# backtension as a firing engine.



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

with all controversy about back tension, it just dawned on me that there's lots of discussion about the troubles people have with back tension in general and troubles with firing engines that use different manipulations, but no real discussion about what people perceive as problems with back tension as a firing engine.
I think it's been at least passingly established that it exists, so let's hear what you guys think are the problems with using BT as a firing engine. 
now as a caution, those who are going to post that it is old fashioned or obsolete , consider that finger manipulation has been established to be just as old by articles that have been recently posted, so please try to keep your posts absent of that issue.
let's hear ya' !.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

I think what might be a big part of it, is its hard to see/know if your doing it right by yourself. Having a coach that knows the technique inside and out would be a big help.
The more solid back walls of modern bows makes getting the DL even more critical than ever.
I was much better with PBT as a firing engine with my old Martin Firecat than with any of my newer bows... One with limb stops.
PBT as I know it, and I did start my hinge journey with PBT, and it saved my shooting "career", is much more "fussy" about DL, loop size, hand position (I prefer at least 45degrees... Probably go even more vertical... It FEELS like it's close to vertical) and hinge set up that other techniques.
Learning PBT a helps me maintain my back tension while using different techniques to actually fire the hinge.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

I really enjoy back tension shooting I shoot with it all the time, here are my negative and positive things that I assoiate with it:

Neg:

1. If you use back tension with a strong hand and fingers it requires the actual back tension rotation to produce all of the rotation.

2. If you use back tension without pulling into the wall it makes your float act like a swinging gate and as you add tension to the shot it swings the pin off the x to the edge.

3. Id you use back tension with a good amount of it already in the wall then it tightens up your rotation and makes the applying extra tension to the shot very deliberate.

4. If you set a hinge slow on purpose because someone told you to back tension along with a strong hand leads to frustration trying to figure out how in the world am I supposed to produce enough rotation to fire the hinge.

5. menatlly if you choose to shoot with back tension only you usually end up thinking of your hand and the fingers as the enemy and this leads to a hand that is locked up and a heavy hand.

6. Back tension only requires that your draw length be perfect, without perfect draw length you end up bottoming out your system and you end up not able to produce any more rotation even though you feel like you are exerting a bunch of force.

7 Shooting back tension is very subtle and has little to no room for variation so shooting on poor footing and shots where something isn't just right causes you to not be able to do anything to produce that rotation.

Positive:

1. it is very subtle and has less moving parts in the system so it is easy to maintain.

2. it has a very low amount of droping out the bottom of the x if you are using the tension to pull into the wall.

3. used with a soft hand it produces a very ample amount of rotation in the hinge.

4. back tension training for me with a soft hand is awesome at isolating my back muscles and feeling that sweet pull into the wall along with the rotation of my elbow.

5. training with it gives me a awesome squeeze into the wall where I am not pushing into the wall but the back tension really bulls the bow into my grip with the front arm and my back side gets the tension on the system.

6. once the process becomes second nature it produces very sweet surprise releases that explode.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

Padgett good valid points, the thing to remember is that just like all other aspects of archery, correct teaching, makes the difference between success and frustration. in my opinion, most what you state as negative points, can also be applied to any type of manipulated rotation.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

ron w said:


> what people perceive as problems with back tension as a firing engine


A lot of the "perceived problems" is the user... Almost all pick up a hinge and don't have the slightest idea what's involved.....I said as much in another thread;
"Tom, all this BS over back tension being the blame of failure of use of the hinge is just that, BS. You've seen it. I've seen it. Many are their own worst enemy when it comes to using a hinge and trying back tension. Heck, I've been there, still there really. I use a hinge for chip shots on the 3D course and that's all and not when shooting State Sanctioned events.

How many are so fearful of the hinge that they have a death grip on it?
How many are so tense when first or even into using a hinge that nothing comes together?
How many use draw weight too heavy to start?
How many have draw length correct?
Beyond draw weight and draw length, how many have proper bow fit?
How many have the release arm in position so the rhomboids can be effective?
How many are using good form?
How many are gripping the bow properly?
How many really commit to using back tension with a hinge?
Of course, you can't justify commitment if you're not getting results and you can't get results if any of the above...."

So instead of jumping in on back tension/hinge issue someone brings up we need to know the user has all correct to begin with. How can he or she have a perceive problem when he or she is the problem?


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

I gave it a year and half with the Larry Wise way. Could never get a consistent shot window. Wish it would have been 6 months but didn't know there were many other ways to do this. AT was no help back then with this.

Have to have draw length with in a twist of the string. Well my arms aren't the same length all the time the same as you are taller in the morning than you are at the end of the day.

I'm glad I tried this way first as it does teach you which muscles you need to use.

My draw stop fell out of my spiral cam and didn't know it. With the give in the wall the hinge fired nice and consistent. But with the soft back wall my hold wasn't as good.

Too finicky for me and the guys posing with the checks aren't doing it this way should speak volumes.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

The biggest hang-up for me was/is the static hand requirements of PBT. A close second would be that the equipment requirements are too stringent. Another problem for me is the flexibility and body control needed to actually move the proper muscles far enough to make the damn thing go off while not moving others. You almost have to find the very edge of the sear for this to work and I tend to freeze when on the edge. I struggled with alignment issues that would pull my pin off center as I applied tension. I was so convinced that moving the hand was the wrong thing to do, I went through contortions to achieve a static hand, regardless of whether or not I was actually shooting with back tension. Since I've changed my thinking about BT in general I've discovered that BT is a wonderful tool to draw and hold while I execute the shot. For those that can use PBT successfully my hat is off to you, for me I'm going a different route.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

SonnyThomas said:


> A lot of the "perceived problems" is the user... Almost all pick up a hinge and don't have the slightest idea what's involved.....I said as much in another thread;
> "Tom, all this BS over back tension being the blame of failure of use of the hinge is just that, BS. You've seen it. I've seen it. Many are their own worst enemy when it comes to using a hinge and trying back tension. Heck, I've been there, still there really. I use a hinge for chip shots on the 3D course and that's all and not when shooting State Sanctioned events.
> 
> How many are so fearful of the hinge that they have a death grip on it?
> ...


 exactly,
so much of the problem has it roots in the way it is taught and the initial attention to the details that allow successful back tension as a firing engine to be accomplished. there's really no more "detail" involved than any other method. attention to the details so far listed, also exist in any method of release execution that there is, when properly done. once those details have ben established and instrumented, proper teaching will produce a successful execution.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

Awesome response ronw, I totally agree that all of the things that I listed out can be worked on and eliminated or at least reduced to the point that back tension can be a very enjoyable way to shoot. For me shooting with back tension only isn't my best performing method but it is very valuable in my training. I prefer to get a new binge shooter up and running with other methods k owing that in time for them to progress to a high level shooter he is going to have to have a good amount of back tension in their shot, I am totally Ok with them becoming a back tension shooter as their primary method.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

I can't really think of any disadvantage to it for me off the top of my head, with perhaps the sole exception of it being finicky about a hard back wall. And that's being picky - I shot all day today with my Supra Max using PBT as a firing mechanism with little trouble. I only hang up when the back muscles are too tired and I collapse and end up stopping during the pull. Once sighted in and warmed up, I think I dropped out of the gold only a couple times (nothing to write home about for most folks, but outstanding for me lol).

So I have to reach, here, but I can say it's slightly easier to execute on my Hoyt wheel bow than on my Supra Max because of the smooshy back wall on the Hoyt. 

The advantages are all over the place for me:
- the simplest method possible. Just "expand" a-la Oly recurve into the wall. pop. Best for target panic afflicted like myself.
- no strange equipment requirements, works with any release aid and bow, though a softer back wall is preferred.
- no strange hand requirements, "soft" or "hard" or anything like that. The method does completely away with all that. All I have to do is put the release in the hand naturally and just pull on it. There is always some natural flexing in the hand even if it's not commanded consciously or subconsciously that can help, especially with a hard back wall. But it's nothing that really requires any attention.
- no wierd muscle movements or manipulations required. If you know how to "expand" with the back you can shoot "back tension".

I may have a slight advantage on some of these, especially the notion of expansion through the shot with the back, due to the several years I shot Oly recurve. I even got my Win & Win out today and pulled a few through the clicker to remind me how it works lol... Too bad I can't really hit anything with a recurve anymore lol....

LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

" no weird muscle movements or manipulations required. if you know how to expand with the back, you can shoot back tension"......
those two sentences, expose the root problem of the entire issue, right there.
" equipment requirements are too stringent",..... this statement , I don't get. 
what equipment requirements are any more "stringent" for back tension, than any other method ?.
this single statement might very well be the one widely distributed misconception, from teaching it to using it, that has lead to back tension as a firing method make it's decline to an almost non existent status. it just simply is not true. there is o element in equipment , that is more or less stringent or necessary, when using back tension, that there is in any other method of release execution. 
some people might suggest that draw length has to be too, exact. that isn't so, draw length is specific to good form and hold, not specifically oriented to the release execution. fine tuning draw length is a requirement in any release execution and a necessity if you are going to produce your best shooting, no matter what method you use, because it is the single most important element of a good hold. when it is right for your best hold, it is right for back tension as a firing method, because it is directly associated, with your specific anatomy, not what release you use, or what method of firing engine you use. the right draw length certainly helps a good release with a hinge and back tension, but obtaining the right draw length is paramount to any precision shooting there is.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Equipment: draw length has to be perfect. Many claim within a twist or two. Regardless, I'm more accurate and more consistent using other methods that have been around longer than this notion that you can't use the hand to execute the shot. I don't understand why all this concern over other people not using it? You seem to be making the argument that everyone would shoot better if they could just figure out how to shoot PBT properly. You asked what the issues were and was given a list. Now you seem compelled to challenge each item. To what end?


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

no more concern over other people not using it, than there is concern over it being thought of as obsolete, old fashioned, too picky, or too hard to learn or to stringent on equipment. to be absolutely honest, I started this thread to find out to find out what people think are the problems with back tension as a firing method, with the intent of exposing the fact that many people don't understand it's methodology and the possibility of explaining misunderstandings that cause it to be considered a "myth", so to speak. 
it almost seems to have attained the aura of "distain" on this forum, yet there's no more reasonable argument to not use it, beyond it not being clearly understood and/or correctly taught, than there is the personal choice for other methods. just wondering why that personal choice has leaned the direction it has.
I hope this discussion can be carried out without rhetoric and the condescending attitude that leads to people asking questions or making statements, that imply useless off-subject matter comments, about choice of methods. the discussion is not about the concerns over, "choice".


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

EPLC said:


> Equipment: draw length has to be perfect. Many claim within a twist or two.


Nope. This is a myth. "PBT" does not require any tolerances beyond the usual necessity for a proper draw length, that I can see. I've even tested it with my Hoyt, going back and forth between the lowest and highest draw weight. This causes the brace height to lower about 1/4" to close to 1/2" at full poundage, which effectively shortens the draw length (for the shooter anyway) by that amount. No change in the operation of my shot that I can detect between the two settings.

LS


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

ron w said:


> no more concern over other people not using it, than there is concern over it being thought of as obsolete, old fashioned, too picky, or too hard to learn or to stringent on equipment. to be absolutely honest, I started this thread to find out to find out what people think are the problems with back tension as a firing method, with the intent of exposing the fact that many people don't understand it's methodology and the possibility of explaining misunderstandings that cause it to be considered a "myth", so to speak.
> it almost seems to have attained the aura of "distain" on this forum, yet there's no more reasonable argument to not use it, beyond it not being clearly understood and/or correctly taught, than there is the personal choice for other methods. just wondering why that personal choice has leaned the direction it has.
> I hope this discussion can be carried out without rhetoric and the condescending attitude that leads to people asking questions or making statements, that imply useless off-subject matter comments, about choice of methods. the discussion is not about the concerns over, "choice".


Agreed. Correcting misinformation is not an attack on anyone's freedom of choice or anything else. It's just correcting misinformation and nothing more than that.

LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

I hope that this discussion can carry on with that exact tone of voice and intent !. 

Unclejane, your posts #14 and 15, are right on the money.....
people only interpret the correct draw length, which stands as a primary element of any form of release execution and good shooting form in itself, as an almost unobtainable aspect of using back tension as a firing method, as soon as the issue is presented. it's no more difficult to establish the correct draw length using back tension, that it is using any other method. in either case of use, your bodies dimensions, do not change.
this is a specific issue, that is almost universally misunderstood. those last few (one or two twist) adjustments of draw length are specific to a persons anatomy and level of comfort in their release execution's efficiency, not in the method that they use.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

ron w said:


> " no weird muscle movements or manipulations required. if you know how to expand with the back, you can shoot back tension"......
> those two sentences, expose the root problem of the entire issue, right there.
> " equipment requirements are too stringent",..... this statement , I don't get.
> what equipment requirements are any more "stringent" for back tension, than any other method ?.
> ...


Well, you started this Thread; "discussion about the troubles people have with back tension" Changing over to a hinge is a major jump for a lot of people and the bow needs addressed as well the person starting out.

I shot for a few years with shooting off the string with a index release and 29" of draw, whatever 29" was, 29 to 29 1/2" for all I know, because I never measured draw length. I was quite successful with the index release and whatever 29" draw length I had in club and state sanctioned events. Not only did I not measure draw length I knew nothing of using back tension to hold the bow or fire a index release. If I did I don't know I did. I just held on target until the release fired.

Going to thumb and d-loop changed my concept of draw length, shooting, executing and enter reality of back tension. Changing to a hinge changed my world again with draw weight a issue and a different back tension as there is all of the back or back half/release side. Cable stops and then to limbs stops also changed my world for draw length. And with both the thumb and hinge there was the matter of the release hand, being relaxed and anchoring correctly.

Changing to releases other than a index I needed to address peep location.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

Sonny speaks the truth as usual lol. For what it's worth in my case, on my recent return to compound and the hinge, I've ended up progressively shortening my draw length almost 1 1/2" over what I originally shot. My old bows 15+ years ago were all set at 30", unbeknownst to me that was way too long. Part of that was I shot my Scott index finger release just clamped onto the string under the knock, but I also had my anchor way too far back.

But also, at the time, I had no idea of using the back wall as part of my shot. I'd come to the middle of the valley, hold it there and punch away - I thought you were "supposed to do it that way" lol. No wonder I developed such horrible target panic.

But I still think draw length is an orthogonal issue to the effectiveness of your release engine. That is, it's a factor of comfort and form, not really an aid or hindrance to a particular choice of firing engine for a hinge.... In my view, anyway, I could be wrong about that.

LS


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> …, or too hard to learn or too stringent on equipment… .


1. It’s been stated more times than I can count that it takes a minimum of 6 months and as much as 2 years to “learn” this method properly (I personally was hung up with the static hand requirements for years without success). 
2. Draw length requirements have been stated to an equal extent to be within 1 or 2 twists of the string to get it perfect. It's always something else, never the process.



ron w said:


> , with the intent of exposing the fact that many people don't understand it's methodology and the possibility of explaining misunderstandings that cause it to be considered a "myth", so to speak.


The only true “myth” here is the insistence that this is the “best” way to shoot an arrow when it has been stated over and over that there are other, perhaps more effective, ways to execute.



ron w said:


> it almost seems to have attained the aura of "distain" on this forum, yet there's no more reasonable argument to not use it, beyond it not being clearly understood and/or correctly taught, than there is the personal choice for other methods. just wondering why that personal choice has leaned the direction it has.


So, YOU must be doing something wrong! The process is perfect and it has to be YOUR fault… and if you are not using it you are NEVER going to shoot to your potential. Myth, myth, myth = "distain", not for the process in itself, but for this relentless quest that you and your predecessors have been jamming home for years. 



ron w said:


> ...just wondering why that personal choice has leaned the direction it has.


The "direction" has been described nicely in the posts that have already responded to your original question... Need more? You may also want to take a peek at the erdman41 post here for the best answer to this question ->>> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2415859&p=1072303432#post1072303432


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

I think the reason the draw length is a bit more critical to PBT is because at some point, it becomes much less effective as you run out of effective travel (bow/loop/release too long) and up against a hard back wall.
While that draw length could be construed as too long, other firing engines will not be affected by it.
That gets multiplied as the shooter rotates the hand to a more vertical position.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

unclejane said:


> Sonny speaks the truth as usual lol. For what it's worth in my case, on my recent return to compound and the hinge, I've ended up progressively shortening my draw length almost 1 1/2" over what I originally shot. My old bows 15+ years ago were all set at 30", unbeknownst to me that was way too long. Part of that was I shot my Scott index finger release just clamped onto the string under the knock, but I also had my anchor way too far back.
> 
> But also, at the time, I had no idea of using the back wall as part of my shot. I'd come to the middle of the valley, hold it there and punch away - I thought you were "supposed to do it that way" lol. No wonder I developed such horrible target panic.
> 
> ...


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

EPLC said:


> 1. It’s been stated more times than I can count that it takes a minimum of 6 months and as much as 2 years to “learn” this method properly (I personally was hung up with the static hand requirements for years without success).


Nope. This is also a myth. In my experience anyway, it takes only as long as mastering the use of the back muscles - the so called "expansion" by the oly recurve folks - to learn to use the "PBT" firing method. Using the back muscles for shooting a bow&arrow is also only a suggestion, tho it's similar in quality to the "suggestion" that the handle on your parachute be grabbed and pulled at some point in a skydive. So that investment is probably one of those few items one "must" make in learning to shoot. That does *not* translate into "it takes 2 years at least to learn the PBT method" or "everyone must use the PBT method". I'm already using PBT after a few weeks work (tho a few years of oly recurve gave me a head start on the use of the back in a bow&arrow shot).


> 2. Draw length requirements have been stated to an equal extent to be within 1 or 2 twists of the string to get it perfect.


Nope. Myth. There is no such constraint on the draw length to use PBT. It's down in the noise of the general requirements for a correct draw length.


> The only true “myth” here is the insistence that this is the “best” way to shoot an arrow when it has been stated over and over that there are other, perhaps more effective, ways to execute.


No one else is saying any such thing and hasn't said any such thing in quite a while. No one is insisting (except you) that PBT is the best and only way to fire a hinge.


> So, YOU must be doing something wrong! The process is perfect and it has to be YOUR fault… and if you are not using it you are NEVER going to shoot to your potential.


No one on the PBT "side" is saying any such thing. We're only countering misinformation about the method itself. There is no effort to blame or diminish any archer's choice to use another method.

LS


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

ron w said:


> exactly, I can run my execution on a bow that has a drawlength anywhere near what I need,...lets say for demonstrative purposes, within an inch, which I've done, trying other people's bows, just like any other method,. it's only that it works best, again ,.....just like any other method,...... when the draw length best fits my anatomy.
> the fact that fine tuning to as little as a twist or two, only demonstrates the level of understanding someone has about the methodology of the execution, and that criteria applies to any methodology.


I only wish I was that good LOL!

LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

EPLC, I respect your opinions, but your rebuttals don't have to carry quite so much aggressive "tone", in this discussion. it is here, not to establish who's right or wrong, or who prefers this or that. the intent of this discussion is to expose and explain what might be misinterpreted about back tension as a firing engine on a purely subjective level.
no body attacked you, or your methods in this thread, yet you seem to be attacking my opinions left and right.
I cannot help that you had a hard time with it as a firing engine, not all of us have had that problem. perhaps the hard time you had, is the result of not being taught right, or not devoting enough time to specific isuues that produce the wanted results. 
my own experience with learning back tension as a firing engine went very smooth and took very little time to establish, initially. of course perfection of any method, does not happen over night. all I can say is that I started seriously shooting spots in the winter of 1974/5 and I won my division at the Milwaukee Sentinal Sports show, in the winter of 1975/6. so developmentally, it simply did not take all that long to become proficient enough to be competitive at the level of shooting I was at, at the time.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> EPLC, I respect your opinions, but your rebuttals don't have to carry quite so much aggressive "tone", in this discussion. it is here, not to establish who's right or wrong, or who prefers this or that. the intent of this discussion is to expose and explain what might be misinterpreted about back tension as a firing engine on a purely subjective level.
> no body attacked you, or your methods in this thread, yet you seem to be attacking my opinions left and right.
> I cannot help that you had a hard time with it as a firing engine, not all of us have had that problem. perhaps the hard time you had, is the result of not being taught right, or not devoting enough time to specific isuues that produce the wanted results.
> my own experience with learning back tension as a firing engine went very smooth and took very little time to establish, initially. of course perfection of any method, does not happen over night. all I can say is that I started seriously shooting spots in the winter of 1974/5 and I won my division at the Milwaukee Sentinal Sports show, in the winter of 1975/6. so developmentally, it simply did not take all that long to become proficient enough to be competitive at the level of shooting I was at, at the time.


Aggressive vs. passive aggressive, I fail to see any difference. Once again, you prove my point! It's never the process, it always has to be the fault of the shooter, in this case me. I accept this may be the best alternative for you. Why is it that you can't seem to accept it isn't for others?


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

Mahly said:


> I think the reason the draw length is a bit more critical to PBT is because at some point, it becomes much less effective as you run out of effective travel (bow/loop/release too long) and up against a hard back wall.
> While that draw length could be construed as too long, other firing engines will not be affected by it.
> That gets multiplied as the shooter rotates the hand to a more vertical position.


 do I understand you are saying that if your draw length is an inch or so, too long, it doesn't affect your release execution, using a "manipulative" method ?.....(given that we both understand what, "a manipulative method" means for the sake of this discussion...I think we do). as I've said, I can run my execution just fine on a bow that is too long of draw length, of course, within a reasonable range that would apply, also, to any other method. obviously I assume it doesn't mean some draw length that is ridiculously too long or short....lets try to keep things at east "practical", for discussion's sake..


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

EPLC said:


> Once again, you prove my point! It's never the process, it always has to be the fault of the shooter, in this case me.


No. That's not what ron is saying. Being taught a method incorrectly isn't your "fault". Spreading misinformation about a method you either didn't learn correctly or concluded wasn't a good method *for you*, OTOH, *is* your fault. Nobody blames you for being taught something incorrectly or deciding that something isn't for you. You *are* to blame, however, if you *spread misinformation* about a method based on those circumstances.




> I accept this may be the best alternative for you. Why is it that you can't seem to accept it isn't for others?


He does. And always has to my knowledge (modulo maybe a few firm statements in the past that he later reversed or softened on). 

LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

EPLC said:


> Aggressive vs. passive aggressive, I fail to see any difference. Once again, you prove my point! It's never the process, it always has to be the fault of the shooter, in this case me. I accept this may be the best alternative for you. Why is it that you can't seem to accept it isn't for others?


 I do accept that is isn't for other, what I don't accept is the unfounded distain for the method that exists here, because as with most other issues, blatant un-acceptance, is usually the result of misunderstanding or rumor. there is just as much negativity directed my way , as you say I generate, when I bring up the subject of rotational back tension. 
now enough of the accusations, lets try to proceed objectively and have an adult discussion.
the desire to use backtension as a firing engine, is just as legitimate, as any other method.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> I do accept that is isn't for other, what I don't accept is the unfounded distain for the method that exists here, because as with most other issues, blatant un-acceptance, is usually the result of misunderstanding or rumor. there is just as much negativity directed my way , as you say I generate, when I bring up the subject of rotational back tension.
> now enough of the accusations, lets try to proceed objectively and have an adult discussion.
> the desire to use backtension as a firing engine, is just as legitimate, as any other method.


Once again, the distain is not process related, it is due to the relentless pursuit that some, including you, have exhausted to promote this process as superior to all others, and if you are not using it you are missing out and if you can't do it then it has to be your fault. Now there is a difference in being assertive and being aggressive. This is assertive, not aggressive.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

EPLC said:


> ... it is the relentless pursuit that some, including you, have exhausted to promote this process as superior to all others, and if you are not using it you are missing out and if you can't do it then it has to be your fault. Now there is a difference in being assertive and being aggressive. This is assertive, not aggressive.


No one is relentlessly promoting anything as superior to all others, or saying anyone is missing out or is to blame if they can't use the PBT (or any other) method. This is all pure mythology.
Some may have strong opinions about this or that method, but that in no way constitutes this aggressive promotion you're describing. 
LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

as far as holding the release vertical vs. horizontal, every aspect of archery has it's requirements, we don't deliberately hold our bows canted, or horizontally, do we ?. these points of detail, are moot to the discussion because we simply have to operate within the criteria, that is established as specific ways to produce the best results. regardless of the method, there are certainly specific ways to do things that produce the best result, each has it's own requirements that are understood at this level of shooting. success comes by the interpretation and administration of the requirements.
if they can't be met for any number of various reasons, success won't be realized with any method, chosen.
in my shooting, deliberate finger, hand or wrist manipulation leads me into that "world" of doing stupid things with my release execution. (i'm sure you understand what I mean, no need to expound on it, for the sake of the discussion's flow). 
simply put, I get the best repeated results using back tension as a firing engine. there fore, when questions about the process arise, my replies are naturally going to be oriented towards that methodology, just the same as your replies aren't going to be directed there. the fact that I reply to allot of posts, in no way, means I am "ramming it down your throats", I can only derive that, that is simply your interpretation that stems from the frustrations you had in trying to learn it. enough of this now, let's continue the discussion about exposing and dispatching, misunderstood perceptions. the objective of this thread is not establishing who is right or who is wrong, or what method is used.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> as far as holding the release vertical vs. horizontal, every aspect of archery has it's requirements, we don't deliberately hold our bows canted, or horizontally, do we ?. these points of detail, are moot to the discussion because we simply have to operate within the criteria, that is established as specific ways to produce the best results. regardless of the method, there are certainly specific ways to do things that produce the best result, each has it's own requirements that are understood at this level of shooting. success comes by the interpretation and administration of the requirements.


While not intentional, I actually have quite a natural cant... so much so that I had to shim my sight mount...


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

yup, when I started shooting I had the same problem, only through diligent deliberate correction, did I get away from that issue, what it did teach me is to have a religiously anal quick look at the bubble, every time the string comes back. that is now and has been, for a long time an integral part of my shot routine and I think why I am almost anal, about hand placement on my grip. 
really nothing wrong with it,...that's why the bubble is there !.
funny thing, ....ironically ,....niw, whenever I see a guys scope that doesn't have a bubble on it, I automatically ask my self, "how the heck can that guy shoot, without a bubble ?".


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

I think it is relatively safe to say that PBT is a perfectly viable method, however it is not quite as intuitive as some other methods. As such it may not yield as good of results without some form of coach helping to make sure you get it "right".
There has been enough attacks at both sides that we end up with a defensive reaction whenever one side points to their benefits, or points out the "other sides" negatives.
In the end, they both do indeed work... One technique works better for some than the other, and vice versa.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

Mahly said:


> I think it is relatively safe to say that PBT is a perfectly viable method, however it is not quite as intuitive as some other methods. As such it may not yield as good of results without some form of coach helping to make sure you get it "right".
> There has been enough attacks at both sides that we end up with a defensive reaction whenever one side points to their benefits, or points out the "other sides" negatives.
> In the end, they both do indeed work... One technique works better for some than the other, and vice versa.


I think that's the point of this thread - to separate out the facts and the fictions about the PBT method. As we can see, there are a lot of fictions running around out there about PBT that require correction - there's just no other way to do that than say, no this is wrong and here's why. That's not an attack; that's just a correction. 

My comments all having been said, one of the difficulties with adopting PBT may, repeat may, be some level of unfamiliarity with the use of the back muscles during the draw and pull-through. John Dudley talks a lot about this from the perspective of an archer who got to an expert level at both oly recurve and compound. The notion of "expansion" through the shot with back tension is basically mandatory for oly recurve - because of the colossal holding weight compared to a compound, there's just no other way to get through the clicker. You practically "must" use the large muscle groups in the back to even get a shot off.

The compound, OTOH, is a little more forgiving of this because of the completely different draw cycle and letoff. So some shooters, like myself for instance, got away with shooting a compound with virtually no concept of pulling with the back for quite a long time. I shot my bows off my arms only for years lol. 

I did shoot oly recurve for several years, however, and it came as a bit of shock to me the first time my coach said "ok, relax, no no relax... ok good, now pull with the back, the back"... that was a total revelation to me.. 

It translates directly over to compound turns out; not only that, but it opens you up to the PBT firing method tool if a) you want to use it and b) it's the right tool for you. So that could be one of the sources of some of the misinfo about PBT....

LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

the whole idea of this thread was not to find out who uses what , but to explore examples of what people think are the difficulties of BT as a firing engine and may help people understand how they got to think it's a difficult method. 
in reality, it's much more simple than manipulating your fingers, hand or wrist a specific way with the level of repeatability that produces good shots, time after time. the rhomboid muscle is one big muscle that does essentially one job everytime it operates, as compared to the complex groups of muscles and tendons that manipulate your fingers., let alone the complexity surrounding, repeating the specific tensions and pressures that go into manipulation of a release with your fingers.
simply think about writing, you can scribble down notes quickly, without paying much attention to what your fingers are doing, but if you want to write something neatly , with your best penmanship, you have to consciously pay attention to what your fingers are doing.....now in that same time, if you have to move the pen from the top to the bottom of the page, do you have to consciously pay attention to what your rhomboid does to get the pen there ?.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

EPLC said:


> Once again, the distain is not process related, it is due to the relentless pursuit that some, including you, have exhausted to promote this process as superior to all others, and if you are not using it you are missing out and if you can't do it then it has to be your fault. Now there is a difference in being assertive and being aggressive. This is assertive, not aggressive.


I guess, my only reply to your question, is this.....
if the distain is not process related, why would anyone have such negativity about it ?. we all learned to walk, to write to operate a fork and knife, and all the other activities that we do. why wouldn't we all be able to learn how the execute with back tension ?. the musculature involved, is no different that pulling on a rope,, we all know how to do that, don't we ?.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Well, I'm confused. Draw length is a contributing factor with a hinge with using back tension. Throwing out "you" can be effective with a inch long is not what the Thread is about. All in place and 1 inch too long can wreck everything. Some bows...Wow!...drawing a inch longer can have you so stretched out you can't get that last little oomph to roll the cams over and then creeping.....


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> I guess, my only reply to your question, is this.....
> if the distain is not process related, why would anyone have such negativity about it ?. we all learned to walk, to write to operate a fork and knife, and all the other activities that we do. why wouldn't we all be able to learn how the execute with back tension ?. the musculature involved, is no different that pulling on a rope,, we all know how to do that, don't we ?.


This has been answered so many times by so many different posters it makes my head spin but just in case you missed it, here's my take on why: Once again, the "distain" you speak of is not aimed at the process in itself, but is targeted at this relentless quest that you and your predecessors have been jamming home for years. The more you dig your heals in, the more you validate this assessment. This very thread is just another fine example of your lack of acceptance that there may be another way.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

EPLC said:


> ....but is targeted at this relentless quest that you and your predecessors have been jamming home for years.


There is no "relentless quest" no matter how many times you assert such a thing exists - you are propagating a myth. If there ever was such a thing in the past, it's in the past.


> This very thread is just another fine example of your lack of acceptance that there may be another way.


And yet, Ron, as far as I can tell,* does* fully accept that there are other methods than PBT. This thread displays none of the exclusivity you're claiming it does. So do I and most others who discuss or use the PBT method. You're still spreading misinformation here.

LS


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

SonnyThomas said:


> Well, I'm confused. Draw length is a contributing factor with a hinge with using back tension. Throwing out "you" can be effective with a inch long is not what the Thread is about. All in place and 1 inch too long can wreck everything. Some bows...Wow!...drawing a inch longer can have you so stretched out you can't get that last little oomph to roll the cams over and then creeping.....


I guess the point is that PBT isn't any more or less forgiving of an incorrect draw length than other methods. Well, at least for me it's down in the noise of the general problems of too long and too short. 

There may be something to the criticism about the hardness of the back wall tho. That's probably legitimate to some degree.... 

LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

yea it is, no doubt about it. you have alter that "pull the bow apart" idea, to a point where you are in firm contact with the back end, but not so forcefully that you considerably increase sear tension. the fact is that it no matter what method is used, sear tension increases as you pull harder into the wall. it is the same idea as a heavier firing pin mechanically increasing sear pressure in a gun. modern thumb triggers, such those designed by Carter, have adopted the same double sear technology as high quality rifle triggers, for this reason. I would assume thumb triggers by other companies are somewhat the same and occomplish the ability to have light trigger pressures the same way..that is not to say that is necessarily a good condition to be in, just to say that it is attainable by the double sear design.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> whether my problem is similarly, "tremmors", or not, I have no idea. but I do know that my float range is considerably larger than most people's....it always has been. big, to the point that people ask me how I can ever hit the center and even my then 75 year old Father in Law, who sat in the bleachers, spectating at Vegas, the couple times I shot there, several years ago, mentioned that I "wobbled" a lot more than other shooters.. I have had this "wandering float" all my life and have simply learned to trust my execution and form to produce what scores I made.
> unfortunately, it has gotten worse, since my stroke a few years ago and is the reason I don't shoot all that much any more. it's somewhat frustrating to work fairly hard to get into the 290's in spots, now. evidently, some of the small stabilizer muscles in my bow arm, haven't woken up completely after the stroke. the frustrating part of that, is that a good shot that I would have expected and taken for granted, to go the center, in earlier years, is now the pleasantly surprising shot.


Ron, I'm posting the following based on your recent post above, as well as your question with regard to the problems and issues related to PBT. 

One of the biggest issues I have had with PBT is the hold that it produces. I struggled with hold issues even before my tremors started and again after switching to LH. While somewhat manageable, my float was never what you would call rock solid. I was so convinced that I just had to live with it that I never tried to fix the problem, never really worked on my float. Posts that said "Just put your dot in the middle and shoot" confused me and I fought the very notion. Instead I worked on not paying attention to it, which did work, but never to the extent or scores that I've always known I am capable of. Only recently have I learned that these float issues can actually be worked and made better. During the discovery process I learned that if I did not try and execute the shot I was able to hold well within the gold. It was only when I tried to execute that my float broke down. Being left handed, in my case I was always fighting a pull to the left. I continued studying my float and this issue would come up time after time. The bigger the float the more tense I would become, vicious circle. Based on the posts here on AT I decided to try and use some hand manipulation during my shot process. What I found initially was that my float was markedly better. It was rough but it was better. As you know I've been working on this for only a short while but I'm seeing vast improvement in my float. I'm currently ironing out some minor issues in my firing engine but already see a vast improvement that can be built on. 

You can take this for what it's worth but I truly hope this is helpful.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

_What does float have to do with your firing engine?_ I have always had a large float range, it doesn't change with the method of release execution I use, it is always there, and in Griv's own words...."your float is what it is, for any given day".( or close to that).


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

ron w said:


> .
> you mention that as your float got larger you got more tense,...vicious circle effect, (that, I can certainly understand). what does that have to do with back tension as a release process?


It's nothing about trusting your float. It's tension that builds and results in float going to pieces. Why? Release arm not in position so the rhomboids can work effectively, death grip on the release, hand not relaxed. Where did it begin? Fear of the hinge. People using too much draw weight to start with so they can work with the process. No advisory at hand and you struggle. And then people have problems going back to square #1. 

No one in here is going to make me believe back tension works if the release arm is not in position or a death grip on the hinge. What's easier to work with, 70 pound draw weight or 50 pound draw weight? Some need to start with 30 pounds, average person, 40 to 50. These things need to be addressed right off the bat.
Back tension has always been called a learned procedure. You crawl, you walk, you run...


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

SonnyThomas said:


> Some need to start with 30 pounds, average person, 40 to 50. These things need to be addressed right off the bat.
> Back tension has always been called a learned procedure. You crawl, you walk, you run...


I'm still crawlin' LOL. I still have my Supra Max bottomed out at (estimated) 30lbs tho that's for historical injury reasons. OTOH, with such a low holding weight (7 1/2lbs calculated, unsure of actual, but it feels pretty close to that), it's very unforgiving of a bad release. So in a way, it helps me try for the cleanest most consistent possible anchor and release technique.... 

LS


----------



## Rick! (Aug 10, 2008)

I read a book and learned back tension, it wasn't that difficult except creating the time to devote to improving. The form fundamentals I've learned with it are invaluable and fully transferable to any firing method. 
I can execute with a static hand, or finger manipulation or any other method except for pinky manipulation as I use strictly 3 finger hinges. 
What I like about the static hand method is that it runs by itself. It's also very satisfying when combined with front side expansion. It's also very "adjustable" with a slight adjustment in static index finger pressure.

What I find difficult, or more precisely, highly sensitive, is any change in front or back side pressure. This is exacerbated when under pressure in competition.

I find more issues when my peep falls down a tad than I do with draw length. It's pretty easy to feel a fdp issue and twist a string or cable or fix a d loop length. But scrunching to the peep is a slow motion flaw that takes several dropped shots to recognize and fix.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> _What does float have to do with your firing engine?_ I have always had a large float range, it doesn't change with the method of release execution I use, it is always there, and in Griv's own words...."your float is what it is, for any given day".( or close to that).


You said you had float issues... you said you've been shooting PBT for 40 years... I had float problems... I found out why... Just trying to be helpful...


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

my only float issue is that it is bigger than most people's range. not intolerably big, just bigger. i'm sure it probably costs me some x's and most like even some 5's. it's been that way for all of my 40 years and it doesn't matter what release engine or release i'm using, it is as Griv says,, just my float being what my float is, for the given day that I'm shooting. what id do now is that it doesn't bother me to the point of getting tense about it and when I trust it produces the results i'm looking for. 
the one thing that I have really come to realize, with it being like it is, is that draw length is extremely critical for me, in relation to what my float does. ...I mean extremely critical !. it only just so happens that when it is right, it is also right for my particular release execution, no matter,.... as well,....which engine or release type, I am using. I've found that no single piece of equipment, weights on stabs or anything, defines my hold and float, more or better, than draw length does. my release process and execution is developed and independent enough from the rest of my shot process, that it runs well, mentally, despite draw length or any other typically designated aspect that is commonly associated with defining one's hold and float. it is somewhat coincidental, at the same time,.... that my release execution happens to run best, when my draw length is just perfect for me.... clearly demonstrating,... to me, anyways,.... the idea that every aspect of a shot process, is both supportive and dependant on another element, at the same time.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> my only float issue is that it is bigger than most people's range. not intolerably big, just bigger. i'm sure it probably costs me some x's and most like even some 5's. it's been that way for all of my 40 years and it doesn't matter what release engine or release i'm using, it is as Griv says,, just my float being what my float is, for the given day that I'm shooting. what id do now is that it doesn't bother me to the point of getting tense about it and when I trust it produces the results i'm looking for.
> the one thing that I have really come to realize, with it being like it is, is that draw length is extremely critical for me, in relation to what my float does. ...I mean extremely critical !. it only just so happens that when it is right, it is also right for my particular release execution, no matter,.... as well,....which engine or release type, I am using. I've found that no single piece of equipment, weights on stabs or anything, defines my hold and float, more or better, than draw length does. my release process and execution is developed and independent enough from the rest of my shot process, that it runs well, mentally, despite draw length or any other typically designated aspect that is commonly associated with defining one's hold and float. it is somewhat coincidental, at the same time,.... that my release execution happens to run best, when my draw length is just perfect for me.... clearly demonstrating,... to me, anyways,.... the idea that every aspect of a shot process, is both supportive and dependant on another element, at the same time.


Until recently I thought the same thing, "it is what it is", and all that crap. What I was missing was they were talking about a float that had been developed to its tightest possible condition, not a float that needed to be and could be improved. Today my float range is much improved and I fully expect it to continue along this path until it reaches its full potential. 

You've said time and time again that you were taught "correctly" and have been using the same firing engine for your entire shooting life. This make it very hard to believe that you have put much effort into doing things differently. I was stuck on that as well, but now I move my release hand and the rest seems to have slowed down nicely... You have followed my posts and know my current progress is real... Do I shoot world class scores... no, but there's a lot of folks out there that would love to shoot as well as I do. I'm executing some of the best shots I've ever shot right now at 69 years old. Imagine what I could have done if I wasn't hung up with the static hand thing 10 years ago?


----------



## cds913 (Aug 27, 2012)

I'm learning...trying to...putzing and experimenting with hinge setting and ...

But I found that my float with the trigger release is much smaller than with the hinge.

Recent mention that "your DL is your DL,cast in stone" regardless of release aid...But anchor point is NOT the same. I'm wondering if shortening the DL would help with what I consider an unacceptable amount of float.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

I


cds913 said:


> I'm learning...trying to...putzing and experimenting with hinge setting and ...
> 
> But I found that my float with the trigger release is much smaller than with the hinge.
> 
> Recent mention that "your DL is your DL,cast in stone" regardless of release aid...But anchor point is NOT the same. I'm wondering if shortening the DL would help with what I consider an unacceptable amount of float.


Generally speaking, a lot of people shooting trigger releases use an anchor point that is not suitable for the hand held style of release. This can also change draw length requirements or identify draw length issues.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

"differently", doesn't always automatically equate to "better"...... as I've said, for me, it doesn't matter what release, or engine I use,...I always have a larger than "typical" float range. do you actually think that in 40 years of shooting, I just blindly prodded along, not looking into improving my float range ?....that would foolish,....don't think ?.


as I've said before also,..... archery is sport like no other,.... it requires a certain amount of "intuitive knowledge" about it. whether that knowledge is taught or self learned, if you don't obtain it and apply it to your own shooting, things like that happen. 
coaching can only go so far, to improve your shooting. most of the things that coaching typically remedies, are fundamental issues of form and execution. levels beyond that, are more oriented towards motivation to keep working, and for spotting areas that need to be worked on, in order to improve or succeed. 
I know this, for a fact,...I've been there,...... being coached by Olympic level speed skating coaches, for several years in my late teens and early twenties. there no instances, where obtaining and/or consulting a coach, means you will automatically improve.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

It's obvious you haven't taken enough time to learn it properly or just don't understand it. I can't understand why because this a perfectly designed method that has been described in detail since at least 1974, and most likely sooner.


----------



## cds913 (Aug 27, 2012)

Thanks Eplc...I played with DL with my "other" bow but it became apparent that THAT bow wasn't best suited for learning. Almost no valley,rock-hard wall..Someone on another thread insisted that DL is DL and should never change. That sort of confused me until...

I'll take it to the other BT threads - I don't want to hijack a debate thread. I'll go to one of the "HELP with BT" threads...with the many other guys who have not even noticed "all the negativity" regarding BT.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

no.... i don't think so..... I've always been entirely satisfied with my release execution. it's always worked well for me, and i never had any problems learning it or applying it to my shot. 
the fact that finger manipulation has been around as long as it has, is exactly what makes me wonder why people say back tension rotation, is old fashioned and/or obsolete, the "other method", has been around just as long.
thank you for pointing that out and providing evidence that supports my position !. 
i guess i question what motivates you proclaim that is a "perfectly designed method', just on the basis that you prefer to use it ?. although it existed back then, it doesn't qualify it to be "perfectly designed" for anything.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

cds913 said:


> Thanks Eplc...I played with DL with my "other" bow but it became apparent that THAT bow wasn't best suited for learning. Almost no valley,rock-hard wall..Someone on another thread insisted that DL is DL and should never change. That sort of confused me until...
> 
> I'll take it to the other BT threads - I don't want to hijack a debate thread. I'll go to one of the "HELP with BT" threads...with the many other guys who have not even noticed "all the negativity" regarding BT.


Take a look at some of Padgett's firing engine threads as they can be very helpful. As mentioned above many that shoot a index trigger release find that their anchor is too high for a hand held release. Lowing the anchor will require raising the peep, sometimes quite a bit... 1/2" or more. Also, don't get hung up on the "moving the hand is cheating" that you will hear from some... this is not an exact science. Once you get your equipment set up correctly find the method that works best for you... if that is PBT great, but don't be afraid to try different methods, including those using a little hand manipulation. Here is one link to a Padgett thread in the General forum... there are others. http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2249947&highlight=engine

You may also want to send him a PM as I know he loves to help out new hinge shooters.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

_There, that looks better._


All right guys. I think this has pretty much run its course.
Again. I think everything you guys have to say about hinges and firing engines has been said.
We're starting to get to posts that are there just to pick at the other guy. We're not doing that anymore.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

cds913, I am going to send you a pm with a couple ideas for you.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

EPLC said:


> It's obvious you haven't taken enough time to learn it properly or just don't understand it. I can't understand why because this a perfectly designed method that has been described in detail since at least 1974, and most likely sooner.





ron w said:


> no.... i don't think so..... I've always been entirely satisfied with my release execution. it's always worked well for me, and i never had any problems learning it or applying it to my shot.
> the fact that finger manipulation has been around as long as it has, is exactly what makes me wonder why people say back tension rotation, is old fashioned and/or obsolete, the "other method", has been around just as long.
> thank you for pointing that out and providing evidence that supports my position !.
> i guess i question what motivates you proclaim that is a "perfectly designed method', just on the basis that you prefer to use it ?. although it existed back then, it doesn't qualify it to be "perfectly designed" for anything.


It was a joke Ron, note the little smiley face


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

Fledgling hinge shooter....and it's going great. I come from several years of shooting and hunting exclusively with a Recurve. So, I'm pretty versed on back tension.

Question.........When someone who shoots a compound bow says (and, I have no reason to dispute them on this portion) they fire their hinge with back tension.......are they (at least some of them) also trying to claim they don't create tension to one side of THE line? If so, I'm going to have to hear some further explanation.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

the key element in back tension as a firing engine, includes a certain amount of rotation in the draw arm, that happens when you contract your rhomboid at full draw, while holding. without that rotational element , the release simply won't fire because the body of the release needs to rotate to slide the moon out from under the hook.
the tension "outside the line" as you refer to it, is developed by that rotation because the pivot for the bail, is essentially lined up with the index finger or slightly outside of it, and there is more fingers on the release , to the outside of that point, so as the draw arm swings from rhomboid contraction, more force is generated by those outside fingers and the rotational element is accomplished. 
this THE controversial aspect about back tension as a firing engine. some people say that it cannot be done without some added finger pressure to the outside fingers, some say that it can and is done without added pressure from the outside fingers.
the best realization, is simply that some people can do it, and some cannot.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

JV NC said:


> Fledgling hinge shooter....and it's going great. I come from several years of shooting and hunting exclusively with a Recurve. So, I'm pretty versed on back tension.
> 
> Question.........When someone who shoots a compound bow says (and, I have no reason to dispute them on this portion) they fire their hinge with back tension.......are they (at least some of them) also trying to claim they don't create tension to one side of THE line? If so, I'm going to have to hear some further explanation.


I start off a little bit out of line, personally. The action of pulling (more) back into line is how I achieve the actual rotation (tho it feels like pulling straight back). This is -ish how I was trained to do it in oly recurve; start off a little bit short and then "expand" into line with the back until the clicker goes off.

LS


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

^^Now that makes sense.

How prevalent do you think your method is? My bet is....."not very".


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

JV NC said:


> ^^Now that makes sense.
> 
> How prevalent do you think your method is? My bet is....."not very".


I think on here, only me and ron w use it lol. Tho if I recall, Mahly also uses "pure back tension", maybe a couple other folks here and there. And my execution, possibly others, may not be 100% USDA "pure" even at that. I know there's some natural stretching of my hand as I pull through that surely aids the rotation of the release (ron talks about that component also).

Most folks seem to use a variation of one of Shawn's marvelous firing engines, where a yielding of a finger or fingers or even a tightening is practiced as a skill as part of it. 

I have such advanced progressive target panic that I'm unable to use any of those methods. They add too much complexity to the release and my puny brain just can't handle it. 

I even shoot a pull-through from time to time and am still on the fence as to which - the pull-through or the hinge - I'm going to eventually settle on (leaning towards the hinge now, but that may change over time).

LS


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

I'd love to see ^^ on film. Anybody got a link of someone doing what you do......."right" (with a compound)? View from aft would be great.


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

idon't there is much as far as vidieos, simly because by the time the internet was commonly around everywhere, the method had pretty much morphed into some form of hand manipulation and walls on bows had become fairly hard, so hand manipulation become much more popular.
in the 70's to early eighties, it was commonly taught and used.
as far as I know, me, Unclejane, Mahly (occasionally), and Padgett (occasionally) are probably the only guys that still use the method, with the latter two, using it more for training and maintenance of back tension, than as a regular default firing engine.
of course there may be others that don't post about. 
i'll be the first to admit that there aren't many that use the method any amore, but as I said, back in the seventies and early eighties, It was quite common,...before bows got such hard walls.
one of the little understood aspects about it, is the idea that you cannot do it, if a bow has a hard back end. that is simply not accurate, in any way. to be honestly accurate, the better the method is developed, the easier it is to do with bow that has good hard stops, because the better it is developed, the truer the rotation becomes a true radial swing, that swings from the release's pivot pin at the bail. 
another consideration is that not all hinges are created equal. some of them have a geometry of the pivot pin location, that better suits the method being used with hard walled bows. the location of the pivot pin has moved from release model to release model, in favor of the fact that bows with hard walls, equire a slightly different location, than the relases made in earlier years when walls were a bit softer, in general.
that said, even back in the 70's, it was desirable to establish a firm wall. most guys that were serious about spots, had either "wall bangers" on their cables, which were small blocks clamped on the cables, that came together and literally stopped the cables from moving completely right at the shooters draw length, or set their bows up with wheel diameters that simply ran out of rotation at the same time their draw length was reached. PSE actually had a chart for their bows that facilitated obtaining the specifically correct diameter wheels for your draw length. between that and adjusting the amount of cable extended past the wheel, you could tune the wheels' clock position at brace, to run out of rotation as your draw length is approached' producing a bow that simply could not be drawn, past your draw length, thus, giving it a hard wall. either method, established a fairly hard wall, pretty much comparable to today's bows. it was then, that the hinge manufacturers, mainly stanislawski at that time, started moving the pivot location, to compliment easier rotation when pulled up against the harder wall, to facilitate making the commonly used method of rotational back tension, work better on a bow, so set up.
many of the people today, that think the traditional method of what is now called, on this forum, "pure back tension", have no idea this sort of bow set up and release evolution, even existed.
as I've said before, I learned to shoot back tension from a local PSE pro, who was one of the top "runners for the money" at Vegas and the other big tournaments at the time. what I've explained above, is what he taught me back then. I learned it, as a result of having him build me a bow, that was comparable in set up, to what most of the top pros, were using then.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

It has nothing to do with equipment, hard walls, etc., as hand manipulation of some form or another has been around since the first arrow was shot (I knew the guy personally ) In 1974, Bob Jacobsen won the Vegas shoot using back tension to "hold" while firing his release with hand manipulation. The notion that you should only use back tension without the use any hand assistance is a relatively new concept, one that certainly evolved after the release became popular. The only documentation that anyone has come up with so far supporting back tension with no hand involvement way was after 2000. 

So, the best shooter of 1974 wasn't executing his shot with PBT. Early posts here on AT by some of the best shooters between 2002-2005 said they used a form of hand manipulation. The best shooters of today support the use of hand manipulation. So the hard evidence is this. Most of the best shooters in the world have and still use a form of hand manipulation in their shot execution. While there are exceptions that are supported with very loud and persistent pounding that PBT is the standard, they are only a minority opinion and the only "morphing" was in PBT direction.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

To be fair, he only said that it was "commonly taught and used" "quite commonly" not exclusively.
My shooting doesn't go back as far, but I do remember the technique being "common" when I first got a hinge...and that was still in the day of the mushy back wall.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Well, bows of old were more wheel bows than cams and letoff maybe 35% and maybe 50%. Then cams came and 50% a reality and 65% following close, maybe even the same year. What were called "hatchet cams" came also. Many I know said thet were the most accurate, but string stretch was the killer. Single cams took over for a while. Then came half breeds, like Hoyt's cam & 1/2 (bottom cam and top more of a oval wheel) and the binary cams. A mixture came. The cam & 1/2 was considered a soft wall bow. Binaries with positive stops were considered hard wall bows.

Where I first realized a difference was going from a 2004 Hoyt Cam&1/2 to a 2005 Bowtech with binary cams and positive stops. The 2004 UltraTec with Cam&1/2 was smooth and had a decent wall that gave some. The 2005 Bowtech had aggressive cams and a hard wall due to 2 positive stops and it felt like a 70 to 75 pound draw weight at only 60.9 pounds. It didn't take me long to ditch it. The only way I could shoot Indoor events with it was to turn it down to 47 pounds. I returned to Hoyt and the Cam&1/2 until 2010. Enter Martin and the Shadowcat. A binary cam bow with one positive stop. It was different, there was some give. I shot the Shadowcats through 3D season of 2012 with quite good results.

At the end of the 2012 3D season I returned to my first ever compound bow maker, Ben Pearson Archery. The Legend cams are aggressive, but not overly and then 2 positive draw stops....I had to overcome this. Draw length was too long. 1/2" shorter draw modules helped and then some string twisting corrected to what works for me. Still, I had to set the draw stops to give 80% let off so I could deal with the hard, hard wall of the Legend cams, so more string twisting. What it amounted to was creep tuning without the creep. I shoot this bow as accurately as any bow I've ever owned, but I have to "pay attention."
My new bow and I are not getting along. The cam are different and 2 positive draw stops. These cams override the let off. Draw weight 2 pounds lighter, 53 pounds, and set to 80% this bow wants to go and go right now. At only 1/4" shorter in draw length than my other bow it feels too short. I feel bunched up and I pull into the wall so hard that I have to check myself often. I let down with this bow often. I shoot it well enough, but nothing feels right. I have new modules to give a longer draw length and looks like string twisting will be necessary. In the process right now.....


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Mahly said:


> To be fair, he only said that it was "commonly taught and used" "quite commonly" not exclusively.
> My shooting doesn't go back as far, but I do remember the technique being "common" when I first got a hinge...and that was still in the day of the mushy back wall.


While we do know that the term "back tension" has been around for a very long time, the release has not. I challenge the notion that PBT was the “original” method to shoot a hand held release and hand manipulation came later as a result of the equipment evolution to harder walls. The “facts” say otherwise.

I'm sure Bob Jacobsen's bow had a mushy wall and he certainly was not using the method we are now calling PBT.

It would be more reasonable to assume that the initial teachings to fire a hand held release were no more than a mishmash of different ideas, methods and opinions. I also believe it is a reasonable assumption that the use of hand manipulation to execute in conjunction with BT to hold as Mr. Jacobsen described it was “the” predecessor teaching, long before PBT. The notion that hand manipulation "morphed" from PBT is not supported by either the logic or the facts... From a logical perspective it "had" to be the other way around.

*"Once set to shoot, I concentrate on relaxing both bow and release hands, keeping back tension and slowly squeezing with the second and third fingers until the release is activated" ~ Bob Jacobsen, 1974*

_*To activate the shot your index finger softens on the release and allows the handle to pivot slightly (there is very little perceivable motion here, but you can feel it) and POOF! The shot is released. You hold the form for about 3 beats for follow through and you are ready to reset. You have just shot a perfect arrow. ~ George Ryals IV, 2005

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

"...and I became really good friends with these guy's, the really top shooters, then I started realizing nobody used back tension..." ~ Levi Morgan, 2015

“…I’m letting my back muscles basically just hold the bow back…” “…I give up a little (finger) tension and the shot breaks…” Jesse Broadwater, 2015 *_


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

EPLC said:


> ...very loud and persistent pounding that PBT is the standard...


There is no "loud and persistent pounding that PBT is the standard". This is misinformation and myth. Nobody is promoting it as the standard. Ron does say it was taught frequently in his early days, but clearly today PBT is not being promoted in the way you're saying it is.



> they are only a minority opinion and the only "morphing" was in PBT direction.


The popularity, or not, of PBT, or where it came from, has no bearing on the subject matter of the thread; here we're only concerned with what the perceived difficulties of the PBT method are and how they came to be those perceptions. Namely, are they based in fact or fiction?
It is becoming clear that a lot of it is indeed fiction, while some of it does have some factual basis.

LS


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

ron w said:


> i'll be the first to admit that there aren't many that use the method any amore, but as I said, back in the seventies and early eighties, It was quite common,...before bows got such hard walls.
> one of the little understood aspects about it, is the idea that you cannot do it, if a bow has a hard back end. that is simply not accurate, in any way. to be honestly accurate, the better the method is developed, the easier it is to do with bow that has good hard stops, because the better it is developed, the truer the rotation becomes a true radial swing, that swings from the release's pivot pin at the bail.
> another consideration is that not all hinges are created equal. some of them have a geometry of the pivot pin location, that better suits the method being used with hard walled bows. the location of the pivot pin has moved from release model to release model, in favor of the fact that bows with hard walls, equire a slightly different location, than the relases made in earlier years when walls were a bit softer, in general.


I've done a bit of wondering about the hinge also. I use a hinge with a safety and moveable moon (Carter Honey Do), which allows the same "heat" pretty much regardless of the final position of the handle when the safety is released. In particular, this "custom fit" occurs on every use, not simply in between adjustments. I don't want to toy with this to experiment with it, tho, because I really need to learn to be consistent with it. Else, I'd try different positions to see if they affected the release...

LS


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Perhaps PBT was not the "original" firing method, but it may have been what someone felt was a "better" way to do it.
WHEN that "someone" started teaching that technique is up in the air. The technique isn't dependent on using a hinge, it could also be used with a spike or other release older than the hinge.
In the end, we know at SOME point it was the dominant technique taught. It probably didn't start out that way, and doesn't seem to be that way now.
We have people that were shooting in the 70's saying it was taught and was quite common in the 70's. Dominant? perhaps not. Dominant in some areas? probably.
Perhaps Bob Jacobsen was the "odd man out". Much like how we see Reo's form as unusual, but immensely effective...but still not taught by coaches on a regular basis.
Being that the world in general doesn't look at archery very seriously, it's going to be hard to trace exactly when what techniques were dominant or when they were created.
What seems to be the only things we can be "sure" of are
1) PBT was taught at least in the 70's. It may not have been universally dominant then
2) PBT became a dominant technique at some point
3) PBT is not a dominant technique right now.
4) Manipulating the hinge was used at least in the 70's (and won tournaments then)
5) Manipulating the hinge currently seems to be the dominant technique of hinge shooters
6) tournaments have been won by pros using both techniques


----------



## JV NC (Dec 9, 2005)

It sounds like a convenient way to describe something that few really understand.

But, to the people who know what it is, it doesn't make perfect sense.

Kind of like a guy speaking broken Chinese. In SE Kentucky, it sounds great....and no one knows any different. But, as soon as he gets around those who know the language.....it doesn't exactly cut the mustard.


----------



## erdman41 (May 6, 2009)

A lot has changed here in the last 3 weeks.



unclejane said:


> There is no "loud and persistent pounding that PBT is the standard". This is misinformation and myth. Nobody is promoting it as the standard.





ron w said:


> I can shoot a hinge by deliberate rotation, too. the whole idea is to not "have to" do it that way, by developing what it takes to not cheat it off. when you do it right, it takes very little effort to execute a good shot.
> there's always going to be times when you do, just like there's always going to times when you just don't seem to shoot the way you know you can, and some times when you actually do a little of both. the more time you spend, not deliberately rotating, the better you'll shoot, and the better you'll do >>>more importantly...under the pressure of competition.
> and of course, there is always going to be someone who can do it well deliberately, but the numbers of those people are far out weighed by the numbers of people who shoot well, by not deliberately rotating their shots off.
> some people see one example of someone doing deliberately, and think that it can be done by everyone, all the time. that's simply not true. the process and execution of rotation through back tension, has been developed over many years , many years ago, into a method that can be done by everyone,....that's why it is the accepted standard.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

erdman41 said:


> A lot has changed here in the last 3 weeks.


No. This is the opinion of one AT'er, and a conciliatory one at that. That does not constitute any sort of "loud and persistent pounding". In the very worst case, it was an "accepted standard" in the past and that is true no longer.

LS


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Mahly said:


> Perhaps PBT was not the "original" firing method, but it may have been what someone felt was a "better" way to do it.
> WHEN that "someone" started teaching that technique is up in the air. The technique isn't dependent on using a hinge, it could also be used with a spike or other release older than the hinge.
> In the end, we know at SOME point it was the dominant technique taught. It probably didn't start out that way, and doesn't seem to be that way now.
> We have people that were shooting in the 70's saying it was taught and was quite common in the 70's Dominant? perhaps not. Dominant in some areas? probably.
> ...


1) PBT was taught at least in the 70's. It may not have been dominant then.

It would seem that late 70's would be a more logical timeframe, perhaps even early 80's. This method had to take time to evolve, as it certainly didn't just appear with the invention of the release. The first time I asked about the back tension release I was told that it was too hard to learn and would take a minimum of 2 years to master. To believe a method that was promoted as so hard to learn was the dominant teaching philosophy early on is a lot to believe. Wouldn't it have taken some extended time to even figure that out? And if that was the consensus of the time, wouldn't it have held back most people from teaching or trying it? 

2) PBT became a dominant technique at some point. 

I see no evidence to support any teaching dominance prior to Bernie's 2002, "Idiot Proof Archery". Wise's "Core Archery" was published in 2004. There was also a big push on archery forums during that same timespan. This is where we heard how we shouldn't "cheat the hinge"... I myself was at the Kool-Aid bucket and was drinking my fill. Believing what I was told, I joined in on the promotion... I believe this type of mass promotion was mostly driven by folks such as myself that were convinced that it was the way to go, regardless of the shooting results. The internet made this mass promotion possible and in my opinion it could not have happened any other way. During this time there were a good number of top shooters on this forum that took exception to the "book". They eventually stopped posting here. I can only assume that the Kool-Aid bunch becoming more and more dominant may have had something to do with that unfortunate exodus. 

3) PBT is not a dominant technique right now.

And may not have ever attained the position of "dominance" as a technique that the "dominant" teachings should have inspired if the system was indeed the "best" method. Yes, many were brought to the trough but I'm not sure how many have actually been successful using no hand manipulation. Even many of those that promote shooting with "back tension" actually use some form of hand manipulation... 

4) Manipulating the hinge was used at least in the 70's (and won tournaments then)

And most likely remained the dominant technique of the world's best. Could be one of the best kept secrets in the archery world. There has been some speculation that PBT was actually a diversion to keep the competition at bay. I believe this to be a reasonable speculation. 

5) Manipulating the hinge currently seems to be the dominant technique of hinge shooters

And possibly has been all along for most of the world's best. We know the Bob Jacobsen used it, we know that early 2000 shooters used it and we know today's top shooters use it. While PBT may have caused a bump in the road at some point, the method used successfully today by most of the top shooters is not a recent discovery or method by any means. It has been around as long as the hand held release has been around and the top shooters have been using it. Eric Griggs summed it up nicely in a 2012 post. 

*“You maintain and sometimes even build that back tension throughout the shot process, but that's not ultimately what fires the release. Rotation of the release is what makes it fire.” ~ Eric Griggs, 2012* 

6) tournaments have been won by pros using both techniques

We know of many using hand manipulation, while there certainly are exceptions, I just don't see the numbers supporting the PBT method on the winners podium.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

^^^ what is in red, would seem to be more speculation. 

In any case, we do have a thread on the history of PBT, we should bring that discussion there, and get back to the topic at hand.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I come to compound from Barebow recurve. The concept of BT and expansion are very familiar to me.

I have shot PBT in the past however it was neither relaxing nor consistent. To be those things I need to aim passively while executing actively. For me that involved constant BT with a yield somewhere in the hand, just like with my recurve. That is what shoots best for me.

As for the comments about PBT getting shoved down everyone's throat: even last year this was pretty much the par for the course around here. Whether a poster was around to see it or not doesn't change what the attitudes have been in the past.

-Grant


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Mahly said:


> ^^^ what is in red, would seem to be more speculation.
> 
> In any case, we do have a thread on the history of PBT, we should bring that discussion there, and get back to the topic at hand.


Of course there is some speculation on my part but there is also plenty of hard evidence to support that speculation. And my post was in direct response to one or more of the OP's posts in this thread.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

My two cents, time to shut down this Thread......


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

EPLC said:


> The first time I asked about the back tension release I was told that it was too hard to learn and would take a minimum of 2 years to master. To believe a method that was promoted as so hard to learn was the dominant teaching philosophy early on is a lot to believe.


Illogical inference. The recurve bow, for example, can take a lot more time than that to master. And yet it dominates competitive recurve archery and has been the staple form of archery in the olympics for a long long time. The same could be said for many other aspects of archery regardless of equipment. Not only that, a good recurve coach will tell you what you're in for without missing a beat. Yet that promotion of its difficulty hasn't hindered it's status (apart from the rise of the compound, of course).



> Wouldn't it have taken some extended time to even figure that out? And if that was the consensus of the time, wouldn't it have held back most people from teaching or trying it?


Non Sequitur - not everyone is held back from trying difficult activities simply in virtue of their difficulty, reported as such beforehand or not. And not every difficult activity is worthless to pursue simply because it's difficult.



> Even many of those that promote shooting with "back tension" actually use some form of hand manipulation.


Wrong. Any *intentional* hand movement is not part of the PBT firing engine. Any expansion, stretching, etc. is just a happenstance of the pulling, regardless of whether that may aid rotation. This distinguishes it from other firing engines.

LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

I learned it in 1974, that is neither the "late" 70's, nor the 80's. at that time it was the predominant method being taught, any where I shot. I was taught that way, by a local PSE pro by the name of Joe Cleminec (spelling might be wrong). he was one of the top pros at the time that was always in the shoot-offs at Vegas and Cobo Hall. I very highly doubt, he was teaching me a method that didn't exist, or was not a workable method....he shot that way, as well.
just about everything that certain people deny existing during that time, was fully established and well known as "general knowledge", amongst the better shooters of the era. it is only speculation, that comes from not truly knowing what was up at that time, that these people formulate their denials. if someone started shooting spots 18 or 20 years ago, they would have no personal experience that could possibly support their denials. deny all you want,.... I was there then, and know what I was taught. speculation can only come from not truly knowing the facts.
the fact that an article exists that exemplifies a method of finger relaxation, to fire a hinge,..... that originates in that general time frame,..... only serves to support the fact that the method was somewhat outside the box, because the article exclusifies a method that is not necessarily the norm, so attention is brought to that point of interest. given the magazine that it was published in, it doesn't surprise me, because the magazine's agenda was to expose new and exclusive ideas and methodologies in a sport that was rapidly changing at the time. 
as far as the statement that someone made, "assures" us all, that some bow had "a mushy wall". that is purely speculation and can be nothing else. most all upper level shooters had bows that used "wall bangers", to produce very hard mechanically stopped walls, or as I described earlier, wheel diameters that simply ran out of rotation, as the bow reached the shooters' draw length. it was, even then, generally accepted knowledge and understood, that a hard wall was better to shoot from. as I've also said earlier, not allot has change in that respect from then to now. just about every aspect and element of a "good shot execution" today, was already developed and established as the norm.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

SonnyThomas said:


> My two cents, time to shut down this Thread......


Unfortunately, probably true. Certain individuals are back to the off-topic subject of whether PBT exists, when it came about even tho it doesn't exist and how nobody uses it anymore. Irrelevant to the OP. I have no objection to shutting this one down either.

LS


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

ron w said:


> I learned it in 1974, that is neither the "late" 70's, nor the 80's. at that time it was the predominant method being taught, any where I shot. I was taught that way, by a local PSE pro by the name of Joe Cleminec (spelling might be wrong). he was one of the top pros at the time that was always in the shoot-offs at Vegas and Cobo Hall. I very highly doubt, he was teaching me a method that didn't exist, or was not a workable method....he shot that way, as well.
> just about everything that certain people deny existing during that time, was fully established and well known as "general knowledge", amongst the better shooters of the era. it is only speculation, that comes from not truly knowing what was up at that time, that these people formulate their denials. if someone started shooting spots 18 or 20 years ago, they would have no personal experience that could possibly support their denial.
> the fact that an article exists that exemplifies a method of finger relaxation, to fire a hinge,..... that originates in that general time frame,..... only serves to support the fact that the method was somewhat outside the box, because the article exclusifies a method that is not necessarily the norm, so attention is brought to that point of interest. given the magazine that it was published in, it doesn't surprise me, because the magazine's agenda was to expose new and exclusive ideas and methodologies in a sport that was rapidly changing at the time.
> as far as the statement that someone made, "assures" us all, that some bow had "a mushy wall". that is purely speculation and can be nothing else. most all upper level shooters had bows that used "wall bangers", to produce very hard mechanically stopped walls, or as I described earlier, wheel diameters that simply ran out of rotation, as the bow reached the shooters' draw length. it was, even then, generally accepted knowledge and understood, that a hard wall was better to shoot from. as I've also said earlier, not allot has change in that respect from then to now. just about every aspect and element of a "good shot execution" today, was already developed and established as the norm.


In 1974 the hinge was just released and very few, if any, were actually using it. I find it very hard to believe that the PBT method was the predominant method to shoot the release in 1974... Back tension, certainly, but without hand manipulation...? It just doesn't add up. Jacobsen certainly didn't use it and published his method after winning Vegas. Why wouldn't people want to emulate the method used to win Vegas. If this years winner posted up a new method everyone and their brother would be trying to do it. People were no different back then.


----------



## unclejane (Jul 22, 2012)

> Back tension, certainly, but without hand manipulation...? It just doesn't add up.


It adds up just fine. In the Larry Wise method, for example. In the method that I and ron and some other use. The math is sound.



> Why wouldn't people want to emulate the method used to win Vegas. If this years winner posted up a new method everyone and their brother would be trying to do it. People were no different back then.


More non-sequitur lines of reasoning:
- not everyone wants to emulate "the method used to win Vegas"
- not everyone and their brother tries to do the same thing as this year's winner.
- that you may be unaware of such efforts even if they *did* exist is not a demonstration they weren't underway.

IMO, time to close this one out, the circular repetition of irrelevant points has begun....

LS


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

as I've said, this thread has become just another AT cluster of twisted statements, designed to support someone's speculative assumptions and denials.
EPLC, tell me where, in that post, did I say I was using a hinge, when I was taught rotational back tension ?. it can be used with any release there is, I would think you'd realize that. as a matter of fact, I only used the word "hinge" once, in the entire post, and it was not in reference to me using one, in any way. you are only assuming that my use of the word "hinge" refers to my using a hinge....... you know what happens when you "assume", don't you ?.
mahly, you really ought to close this thread down. certain people will not give up twisting other people's words, to fit their argument and/or agenda. when that happens constantly, it is impossible to carry out any reasonable form of productive discussion.
it's too bad , for this entire forum's sake, that one or two individuals refuse to allow the discussion to progress productively.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

You didn't, and I'm sure you were taught some form of BT back then as back tension has been around forever. The part that is in doubt in my mind is the part that concerns the use or lack of use of the hand along with the BT. So... what exactly was your recollection on that little detail? That's an honest question.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

EPLC said:


> Why wouldn't people want to emulate the method used to win Vegas. If this years winner posted up a new method everyone and their brother would be trying to do it. People were no different back then.


The same reason people didn't throw their hinges away when Dietmar won.
It works for him, but other techniques work for others.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Mahly said:


> The same reason people didn't throw their hinges away when Dietmar won.
> It works for him, but other techniques work for others.


It is obvious that you are reading into my posts more than is there. My sole challenge is that the method we have defined as PBT was the predominant method being taught in 1974. The data would suggest otherwise. As far as other methods being successful... That has been my position all along...


----------



## ron w (Jan 5, 2013)

just exactly as I say it was taught to me. rotational back tension is hardly my idea, EPLC. like I said earlier. if you weren't there at that time, you can only assume to speculate what was being taught on a regular basis. by asking that question, it's clear to me that you have no understanding of the process, what so ever.


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Ok, that's enough for now.


----------

