# instintive or aim as reference ?



## recarga (Aug 22, 2012)

Hello Amigos. 

I'm a new B to traditional archery been doing it for 3 weeks and I'm in love with it. 
It all started when I bought a new compound bow and before I picked one up I tried several ones 
And came to one that did not had sights on so the sales rep said to just aim at the padded wall but instead 
I aim at the center of the Target by just lookin at it . Released and all 5 arrows were on the center ,by that time something clicked in me something I couldn't explain . 

I'll make it short to say that I bought a recurve and my two daughters and me Got on a archery club we all Got training on archery . 

My question is this. 

I think I'm doing a good shooting at 20 yards by doing the instinctive shooting by just looking at the Target and doing the stare and arrow appears . 
Now when I try to do the way the instructor said by having the arrow and kind of gun barrel it ,I'm a mess the arrows go every where with in 24" 
Is this normal? 
I actually made my first robin hood at 15 yards by just looking and concentrating at the spot ,but I'm just a little confused. 

What do you recommend.

Gracias.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Yes, that is normal to be all over the place and normal to get a few good hits and groups, but you want consistency and confidence in consistency. If you think about the progression of things, you can see where an "aiming" method for a new person is a misnomer. You aim an arrow from the nock end but you are looking at only the front end of things. 

Until you can get the nock end to be in the same place every time (consistent anchor) and your body to align the nock end and release the nock end the same every time (consistent form), nothing you do at the front end in regards to "aiming" will make a hill of beans - you have too much variation at the back end of things. Working only at aim or the front end of the shot, or just staring down the spot, and hoping or thinking all the other stuff will eventually just get with the program is not going to get you anything meaningful in the end. 

Short version: when you can group them all together every shot and to your satisfaction, then you can worry about aiming methods. Chances are, by then, you won't need to worry on it anyway, as the two, form and aim, tend to develop together in unison.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Short version: when you can group them all together every shot and to your satisfaction, then you can worry about aiming methods. Chances are, by then, you won't need to worry on it anyway, as the two, form and aim, tend to develop together in unison.


I agree, focus on form and aiming whether it be Gap or Instinct it will develop naturally on its own. I suggest working at one distance and when your happy with groups move back 5 yards and start the process again.


----------



## recarga (Aug 22, 2012)

Sanford & Steve m,

SANFORD, 
. You aim an arrow from the nock end but you are looking at only the front end of things.
NOW THAT THAT YOU JUST SAID MAKES A LOT OF SENSE . 

THAT IS IT , that IS what makes instinctive shooting IMO , 

that's why I fell in love with the stick bow , it just comes natural to shot the hardest part is believe I can do it , and that's 
Where practice and practice and talk to all the nice people I've found on traditional archery ,


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

The harder you try the harder it becomes, just enjoy the shooting\learning process


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

recarga said:


> THAT IS IT , that IS what makes instinctive shooting IMO ,


Yes, but it also applies to all shooting styles, whether you are shooting a sighted compound, sighted recurve, or unsighted recurve. If you can't keep the back end in order, nothing on the front end matters.


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

I'd be watching every form video and reading every thread about form that you can find right now. The MBB series as well as books available here can help tremendously. I'd like to suggest getting a good coach and spend some time with them for several months but I didn't have that luxury and I've done pretty well. Look at professional shooters from all camps and see which style lends itself to your goals. Rod Jenkins and Joel Turner became gods to me when I started learning. Once you've found that style watch it regularly and then take that to the blind bale and try to replicate it. Get a video camera, film yourself so you see where your aspects of form differs from theirs.

Don't worry about anything but very basic tuning for a little while. As you practice your draw and form are going to change, expect it, and understand that more often than not what you start out with will not be what you end up with after you get a proper form ingrained.


----------



## Chupacabras (Feb 10, 2006)

I started shooting 3 under "instinctive" a couple months ago. With the arrow that close to your eye the whole shaft of the arrow will be in the field of view to your aiming point. If you use the shaft as an alignment tool you can watch the arrow flight all the way to the target and make adjustments as needed.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Instinctive Aiming has a few different definitions depending on who you ask or talk to.

The way it is currently being discussed here is really no different than how many seasoned and experienced Gap shooters aim while aiming at a lower level of conscious awareness regarding their aiming reference/references.

Total or True Instinctive Aiming involves much more hand and eye coordination at the subconscious/unconscious level. The whole shot sequence is basically executed as a pitcher throws a ball or a basketball player shoots a basketball. It's very fluid. The longer an archer holds at anchor and adjusts their sight picture...the more aware the conscious mind becomes of the objects within the sight picture until the shot is no longer a reflex response and involves conscious adjustments to the aim.

As others here have said....for an archer to be consistently accurate...they have to be consistently doing the same thing over and over regarding their form and aiming technique in most cases....especially as the target's distances increase.

An archer can get away with quite a bit at close distances...but at longer distances past 10 - 15yrds....consistentcy in form will be crucial to the aiming process.

FYI (fun fact)...it has been documented that the Korean Olympic Archery team will work on their form FIRST...before ever learning to aim.

It isn't that aiming is unimportant...because that's just NOT true....because it really boils down to about 50/50 on importance at the moment the archer draws and aims the bow. It's just that an archer's form needs to be consistent FIRST before any real consistentcy can be developed regarding aiming.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

LOL, Chupacabras try a 20 yard shot stringwalking! It's like watching the tail of a jet....


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I think what the OP is saying is that when he just draws back and focuses on a spot he hits it 

When he tries to gun barrel , look at the tip or aim by using the arrow he misses

If this is the case then he is asking which is better ? 

The answer to the first question is yes you are shooting what some of us would call instinctive 

to answer your second question which ever method works best for you is the best 

Glad you and your children have found archery ..... Enjoy


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

for the zillionth time - shooting three under does not necessarily put the arrow any closer to your eye than shooting split - here is a pic of myself and one of Fred Asbell - you will note that the arrow is no closer to my eye than it is to his:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Here are three different people all shooting three fingers under - in one the arrow is right under his eyeball - and that is why he is shooting three under - in the 2nd one - me - the arrow is no closer than shooting split, and in the last the arrow is futher from the eye than most split shooters - so as you can see - three fingers under is not just about getting the arrow closer to ones eye - that is a myth:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Except for the last archer they are all shooting with an artificially high anchor, lower is substantially more biomechanically correct.

-Grant


----------



## Rich_S (Jul 6, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Except for the last archer they are all shooting with an artificially high anchor,
> 
> -Grant


Right, for any given anchor (e.g., index finger to corner of mouth, middle finger to corner of mouth, etc.) shooting 3 under will place the arrow closer to the eye than shooting split with the same anchor.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

wrong - look at the pic of myself and Fred Asbell - besides there is no such thing as an "artificially high anchor" - an anchor is an anchor - there is no right or wrong it is personal preference

when I shot split I anchored with my middle finger in the corner of my mouth - when I first switched to three under I then anchored with my indes finger in the corner of my mouth - the arrow in the exact same relationship to my eye either way. Now I anchor different - after figuring out that the corner of my mouth is a horrible anchor - I now anchor multi-point - index finger on a tooth, thumb cupped under my jaw - feather touching bottom tip of my nose - etc... - but as you can see in the photo - the arrow is virtually the same distance from my eye as it is from Fred Asbell's eye.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

recarga said:


> Hello Amigos.
> 
> I'm a new B to traditional archery been doing it for 3 weeks and I'm in love with it.
> It all started when I bought a new compound bow and before I picked one up I tried several ones
> ...


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Ken, don't waste your time bro! The "experts" have spoken! LOL. Speck


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

To the OP, work on perfecting your form(and I mean perfecting it). Same routine, everytime, no matter what. Shoot from everywhere(within reason as it relates to your progress). You can shoot instinctively very well at long range, regardless of what the "net gurus" try to tell you! Speck


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Speck1 said:


> Ken, don't waste your time bro! The "experts" have spoken! LOL. Speck




Naaaaaa. The OP knows that he has what it takes. He just had some so called instructor tell him that he's doing it all wrong. Now how can that be if the arrows are consistently hitting where he wants them? Seems like a no brainer to me.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Naaaaaa. The OP knows that he has what it takes. He just had some so called instructor tell him that he's doing it all wrong. Now how can that be if the arrows are consistently hitting where he wants them? Seems like a no brainer to me.


We all have done it. That's why I mentioned "perfecting" what he is doing. We shoot good, hit a "bump", don't realize it's just a bump and change everything we do sometimes all the way down to the bow itself. Consistency is the name of the game, even if you have an overly "high anchor". Speck


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Speck1 said:


> We all have done it. That's why I mentioned "perfecting" what he is doing. We shoot good, hit a "bump", don't realize it's just a bump and change everything we do sometimes all the way down to the bow itself. Consistency is the name of the game, even if you have an overly "high anchor". Speck




Yep,been guilty of that many times myself. Especially since I came to this forum, I have a tendency toward trying everything I read about just for the hell of it and find that it takes some time to fix myself.
The good part is when you get out of the groove,it's not lost, so you can find it again.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Yep,been guilty of that many times myself. Especially since I came to this forum, I have a tendency toward trying everything I read about just for the hell of it and find that it takes some time to fix myself.
> The good part is when you get out of the groove,it's not lost, so you can find it again.


That's a fact! If it works today, it will work tomorrow. And if it doesn't work tomorrow but you know why, well then you are on your way to perfection. Speck


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Recarga you can learn a gap of one distance somewhere between 10 and 20 arrows, with the subconscious its that quick at learning. I suspect youre still switching focus between the Gap\spot and its impacting on your form and showing poor groups.

On a regular basis I do whats called walkback where I take a shot move back and do the same and walkback again and repeat, first couple of times Im focussed on the gap and not worried about how good\bad my grouping is, after that I just forget about the gap and focus more on my form\shot sequence, this Walkback method is just a way to maintain my Gaps, I do this for 10 min on nearly every training session.









Both aiming methods work very well but Gap when its ingrained can give you a level on long range consitency\accuracy very few Instinctive shooters can match, this is an example of my walkback session to 65 yards on a 40cm Field face.

As I said before just relax and enjoy the form learning process, the aiming kinda comes by itself, put too much focus into aiming at this early stage will affect your form too much to make an informed choice as to which aiming method is best suited to you and no reason not to learn both, Instinct for short range and Gap for longer shots.


----------



## recarga (Aug 22, 2012)

JParanee said:


> I think what the OP is saying is that when he just draws back and focuses on a spot he hits it
> 
> When he tries to gun barrel , look at the tip or aim by using the arrow he misses
> 
> ...



Yes that is. 

Gracias everyone

I have learned 4 things from you gentlemen 
#1 focus on my stand 
#2 keep doing what is working for me until I get more consistent and later I can use a 
Point of reference on hard shots. 
#3 take a picture of my self and study my stand on different shots 

#4 last but more important HAVE FUN 

I NOW UNDERSTAND by looking at different pictures and videos my daughters coach is more on 
The Olympic style ripe deal. 

Thanks everyone you all have been very nice .


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Told ya all  

Recarga keep shooting and have fun 

Post up some videos 

You and the family keep having fun


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> Recarga you can learn a gap of one distance somewhere between 10 and 20 arrows, with the subconscious its that quick at learning. I suspect youre still switching focus between the Gap\spot and its impacting on your form and showing poor groups.
> 
> On a regular basis I do whats called walkback where I take a shot move back and do the same and walkback again and repeat, first couple of times Im focussed on the gap and not worried about how good\bad my grouping is, after that I just forget about the gap and focus more on my form\shot sequence, this Walkback method is just a way to maintain my Gaps, I do this for 10 min on nearly every training session.
> 
> ...




Judging by the angle of the arrows in the target that bow shoots perfectly flat at 65yds. No arch at all,that's amazing.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Judging by the angle of the arrows in the target that bow shoots perfectly flat at 65yds. No arch at all,that's amazing.


43# 300g arrows, with my 3 under anchor I have point on of 65 yards. Im not quite sure what youre suggesting here but if you think its a bs photo I also have youtube video of me shooting 60y, Im quite happy to post it up if you wish.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Both aiming methods work very well but Gap when its ingrained can give you a level on long range consitency\accuracy very few Instinctive shooters can match, this is an example of my walkback session to 65 yards on a 40cm Field face.
> 
> As I said before just relax and enjoy the form learning process, the aiming kinda comes by itself, put too much focus into aiming at this early stage will affect your form too much to make an informed choice as to which aiming method is best suited to you and no reason not to learn both, Instinct for short range and Gap for longer shots.


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> here is a pic of myself and one of Fred Asbell - you will note that the arrow is no closer to my eye than it is to his:


Based on what I see...your arrow is about an 1" to an 1 1/2" closer to your eye than Fred's. They are definitely NOT the same distance.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Contrary to some people's opinions....placing the arrow closer to the eye does make the aiming process easier at closer distances. It's actually wize and smart to do so...if an archer's primary goal involves shooting closer distances.

The problem with placing the arrow closer to the archer's eye when trying to aim Totally or Truly Instinctive is...the closer an object is to an archer's direct line of sight...the more chance the conscious mind will become aware of it and use it. An archer also increases that chance of the conscious mind recognizing the arrow when they hold anchor for longer periods of time as they adjust their aim.

Ray :shade:


----------



## hawaiiarcher (Feb 16, 2008)

Good Shooting Steve but what amazes me is how can you shoot in such cold weather:mg:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> wrong - look at the pic of myself and Fred Asbell - besides there is no such thing as an "artificially high anchor" - an anchor is an anchor - there is no right or wrong it is personal preference
> 
> when I shot split I anchored with my middle finger in the corner of my mouth - when I first switched to three under I then anchored with my indes finger in the corner of my mouth - the arrow in the exact same relationship to my eye either way. Now I anchor different - after figuring out that the corner of my mouth is a horrible anchor - I now anchor multi-point - index finger on a tooth, thumb cupped under my jaw - feather touching bottom tip of my nose - etc... - but as you can see in the photo - the arrow is virtually the same distance from my eye as it is from Fred Asbell's eye.


Anchoring on the side of the bottom jaw is much more biomechanically correct, it promotes better alignment and backtension.

Anchoring where you do serves only to reduce the point-on distance, which makes the sight picture much easier for the brain to process. It also extends the area between near and far zero so you can shoot the same gap for many distances.

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Sharp's comparison with G. Fred isn't the best because of the different angles each archer holds their head...but I still see a noticable difference.

Here's another pic of G. Fred that gives us a better idea of the distance between his eye and the arrow.

We should be able to clearly see that the arrow is well below Fred's nose. My guess is the arrow is about an inch or more lower than the tip of the nose and when you look at sharp...the arrow is at or slightly above the tip of his nose.

Facial structure is obviously different which makes it a little harder to make a good comparison...but even when that is taken into consideration...it should be obvious that they are not exactly identical.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

hawaiiarcher said:


> Good Shooting Steve but what amazes me is how can you shoot in such cold weather:mg:


It was a warm day, only minus 15C lol


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> 43# 300g arrows, with my 3 under anchor I have point on of 65 yards. Im not quite sure what youre suggesting here but if you think its a bs photo I also have youtube video of me shooting 60y, Im quite happy to post it up if you wish.



I just happened to notice that the arrows are as straight into the target as if shot at 10yds. Thats real impressive from 65 yds. I would really like to watch that arrow fly,straight as a bullet for sixty five yds. That would be something to see. Mine are always stuck in the target at some degree of angle when shot from distance much over 20-25 yds. Got me some arch in the arrow.

But straight in from 65yds seems rather impressive to me. Maybe it's normal for light weight arrows.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I just happened to notice that the arrows are as straight into the target as if shot at 10yds. Thats real impressive from 65 yds. I would really like to watch that arrow fly,straight as a bullet for sixty five yds. That would be something to see. Mine are always stuck in the target at some degree of angle when shot from distance much over 20-25 yds. Got me some arch in the arrow.
> 
> But straight in from 65yds seems rather impressive to me. Maybe it's normal for light weight arrows.


Maybe there's a reason all but us "backyarder's" set the target and bale on an incline - ever notice that?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Maybe there's a reason all but us "backyarder's" set the target and bale on an incline - ever notice that?



Sure I've noticed. But in that picture the arrows do form an angle with the target, it's the angle with the surrounding terrain that doesn't compute for me. Unless of course the arrows were being shot from lower terrain than where the target is. Now if that three hundred grain arrow is making three thousand fps----hmmm. But 150 fps??? Gotta have some arch. Right? The arrow should be in the target tail high. That's why it impressed me so much.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Could be shot from lower terrain, but that angle to the target suggests the same as can be seen with any long distance arrow being shot on level ground. Not sure why you would assume if the target base is on the same terrain, the tail is low with the terrain and not also to the target. The angle of entry due to trajectory would look almost flat for a target that is leaning back, and if the target base is on the same terrain, it would look almost flat with the terrain.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Coming in pretty flat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZD0Ysc_JTI&feature=bf_prev&list=UUvepGyjq9IzFCgGiCEEzGUg


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

grantmac said:


> Coming in pretty flat:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZD0Ysc_JTI&feature=bf_prev&list=UUvepGyjq9IzFCgGiCEEzGUg


I was shooting the Pro Accent with 43# limbs then had a 55y point on, now its the Nilo with 48# Winex limbs and 300g Lightspeeds and 65y point on.

I wasnt happy with my form on that video, I tried the 60y challenge the day before and it was so cold the camera battery died in 5min flat, that second day I was able to get one quick warm up of 6 shots and straight into the 6 arrow challenge, I rushed the whole thing to get the shots in before battery died again.

But you can see the arrows sit in the target the same as the photo I posted.:thumbs_up


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> I was shooting the Pro Accent with 43# limbs then had a 55y point on, now its the Nilo with 48# Winex limbs and 300g Lightspeeds and 65y point on.
> 
> I wasnt happy with my form on that video, I tried the 60y challenge the day before and it was so cold the camera battery died in 5min flat, that second day I was able to get one quick warm up of 6 shots and straight into the 6 arrow challenge, I rushed the whole thing to get the shots in before battery died again.
> 
> But you can see the arrows sit in the target the same as the photo I posted.:thumbs_up



Just curious,how many steps did you take on the way to that 60yd target? Curious because I counted three times and only got 38 steps.

To the OP. I know we have drifted off topic but since you are new to trad archery and the forum maybe you will get something from this . At least you will learn that we sometimes get off topic.


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> ... At least you will learn that we sometimes get off topic.


_Shhh!!_ Don't tell him; that was _supposed_ to be a secret! :set1_rolf2:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

jusoldave said:


> _Shhh!!_ Don't tell him; that was _supposed_ to be a secret! :set1_rolf2:


LOL, I thought at first glance you meant that the steps to the target were supposed to be a secret.:zip:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Just curious,how many steps did you take on the way to that 60yd target? Curious because I counted three times and only got 38 steps.


Are you serious Forest? How did you get only 38 steps? I personally heard anywhere from 60 -70 steps.

Ray :shade:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

did you hear how long it took the arrow to get to the target and it was exactly 60.5 yards Steve is going to just have to get a new tape.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Are you serious Forest? How did you get only 38 steps? I personally heard anywhere from 60 -70 steps.
> 
> Ray :shade:



By counting them. Easy to do with the snow and the camera movement. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow,just to be sure,again.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Ok it seems now twice on this thread you have called me a liar. 

Any experienced Field Archers would like to chime in and confirm what Im saying. Im shooting the 80y walkup target, on the 70 yard Hunter we have 4 red markers and the last marker is 58 yards, you can clearly see in the video that Im standing a couple of yards behind the last of the 4 stakes, the 58 yard stake.

Why the hell would I BS about something like that, with my International Field track record its not like I need to.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

not that I needed to, nor does Steve need to validate his claims , but counting the steps I counted at least 60 ... and from years of shooting field I can guesstimate that the target is a "good ways off " ... 

Years of corrosponding with Steve here and elsewhere has shown me that he is a "warts and all " kinda archer ... we get to see the good and the bad . 
Maybe its just me being from the colonies and all .......

the only thing I could possibly add is that Mr Morley needs to tighten his groups up a bit ... 

a group like that at 60 ... 

Pfffff ........


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> not that I needed to, nor does Steve need to validate his claims , but counting the steps I counted at least 60 ... and from years of shooting field I can guesstimate that the target is a "good ways off " ...


I'm glad there are others that heard what I did.

I honestly have no idea how Forest was counting those steps. Most of the steps sound as plain as day to me...except the first few in the beginning.

Ray :shade:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> the only thing I could possibly add is that Mr Morley needs to tighten his groups up a bit ...
> 
> a group like that at 60 ...
> 
> Pfffff ........


Yeah it wasnt great shooting, just what I would call respectable and considering I got all 6 in the 4 scoring zone and it was minus 15C I thought good enough for the challenge at the time.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Steve .. I'd cut fingers off to be able shoot groups like that at 60 ... not my fingers ... but still you get my point ...

its good shooting mate ...... jus hacking at ya .......


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Yeah it wasnt great shooting, just what I would call respectable and considering I got all 6 in the 4 scoring zone and it was minus 15C I thought good enough for the challenge at the time.


Maybe I missed something but Steve, didn't you say that you were shooting back to 65 five on that post ? I assumed that you started up close and walked back shooting at various distances. Regardless, it was good shooting. What we need to do is have an Archerytalk Championship shoot. I think the NAFAC shoot in Florida would be the perfect venue. Then the naysayers and internet champs can all show what they can do in front of all their peers. Steve, I think you said you were coming, I plan to be there and I've got some more barebow types wanting to go. Put up or shut up people. Personally, I think there are way too many posters on here that have no Idea how good a recurve can be shot.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Maybe I missed something but Steve, didn't you say that you were shooting back to 65 five on that post ?


The previous post was a photo of my walkback from 10 yards to 65 yards, Forest questioned the angle of my arrows in the target and I offered a video of me shooting 60y so he could see the angle of the arrows and compare to photo.

Yes I plan to go on going to NAFAC, would be great to see anybody who wants to come and shoot with me, I dont really care about the put up or shut up, since they changed the rules I cant win the tourney as Im not from Americas , Im just there to see my buddy Redbow and enjoy some warm weather. :wink:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

steve morley said:


> The previous post was a photo of my walkback from 10 yards to 65 yards, Forest questioned the angle of my arrows in the target and I offered a video of me shooting 60y so he could see the angle of the arrows and compare to photo.
> 
> Yes I plan to go on going to NAFAC, would be great to see anybody who wants to come and shoot with me, I dont really care about the put up or shut up, since they changed the rules I cant win the tourney as Im not from Americas , Im just there to see my buddy Redbow and enjoy some warm weather. :wink:


Steve, you missed my point. We'll have our own tourney within the tourney, we don't need no stinking boundaries, maybe come up with an award for outstanding score based on what style it was shot in and make it an annual thing, kinda like the nfaa barebow championship buckle passed around every year. The competitors can vote the winner.There's lots of ways to have fun in this sport.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

JParanee said:


> I think what the OP is saying is that when he just draws back and focuses on a spot he hits it
> 
> When he tries to gun barrel , look at the tip or aim by using the arrow he misses
> 
> ...


I agree, I have the same problem. I focus on the target and shoot, if I overly focus on the arrow shaft everything goes wrong.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> if I overly focus on the arrow shaft everything goes wrong.


Same for me and Im a Gap shooter :wink:


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

2413gary said:


> did you hear how long it took the arrow to get to the target and it was exactly 60.5 yards Steve is going to just have to get a new tape.


The exchange rate from metric to English isn't what it used to be.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Yep focus on the tip of the arrow and it races like Nascar focus on the spot and things calm down. I think that focusing on the tip of the arrow and the movement it causes helps creat traget panic be cause we can't make it stop. focus on the spot see your gap or the arrow where it needs to be in your secondary vision and just let it float. 
Gary


UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> I agree, I have the same problem. I focus on the target and shoot, if I overly focus on the arrow shaft everything goes wrong.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

Itbeso... I am thinking Redding would be a great venue for such a challenge? Or maybe Grass Valley? At least there you would have the various yardages from 3 or 4 yards to 100+.... the ultimate challenge, and at Redding we could all be in the same group since large groups are the norm there? I think we can get a nice belt buckle like Grass Valley or the Oregon Safari does for the Bowhunter champ?


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Once you guys get my buckle I'd like a new belt with my name on the back also.
Gary


rsarns said:


> Itbeso... I am thinking Redding would be a great venue for such a challenge? Or maybe Grass Valley? At least there you would have the various yardages from 3 or 4 yards to 100+.... the ultimate challenge, and at Redding we could all be in the same group since large groups are the norm there? I think we can get a nice belt buckle like Grass Valley or the Oregon Safari does for the Bowhunter champ?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Now, do I shoot instinctive, do I shoot gap, do I shoot pick a point. OMG, I'm already stressing out over all the possibilities.


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

> ... if I overly focus on the arrow shaft everything goes wrong.





steve morley said:


> Same for me and Im a Gap shooter :wink:


Steve, you have no idea the good it does me to see an archer of your caliber say that! 

Just the other day, one of my buds and I were shooting; in the middle of a session, he says, "You know, you shoot a lot better when you don't think enough to talk yourself outa the shot!"

I didn't take that as a big compliment...


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

itbeso - it is real simple - do you consciously line up the arrow or look for a gap based on the distance of the target? If you do - then you do not shoot instinctive.


If when you shoot - your entire conscious attention is on the spot you want to hit and you give no conscious thought to the distance, the arrow, the gap, or anything else - you shoot instinctive - PERIOD - all this other stuff that people say is meant to confuse the issue at hand.

Instinctive is simply aiming at a subconscious level - it does not matter where you put your fingers on the string, how long you hold at anchor, how you bend you knees or twist your body, etc... - it is simply aiming at a subconscious level and if you do what is said above and your entire conscious attention is on the spot you want to hit and nothing else - then you shoot instinctive.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> If when you shoot - your entire conscious attention is on the spot you want to hit and you give no conscious thought to the distance, the arrow, the gap, or anything else - you shoot instinctive - PERIOD - *all this other stuff that people say is meant to confuse the issue at hand.*


WOW! I see you still have NOT learned anything from your temporary vacation :thumbs_do I guess I shouldn't be surprized.

There is more to True Instinctive Aiming than what you're expressing that seperates it from the other aiming techniques.

Time at anchor and how close the archer's aiming reference is to their direct line of sight ABSOLUTELY plays a roll in how the conscious mind recognizes and uses objects within the archer's field of vision to adjust their aim. 

There are different levels of conscious awareness...and many people confuse having very little conscious awareness to no conscious awareness. Many think that just because they are focusing on only the target...that they are aiming totally Instinctively...which is NOT necessarily the case. If an archer sets up their bow and changes their form to get a Point On Distance (POD) of 20 or 30yrds and they only shoot targets at close range...there really don't need to think about target distance.

There's a reason why some archers can shoot better in total darkness while shooting at a lazer pointer than other archers, who claim to be aiming totally Instinctively.

Ray :shade:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Now, do I shoot instinctive, do I shoot gap, do I shoot pick a point. OMG, I'm already stressing out over all the possibilities.


Sharp, how in the world anyone couldn't see that this whole post was tongue in cheek is beyond me. A serious response was definitely not warranted.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

steve morley said:


> Same for me and Im a Gap shooter :wink:


Yep...me too....when I'm aiming Gapstinctive :wink:

For me...if I begin to become 'more' consciously aware of my arrow as I'm aiming...that basically means I'm doubting my sight picture...which usually ends up producing a less than perfect shot.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> Sharp, how in the world anyone couldn't see that this whole post was tongue in cheek is beyond me. A serious response was definitely not warranted.


itbeso,

Just an FYI...it does help in many cases if you include emoticons in your posts to try and express your emotions regarding a post.

Some people take many of the things said on here to seriously or even to personally if you disagree with them.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

A well placed shot is just that, nothing more. The target, tournament directors, or game animals do not really care how you did it. Instinctive is a word, so is gap. Somebody, long before the internet, came up with these descriptions of shooting styles. If I beat your A double S, I don't really care how you tell folks I did it. Speck


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> A well placed shot is just that, nothing more. The target, tournament directors, or game animals do not really care how you did it.


:thumbs_up For the most part...that's true...but in some tournament circumstances...String and Face Walking are often put into seperate classes.



Speck1 said:


> Instinctive is a word, so is gap. Somebody, long before the internet, came up with these descriptions of shooting styles.


Definitely...but over the years the term 'Instinctive' has evolved. It use to only mean an inborn behavior than it took on a definition of aiming any bow without a sight...to a more specific barebow aiming technique.



Speck1 said:


> If I beat your A double S, I don't really care how you tell folks I did it.


Nor should you really care.

The discussion of the term should only be used for educational purposes.

It should NEVER be used to inflate someone's ego or to try and lesson an archer's accomplishments.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Wolf, I have yet to see much in the way of "education" come out of these threads. Just an argument over a word. Speck


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

who has ever used the term to inflate anyone's ego or lessen any archer's accomplishments - this is the nonsense that I am talking about - I have never ever even implied that because someone gaps or uses some other method of aiming that they are any less of an archer than anyone else - or that because someone shoots instinctive that they are a superior archer - I have never even implied that. I have said that I believe it is the best method for hunting - and I believe that - but I do not believe that an archer who scores a 250 shooting instinctive is any better or superior to an archer who scores a 250 shooting gap - and a gap shooter who scores better than an instinctive shooter is a better archer than the instinctive - PERIOD - it is just a method of aiming and it is not a superior method in that it is any more difficult - in fact - I think it is easier than gapping - so if anything - us instinctive archers are the ones taking the easy road - we don't have to do anything but look at the target and hope the arrow goes there.

I have been beat by other instinctive shooters and by gap shooters - and ya know what - when your beat your beat and the better archer won - PERIOD.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> Wolf, I have yet to see much in the way of "education" come out of these threads. Just an argument over a word. Speck


Let this be your first educational post then, Speck. If you are going to shoot instinctive at a major tournament, you are not going to whip the a double s of any shooter worth their salt. If you are going to gap shoot or stringwalk then your chances of winning have increased dramatically. End of that story although this subject will be raked over the coals for the next week.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> Wolf, I have yet to see much in the way of "education" come out of these threads. Just an argument over a word. Speck


That's propbably because you feel there isn't anything new to learn about something you feel you already know.

If your opinion is set on what is or what isn't Instinctive Aiming...you most likely won't learn anything new.

In most cases...the insights I share about True/Total Instinctive Aiming aren't for guys who think they already know it all...it's for those who are still open to learning, who may be reading these threads.

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> who has ever used the term to inflate anyone's ego or lessen any archer's accomplishments -


It's used often as an excuse for an archer's poor shooting or to point out why they were beat. It happens alot on the internet and in competition. Ego is always involved in those circumstances.

I make friends easily and I can fit in with just about any crowd...so I've heard it all.

Just because you haven't experienced it or heard it....does NOT mean it doesn't happen.



sharpbroadhead said:


> I have never ever even implied that because someone gaps or uses some other method of aiming that they are any less of an archer than anyone else


You really are a sensitive guy...aren't you. You act as if I made that comment about you. You really need to learn to stop taking people's comment's, opinions or disagreements personally and acting like some victim. 

Ray :shade:


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

2413gary said:


> Once you guys get my buckle I'd like a new belt with my name on the back also.
> Gary


Yep... and it will say Ren...


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Your right Ray, I most definitely don't feel I have anything to learn about shooting a bow in any manner from you. Glad we cleared that up. Speck


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> Your right Ray, I most definitely don't feel I have anything to learn about shooting a bow in any manner from you. Glad we cleared that up. Speck


Thanks for proving my point :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

rsarns said:


> Yep... and it will say Ren...


Is that spelled "Matt" ??

I'm thinking I might need to come down and play with you guys - need to get Ben and Allan to come up as well

MAtt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Well Speck - now I know why we hit off and have had such a good time everytime we have met up and shot together -


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> Ok it seems now twice on this thread you have called me a liar.
> 
> Any experienced Field Archers would like to chime in and confirm what Im saying. Im shooting the 80y walkup target, on the 70 yard Hunter we have 4 red markers and the last marker is 58 yards, you can clearly see in the video that Im standing a couple of yards behind the last of the 4 stakes, the 58 yard stake.
> 
> Why the hell would I BS about something like that, with my International Field track record its not like I need to.




Actually, I never called you a liar once. In fact this is possibly the first time I have ever typed the word "liar" in this forum. Sorry you took it that way but since you have scolded others about that very thing in the past I didn't think you would be so sensitive about it. 
But, I still find it fascinating that the arrows are in the target as straight as mine are when shot from much shorter distance. At longer distance mine tend to 'get some big air' as in lots of arch. Since the point end is heavier than the nock end it falls point first and ends up in the target nock high. At distances of 30yds or less they are a little flatter. 65 yds is a long way and produces a much more pronounced arch even with my 300fps compound. So maybe you understand why I was so impressed with the performance of your recurve.
Now for the video. I counted thirty eight steps that seemed to be at a normal cadence for a normal size man. Possibly you were taking shorter steps at a more rapid than normal pace. But I admit I don't have perfect hearing.
The average man seems to take about 6 steps in covering 5yds. So 38 divided by 6=6.33x5=31.65 estimated yards. At that distance the arrows could easily be straight in the target. I just don't see how they maintained such a flat trajectory at sixty five yards. That's all. I was really looking for some discussion and possibly explanation of how that happened. Maybe something a bit more scientific than just pitchers.


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

Tell me if I am wrong, and I am more than likely to be.... If you truly are shooting instinctive you never see/use the tip of the arrow as a gauge to the spot on the target? And when you shoot a gap you do, right?
Being said, if the first is true, then you should be able to shoot and hit a target if your view of the arrow tip were to be blocked from your sight picture. 
And that if in any way, shape, or form you do use the tip of the arrow in relation to where you hold on the target you are shooting a gap.
Is this true or am I wrong on this?
Thanks,
Don.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

zestycj7

you are wrong - shooting instinctive is about whether you aim at a conscious level or a subconscious level. For example I once had a guy say to me that a truly instinctive shooter would be able to shoot in pitch black at a laser pointer on a target. I figured I could and then tried it - I missed the target completely. Now I have shot in the dark at a candle or a target lit by a flashlight and hit the target - even shot the wick off of a candle - but in complete darkness (can't see you hand in front of your face darkness) I could not shoot with any accuracy at all - in fact it was outright dangerous.

And I started thinking about why this happened and then decided to go to a gym and shoot some baskets - and then turn the lights out completely and aim a laser pointer at the backboard - guess what? I could not hit the backboard even - was not even close.

Now I know for certain when I hold a basketball over my head I am not "sighting" anything when I shoot - but I still could not do it in complete darkness. Our brain needs feedback from our vision - and from all of our vision - including our peripheral in order to judge distance and triangulate in order to get a pojectile where we want it.


So that is some food for thought about what we see or do not see.

But in relation to your question - again - shooting a bow instinctive is about one thing and one thing only - whether or not you consciously determine distance and consciously use something to aim based on that distance - be it a gap, point on, POA, etc... - or whether or not you simply look at what you want to hit and shoot at it with no conscious thought to distance or lining anything up based on distance.

I don't care if my subconscious uses the arrow or not - I don't care if my subconscious uses a gap or not - it does not matter to me - all I know is that I can look at a target and just shoot at it and hit it. I don't want to have to look at a target and think to myself is that 24 or 28 yards? Should my gap be here or there? That is not for me - if it is for you - great - but that is not how I want to shoot.

I look at my spot and shoot - period - my subconsious does all the rest - and to be honest - i really don't care how it does - my conscious job is to keep my form consistent and keep looking at my spot - my subconscious does a great job of aiming for me without any intereference from my conscious mind.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Actually, I never called you a liar once. In fact this is possibly the first time I have ever typed the word "liar" in this forum. Sorry you took it that way but since you have scolded others about that very thing in the past I didn't think you would be so sensitive about it.
> But, I still find it fascinating that the arrows are in the target as straight as mine are when shot from much shorter distance. At longer distance mine tend to 'get some big air' as in lots of arch. Since the point end is heavier than the nock end it falls point first and ends up in the target nock high. At distances of 30yds or less they are a little flatter. 65 yds is a long way and produces a much more pronounced arch even with my 300fps compound. So maybe you understand why I was so impressed with the performance of your recurve.
> Now for the video. I counted thirty eight steps that seemed to be at a normal cadence for a normal size man. Possibly you were taking shorter steps at a more rapid than normal pace. But I admit I don't have perfect hearing.
> The average man seems to take about 6 steps in covering 5yds. So 38 divided by 6=6.33x5=31.65 estimated yards. At that distance the arrows could easily be straight in the target. I just don't see how they maintained such a flat trajectory at sixty five yards. That's all. I was really looking for some discussion and possibly explanation of how that happened. Maybe something a bit more scientific than just pitchers.


Well dont know what to say, Im using 28" arrows with 100g points and 1.75" vanes 300g total arrrow weight, it is pretty obvious that the target in the video is way longer than 30y, if you have good enough res screen you will clearly see Im standing behind the 58y red stake.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> That's propbably because you feel there isn't anything new to learn about something you feel you already know.
> 
> If your opinion is set on what is or what isn't Instinctive Aiming...you most likely won't learn anything new.
> 
> ...



And if those insights were correct,they would be welcome. BUT since they are basically your opinion and not fact,they get challenged every time. Been that way for years.
Example. Your opinion that a person must be a snapshooter to be shooting 'truly instinctive'. I asked you how long,exactly, that one can hold at anchor and still be considered an instinctive shooter. Even though you never answered my question you have indicated that you think if the shooter hesitates any time at all at anchor,then it's not 'truly instinctive' by your standard. To the rest of us that's truly snapshooting. And we real instinctive shooters don't encourage snapshooting,although, some people can shoot that way very accurately.
That's why your 'teaching" is always challenged by those who understand instincive shooting better than you do. Actually I believe that you do have a fair understanding of how it works.
But to admit that wouldn't produce any argument and you like to argue.:set1_rolf2: The problem starts when one confuses argument for the sake of arguing with 'TEACHING"


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Thanks for proving my point :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Glad I could be of service "Your Emminence".... No smiley. Speck


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

steve morley said:


> Well dont know what to say, Im using 28" arrows with 100g points and 1.75" vanes 300g total arrrow weight, it is pretty obvious that the target in the video is way longer than 30y, if you have good enough res screen you will clearly see Im standing behind the 58y red stake.



Absolutely correct. The target in the video does appear to be more than thirty yards. The shadows prevented me from watching the arrows flight path but I could see the plane of the arrow before release and if it were to travel perfectly flat for 58yds then it would pass above the target. But since it does not do that it is basically losing speed and falling for most of that distance when it is no longer being affected by the initial thrust applied by the bow. It just seems that the point end would be falling at a faster rate than the nock end resulting in a nock high position in the target.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> zestycj7
> 
> my conscious job is to keep my form consistent and keep looking at my spot - my subconscious does a great job of aiming for me without any intereference from my conscious mind.


I would say my Gap shooting is *almost* identical, except I have some awareness of my sight picture and really mostly that awareness will come to conscious thought only if it doesnt feel right, really most of my focus is running my shot sequence, I just trust my subconscious to do a good job of aiming.

The awareness of the gap is early on and it is better described as setting vertical\horizontal elevation and then it is fogotton and switched to a subconscious task, it frees me up my conscious to run the final part of the execution.

Something like this....

Decide where I want to hit.
Draw
Anchor
what I call my second anchor i.e a back tension anchor where Scapula is loaded and set in strong position
set my Vertical and horizontal alignment\gap
If all feels correct I commit to the shot and start expansion stage, at this point Im just looking at the spot and feeling Scapular motion, release just happens inbetween.
conclusion


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Since the point end is heavier than the nock end it falls point first and ends up in the target nock high.


Forrest, everything falls at the same rate under gravity - think a guy named Newton found that out for us. Heavier things don't fall faster  Now, if you want to induce drag from the back end theory, start explaining how the back slows faster than the front when connected by a solid shaft. We cant confuse angle of trajectory with arrow flight, which isn't that great for that shot with even a slow arrow and considering the tail follows directly behind the head at all times due to forward momentum.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

steve morley said:


> I would say my Gap shooting is *almost* identical, except I have some awareness of my sight picture and really mostly that awareness will come to conscious thought only if it doesnt feel right, really most of my focus is running my shot sequence, I just trust my subconscious to do a good job of aiming.
> 
> The awareness of the gap is early on and it is better described as setting vertical\horizontal elevation and then it is fogotton and switched to a subconscious task, it frees me up my conscious to run the final part of the execution.
> 
> ...


Great description, Steve. I use the arrow in my secondary vision to set windage and perhaps elevation (not sure, cause I don't focus on it, but I believe I am subconsciously using it), but I am NEVER focused on the arrow only on the target destination. Focusing on the arrow tip is difficult to control and just blows the whole shot. Alot of practice was required before I became fairly skilled at this, BUT I will reiterate I am no champion shooter, just a die hard that likes to shoot arrows...ALOT!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Is the glossary including the instinctive subsets getting any more attractive now, or is this redundancy that much fun? A lot of repeated ground between some good useful posts.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Here is what I do:

I look at my target, pick a spot, and sort of visualise the entire shot as I square up to it (in a target situation - obviously hunting can be different as far as squaring up)

I begin to raise my bow and draw - and all the while keep my eye on the spot.

I hit anchor and also "anchor" my back muscles - by this I mean I sort of do a very quick check that everything feels right (this happens in like microseconds)

all the while I try to keep my eye on the spot - once at anchor I remind myself to keep looking at the spot until after the arrow hits - and then - wham - the shot goes off.

that is my entire shot sequence - I never give a thought to aim - other than to keep looking at my spot.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> Forrest, everything falls at the same rate under gravity - think a guy named Newton found that out for us. Heavier things don't fall faster  Now, if you want to induce drag from the back end theory, start explaining how the back slows faster than the front when connected by a solid shaft. We cant confuse angle of trajectory with arrow flight, which isn't that great for that shot with even a slow arrow and considering the tail follows directly behind the head at all times due to forward momentum.



Yep,that's what I was looking for. However, if I shoot an arrow and miss the target at long distance,the point always seems to be stuck in the ground. I understand your theory of the arrow sinking earthward in a level flight attitude as forward motion decreases. That could probably be attained with some experimentation with different arrow configurations. With the heavier points that I shoot it does not seem to hold true in practical application. But,since Morley uses a 100 grain point on a light arrow it could be a possible explanation.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> And if those insights were correct,they would be welcome. BUT since they are basically your opinion and not fact,they get challenged every time. Been that way for years.


For the most part...the people that challenge my opinions are people like yourself who do not have the background or education I do regarding kinesiology and sports psychology.

Everything I base my opinions on are based on over 25yrs. working as a mediacal exercise specialist, physical therapy aide, fitness trainer and archer while researching how the mind and body work to perform athletic movements.



FORESTGUMP said:


> Your opinion that a person must be a snapshooter to be shooting 'truly instinctive'.


Again...I've NEVER said an archer MUst be a snap shooter. You keep claiming I've said that without you being able to show anyone where that quote is...so at this point you're out right lying to try and prove your point.



FORESTGUMP said:


> I asked you how long,exactly, that one can hold at anchor and still be considered an instinctive shooter. Even though you never answered my question you have indicated that you think if the shooter hesitates any time at all at anchor,then it's not 'truly instinctive' by your standard.


Nope! I've answered that many times. AGAIN...what I've said is that the longer an archer holds anchor...the more chance the conscious mind will become aware of their aiming reference/references...even if the archer is only slightly aware....so there is no exact time limit I have determined. It can vary from archer to archer...but the FACT still stands....the longer an archer is looking at their sight picture and adjusting their aim....the more chance the conscious mind will become aware of objects within their sight picture. Just because an archer pauses at anchor does NOT mean they are necessarily consciously aware of their aiming references.

Another point I always share is that the closer the aiming references are within the archer's direct line of sight...the more chance the archer will become or already is consciously aware of them...even if it's just slightly aware.



FORESTGUMP said:


> The problem starts when one confuses argument for the sake of arguing with 'TEACHING"


Believe I'm NOT confused. I know I won't teach you anything because you believe you already know everything there is to know about Instinctive Aiming.

Like I said...I may be argueing with a few of you...but for those reading these threads who are searching for answers...those are the ones I'm trying to teach.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Believe I'm NOT confused. I know I won't teach you anything because you believe you already know everything there is to know about Instinctive Aiming.
> 
> Ray :shade:


If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Forest, on the tip aiming down, i think it is a matter of simply clarifying the physics. The tip does not drop faster, per se, because it is heavier. Rather, because of the aerodynamics of foc and fletching, the path of the back of the arrow follows the front (it corrects direction to point as straight through the air as possible), and because every trajectory is an arc, unless the shot is going upwards, the trajectory, and arrow, will be pointed down when it hits the target, that is all.

The idea that higher FOC causes the point to fall faster is intuitively sensible, but physically incorrect. The example of dropping an arrow in free fall seems to make sense, but if you were to repeat the experiment in a vacuum, you would find no difference at all between EFOC and NOFOC, or for that matter, between the falling rate of a marble and a feather. I've seen that demonstration. Can probably find it on youtube, i'd suspect.

I know that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about higher foc arrows dropping more, but i've never seen any controlled experiment that actually balanced for velocity and drag coefficients and mass, let alone dynamic spine effects and shaft efficiency. If a person simply adds weight to the front, of course the trajectory curves more, because the increase in mass means lower initial velocity. Everything else being equal, it could be argued that higher foc could have a mild impact due to faster correction through the trajectory curve (arrow has less rotational inertia, drag applied results in mildy staighter path through air, and arrow gets even less lift, as can sometimes be seen with broadheads and bare shafts, and you have slightly lower impact), but i would think that differences in shooter form would swamp that.

Basic explanation that was provided that i found useful was, imagine two hammers falling. If you tied them together with a string, would they magically acclerate more? Would it be different if you taped them, glued them? Of course not.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black


Nope...I learn something from everybody on here...even you sharp :wink: and I definitely don't claim to know EVERTING about Instinctive Aiming...because if a person chooses to...there are much deeper and more scientific explanations a person can research that I haven't even touched much on...yet.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

you go learn

I know this - I KNOW what I am consciously aware of and do not know what I am not consciously aware of - and so does every single human being. I know and have learned and am learning ways to aid my subconscious in its job of doing what my conscious mind wants - a great resource on this is The Mental Mechanics of Archery. But as far as the actual mechancis of how the subconsious mind aims - nobody knows or understand that - there are some who think they do - but they have always been proven wrong. Our brain is far to complex for even the most intelligent person alive to even begin to understand and when you get into the subconscious - it is even far more difficult to understand.

I don't know how my subconscious aims and I don't care - I know it does and does a dang good job of it.


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

If you are conscious of your subconscious awareness doesn't that then become your conscious awareness?
Just asking is all.
Don.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Sanford said:


> Forrest, everything falls at the same rate under gravity - think a guy named Newton found that out for us. Heavier things don't fall faster  Now, if you want to induce drag from the back end theory, start explaining how the back slows faster than the front when connected by a solid shaft. We cant confuse angle of trajectory with arrow flight, which isn't that great for that shot with even a slow arrow and considering the tail follows directly behind the head at all times due to forward momentum.


If both objects are started at the same time at the same speed this is true..but......

Mac


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Don - I assume that your post was tongue-in-cheek - but in case it was not - to be aware that you have a subconscious and that your subconscious does many things for you - does not mean that you consciously aware of how it is being done.


----------



## Rich_S (Jul 6, 2012)

How does a pure instinctive shooter handle elevation adjustment at various distances? Do you just memorize the sight picture at different distances and pick the one at the distance you're shooting? It's all well and good to say "I just pick a point on the target and focus on it intensely" but if you're closer than your normal distance you'll shoot over it and if you're farther away you'll shoot under it. Gap, stringwalking, face walking, etc. are all just ways of trying to get elevation adjustments down to a quasi science. How does the instinctive shooter do this?


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> you go learn
> 
> I know this - I KNOW what I am consciously aware of and do not know what I am not consciously aware of - and so does every single human being. I know and have learned and am learning ways to aid my subconscious in its job of doing what my conscious mind wants - a great resource on this is The Mental Mechanics of Archery. But as far as the actual mechancis of how the subconsious mind aims - nobody knows or understand that - there are some who think they do - but they have always been proven wrong. *Our brain is far to complex for even the most intelligent person alive to even begin to understand and when you get into the subconscious - it is even far more difficult to understand.*
> 
> I don't know how my subconscious aims and I don't care - I know it does and does a dang good job of it.


Ken...your subconscious isn't what is aiming...your conscious mind is..and the simple matter of all of this is you have trained your conscious to ignore some of the sensory inputs that are constantly trying to disrupt your shooting routine... as to what I have put in bold in your post..this may hold true for your train of thought and opinion...but I can assure you..many people on this planet have a far better grasp of what is going on than you,me,or most here..and they understand the complex pretty darn good...and have proven this time after time.The main issue is you believe there are 3 consciousness in the brain...and there are not...There are only 2 states of consciousness..conscious and unconscious...and what Ray has been saying is the facts about it...While we are awake and fully conscious..it is the various amounts of awareness we have inputed to our cognitive minds that allow us control what we do..We can learn to control this by limiting this input by learning to ignore them..or...as far as shooting instinctively is concerned...just not thinking about it..

The word subconsciously is a metaphor for doing just this..._that is_...doing things without thinking...It's not a real *physical* place in the mind...regardless what some new age self help author is claiming..or what some sport writer claims..or what some coach teaches...The subconscious does nothing for you...because it is not real...and sooner or later you will actually seek out those who can prove this to you..

Mac


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MAC 11700 said:


> Ken...your subconscious isn't what is aiming...your conscious mind is..and the simple matter of all of this is you have trained your conscious to ignore some of the sensory inputs that are constantly trying to disrupt your shooting routine... as to what I have put in bold in your post..this may hold true for your train of thought and opinion...but I can assure you..many people on this planet have a far better grasp of what is going on than you,me,or most here..and they understand the complex pretty darn good...and have proven this time after time.The main issue is you believe there are 3 consciousness in the brain...and there are not...There are only 2 states of consciousness..conscious and unconscious...and what Ray has been saying is the facts about it...While we are awake and fully conscious..it is the various amounts of awareness we have inputed to our cognitive minds that allow us control what we do..We can learn to control this by limiting this input by learning to ignore them..or...as far as shooting instinctively is concerned...just not thinking about it..
> 
> The word subconsciously is a metaphor for doing just this..._that is_...doing things without thinking...It's not a real *physical* place in the mind...regardless what some new age self help author is claiming..or what some sport writer claims..or what some coach teaches...The subconscious does nothing for you...because it is not real...and sooner or later you will actually seek out those who can prove this to you..
> 
> Mac


Mac?....hate to do this but....i gotta disagree with those ultra-smart folks out there who believe that only two states of consciousness exist...conscious and unconscious...because there is a 3rd state..we call "Sub Conscious"....and i can prove it right here right now to most folks who are able to keep and open mind...as follows..

Ever drive home while deep in thought then pull in the driveway and wonder how ya got there?..remembering very little (if any) conscious acts of actually driving home?....(and yes...i can hear the DUI jokes coming already) but in a clean state of mind just deep in thought?...you definantly weren't unconscious or you wouldn't be in the driveway...but you were also not conscious as you definantly can't recall how you got there..so to me?...that proves there is in fact a 3rd state of consciousness..which many call a "sub-conscious"...which successfully managed to carry out the many acts of driving home even though the conscious mind was not cognisant of them happening.

I recall laughing my butt off the day i heard an old welder tell me...

"Ya know?..some folks is real booksmart but they ain't got no walk'in 'round sense!"


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

New book out by Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman "Thinking Fast and Slow" its a good read.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Jinkster
There's post Doctoral Research fellowship vacancy in my department .... with that level of indepth knowledge, why don't you apply. Of course that would mean I'd be your boss


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Yewselfbow said:


> Jinkster
> There's post Doctoral Research fellowship vacancy in my department .... with that level of indepth knowledge, why don't you apply. Of course that would mean I'd be your boss


I don't have much indepth knowledge...nor am i certain i'd want a whole lot of it as that would mean somebody else taught or told it to me thereby making the content of said knowledge preceptual and not necessarily factual..i prefer learning in a conceptual mannor through real life experiences thereby making what little knowledge i can gleen from such at the very least...verifiable.

But thank you very much for your offer...i'm flattered. 

besides...i don't think there's a week that's gone by in the last decade that i haven't read headlines that start out..

"Scientists Discover They Were Wrong About...yada, yada, yada" :laugh:


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Yeah ... Science ...who needs it ... all thse Doctors and Surgeons and medical scientists .. what do they know ....


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Yewselfbow said:


> Yeah ... Science ...who needs it ... all thse Doctors and Surgeons and medical scientists .. what do they know ....


Not sure...but it seems they have "Billing & Accounting" down to a science! :laugh:


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> Not sure...but it seems they have "Billing & Accounting" down to a science! :laugh:


Ain't that the truth


----------



## Tacoma (Jul 13, 2005)

I can drive my truck ( a standard) working the clutch, the gas, the shifter, the steering wheel, paying attention to the car in front of me, and having a conversation with the person next to me, all while noticing that the sky looks like we might finally get some rain. So do some of you believe that some of that was being controlled "other than consciously"??


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Let this be your first educational post then, Speck. If you are going to shoot instinctive at a major tournament, you are not going to whip the a double s of any shooter worth their salt. If you are going to gap shoot or stringwalk then your chances of winning have increased dramatically. End of that story although this subject will be raked over the coals for the next week.


1. Unintelligent response on your part 2. We shall see. Speck


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

JINKSTER said:


> Mac?....hate to do this but....i gotta disagree with those ultra-smart folks out there who believe that only two states of consciousness exist...conscious and unconscious...because there is a 3rd state..we call "Sub Conscious"....and i can prove it right here right now to most folks who are able to keep and open mind...as follows..
> 
> Ever drive home while deep in thought then pull in the driveway and wonder how ya got there?..remembering very little (if any) conscious acts of actually driving home?....(and yes...i can hear the DUI jokes coming already) but in a clean state of mind just deep in thought?...you definantly weren't unconscious or you wouldn't be in the driveway...but you were also not conscious as you definantly can't recall how you got there..so to me?...that proves there is in fact a 3rd state of consciousness..which many call a "sub-conscious"...which successfully managed to carry out the many acts of driving home even though the conscious mind was not cognisant of them happening.
> 
> ...


Bill..sorry...that doesn't cut it at all...The alcohol has impaired the conscious by disrupting the proper neuron flow..and in turn most all sensory inputs..along with most rationalization abilities..including many other body functions. It hasn't shut down completely otherwise the person would be unconscious....and most of what driving we do in that state is by reflexes which are also impaired..which is why we don't recall what and how we got home..been there...done that more times than I want to admit too... 

Tacoma



> I can drive my truck ( a standard) working the clutch, the gas, the shifter, the steering wheel, paying attention to the car in front of me, and having a conversation with the person next to me, all while noticing that the sky looks like we might finally get some rain. So do some of you believe that some of that was being controlled "other than consciously"??


Good point...Since we all learn by repetition.....we have already learned how to do these things by repetitive actions..and have stored doing them in our memory..We can recall how to do these things without much conscious effort..the brain is more than capable of doing this..We have to initiate all this..we have to think about what were going to do before doing it..and we use many of our senses even though we are not rationalizing each and every little thing about them while our doing them..Our brain can do this and much more..If we started grinding the gears while talking..we would be getting tactical feedback through our ears..and hands and would correct for it..not continue grinding the gears..because we know that grinding the gears is a bad thing..We are in control when we are awake...unless something like drugs...alcohol..or physical defect disrupts the normal correct neuron flow..

Mac


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

What alcohol???
I was pretty sure that Jinks made it clear that he was not talking about DUI but rather just deep in thought. Something everyone does all the time without even being aware of it.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Would that be instinctive thought ? Or can you tell that by the dumb look on my face after reading this stuff. You guys suckered me again into reading some really silly stuff.
Gary


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

2413gary said:


> Would that be instinctive thought ? Or can you tell that by the dumb look on my face after reading this stuff. You guys suckered me again into reading some really silly stuff.
> Gary


I think it's interesting. I've had enough psychology and educational psychology courses in the past to develop an appreciation for the science. Not enough studying, and too long ago to offer any kind of opinion on the matter, but it's still very interesting to read the different viewpoints...at least to me.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> What alcohol???
> I was pretty sure that Jinks made it clear that he was not talking about DUI but rather just deep in thought. Something everyone does all the time without even being aware of it.


Your right...I was speaking from my own past experiences...sorry...

Now..if a person is conscious..and doing something they already know how to do..and since we all do things from memory..the same can be true in what Bill is saying..We are still receiving sensory input..but we aren't consciously thinking about driving a car...People do it everyday...and...the sad part is..*people die doing it every day.*..which is why they have rumble strips along many highways and roads on the shoulders..to bring our attention back in focus of what we are doing...and all of the warnings of not texting and driving....along with tons of other things like not taking our eyes off the road to pick something up we dropped.....but...we are still consciously driving the car...nothing else is...There is one other thing that needs to be said about this one issue...There by the grace of God go I...If you have done this and nothing bad has happened...consider yourself extremely lucky...or blessed...cause it is not something that is going to turn out the same every time it happens... 

You guys take care...and I hope you all have a great hunting season

Mac


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Forrest, everything falls at the same rate under gravity - think a guy named Newton found that out for us. Heavier things don't fall faster  Now, if you want to induce drag from the back end theory, start explaining how the back slows faster than the front when connected by a solid shaft. We cant confuse angle of trajectory with arrow flight, which isn't that great for that shot with even a slow arrow and considering the tail follows directly behind the head at all times due to forward momentum.


So sanford, I am going to assume from your argument that when YOU shoot an arrow in the air that it lands flat when It hits the earth. Funny, all mine hit tip first. It wouldn't have anything to do with drag caused by fletching would it? Naaah, newtons law had nothing to do with a fletched arrow.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> 1. Unintelligent response on your part 2. We shall see. Speck


What?? I maid it threw the eath graid an you have the awdasity to cawl me unintellagent.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

itbeso said:


> So sanford, I am going to assume from your argument that when YOU shoot an arrow in the air that it lands flat when It hits the earth. Funny, all mine hit tip first. It wouldn't have anything to do with drag caused by fletching would it? Naaah, newtons law had nothing to do with a fletched arrow.


Tip hits first because drag of the arrow steers the back behind the front. If you could shoot an arrow on the moon without inducing any rotation, it would land at the same angle you shot it.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

itbeso said:


> So sanford, I am going to assume from your argument that when YOU shoot an arrow in the air that it lands flat when It hits the earth. Funny, all mine hit tip first. It wouldn't have anything to do with drag caused by fletching would it? Naaah, newtons law had nothing to do with a fletched arrow.


If your arrows are flying tip low, tail high, you have a problem. IOW, the weight of the head doesn't change the angle of entry. The angle of launch does.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Tacoma said:


> I can drive my truck ( a standard) working the clutch, the gas, the shifter, the steering wheel, paying attention to the car in front of me, and having a conversation with the person next to me, all while noticing that the sky looks like we might finally get some rain. So do some of you believe that some of that was being controlled "other than consciously"??


If you did the same task while calculating a above average maths problem you would crash the car, same goes for txt on phone while driving. Having a conversation while driving isnt a complex task and we can handle it without distraction.

I really suggest the book I mentioned in previous post, I havent finished yet but its a real eye opener and some fun tests for understanding Conscious and Subconscious tasks.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

unbelieveable arrogance on the part of some of these guys - they think an instinctive shooter can't shoot well in a tournament - LOL - Rick Welch is instinctive and a world champion, I am instinctive and have won the IBO World Championship pop up/moving target challenge, finished forth in the world in my class two years in a row, took third in the all class World Championship $1000.00 shoot off, etc... - but if we shoot instinctive we can't shoot against others - what arrogance - oh - wait - now they will say that we really don't shoot instinctive - how freakin' stupid!


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Rich_S said:


> How does a pure instinctive shooter handle elevation adjustment at various distances? Do you just memorize the sight picture at different distances and pick the one at the distance you're shooting? It's all well and good to say "I just pick a point on the target and focus on it intensely" but if you're closer than your normal distance you'll shoot over it and if you're farther away you'll shoot under it. Gap, stringwalking, face walking, etc. are all just ways of trying to get elevation adjustments down to a quasi science. How does the instinctive shooter do this?


Rich - how do you make adjustments for distance when you shoot a basketball into the hoop from various distances - when the ball is held over your head? How do you make adjustments for elevation when you throw a baseball? The mechanics of this are done at a subconscious level. 

In any sport those who are truly good at it relegate almost all of the actions of that particular sport to the subconscious mind.

When a football player throws a ball to a running reciever - do you think he is in any way conscious of the distance in yards, how hard or how soft he has to throw that ball - how much he has to lead the runner so that the runner can get to the ball, etc... - do you realize how many calculations would have to be made to do this - it is absolutely impossible to do all of this at a conscious level in the time that this occurs - you would have to sit down with a computer for at least 10 minutes - and that is if you are a mathemetician with the right computer programs to even begin to calculate all this consciously.

Those who deny the fact that this is done at a subconscious level are just denying the obvious - it is like saying that the fire is not hot because someone with some degree told them it is not hot!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Ken no offence but IBO is very specialized area of shooting and Instinctive aiming fits in very well to those short ranges, if you were to shoot IFAA Field\3D then it becomes harder for you to keep up, so when people say Instinctive shooters dont fair so well in tourney shooting they may be thinking of IFAA and not IBO. For the record I do know some good Instinctive shots in the IFAA but they are a rare talent.

I have a good friend who shoots only Fita 3D which is similar to IBO, we are very tight on scores but when he visited and shot a field tourney with me he was 100 points a day behind me, this is not because Im better but he is zoned into sub 30y instinctive shooting, he said he had no clue or any real confidence past 50 yards.


----------



## Rich_S (Jul 6, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Rich - how do you make adjustments for distance when you shoot a basketball into the hoop from various distances - when the ball is held over your head? How do you make adjustments for elevation when you throw a baseball?


In those cases you either throw the ball harder or you throw it higher (or both if it's really far away). In the case of archery you can't really shoot an arrow harder or easier (unless you want to under/over draw), so aiming above/below the target is really the only option.



> The mechanics of this are done at a subconscious level.
> 
> In any sport those who are truly good at it relegate almost all of the actions of that particular sport to the subconscious mind.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree at all that things you do a lot then become second nature. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread driving a car with a stick shift. I have a good bit of experience with that, both on the road and in racing. When I'm driving my Jeep home from work, I don't think about stepping on the clutch and shifting, it's "subconscious" if you will. But when I'm racing my Mustang at the track, and trying to cut a tenth of a second off my ET, you'd better believe I start consciously focusing on how I shift. You also need to take into account the difference between gross and fine motor movements - being off by a fraction of an inch at launch has a much bigger impact on outcome when shooting an arrow at a 50 yard target than when shooting a basketball from 10 feet away, driving a car, or shaking someone's hand.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm trying to learn. I'm pretty new to this and trying to take in everything I can and improve myself. I'm finding that most of the articles and videos I'm watching on gapping, stringwalking, and face walking are things I can try out and see an immediate change in my results when I shoot. When I see something on instinctive shooting it just seems there's "no there, there", just the old "pick a small spot on the target, focus on it intensely, and let the arrow fly", for me that results in shooting over the target entirely or burrying the arrow in the dirt in front of it. Maybe instinctive shooting is something that just takes years and years to get and can't really be taught, I don't know.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Rich S,
Do you know how to ride a bicycle? Do you know how to swim? Can you drive a Jeep with a clutch and manual transmission?

Ok,I assume the answer to all those is YES. But, I would bet that you could not do those things the first try. The clutch always seems to be the hard part for someone trying to learn to drive with it. Stalling the engine, grinding the gears and forgetting to push the clutch down to stop.
But,one day after working at it for a while, something clicked in your brain and you got it. And now you probably can do all those things without even thinking about it.
I took the time to read your previous posts in order to learn more about where you are with your shooting. The problem now might be one of TMI. Too much information can be a bad thing for an adult who wants to learn to shoot instinctively. Kids can pick it up much faster because they don't complicate the issue with a bunch different techniques and things learned from too many sources. I'm not saying that information is a bad thing in general,it just seems to work as a mental block to performing a simple task like shooting an arrow from a bow.

I don't know if you even want to learn instinctive or not. But if you do you will now have to find the reset button for your shoulder mounted computer and push it. Find a large target to shoot at and put a small spot in the middle. Shoot at 10yds and don't think about ever shooting from farther away. Not right now. Since you seem to have learned enough about form to draw the bow and shoot it with some degree of consistency,just look at that small spot,look good,draw the bow and shoot it. Now, I suspect that your past attempts have failed because you could not resist the urge to look at the arrow. Don't worry about the arrow. Don't remove your focus from that spot for any reason. Don't put pressure on yourself if the arrow does not hit where you wanted it to. Remember that clutch experience? You can do it. Just keep doing that like if you were a little kid just having fun with the bow and arrow. Do that for a few days and you will eventually get it. 
Some people have a hard time letting go of the idea that they must be in control of things and MAKE it happen. That's likely the biggest roadblock to learning to shoot instinctively.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> unbelieveable arrogance on the part of some of these guys - now they will say that we really don't shoot instinctive - how freakin' stupid!


Well Ken...the same can be said about some people who claim they know more about how the mind and body work when they constantly argue with people who have had to research it and apply it on a daily basis because of their job.

It's really NOT much different having an athletic coach or doctor tell you how how to embalm someone and than claim you're being arrogant because you won't listen to them.

There is a difference between arrogance and having the humility to say...hey....maybe there is something I can learn from someone who has had to study and research this topic at a more clinical and scientific level.

I've learned to aim Totally Instinctively, Gap, Split Vision and Point of Aim and totally know the differences between each one and have a much more personal understanding of the differences because I have taught myself what each one involves.

Many of the archers who argue about what Instinctive Aiming is...have never really tried any of the other aiming techniques to fully understand what the differences are.

Ray :shade:


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Many of the archers who argue about what Instinctive Aiming is...have never really tried any of the other aiming techniques to fully understand what the differences are.


100% agree, they lack the depth of experience required to know the subtle differences. Unfortunately this attitude doesn't seem to prevent them from becoming an internet expert or celebrity coach. It keeps the cycle of ignorance going when newbies listen to these experts without the knowledge needed to separate the facts from their ill-informed opinion.

-Grant


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

In the broad scheme of things who really cares how and why it works it is just another way to aim - works fine out to 25-30 yards - after that you had better have some other way to aim in you pocket

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Black Wolf or a fitness instructor think he is an expert on how the human mind works or knows more about how a person shoots than the person themselves.

Rich S.

You are right you throw a ball harder or softer and you you throw it higher lower also - just like shooting an arrow higher or lower.

Actually aiming a ball that is thrown is MUCH more difficult and involved many more calculations than shooting an arrow. With an arrow (if your form is consistent) the brain has to account for two variables - windage (left to right) and elevation (up/down). 


When we throw a ball - there are three things that the brain has to account for (actually even more when you acount for the different ways and times that the ball can be released from the hand), windage, elevation, and velocity (speed - how hard or soft you throw it). 

These guys who think that they are scientists and think they are experts on the human brain can talk all they want - and it changes nothing in how i KNOW - i aim. I have never once in all my years of shooting looked at a gap thought about distance or consciously used the arrow to aim - I have always just looked at my target and shot - so the way I aim has ALWAYS from my first arrow to the arrows I shoot today been aimed at a subconscious level.

Even when I first started shooting if I made a bad shot - I just shot again - if I shot low I did not try to aim higher (consciously) - i just shot again and again till the arrow went where I wanted it to go - never making any conscious adjustments to the aim.

and the bicycle analogy is perfect - and very similar - nobody consciously learns to ride a bike - (I know there is some book or guide out there that attempts to explain it) - we all know from ourselves and from helping our kids that it is simply a matter of getting on the bike and riding it - we know that training wheels are a waste of time and that it is a matter of doing it and falling down and getting on again till all of a sudden - wham - we are riding it - there is no conscious learning involved (or very very little) - we never consciously learn to lean this way or that way - to turn the wheel a micro turn this way or that way to stay balanced - we just do it - the subconscious does all the rest

If the subconscious can do something as complex as balancing us on a two tiny wheels - it can certainly aim a bow.

Steve - the discussion was about IBO shooting - Speck, to whom that incredibly arrogant comment was made at is also an IBO Shooter - I have no desire to shoot past 50 yards - that is not hunting range - and I am first and formost a hunter - long distance competitive shooting is cool and if I ever do get into that it will be with a fully dressed olympic bow with sights - if I am going to use the arrow as a sight anyhow - I am going to go all the way and shoot with the real big boys.

I once asked Ranger B why he did all this stuff to aim at the NFAA indoor nationals - ie: - using full lenght arrows, weighing them down, using super light weight bows, etc.... and he said so that they could use the tip of the arrow as a sight - and I asked him why he didn't just put a sight on his bow and compete in that class (he was using an olympic bow anyhow - as were all the other guys in the "trad" class) - and his response was that those guys shoot to well. 

Thats not my game - I shoot to become a better hunter - and I would never use a full lenght arrow, a 25lb bow, and purposely slow it down so that I can use tip of the arrow as a sight. If I want to use a sight - I will put one on my bow and if that means shooting in the class with the best archers in the world - so be it - I may never win anything - but that is what I would do.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I agree with Matt and Ray and for me?..

I can't see how anyone who's truely learned and succesfully applied all these viable technics could not wind up using them all in the end as for me it seems that as i do attempt to apply all these various aiming technics to the best of my ability?..and establish at least some degree of understanding and success with each and every one?..and in a first hand way experiencing the virtues of each?..how could i possibly ignore or discount their individual benefits as they all seem to play a very signifigant role pending the shot scenario.

So?..i use them all..and pending the shot scenario?...one of them will immediatly rise to the top and become dominant in an extremely intuitive fashion...for me..for examples..

If i have a shot up to about 20yds?...i'll only focus slighty on gapping the arrow while most of my focus is spent burning a hole in the spot finishing the shot off in an instinctive mannor..then between 20-30yds?...i sorta use a balanced combo of them both..beyond 30yds?...the majority of my focus is spent on maintaining solid form at full draw and gapping off that arrow and at that point?..unless i'm testing my instincts?..or looking for a variety of results? :laugh:

the magic of instinctive has officially left the building...and it's time to put on my big boy pants and hold the gap like a rock..or look real foolish trying.

That's been my experience..as more and more of the cream that Rod Jenkins poured in my coffee slowly rises to the top. :cool2:


----------



## recarga (Aug 22, 2012)

*update*

Hello amigos. 

Just a little update . 

By the way I forgot to tell you guys I have dislexia and that might be reason why I'm all over the Target , I'm focusing on 15 yards for now to train my brain or my " subconscious" 

I've been shooting every day for the last 3 weeks and since I'm not or have not able to shot good with a tap I'm using gloves, and my fingers hurt a little. 

I'll like to explain in my elementary English my progress.
As I keep training and feel more confident at 15 yards I have notice that my peripheral sight is aware of the tip of the arrow about 10 to 12" vertically to the right of where I am focusing. So I guess this is gap shooting 
Even if I'm not keeping up with this gap because if I do my arrow doesn't land in the spot. 

Here is what I'm doing at 15 yards when I'm focusing on the middle. 





















And this is what I do when I'm trying to put in perspective the gap .


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

_"Hello amigos. 

Just a little update . 

Here is what I'm doing at 15 yards when I'm focusing on the middle. 


And this is what I do when I'm trying to put in perspective the gap ."_

yep...that's pretty much what my groups look like when using either of those technics at less than 20yds...which is why i find myself shooting instinctively at less than 20yds..but the script gets flipped once beyond 30yds.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Black Wolf or a fitness instructor think he is an expert on how the human mind works or knows more about how a person shoots than the person themselves.


Expert? Hmmm...not sure about that...BUT...I will claim to be more educated on how the mind and body works than the average Joe. 

Do you think every athlete knows how their mind and body work together biologically to perform a task JUST because they're are able to do it?

You hold onto your belief in Instinctive Aiming as a child holds on to their belief in the Tooth Fairy.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

speaking of tooth Fairies - Richard Simmons is not going to change my mind on how I know I shoot - :tongue:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

You just keep doing what you are doing there amigo, and you'll be just fine. When you divert your attention to where the arrow is before the shot you have just interrupted the focus that's critical to putting the arrow in the target.

Good shooting. Don't push yourself for more distance too quick and then only move back a couple yards at a time. When you get back to about 20 or so then start to alternate from 15 - 20. 
It will come to you if you are patient.Pretty soon you will be able to shoot from anywhere without even thinking about it. See the target,whatever it might be, draw the bow and shoot it. Whammo,you're are an instinctive shooter.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> speaking of tooth Fairies - Richard Simmons is not going to change my mind on how I know I shoot - :tongue:


LOL...good...because I'm not Richard Simmons and I don't think he even shoots a bow....AND...I'm not going to change my mind on how the mind and body work based on what a mortician thinks :tongue:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> speaking of tooth Fairies - Richard Simmons is not going to change my mind on how I know I shoot - :tongue:





BLACK WOLF said:


> LOL...good...because I'm not Richard Simmons and I don't think he even shoots a bow....AND...I'm not going to change my mind on how the mind and body work based on what a mortician thinks :tongue:
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


oh man...here we go...i think we got up as high as 8 pages once..before it got locked! :laugh:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

sharpbroadhead said:


> speaking of tooth Fairies - Richard Simmons is not going to change my mind on how I know I shoot - :tongue:



You sure it's fairies you're talking about?:flypig:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

JINKSTER said:


> oh man...here we go...i think we got up as high as 8 pages once..before it got locked! :laugh:



Yeah,yeah,yeah, go board up the windows Jinks. The chit might be about to hit the fan on ya. Hundreds of lumber loads headed to south Fl. last week,sombody knows something.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Yeah,yeah,yeah, go board up the windows Jinks. The chit might be about to hit the fan on ya. Hundreds of lumber loads headed to south Fl. last week,sombody knows something.


hey man...don't tell me what to do...and if i were you?..i might be tempted to take my own advice! :laugh:

it's a huge storm..but it's tracking a couple hundred miles west of us...to me?...looks like it's turning into some great shooting weather for this time of year! :laugh:

all morning long so far we've been getting like 20 minutes of no rain and dead calm interupted by about 3-5minutes of sideways torrential rain with limb snapping winds..it's the backend bands coming through...a tropical fart..so i get 20 minutes of dead calm and cool shooting then run under tehe porch and have a cig while it gets crazy out there....and it's quite the show. 

meanwhile?..it looks like the LA/MS area is gonna get hammered with a cat2. :laugh:

and we'll prolly be shipping that lumber right back to ya! :laugh:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

No maam,the one thing ya won't do is ship it back. No trucks cause I'm pretty sure those boys dumped that stuff and took off northbound with an empty wagon.

I could be wrong,but ya might want to take a peek at the satellite and radar pics. Looks funky.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

yea yea - but I have never claimed my profession has anything to do with my archery abilities - my archery abilities speak for themselves, but I am desperately waiting for Richard Simmons' new archery video - "Sweatin' Archery to Ted Nugent oldies" - you go baby - and those moves are definitely subconscious - and man - those high school gym shorts - i got find me a pair!


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> No maam,the one thing ya won't do is ship it back. No trucks cause I'm pretty sure those boys dumped that stuff and took off northbound with an empty wagon.
> 
> I could be wrong,but ya might want to take a peek at the satellite and radar pics. Looks funky.


First off?..i got yer "maam" swing'in! :laugh: 

2ndly?: okay...just took a look at NOAA's SE Loop...and this thing is sucking in crap fron as far north as the carolina's..forest...i kid you not...i've lived through 30 years of south fl canes..the most notable being jeane and frances cause they were a combo punch with my town being ground zero for landfall and this isacc?..looks like it's going to turn into a monster when it hits the warm waters of the gulf..i'm thinking the poor folks in LA might wanna find some more plywood and john boats.....again.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Sharp is a very good shooter, I have shot with him twice at the Trad Worlds. Me on the other hand, in three Worlds, I have finished 11th twice and 14th this year. Nothing to brag about but not awful either. I have alot of work to do but my main problem is between the ears when it comes to tourneys. I know that when I come to anchor all sorts of things are going on, I just not focusing on whatever it is that is putting me on target. This way has been called "Instinctive" all my life, so that's what I call it, though it does not really matter to me at all. I am just going to work hard to get better, stretch the limits(distance) of what I can do. Like Ken, I am a bowhunter first, tournament shooter second. I realize there are many different forms of archery competition, therefore, many different methods of shooting. I am done argueing about it though. If the Trad community as a whole votes on a new name for how I shoot, I will call it that. But, for now, it's Instinctive. Speck


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> yea yea - but I have never claimed my profession has anything to do with my archery abilities -


Nor should you. Being a mortician really has nothing to do with athleticism and the biology involved while understanding how an athlete moves and executes a movement....but being a fitness trainer, medical exercise specialist and athletic coach does involve needing to know those things :wink:



sharpbroadhead said:


> my archery abilities speak for themselves!


And so do mine :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Speck1 said:


> Sharp is a very good shooter, I have shot with him twice at the Trad Worlds. Me on the other hand, in three Worlds, I have finished 11th twice and 14th this year. Nothing to brag about but not awful either. I have alot of work to do but my main problem is between the ears when it comes to tourneys. I know that when I come to anchor all sorts of things are going on, I just not focusing on whatever it is that is putting me on target. This way has been called "Instinctive" all my life, so that's what I call it, though it does not really matter to me at all. I am just going to work hard to get better, stretch the limits(distance) of what I can do. Like Ken, I am a bowhunter first, tournament shooter second. I realize there are many different forms of archery competition, therefore, many different methods of shooting. I am done argueing about it though. If the Trad community as a whole votes on a new name for how I shoot, I will call it that. But, for now, it's Instinctive.


Fair enough :thumbs_up

Now there's someone who can agree to disagree respectfully! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

O.K. I've been up all night, I'll take a bite out of the baitpile.....Let's start a new name for aiming, how's about S.T.H.T (See Target Hit Target) It won't matter how ya aim, thats not whats important, all that matters is the arrow in the target, not how ya aimed to get it there. Now I know alot of the posts will become very boring. 
Now I'am no expert, but I played one once, (no not really) guess I've had to many years as low life street medic & my mind is warped, so please forgive me, but I use 3 main parts to make a shot, my brain, my body, & that inner part that really can be a game changer, call it, your will power, your inner self, that inner spot in your mind that makes you who are, that place that makes you really different then anyone else, that thing that most doctors & experts I've talked to over the years, know that it's there, but can't really put there finger on it to know how it work, or any name you like to call it.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Wayko said:


> O.K. I've been up all night, I'll take a bite out of the baitpile.....Let's start a new name for aiming, how's about S.T.H.T (See Target Hit Target) It won't matter how ya aim, thats not whats important, all that matters is the arrow in the target, not how ya aimed to get it there. Now I know alot of the posts will become very boring.
> Now I'am no expert, but I played one once, (no not really) guess I've had to many years as low life street medic & my mind is warped, so please forgive me, but I
> use 3 main parts to make a shot, my brain, my body, & that inner part that really can be a game changer, call it, your will power, your inner self, that inner spot in your mind that makes you who are, that place that makes you really different then anyone else, that thing that most doctors & experts I've talked to over the years, know that it's there, but can't really put there finger on it to know how it work, or any name you like to call it.


Can i call it "PIXIE DUST"?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

It seems to me that instinctive shooters aren't really very interestd in other shooting methods any more than passing quriosity. While the people who do the other methods and don't understand the instinctive way spent copious amounts of time trying to dispute it with all the lame bs they can find anywhere on the internet that they believe backs up their arguments. Anything,whether it's brains,eyes,muscles,bones ,nerves, or fecal matter. Anything as long as they think it makes them look smart.:greenwithenvy:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - spot on Forest


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

JINKSTER said:


> Can i call it "PIXIE DUST"?



Sure, ya can call it that, as long as it makes ya happy, it really don't matter the name.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Wayko said:


> Sure, ya can call it that, as long as it makes ya happy, it really don't matter the name.


 Good because I love snorting it and shooting at closer distances... it's just way more fun and magical then stressing out at longer ranges


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

The topic almost remained adult and civil but seems last couple of pages it has been heading down hill, oh well back to the same old routine. :thumbs_do


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

steve morley said:


> The topic almost remained adult and civil but seems last couple of pages it has been heading down hill, oh well back to the same old routine. :thumbs_do


 Cheer up Steve I just got off the phone with Dana!


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

SBH, seeing as I know you get irked by people putting the word "instinctive" in exclamation marks when they talk about it in a negative way, I wondered why in you post, number 131, you put the word "trad" in exclamation marks when referring to Jimmy's and the other guys bows. Do you not approve of certain types of bow in a trad class???


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Bigjono said:


> SBH, seeing as I know you get irked by people putting the word "instinctive" in exclamation marks when they talk about it in a negative way, I wondered why in you post, number 131, you put the word "trad" in exclamation marks when referring to Jimmy's and the other guys bows. Do you not approve of certain types of bow in a trad class???


Of course he doesn't. Just look up his old posts about the indoor nationals, he made it pretty clear that even though he lost it was because the winners weren't shooting equipment that was the same as his.

Pretty easy to see that some people around here want trad to fit in a box that they control the dimensions of.

Also pretty easy to see that some people know they will get beat, badly, at certain competitions so they don't bother trying. This has more to do with needing to justify the legitimacy of their techniques, equipment and ego then any ties to bowhunting. Its all target archery and Field archery was designed by bowhunters. 

-Grant


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Thats not my game - I shoot to become a better hunter - and I would never use a full lenght arrow, a 25lb bow, and purposely slow it down so that I can use tip of the arrow as a sight. If I want to use a sight - I will put one on my bow and if that means shooting in the class with the best archers in the world - so be it - I may never win anything - but that is what I would do.


Ken you are using a sight it is your whole bow and arm - the complete sight picture - you might not be "seeing" it but you need it to hit the target - just read your previous post.



sharpbroadhead said:


> For example I once had a guy say to me that a truly instinctive shooter would be able to shoot in pitch black at a laser pointer on a target. I figured I could and then tried it - I missed the target completely. Now I have shot in the dark at a candle or a target lit by a flashlight and hit the target - even shot the wick off of a candle - but in complete darkness (can't see you hand in front of your face darkness) I could not shoot with any accuracy at all - in fact it was outright dangerous.
> 
> And I started thinking about why this happened and then decided to go to a gym and shoot some baskets - and then turn the lights out completely and aim a laser pointer at the backboard - guess what? I could not hit the backboard even - was not even close.
> 
> Now I know for certain when I hold a basketball over my head I am not "sighting" anything when I shoot - but I still could not do it in complete darkness. Our brain needs feedback from our vision - and from all of our vision - including our peripheral in order to judge distance and triangulate in order to get a pojectile where we want it.


Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Look back at this thread and many others. It's the same people turning a civil discussion or disagreement into a personal attack.

There's absolutely NO reason why grown men can't discuss a topic without calling others opinions 'bovine excrement' or belittling a man's profesion or education because they disagree with them.

You will NEVER see me start this crap as far as the name calling or tearing down of someone's opinion by belittling their profession or education...unless they draw first blood.

Just because a person disagrees with another...is NO EXCUSE for this kind of behavior.

I'm not sure why this is allowed continually.

If someone's going to take swings at me....be ready to get punched back.

If someone thinks the sky is blue and someone else thinks it's green...go ahead and discuss it and use facts to support your case rather than taking it personal and turning it ugly!

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Bigjono - I put "trad" in quotes because in that venue the "trad" division is so broad that it is VERY different from the "trad" divisions that many of us are used to when we attend shoots - and it is very different from the IBO standard which is what most clubs use or are very close too. 

Most of us consider trad - as associated with the traditional purpose of archery - namely killing things - since we don't use bows to kill people in warfare, that no longer applies to traditional archery - but we still use them to hunt animals - and when you are talking about bows and ways of shooting that clearly have one purpose and one purpose only - trying to win a competition - that is not "trad" to me and I suspect to many of us. Target archery is not necessarily traditional archery - IMO - the only time target archery is traditional archery to me is when the purpose for the target shooting is to become better at killing things with your bow.

Now you guys are all allowed your "opinions" about how I shoot and other instinctive shooters - I have the opinion that target only archery is not and should not be considered traditional - traditional archery is about hunting and killing.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> There's absolutely NO reason why grown men can't discuss a topic without calling others opinions 'bovine excrement' or belittling a man's profesion or education because they disagree with them.
> 
> 
> If someone thinks the sky is blue and someone else thinks it's green...go ahead and discuss it and use facts to support your case rather than taking it personal and turning it ugly!
> ...


well said :thumbs_up


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

the only time professions are brought up by me is when they are used by the person as some sort of badge of honor to validate their opinions as being above the mere laymen


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> There's absolutely NO reason why grown men can't discuss a topic without calling others opinions 'bovine excrement' or belittling a man's profesion or education because they disagree with them.
> 
> 
> If someone thinks the sky is blue and someone else thinks it's green...go ahead and discuss it and use facts to support your case rather than taking it personal and turning it ugly!
> ...


well said :thumbs_up

As mentioned before the NFAA\IFAA grew from Bowhunters and was shot by Bear and Hill two of the greatest bowhunters to come out of the USA, if thats not Trad what is? Just write off American Bowhunting history because it doesnt suit your personal goals\beliefs


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

steve morley said:


> well said :thumbs_up
> 
> As mentioned before the NFAA\IFAA grew from Bowhunters and was shot by Bear and Hill two of the greatest bowhunters to come out of the USA, if thats not Trad what is? Just write off American Bowhunting history because it doesnt suit your personal goals\beliefs


Big old nugget of truth right there.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Unfortunately we've all been here before. What I find so disappointing about these discussions is that there is so much for us all to learn and discuss and yet the opportunity is wasted time and time again by those who don't wish to hear other opinions and views.
BTW for the record... I've been an archer for over 40 years and my day job is Research Director for Clinical and Applied Neurokinesiology.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I have the opinion that target only archery is not and should not be considered traditional - traditional archery is about hunting and killing.


Ken I shoot English longbows and am a long standing member of the British longbow Society. We shoot targets in a style that goes back to the middle of the 18th century with bows that have a 1000 year history. To say that *"traditional archery is about hunting and killing."* is absolute claptrap.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Did that loud rush of air I heard come from the sigh of the moderator?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> IMO - the only time target archery is traditional archery to me is when the purpose for the target shooting is to become better at killing things with your bow.
> 
> Now you guys are all allowed your "opinions" about how I shoot and other instinctive shooters - I have the opinion that target only archery is not and should not be considered traditional - traditional archery is about hunting and killing.


Ken...i can't believe you said that...so let me ask you a question..

Do you consider Robinhood traditional?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

I guess Glenn St Charles was "Not traditional" either. WOW talk about ..... never mind.


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

Arcus said:


> Did that loud rush of air I heard come from the sigh of the moderator?


Couldn't be.... or this thread, like countless others where a new archer simply came asking for advice, would have been locked BEFORE it turned to crap and away from it's original intent. It's getting old. I understand a difference of opinion but some of y'all are like a bunch of school kids. The only difference is you refuse to take your ball and go home, allowing the ones who do play nicely to learn. And it's not all sharp's fault, some of you others should have been forced to take a time-out as well.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

grantmac said:


> Of course he doesn't. Just look up his old posts about the indoor nationals, he made it pretty clear that even though he lost it was because the winners weren't shooting equipment that was the same as his.
> 
> Pretty easy to see that some people around here want trad to fit in a box that they control the dimensions of.
> 
> ...


That nail is thoroughly hammered.....Jim


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Bigjono - I put "trad" in quotes because in that venue the "trad" division is so broad that it is VERY different from the "trad" divisions that many of us are used to when we attend shoots - and it is very different from the IBO standard which is what most clubs use or are very close too.
> 
> Most of us consider trad - as associated with the traditional purpose of archery - namely killing things - since we don't use bows to kill people in warfare, that no longer applies to traditional archery - but we still use them to hunt animals - and when you are talking about bows and ways of shooting that clearly have one purpose and one purpose only - trying to win a competition - that is not "trad" to me and I suspect to many of us. Target archery is not necessarily traditional archery - IMO - the only time target archery is traditional archery to me is when the purpose for the target shooting is to become better at killing things with your bow.
> 
> Now you guys are all allowed your "opinions" about how I shoot and other instinctive shooters - I have the opinion that target only archery is not and should not be considered traditional - traditional archery is about hunting and killing.


The last part of Your post is the mindset that has held back more folks from shooting well in the last 25 years than anything else....What a load of brainwashed crap.....Jim


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

SBH, saying that Trad archery can only be about killing animals is possibly the biggest pile of dung I've read on a board......ever. Surely you don't actually think that. Many people have differing views of what a trad bow should be or shouldn't be but I've never heard anyone say it has to be about killing animals.
I am from the UK where, if you do some research, you will find that archery tournaments have been held for many centuries and to this day, a country with no bow hunting, archery is still a huge sport because it's not held back by the hunting stigma.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Bigjono - I put "trad" in quotes because in that venue the "trad" division is so broad that it is VERY different from the "trad" divisions that many of us are used to when we attend shoots - and it is very different from the IBO standard which is what most clubs use or are very close too.
> 
> Most of us consider trad - as associated with the traditional purpose of archery - namely killing things - since we don't use bows to kill people in warfare, that no longer applies to traditional archery - but we still use them to hunt animals - and when you are talking about bows and ways of shooting that clearly have one purpose and one purpose only - trying to win a competition - that is not "trad" to me and I suspect to many of us. Target archery is not necessarily traditional archery - IMO - the only time target archery is traditional archery to me is when the purpose for the target shooting is to become better at killing things with your bow.
> 
> Now you guys are all allowed your "opinions" about how I shoot and other instinctive shooters - I have the opinion that target only archery is not and should not be considered traditional - traditional archery is about hunting and killing.


Sharp, I remember a lot of your posts in the past mentioning the "Trad Police" and their negative influence. Reading this post makes me think you are becoming a badge carrying member. 

You have to admit it's an exclusionary definition of what traditional archery is. I thought most people, and you included, were turned off by by such narrow definitions and wanted to get away from the whole "what is trad thing".


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 9, 2008)

Sharp, you have got to be kidding. Your remarks about traditional being about killing is way off base. Your comment shows a distinct lack of understanding history.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

A Short history lesson for you Ken

*Once described as 'The Daddy of all Sporting Fixtures'; The Antient Silver Arrow, is the World's longest
established and oldest recorded sporting event, dating back to 1673 and first shot for in Scorton Village,
North Yorkshire.

The Society of Archers was formed at the first meeting of the Antient Silver Arrow Competition, to maintain
Target Archery, the skill of which was largely in decline following the English Civil War.

The competition has continued annually since 1673 (except in periods of various Wars) and celebrated its
tri-centenary shoot in 2008 with guest of honour The Rt Honourable William Hague MP.
*

....is that Traditional enough for ya'


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> the only time professions are brought up by me is when they are used by the person as some sort of badge of honor to validate their opinions as being above the mere laymen


You have a weird way of judging people.

I don't use my profession as a badge of honor. I only use it because my education involved with my profession plays DIRECTLY into this topic and some of you act like there's no direct correlation with the topic. Its not like I'm a rocket scientist trying to tell you about aspects of kinesiology and biomechanics and how they apply to shooting a bow. I'm only sharing what I've researched.

In all honesty some of you act threatened or victimized which is why you lash out and play down my profession based on this topic.

It does NOT have to be this way just because some disagrees with you!

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

steve morley said:


> The topic almost remained adult and civil but seems last couple of pages it has been heading down hill, oh well back to the same old routine. :thumbs_do


I copied & pasted some comments that, if not made, could have kept this civil (yes, I do have a lot of time on my hands today - enjoying a rare day of rain). Here ya go:

don't waste your time bro! The "experts" have spoken! 
regardless of what the "net gurus" try to tell you!
Last edited by Double S; August 24th, 2012 at 10:03 PM. Reason: Language
WOW! I see you still have NOT learned anything from your temporary vacation I guess I shouldn't be surprized
this is the nonsense 
I most definitely don't feel I have anything to learn about shooting a bow in any manner from you
Glad I could be of service "Your Emminence".... No smiley
If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black
unbelieveable arrogance on the part of some of these guys
how freakin' stupid!
Unintelligent response on your part you go learn
You hold onto your belief in Instinctive Aiming as a child holds on to their belief in the Tooth Fairy.
Black Wolf or a fitness instructor think he is an expert on how the human mind works 
all the lame bs they can find anywhere on the internet that they believe backs up their arguments. 
some sort of badge of honor to validate their opinions as being above the mere laymen. Anything as long as they think it makes them look smart.


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

I was gonna shut this down but then it might spread over to other threads. I might need give out some vacations. I couldn't make up my mind which Posts to quote... too many to list. Arguing and off topic. Lets see if we can get this back on it's original topic or I make it vanish. 



> You hold onto your belief in Instinctive Aiming as a child holds on to their belief in the Tooth Fairy.





> speaking of tooth Fairies - Richard Simmons is not going to change my mind on how I know I shoot





> LOL...good...because I'm not Richard Simmons and I don't think he even shoots a bow....AND...I'm not going to change my mind on how the mind and body work based on what a mortician thinks


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

recarga said:


> Hello Amigos.
> 
> I'm a new B to traditional archery been doing it for 3 weeks and I'm in love with it.
> It all started when I bought a new compound bow and before I picked one up I tried several ones
> ...


You got it, Double S! I've been here myself as a newbie with just about the same question. I recommend that the newbie do whatever puts the arrow on target. There are multiple techniques and if you are consistent with your method, stick to it, because it's easy to get sidetracked and confused with all of the varying opinions. The opinions here are only that - just opinions. There are many experts here, and many novices (myself included). You have to sort through all of the information and pick what works for you.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

You guys are missing what I am saying - an English longbow society is about remembering the traditions of the English longbow men - and what was their pupose? Military - killing people. Throughout all of human history until modern times the ultimate purpose of Archery was military and hunting - there were competitions and they did shoot targets - but the end goal of this was to be better archers for the purpose at hand - namely - military or hunting.

The English had regular archery tournaments for the purpose of finding good archers for the Military - and they shot bows that would be used for that military purpose.

The NFAA years ago and other such organizations were indeed set up for hunters - but not so anymore - sure hunters still shoot in these tournaments - I have and do, but....

There is a huge difference between taking a bow that you have no intention of ever hunting with - setting it up in a way that it is not possible to hunt with - specifically setting it up for one and only one purpose - to win a target competiton - to me that is something different than what i would call traditional archery - to me that is target archery - and there is nothing wrong with target archery - I think it is awesome.

When I have spoke about trad police I was refering to the guys who are against guys hunting this way or that way - guys against things such as camo, treestands, baiting, dogs, or whatever.

I do not desire to police anyone - I have simply stated that I believe target archery and traditional archery are two different things - to me traditional archery is about hunting or reinacting or remembering the military purpose of archery - but if it is soley about punching holes in paper - to me that is no longer what I would call "traditional" archery to me that is target archery - and I am not against target archery - i just think it is different from what I think of as traditional archery.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Double S said:


> I was gonna shut this down but then it might spread over to other threads. I might need give out some vacations. I couldn't make up my mind which Posts to quote... too many to list. Arguing and off topic. Lets see if we can get this back on it's original topic or I make it vanish.



my comment about Richard Simons was meant as a joke not an insult and was an attempt to add humor to the comments


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

:munky2::boxing::angry::59::BrownBear::set1_rolf2::BrownBear::grouphug:



Fairly decent and entertaining thread if ya ask me.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Let me get this straight:

Shooting at mechanized pop-up foam animals is Traditional.

Shooting at paper is not?

With blinders like those on I'm starting to believe you really DON'T see the arrow.

-Grant


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> There is a huge difference between taking a bow that you have no intention of ever hunting with - setting it up in a way that it is not possible to hunt with - specifically setting it up for one and only one purpose - to win a target competiton - to me that is something different than what i would call traditional archery - to me that is target archery - and there is nothing wrong with target archery - I think it is awesome.
> 
> .


Ok you shoot a 48# Pinnacle with what arrows i.e field points and not broadheads

Keeping in mind Ive never bowhunted, at this moment for Fita 3D Im shooting my Saluki 52# off the shelf using Lightspeeds 4" feather and 190g up front, even my Nilo used for IFAA Field setup has 48# winex limbs. When I took 3rd at IFAA world indoors I was shooting 50# 21st Century Edge. 

I see both our intentions at a tourney are to shoot well and win, please tell me the differences between your setup and mine and exactly what makes you more Trad than me in your book.

You see a couple of NFAA shooters with lightweight setups and tar everybody with the same brush, for the most part I see a majority of IFAA shooters using mid 40s bows, all capable of taking game if using hunting arrows. The only difference I see is you have this mindset that you are a bowhunter first and tourney shooter second and that makes you more pure that anybody else, when youre at a tourney, you are for that moment a tourney shooter just like the rest of us.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> You guys are missing what I am saying - an English longbow society is about remembering the traditions of the English longbow men - and what was their pupose? Military - killing people.


*WRONG KEN *The British Longbow Society was set up to carry on the traditions and practices of Victorian and Edwardian recreational target archery. Shooting in the two way style and using bows made by the great English bowyers such as Buchanan, Muir, Aldred and Waring, poeple I suspect you've never heard of.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yewseflbow - no - I don't know the names of English longbow bowyers - nor do I care who they are or what their names are. The Birtish Longbow Society is is about target and clout archery with the traditional longbow - well - all ya need to do is look up the history of the longbow in England to realize that traditional longbow target archery was always about preparation for military use. 

You do realize that clout archery was specifically designed as means of making archery training for war more enjoyable: http://www.scottisharchery.org.uk/aboutclout.php But what does that mean - I don't know the names of bowyers in a foreign nation that make a type of bow that I don't even shoot - so that makes me wrong.

I am going to bow out of this discussion - getting old - you have your opinion and I have mine


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

Just my .02 worth. To me "Trad" shooting is shooting any type of bow the old school way, non-sights and fingers.
Flame away.
Don.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

To me Trad is just a word that started being used when compound bows came in, before that it was just archery.
I am sorry Ken but it's views like yours that damage the sport of archery and hold it back in North America.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Use whatever method gives you the best results, and confidence. :wink:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I am going to bow out of this discussion - getting old - you have your opinion and I have mine


Good move, that hole you dug yourself was pretty deep :wink:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

recarga said:


> Hello Amigos.
> 
> I'm a new B to traditional archery been doing it for 3 weeks and I'm in love with it.
> It all started when I bought a new compound bow and before I picked one up I tried several ones
> ...


Am I the only person on here who thinks this whole thread question is a little fishy. I have reread this post several times and it doesn't pass the smell test.Someone puts all five arrows in the center the first time they shoot a bow? But of course, it was because something just clicked inside the poster like magic and he became an instant Robin Hood. Then, an instructor screwed up his magic by actually trying to get him to use an aiming system. I would bet my right arm that this was a bogus post by sharp to try to make one of his arguments for instinctive shooting because , again, the whole post is fishy.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL Steve - I am not in a hole - and I do not think having the opinion that there is a distinction between target archery and traditional archery hurts anyone or anything - unlike the "trad police" who want to ban everything and anything that they don't agree with and want to silence everyone who they disagree with - I don't want to ban anything or silence anything.


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 9, 2008)

Bigjono said:


> To me Trad is just a word that started being used when compound bows came in, before that it was just archery.
> I am sorry Ken but it's views like yours that damage the sport of archery and hold it back in North America.


Absolutely correct. I have been around long enough to be involved with archery pre-compound and
at no time did anyone call shooting a bow w/o cams or let off "Trad". The word came about after the compound became popular and all it does is perpetuate a romantic notion of how things "used" to be. Well I can go back to the 50's with my shooting and back then folks shot recurves with sights, releases, aluminum and fiberglass (Micro-Flite) arrows, and almost everyone shot with elevated rests. This was done for Hunting, NFAA Field, indoors, NAA Target etc. unfortunately today all these things that were used to help recurve shooters are not considered "Trad" by folks that have no knowledge of history. To me anything that was used pre-compound is indeed (Trad). 
Jon you are absolutely correct that this silly notion has hindered a lot of folks who want to learn to shoot recurves or longbows. To artificially limit yourself because of some silly notion that you won't be "Trad" enough is to not recognize what actually went on before compounds came on the scene and really hurts a persons chances for getting the maximum out of their ability.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Old Sarge said:


> Absolutely correct. I have been around long enough to be involved with archery pre-compound and
> at no time did anyone call shooting a bow w/o cams or let off "Trad". The word came about after the compound became popular and all it does is perpetuate a romantic notion of how things "used" to be. Well I can go back to the 50's with my shooting and back then folks shot recurves with sights, releases, aluminum and fiberglass (Micro-Flite) arrows, and almost everyone shot with elevated rests. This was done for Hunting, NFAA Field, indoors, NAA Target etc. unfortunately today all these things that were used to help recurve shooters are not considered "Trad" by folks that have no knowledge of history. To me anything that was used pre-compound is indeed (Trad).
> Jon you are absolutely correct that this silly notion has hindered a lot of folks who want to learn to shoot recurves or longbows. To artificially limit yourself because of some silly notion that you won't be "Trad" enough is to not recognize what actually went on before compounds came on the scene and really hurts a persons chances for getting the maximum out of their ability.


x2. right on


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

> ...traditional longbow target archery was always about preparation for military use.


Oh, sure... here are some Victorian era ladies preparing for battle:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

FORESTGUMP said:


> :munky2::boxing::angry::59::BrownBear::set1_rolf2::BrownBear::grouphug:
> 
> Fairly decent and entertaining thread if ya ask me.


On another thread I've seen, when it came down to making fun of each other's occupations, even though I think it's something we should not do, I have to admit that I laughed harder than I have in a long while


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Arrowwood said:


> Oh, sure... here are some Victorian era ladies preparing for battle:
> View attachment 1455239


I'm intimidated. They look like they might be skirted centaurs!


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Arrowwood said:


> Oh, sure... here are some Victorian era ladies preparing for battle:
> View attachment 1455239



Thanks for providing my chuckle of the day. Good one.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Moderator's last post - "Lets see if we can get this back on it's original topic or I make it vanish."

Uh oh. Looking at all of the posts since his (including mine - sorry - guilty), I sense a lock or vanish coming soon.


----------



## Dsturgisjr (Aug 20, 2004)

The gal in the black dress; her form................ Never mind


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

itbeso. I looked into him. No red flags on our side. Plus I know some of the other members Alters already. :wink:



itbeso said:


> Am I the only person on here who thinks this whole thread question is a little fishy. I have reread this post several times and it doesn't pass the smell test.Someone puts all five arrows in the center the first time they shoot a bow? But of course, it was because something just clicked inside the poster like magic and he became an instant Robin Hood. Then, an instructor screwed up his magic by actually trying to get him to use an aiming system. I would bet my right arm that this was a bogus post by sharp to try to make one of his arguments for instinctive shooting because , again, the whole post is fishy.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Double S said:


> itbeso. I looked into him. No red flags on our side. Plus I know some of the other members Alters already. :wink:



I read that to mean that you looked into the OP. The question did seem a bit strange to me too,but I have seen many strange things happen in my time. I have personally picked up bows that I had never seen before and was able to shoot lights out with it on the first try. Others just didn't work for me at all. I figured that might have happened with the OP.

IMO the accusation that itbeso made in public was uncalled for. Why not blame me or you,could be anyone. But to single out one person publically without proof seems in poor taste. 

Oh well, the tread took on a whole new life of it's own.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

AND,while I'm sticking my neck out to get chopped off,,,,, Here's another thought I've had for a long time.

I think sharpbroadhead must have really whooped up on some of you guys at some tournament or something. The unbelievable amount of hate that some of you project is not normal. There has to be some motivation and I have noticed that the main dogpilers are also people who shoot competively. 

Ken, let em win one man!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> AND,while I'm sticking my neck out to get chopped off,,,,, Here's another thought I've had for a long time.
> 
> I think sharpbroadhead must have really whooped up on some of you guys at some tournament or something. The unbelievable amount of hate that some of you project is not normal. There has to be some motivation and I have noticed that the main dogpilers are also people who shoot competively.
> 
> Ken, let em win one man!!!!!!!!!!!!


I haven;t seen any hate projected here. There surely are a lot of differences of opinion which makes for lively threads and you and sharp seem to be in a minority which seems to be why you two resort to so much"why is everybody always picking on me" charley brown posts. As for your assertion that sharp is the main man, why don't you put up some serious money pot and let your boy and I have a go at it.Anytime, anyplace. Of course, that would never happen because then reality would set in and there would never again be an argument for instinctive shooting as a viable alternative to accurate shooting.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Double S said:


> itbeso. I looked into him. No red flags on our side. Plus I know some of the other members Alters already. :wink:


tHANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION DOUBLE S.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Oh - nice - now I have this itbeso claiming that I am coming in here under false names so that I can start arguments about instinctive shooting - wow - I guess it must take one to know one - because I would have never in a million years ever thought to do something so childish and stupid. But hey - I have never been called a liar by anyone in this forum before - not at when grant said: "I am begining to actually believe him when he says he doesn't see the arrow" or now being accused of creating another personality and posting under and answering it just to start an argument - how childish. I just can't help but believe that if I was on here constantly calling people liars or accusing them of doing things like I was just accused of - i would have been banned long ago for personal attacks.

but whatever - you guys win - whatever you believe is true - I am going to get ready to start teaching a group of over 50 kids at my local school how to shoot bows - you guys keep arguing with each other - hope to see some of you at the IBO Indoor Worlds next year or the World Championships - maybe we can shoot something other than the bull.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Dsturgisjr said:


> The gal in the black dress; her form................ Never mind


LOL...I thought the same thing :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

itbeso said:


> there would never again be an argument for instinctive shooting as a viable alternative to accurate shooting.


Based on the technique and the definition I use for Instinctive Aiming...there ARE circumstances where that technique has advantages over other aiming techniques...especially as they relate to moving targets, close distances or having to take a fast shot.

Ray :shade:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

"there would never again be an argument for instinctive shooting as a viable alternative to accurate shooting."

Unbelieveable - anytime this guy wants to shoot on the 3D range - I will gladly show him accurate instinctive shooting - care to bet say $10.00 a point? Even if I lose - I won't be breakin' the bank - that I know.


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 9, 2008)

Man, I 'd sure like to watch this match. Better yet I'd like the ticket concession. We could donate the take to a worthy charity. BTW Sharp do you know who Itbeso is?


----------



## Old Sarge (Sep 9, 2008)

Oh even better. If I'm going to sell tickets we should give the spectators something for their money. What we should do is shoot one round of 3D, one indoor 300 round, and one NFAA field round. Since they are the most popular forms of shooting in the USA ya'all could shoot all three and in the end we would certainly be able to crown one of you the AT smack down Champ for 2012. A neutral site will be chosen to make it easy to facilitate.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Old Sarge said:


> Oh even better. If I'm going to sell tickets we should give the spectators something for their money. What we should do is shoot one round of 3D, one indoor 300 round, and one NFAA field round. Since they are the most popular forms of shooting in the USA ya'all could shoot all three and in the end we would certainly be able to crown one of you the AT smack down Champ for 2012. A neutral site will be chosen to make it easy to facilitate.


Hey....I want in on that competition too! :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## zestycj7 (Sep 24, 2010)

I would shoot in that comp. If anything just to be able to shoot with Itbeso, what a welth of knowlage you would get from that day.
Don.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

It would be fun, but i can't swing $10/point. How about a dime?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Sharp word to the wise you don't want any part of this bet - but, if you do come to Redding next May biggest 3d in the country - I am going for the first time should be a blast - we could do a pool bet - 25 cents per point paid forward to whoever is in the front of you - works great for the guys in the front - ok for the middle of the pack - and sucks big time for the guys in the back.

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Money should go to a charitable organization that involes archery or bowhunting.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

If this thread hadda been a horse they'da shot it already.....:darkbeer:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

don't know who he is and I don't care - I have shot with the best shots in the world and held my own - sometimes I have won and sometimes I have not (but I have always been at least in the top 5) - if it is a IBO style 3D shoot - say 40 yards or less - I have no fear of shooting with or against anyone - again - I am not saying I will win - but if I don't - I won't lose by much. He obviously needs some lessons on instinctive shooting if he things nobody shoots accurately instinctive.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Unbelieveable - anytime this guy wants to shoot on the 3D range - I will gladly show him accurate instinctive shooting - care to bet say $10.00 a point? Even if I lose - I won't be breakin' the bank - that I know.


I will take that bet.........................I will see you at the 2013 IFAA world Bowhunters in South Africa then :thumbs_up

5 days x 28 3Ds out to 60 yards it might make a small hole in your bank........you never said what kind of 3D shooting, so lets make it with some real interesting distances :wink:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yea - South Africa - you gonna pay my travel expenses? I have six kids four of which are still at home and a stay-at-home mom who homeschools them - not to mention a 24/7 365 day a year job


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Well Im not rich either. I couldnt make the money for IFAA worlds in Argentina, air tickets alone were 1300 Euros each and would mean 5 tickets with myself Kats two small kids under 4 years and a babysitter.

As were both *poor* If I make it to IBOs one year maybe we will have a small side bet for a pint of beer after the games :thumbs_up


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

sounds good to me, and if I ever get to Estonia....


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Yea - South Africa - you gonna pay my travel expenses? I have six kids four of which are still at home and a stay-at-home mom who homeschools them - not to mention a 24/7 365 day a year job





steve morley said:


> Well Im not rich either. I couldnt make the money for IFAA worlds in Argentina, air tickets alone were 1300 Euros each and would mean 5 tickets with myself Kats two small kids under 4 years and a babysitter.
> 
> As were both *poor* If I make it to IBOs one year maybe we will have a small side bet for a pint of beer after the games :thumbs_up


Steve?...Ken?...i have an idea...how about Ken comes down to Homestead, FL Dec. 7th, 8th and 9th for the NAFAC and this way?..

The three of us could get together! 

How cool would that be? 

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> Sharp word to the wise you don't want any part of this bet - but, if you do come to Redding next May biggest 3d in the country - I am going for the first time should be a blast - we could do a pool bet - 25 cents per point paid forward to whoever is in the front of you - works great for the guys in the front - ok for the middle of the pack - and sucks big time for the guys in the back.
> 
> Matt


I love that idea. It kind of reminds me of bear camp: you don't have to be the fastest, but you dang sure don't want to be the slowest.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Cool, a contest, that I would lose in a heartbeat, but sure as heck would be fun to be a part of............. maybe I could be an impartial scorekeeper?? :angel:


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

I am in for Redding, we could all sign up in the same group.... Come on Ken you can shoot out to 101 yards right?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

http://www.straightarrowbowhunters.com/files/target_layout.html Here is the layout with what the target is and the distances... easy peasey... its marked yardages...  I will say it would be great to have a bunch of AT'ers in a big group... Redding is about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

nope - not my game - no interest in shooting past 40 or 50 yards - reasonable hunting distances - and 50 yards is pushing that - but hey for you guys who shoot 101 yards - you ought to be able to clean the clocks of us lowly IBO 3D shooters - so show up and show us your stuff - at unmarked "easy" distances.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Now it's the ol' "field vs 3D " thread transformation ... awesome !

It was an inane argument on the Leatherwall ... it'll be even more inane here ..........


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - benofthehood - they turned it into that - I have always said if I ever wanted to hunt past reasonable hunting distances I would get myself a fully dressed olympic bow and go for it and shoot against the best of the best - but that is not my game - my game is bowhunting and to be as accurate of a bowhunter as possible - and at reasonable hunting distances, - I can hold my own with my lowly innacurate instinctive style of aiming - against anyone.

I have nothing against field archery, target archery - sights, consciouis aiming methods - etc.... - it is just not my game - but please - don't come in here and tell me that isntinctive shooters are not accurate - because for my game - I know it is just as accurate as anything else - save top sight shooters.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

No one is better than the other they are all different and they all make you better - looking forward to stepping up to the line in Vagas (hope I don't toss cookies) - shooting the long ones at redding and really looking forward to shooting both Cloverdale and PA - spent the evening tweeking my hunting bow - it has a SIGHT on it of all things and you know what I had a blast shooting it.

Matt


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

agree with that Matt - there is not any one style of shooting that is superior in all circumstances and with all shooters.

This really has gone way off topic.

I would hope that we can all agree with what I just wrote - if not - well - that is sad for those who think there is one method that is always inferior or always superior.


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

This Redding shoot sounds a blast, when and where is it guys.
101 yards at 3D, wow, that can't be ethical or Trad can it  We used to shoot 100yd at 2D elephants at a few shoots back in the UK, just watching the arrows fly is worth your entry fee.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Ken ... I didn't suggest in any way shape or form that instinctive shooters aren't accurate ... why would I when I shot instinctive 99% of the time ...

Just hoping that as derailed yet entertaining as this thread is , it doesn't become a this tourney style vs that tourney style ... as I like them all and believe that every one of them is uber hard to get good at ... and the fella's and ladies at the top off their game in any archery discipline are fine fine archers and have my respect . 

I love Field for its long shots and the discipline required for a repeated sequence regardless of anges and distance ... I love the limited 3D I have participated in for its unforgiving nature where every shot is a mental hernia ... 
... just wish I could combine the skills needed to excel at both and not remain as pedestrian as I am .


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

If arrogance was catfish and stupidity was beer we could have had a hell of a party in the past couple days.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Jon

http://www.straightarrowbowhunters.com/

Haven't been yet but I am told it is a blast - setting the bow up with a long rod and v-bars just for it.

Matt


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

benofthehood said:


> Ken ... I didn't suggest in any way shape or form that instinctive shooters aren't accurate ... why would I when I shot instinctive 99% of the time ...
> 
> Just hoping that as derailed yet entertaining as this thread is , it doesn't become a this tourney style vs that tourney style ... as I like them all and believe that every one of them is uber hard to get good at ... and the fella's and ladies at the top off their game in any archery discipline are fine fine archers and have my respect .
> 
> ...



Like a breath of fresh air,an intelligent post.:icon_salut:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> - spent the evening tweeking my hunting bow - it has a SIGHT on it of all things and you know what I had a blast shooting it.
> 
> Matt


Matt ... mate ... you are sssoooo not Trad . 
I am not sure if we can be friends any longer ........:tongue:

I currently have sights on my 'curves and have had on at least one 'curve since before the Millenium , much like my first hunting recurve did back in maybe 1985 ? ... and sure wish they would bring back a fixed pin sighted division for tourneys .


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

benofthehood - I did not mean to imply that you said that - it was someone else who said that


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Sweet ... thanks for claryfying Ken .

appreciated.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> agree with that Matt - there is not any one style of shooting that is superior in all circumstances and with all shooters.


Exactly! :thumbs_up

Each aiming technique will have inherent advantages under specific circumstances...but it will always be up to the archer to exploit them...or not.

Ray :shade:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I really don't pay much attention to these threads. I find them boring and mean and I have enough things to keep me occupied. Didn't read all of this one either. I think all these threads are distracting newbies from one important point though: form comes first.

Every top archer I have ever watched, read, or listenned to has said that perfect/consistent form pretty much comes first no matter what. It stands to reason then, that if a person puts in the time to truly get their form down that they will have reached a level where they will also be able to experiment with different aiming tecniques and determine which they like best. 

... Doesn't that make all the arguments *against* different aiming techniques pointless? It's like arguing which car brand is best. Have to learn how to drive first. Then you just go with the type of car you can afford/fix/meets your needs in a vehicle. At that point they already have an idea of what they need on their own, so why argue? Give your opinion and leave the rest on the range for everyone to decide on their own.

In the end it doesn't even matter then. The best archer/driver would just have more refined talent anyway...


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Not many people have been able to excel at both long range marked field and short range 3D, Im sure more would if they were willing to try but some just like stay with one discipline. Although different I find IFAA Field\3D and Fita Field\3D all good fun to shoot and helps me with my desire to continuiously improve my shooting skills and mental game :thumbs_up


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Bigjono said:


> This Redding shoot sounds a blast, when and where is it guys.
> 101 yards at 3D, wow, that can't be ethical or Trad can it  We used to shoot 100yd at 2D elephants at a few shoots back in the UK, just watching the arrows fly is worth your entry fee.


The Redding shoot is the first weekend in May in Redding CA. The yardages are from 4 yds for you instinctive guys and out to 101 yds for us Gappers. Sharp I have been to two IBO worlds But haven't seen any IBO trad guys at Redding yet. When I shoot my recurve I shoot instinctive out to about 25yds then gap past that. 101yds is complicated. So it seems that from 4yds to 101yds half way is a little over 50yds. So under 50yds something for the instinctive guys and everything past 50yds for us gappers. At Redding there are 70 targets only 12 targets that are over 50 yds. And then I remember I shoot instinctive and gap wouldn't be fair so the instinctive crowd better stay home. Bigjono it's not about being ethical or Trad it's a archery tournament. But if you show up we will have a great time.
Gary


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> Doesn't that make all the arguments *against* different aiming techniques pointless?


Not necessarily. A new archer can still be quided in the right direction in choosing an aiming technique that fits their personal goals, abilities and personality...IF...the person giving the advice has a thorough knowledge of the different aiming techniques.

I don't see aiming techniques much different than aspects of form.

Some new archers wonder if they should shoot Split Finger or 3 Under. Some ask about Open and Closed Stances...and the list goes on. Each answer should be based on the individuals goals...and if someone has the knowledge and research to back their advice...it makes it so much more applicable rather than taking a shot in the dark. Same goes for aiming techniques.



kegan said:


> Then you just go with the type of car you can afford/fix/*meets your needs *in a vehicle.


Ya nailed it right there in bold!



kegan said:


> At that point they already have an idea of what they need on their own, so why argue?


I admit....argueing SUCKS...but it usually doesn't start out that way...until someone takes a disagreement personally.

Most of the time these start out as civil debates and turn into wars because someone claims to be a victim and takes it personally everytime someone disagrees with them.

It does NOT need to be that way...with grown men who have a disagreement!

Ray :shade:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Good point, Ray, about pointing folks in the right direction at first based on their goals/interests. That's what I like so much about blank bale to get the aspects of form that work best for the individual, rather than trying to tell them why they should use what. Still need pointed in some direction of course, but why would there be all this arguing over what's WRONG with other aiming techniques? 

Anyway, I still think most of us miss not because we "aim" wrong, but because we mess up our form somehow. At least, that's how it is for me, and almost all the traditional shooters I shoot/have shot with?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> That's what I like so much about blank bale to get the aspects of form that work best for the individual, rather than trying to tell them why they should use what.


First off...I personally LOVE the Blank Bale...but I don't believe that's where an archer should try to find out what works for them. It can be used to try different things to see how it feels...but the real test is shooting at a target to see how well the specifics of that form translates into accuracy.



kegan said:


> Still need pointed in some direction of course, but why would there be all this arguing over what's WRONG with other aiming techniques?


The argueing also starts when someone makes statements as absolutes...implying it applies to everyone and every situation.



kegan said:


> Anyway, I still think most of us miss not because we "aim" wrong, but because we mess up our form somehow. At least, that's how it is for me, and almost all the traditional shooters I shoot/have shot with?


I personally believe it's a combination of both and more importantly....how the archer's MENTAL GAME is working.

The timing of the shot/release and the confidence in the archer's abilities is where form and aiming come together to determine accuracy...if everything done prior to that point was done correctly...the archer can't help but not miss.

When I shoot...I am much harder on myself with a vertical miss...rather than a horizontal miss. In other words...I don't like missing the vertical line through the target.

Do you know why?

Ray :shade:


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

My post about Redding was no slam against anyone, it was my real thought that a big group of us shooting together would be a blast. I have been to Redding only 3 times, and every year I leave with the same thoughts, I will be back again next year. It is without a doubt a blast, shooting a butterfly at 4 yards, elk at 88 and bigfoot at 101, with about every yardage you can imagine on just about every size target.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Horizontal misses are form issues, and I'm guessing that's the same reason they drive me nuts- because the shot wasn't executed perfectly. 

I forgot to include "the bridge" in with blank bailing. Hard to get an idea of what's working just on the blank bale, but you can see what options DO for the archer on the blank bale.

The ABSOLUTES you're refering to are just the problem I'm seeing distracting people from form focus, or just plain old focus really. Have to walk before you run sort of deal, and I think most people are trying to spring when they should be taking it nice and easy. Oh well. 

You made a great point before about not trying to take too much responsibility for the paths new archers take. I can't help but feel that this is another one of those instances. I've put my two cents in, not much I can do beyond that.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

This post asked what we think instinctive or aiming system. Instinctive is a very good way to shoot but in my opinion it is not the most accurate way that's why I carry a rangefinder hunting (very ethical). But if you look at the IBO scores most of the time a RU guy posts the highest score. Not an instinctive shooter. Now for you guys that think instinctive is more accurate I shoot instinctive out to about 25 yds I have got a whippin both world trad championships I've been to by gappers and string walkers. I am sure there are exceptions to the rule but for the average guy teach him how to aim and he will do better. If you just want to hunt get a rangefinder and make a good shot without any doubt where to aim. And for heaven sakes learn how to shoot past 30 yards you never know when you might need to put a second arrow in a wounded animal it happens you know. Or better yet learn how to shoot 101 and come to Redding and shoot with me and rsarns.
Gary


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Hey....I want in on that competition too! :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Ray, trust me you don't want any part of this and I wouldn't take your money anyway, you are not the problem or the arrogance on here that needs to be taught a lesson on the shooting line. I would, however, elk hunt with you anytime. Your favorite spots or mine, I think it would be a great hunt and hunting is definitely a passion of mine as I can tell it is with you. Hopefully we can get a lot of the nonsight guys on here to come to the redding shoot this next year and just have a jamboree. Even if you don't like to shoot past 50 yards, we will help all of you look for missed arrows:wink:


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

This thread is closed.


----------

