I don't shoot. Everything I have learned about archery was from others. Including Lee. Most of what I think I know about archery was learned from my son who has worked with many coaches. His time in Korea was not long enough to say he has all the answers. When he came home the first thing he said to me was, "we are doing it wrong". And what he meant was the USA. That is his opinion. I wouldn't know, I don't shoot.

He may or may not shoot better with his new method. He was a back half shooter for Lee for five years. The issues with collapsing, and what Lee told him was target panic, will not be erased in a few months, but coach Kim assured him if he keeps working on what he learned his problems will go away.

He didn't have target panic. He was just shooting a method that does not allow for fluidity. Tense every muscle from your butt to base of your neck and wait for the clicker to drop. Matt's new way is relax everything and shoot with balance. It is hard to do that when you are all twisted up with your chest crushed down and your head pushed out over your feet and all the muscles in one side of your back contracted to the max while you hold your breath and waiting for expansion for it seems like forever while still trying to maintain your focus on the target while not aiming and the shaking starts and the clicker drops and ultimately hoping you don't collapse. (run on sentence) The koreans have already taken two shots and probably stuck them in the middle.

The Koreans shoot with less weight and look more relaxed. This is a martial art, isn't it? We add more and more bow weight to get the arrow there faster and faster while the rest of the world wins. The Lee kid from Korea wins the world championship with 42 pounds. Maja Jager wins the world championships with 39 pounds. Archery doesn't seem to be a muscle sport to me, it is more of an artform. Balance is key in all sports. Lee's method is all back half. What about the other half?

When an american archer does not perform in the program it is always the archers fault or their coach. When is its Lee's fault?

The the things that my son explained to me after training with coach Kim make sense. Very simple to understand. And, you can't argue with success.

[video]http://theinfinitecurve.com/2013/08/26/korean-archery-secrets/[/video]

Gary


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

Warbow said:


> Or just make claims that stand on their own, or with solid supporting evidence. I haven't the expertise to know if SB's claims are credible for much the reason you mention, since I don't know enough about NTS I have to rely to an extent on authority and opinions of people who have proven themselves to be credible, such as John, who I find to be highly credible based not only on his credentials but on the quality of his posts and his penchant for no-nonsense practicality, independent thought, etc.
> 
> We can, however, go too far in the other direction, in assuming that because someone is such an authority that everything they say is unquestionably true. I find this to be the case with Coach Lee, who is, I think people agree, a talented coach and very knowledgeable. However, if he says something which is on its face highly improbable, such as his claim about looking too far to the side of your "eye openings" and a decrease in "neurological strength", people reflexively defend his claim without bothering to examine it independently or critically.
> 
> For everyday practicality is useful to assume that people who are generally right are, well, generally right. But we should never assume that because they are generally right that everything they say is correct. If we do that we get an echo chamber where all sorts of nonsense can seem to be credible.


I agree.

You are right that a claim such as the "neurological strength" while I think has anecdotal evidence that I'm sure Coach Lee found with himself and possibly the students he has personally coached. I don't think there is any research to back up a claim of Neurological weakness or strength. 

However I do find that if the string blur and sight pin gets sufficiently(for me) close to the outline of my nose I "feel" like I lose a level of visual acuity in regards to the target. 

A lot of claims that I see against NTS talking about "holding" and starts and stops but I've never read anything authoritative about the KSL shot cylce that ever says to totally stop the draw or the shot. Which leads be to believe they are taking the terms - applying the common definitions - and coming to conclusions that are faulty because of a lack of understanding. 

The line that was most encouraging to me as someone trying to self teach - especially in the beginning when i felt I had to follow NTS/KLS shot cycle to the letter - was that it doesn't really matter how you arrive at holding but that you get there consistently and everything discussed leading up to that line was really just about a process that the author and Coach Lee see as giving you the best chance of arriving at holding correctly and consistently. 

Since then I think of NTS much less as a rigid set of steps/phases to be adhered with out question. As someone with a avid PC gaming background I think of NTS as the base game - the vanilla version - that provides the base, the concepts, and the main ideas - and that each archer has to mod the 'game' to suit themselves and their body. 

This isn't an uncommon thing in the world of sports...


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Gary,

Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that the reason the Koreans are so successful was because of their shot process. I also didn't realize that my understanding of NTS was all wrong and what I should have been teaching is your version. 

Thanks again.

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Dacer said:


> A lot of claims that I see against NTS talking about "holding" and starts and stops but I've never read anything authoritative about the KSL shot cylce that ever says to totally stop the draw or the shot. Which leads be to believe they are taking the terms - applying the common definitions - and coming to conclusions that are faulty because of a lack of understanding.


NTS claims, IIRC, to never really stop drawing. In Total Archery, Lee, somewhat incredibly, claimed to stop at all was a problem with the amount of inertia involved, in spite of the fact that he also said that the transfer from external to internal motion made for essentially imperceptible motion - even though the imperceptible motion was supposed to result in pulling through the clicker. 

It is hard to know how much of this is a communication problem vs. the technique being subtle, complex and effective. One thing I think I'm pretty firm on, NTS is difficult to self teach. And, it seems to me, that it is even difficult for anyone who isn't in constant contact with the OTC to teach, which hopefully things like the coach symposium will help with.


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

bownut-tl. said:


> Gary,
> 
> Thanks for the info. I didn't realize that the reason the Koreans are so successful was because of their shot process. I also didn't realize that my understanding of NTS was all wrong and what I should have been teaching is your version.
> 
> ...


Wasn't talking about anybody specific. I am sorry if I offended anyone. It's my opinion. I own it. Know one has to agree with it.

Oh crap. A bunch of new PMs. I haven't read those for awhile and don't plan it anytime soon. It's not good for my self esteem.

Gary


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> As someone with a avid PC gaming background I think of NTS as the base game


Oh no, you didn't just do that... LOL.

Archery = reality.

Gaming = make believe. 

LOL!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I think I'm going to co-author a book on archery with John Daly. It will be titled "Grip it and rip it..."


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> I didn't realize that the reason the Koreans are so successful was because of their shot process.


I know you are being sarcastic, but I can't tell if you mean this part or not. If our program is based heavily on the KSL shot cycle it certainly seems that the idea that the shot cycle is a key to archery is a fundamental tenet of the NTS. Would that also be true for the Korean's and their shot cycle?


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

gairsz said:


> I want to make this clear. I don't shoot. Everything I have learned about archery was from others. Including Lee. Most of what I think I know about archery was learned from my son who has worked with many coaches. His time in Korea was not long enough to say he has all the answers. When he came home the first thing he said to me was, "we are doing it wrong". And what he meant was the USA. That is his opinion. I wouldn't know, I don't shoot.
> 
> He may or may not shoot better with his new method. He was a back half shooter for Lee for five years. The issues with collapsing, and what Lee told him was target panic, will not be erased in a few months, but coach Kim assured him if he keeps working on what he learned his problems will go away.
> 
> ...


I think your criticism, while perhaps from a fathers point of view, is well received here. (Edit - or maybe not) And I see a great deal of some of the questions I've had myself in your statement - how to relax with while keeping my chest down, my hips tucked in, my shoulders down, rotating around with an open stance...ect

I mean, is one supposed to hunch slightly with their head over their feet or stand erect and just use the upper abs to keep the chest from rising... I won't argue when someone says that NTS/KSL is complicated when looked at as a rigid system. Perhaps even has just the Concept..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Warbow, I think you're confusing the shot cycle with specific techniques. Two different things. The NTS shot cycle includes a lot more than just how one gets through the clicker. A lot more.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Dacer,

Your point about NTS being a concept is spot on. If people took the time to ask Coach Lee about it, he will tell you that is the way to think about it. He will tell you there are lots of ways to get to Holding. We start with a version that we know works then go from there to try and help a specific archer find a path or process that works for him or her. You are also correct that people are taking the name "Holding" and applying the description of an action to a name. Maybe we should call it the "Steve" position. Folks would still complain because that name doesn't describe what is to be done. Just like "Anchor". It's a name that doesn't tell you much. You still have to describe what it is for an archer to understand what you want. Why can't Holding be looked at the same way or even Lan2?

There are a lot of accusations about NTS. If an archer chooses to do the process his or her way and it is outside the NTS envelope, you can't blame NTS for it. If an archer chooses to have hyper control of their shot or contract certain muscles more than required or not be in balance, that isn't a failing of NTS because that isn't what we teach. That is someone's incorrect understanding and implementation. That is one of the reasons we no longer focus on muscle contraction. We focus on movement and tell the archer to only use what is needed to get the skeletal structure in the proper position. I could go on but will stop here. 

Terry


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> Warbow, I think you're confusing the shot cycle with specific techniques. Two different things. The NTS shot cycle includes a lot more than just how one gets through the clicker. A lot more.


Ok, but doesn't the Korean's shot cycle also have that same general stuff, too, from stance all the way to follow through? Am I still missing something? :dontknow:

(BTW, I'm not arguing NTS v. Korean here, just wondering what bownut-tl about the Korean shot cycle and why, if he is, he's being dismissive of it.)


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Warbow,

I often hear people talk about the success of the Korean program when the conversation is about process. Without qualifying it, it can easily make the reader believe that is the sole reason.

I'm not being dismissive of their process. I'm just round about saying there is a lot more to their success than just their process.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

bownut-tl. said:


> Warbow,
> 
> I often here people talk about the success of the Korean program when the conversation is about process. Without qualifying it, it can easily make the reader believe that is the sole reason.
> 
> I'm not being dismissive of their process. I'm just round about saying there is a lot more to their success than just their process.


Well, I suppose having the whole country's education system set up by the government as your farm league, among other things, also helps... :embara:

But I'm also assuming their process doesn't suck either, even though it could have issues that the large pool of potential pro archers could mask.


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

gairsz said:


> Wasn't talking about anybody specific. I am sorry if I offended anyone. It's my opinion. I own it. Know one has to agree with it.
> 
> Oh crap. A bunch of new PMs. I haven't read those for awhile and don't plan it anytime soon. It's not good for my self esteem.
> 
> Gary


Gary,

My mistake. I assumed if you were talking about NTS or JDT or RA or describing something that seems clear to be about one of those without mentioning the name, you were talking about the US version of one of those. 

Terry


----------



## gairsz (Mar 6, 2008)

bownut-tl. said:


> I'm not being dismissive of their process. I'm just round about saying there is a lot more to their success than just their process.


Then maybe we should do that then. If success is why we brought Lee here and they are having the success, why are we not adapting. 

There was a method and now there is a method that you can do many different ways. The big experiment is still in the testing phase.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> _Personally, I don't deal well with criticism from someone whose never shot at or above my level. But from those who have, I'll listen intently to whatever they have to say._


Agree. The credential of having 'done it' carries a lot of weight (with me, anyway).


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

gairsz said:


> Then maybe we should do that then. If success is why we brought Lee here and they are having the success, why are we not adapting.
> 
> There was a method and now there is a method that you can do many different ways. The big experiment is still in the testing phase.


If you believe their process is the dominant reason for their success then ok. I just think their deep bench, their training program, their financial support, their early selection process, etc., might have a bit to do with it also. 

The big experiment isn't still being tested. You just won't accept the fact that the archer can be offered options to get to a position we want them in. You keep saying over and over again...do what works for you. When we apply that same approach with NTS, somehow it's a problem.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

gairsz said:


> I When he came home the first thing he said to me was, "we are doing it wrong". And what he meant was the USA.
> 
> 
> He was just shooting a method that does not allow for fluidity. Tense every muscle from your butt to base of your neck and wait for the clicker to drop. Matt's new way is relax everything and shoot with balance. It is hard to do that when you are all twisted up with your chest crushed down and your head pushed out over your feet and all the muscles in one side of your back contracted to the max while you hold your breath and waiting for expansion for it seems like forever while still trying to maintain your focus on the target while not aiming and the shaking starts and the clicker drops and ultimately hoping you don't collapse. (run on sentence) The koreans have already taken two shots and probably stuck them in the middle.
> ...



i agree.


Chris


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> _I think I'm going to co-author a book on archery with John Daly. It will be titled "Grip it and rip it..."_


Vic's a pretty good poster boy - circa 2004 - for 'grip it and rip it' simplicity of setup and form, starting at time mark :54seconds .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBbfYD13-xo&list=PL26B32458E1219793

He sets his bow arm and - wait! how'd he get to the release point so quickly? It was so smooth and simple, and he looks so comfortable throughout, that I almost miss the sequence, even when I'm looking for it.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Larry, Vic's shot is courtesy of Larry Skinner. He was a big advocate of no wasted motion. He explained it to me prior to the 2004 games, but that wasn't the time to be experimenting, and he and I both agreed. 

Vic also has a very unique bow shoulder position. I've never seen another like it. He can do some things that most folks cannot.

John


----------



## S.B. (Sep 26, 2012)

When I first read about BEST technique I was very impressed with the basics. When I started getting into details I thought - good thing that this people are not teaching us how to operate a spoon. Soup would be all over while we are thinking which muscle to contract.
Archery form can be described on 2 pages with room to spare. But that would be too simple. It must be $100 book with lots of acronyms. From a reputable source. Like Rick McKinney is not reputable enough for you. He described all aspects of form, gear and training in one small book you can get from a library. Or Don Rabska, complete archery technique manual on 8 pages.
This people are still around, you can call them and ask questions, both super helpful. But that is not reputable enough for you. To be "authentic" it must be some expensive cult leader, who could not do so he started to teach what he has failed at. Good luck!
Rant is over.
S.B.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

gairsz said:


> I want to make this clear. I don't shoot. Everything I have learned about archery was from others. Including Lee. Most of what I think I know about archery was learned from my son who has worked with many coaches. His time in Korea was not long enough to say he has all the answers. When he came home the first thing he said to me was, "we are doing it wrong". And what he meant was the USA. That is his opinion. I wouldn't know, I don't shoot.
> 
> He may or may not shoot better with his new method. He was a back half shooter for Lee for five years. The issues with collapsing, and what Lee told him was target panic, will not be erased in a few months, but coach Kim assured him if he keeps working on what he learned his problems will go away.
> 
> ...


I really like this post.


----------



## dylpickleeeeeee (Jun 6, 2013)

When archers worked with coach what option they have besides following coach without causing friction?

If coaches teaches traditional push-pull method, will they teach Lee Seungyun' shooting style to other students?
Since they are probably not aware all detail, they most likely will not teach anything they are less familiar.
In particular, if archer just start this sport, can he come up with different shooting form his coaches teaching?
If you are self coached, you have more freedom to make your own choice?

My way or Highway!!!


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

S.B. said:


> When I first read about BEST technique I was very impressed with the basics. When I started getting into details I thought - good thing that this people are not teaching us how to operate a spoon. Soup would be all over while we are thinking which muscle to contract.
> Archery form can be described on 2 pages with room to spare. But that would be too simple. It must be $100 book with lots of acronyms. From a reputable source. Like Rick McKinney is not reputable enough for you. He described all aspects of form, gear and training in one small book you can get from a library. Or Don Rabska, complete archery technique manual on 8 pages.
> This people are still around, you can call them and ask questions, both super helpful. But that is not reputable enough for you. To be "authentic" it must be some expensive cult leader, who could not do so he started to teach what he has failed at. Good luck!
> Rant is over.
> S.B.


Clearly you have some personal issues with this not strictly a different opinion... you seem to be personally offended by this technique/method and lost objectivity on the subject. Why is anyone's guess.

neither of the books that have been Published that were coauthored by Coach Lee are in the +$100 prices range - that would be coach Kim's book. And a book with indepth descriptions, full color, annotated pictures - is pretty helpful and well worth the $55 I spend on TA: Inside the archer. 

Also no one here disparaged either McKinney or Rabska or said anything about them not being authentic.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

This thread is all over the place. AT has never been a good place to get answers about specific advanced techniques. Too many ways to skin the cat, too many varied and poorly informed opinions about each way, and not enough real authorities on the topic participating here to get the facts. Add to that the difficulty in explaining physical movements through the written word, and well, this is what you get...

I find it rather interesting that seldom, if ever, are the shooting techniques taught by Alexander Kirillov or Larry Skinner discussed here, despite each of them being the personal coaches of arguably the most successful American male and female Olympic archers in history.

Just an example of how facts and statistics can be overlooked when this subject comes up.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> This thread is all over the place. AT has never been a good place to get answers about specific advanced techniques. Too many ways to skin the cat, too many varied and poorly informed opinions about each way, and not enough real authorities on the topic participating here to get the facts. *Add to that the difficulty in explaining physical movements through the written word*, and well, this is what you get...


Unfortunately, the only instruction materials from USA Archery are static photos and text. They really need to be supplemented with some simple videos. It isn't hard to do with a tripod and pretty much any digital camera. Heck, they could even make some simple videos using Coaches Eye and just upload it to a YouTube Channel.



limbwalker said:


> I find it rather interesting that seldom, if ever, are the shooting techniques taught by Alexander Kirillov or Larry Skinner discussed here, despite each of them being the personal coaches of arguably the most successful American male and female Olympic archers in history.
> 
> Just an example of how facts and statistics can be overlooked when this subject comes up.


I think people do quote Skinner here on occasion.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Larry, Vic's shot is courtesy of Larry Skinner. He was a big advocate of no wasted motion. He explained it to me prior to the 2004 games, but that wasn't the time to be experimenting, and he and I both agreed.
> 
> Vic also has a very unique bow shoulder position. I've never seen another like it. He can do some things that most folks cannot.
> 
> John


Would you expand on that a little bit? Either here or a PM?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I think people do quote Skinner here on occasion.


If they have, it must have been while I was away. Larry's the one who convinced me to pick up an Olympic recurve, after having watched me shoot my longbow a few times. I think I'd remember someone here quoting him or referring to his teaching. 



> Would you expand on that a little bit? Either here or a PM?


Larry, Vic's bow shoulder is lower and closer to the arrow than any archer I can ever recall seeing. Luis Alvarez (Mex) is the only one I can think of that's close. At first, it appeared to me as if it were almost dislocated when he was at full draw. He is that flexible. It still amazes me to see the position he gets it into when he's at full draw. His bowstring nearly hits his front shoulder on release. Think about that. His front SHOULDER, not just his forearm.


----------



## Unk Bond (Aug 1, 2004)

Hello All
A very interesting and enlightening thread. On facts being presented, and opinions there after. And that we all have.
One thing that wasn't mention pertaining to a clicker. It can cause a archer to become a rhythm shooter.
Tried the clicker several moons back. I've witness a cigarette lighter setting a shot off. 
I've also witness a well known-ed Ohio pro archer, off his shot routine, because of needing a stronger clicker adjustment ,to give a stronger shot. 

I told this archer I had a suggestion he might try after the money shoot. He said lay it on me. I suggested he move his clicker to him a minute amount . And that would tighten his groups up.That minute amount adjustment . Was all it took for him to be back at his game. And he won the event.

I have found with using. And being dependent up on a clicker, in a event. And having the use of it in are shot sequence . Can be a very frustrating mental event. When one link of the shot sequence is hampered by ones strength for the day. 

We just can't call up are strength level, to equal the the pre-setting of a clicker on a daily bases.
Just not my cup of tea. 
Give me a draw check mirror. like Vic used, and it seemed to serve him well.

Oh by the way. You can disregard this post. I'm just a archer. :wink: [ Later


----------



## Dacer (Jun 10, 2013)

I actually do have a serious question about transfer.

these last weeks I've changed parts of my form quite a bit for the better - the shots feel much stronger with more control during expansion, but the consistency isn't there yet. I was actually shooting better scores before I changed everything up but The shot over all feels better.

Anyway. When I come up and in to anchor and start to transfer I feel what I can only guess is impingement in my draw shoulder. Now if i move my draw side back around enough the feeling goes away but the discomfort is still there 95% of the time. However I Will say that setting my draw shoulder down and back before i start moving my lan2 has caused the discomfort to diminish quite a bit - Something I got from one of Terry's posts. 

My first thought was possibly the new angles I'm putting my body in are just engaging different supporting muscles more intensely in my rotator cuff that are not as stable since when I get my elbow past the line of the arrow it goes away for the most part. 

Let me point out that when I say discomfort - I wouldn't call it pain just a feeling that something in my shoulder isn't right. 

- If I get a chance I might get some video up.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> If they have, it must have been while I was away. Larry's the one who convinced me to pick up an Olympic recurve, after having watched me shoot my longbow a few times. I think I'd remember someone here quoting him or referring to his teaching.


Well, I did a quick search on AT. And Skinner does get mentioned a bit, but it turns out it's mostly by you. Knew I remembered seeing him mentioned... :embara:


----------



## bownut-tl. (Sep 21, 2003)

Dacer,

Sent you a PM. 

Terry


----------



## dylpickleeeeeee (Jun 6, 2013)

Dacer said:


> Anyway. When I come up and in to anchor and start to transfer I feel what I can only guess is impingement in my draw shoulder. Now if i move my draw side back around enough the feeling goes away but the discomfort is still there 95% of the time. However I Will say that setting my draw shoulder down and back before i start moving my lan2 has caused the discomfort to diminish quite a bit.


The discomfort originates from "drawing to anchoring" or "anchoring, transfer, holding"?
Scapula position is almost set when anchoring?

It seems to me is from "drawing" not "transfer".


----------

