Trad Gang
Main Boards => The Shooters FORM Board => Topic started by: zinndl on April 16, 2008, 10:45:00 AM
-
I am trying to learn to shoot instinctive, but my ultimate goal it hunting. I am curious as to whether the dominate opinion for hunters is shooting instinctive, or using an aiming method?
-
It depends more on your make up really, one aiming method is not best for everyone. You gotta find the one that's best for you, and the 'dominant opinion' shouldn't sway your choice.
-
It depends more on your make up really, one aiming method is not best for everyone. You gotta find the one that's best for you, and the 'dominant opinion' shouldn't sway your choice.
Terry's reply sums it up nicely.
-
Thanks Terry, I want to shoot instinctivly & I am still as green as they come. I know that there are basic fundamentals / form which I badly need to work on. It is frustrating because I cannot seem to develope a consistant shot, from what I have read on here maybe I am over practicing? The other day I put on a judo point and went to the woods for some stump shooting; I was amazed at how much better I shot in that environment, and it was 100% more enjoyable than shooting a bag target in the yard.
-
Originally posted by Chris Wilson:
It depends more on your make up really, one aiming method is not best for everyone. You gotta find the one that's best for you, and the 'dominant opinion' shouldn't sway your choice.
Terry's reply sums it up nicely. [/b]
I know for sure that I am not string walking or shooting the gap, but I do look down my bow arm to the spot, would that be a form of aiming? Hopefully soon I'll post a video for form critque.
-
Terry, I'd be interested in hearing how you shoot. I've watched some of your vids but are you strictly on the spot or do you see your arrow, split vision ?? I know you don't hold at anchor so I'm guessing you see "the spot" only?
Thanks for any insight!
PB
-
I agree with Terry. It really depends on your goals, personality and capability.
All the aiming techiniques can be very effective...but each one has Pros and Cons under certain circumstances that may influence your decision.
When an archer is shooting instinctively...they are in fact aiming. Any archer, who is pointing their bow and arrow at a target with the intent of shooting it...is aiming. It doesn't matter what techinique they are using. It's just that some archers aim consciously while others aim primarily with the subconscious.
Ray ;)
-
There really isn't any such thing as instinctive shooting. You may look only at the spot, never see the arrow, etc., but you learn by trial and error what a good sight picture looks like at a given yardage. Some aiming systems are fairly hard to learn and perfect; some aren't so bad, but you will probably become proficient at hunting yardages much faster by incorporating some form of aiming, whether it be gap, split-vision, or multiple anchor points. Hey, nothing wrong with sights, either, as long as it makes you happy. Don't worry about what others are doing, do what works for you. Good luck, Paul.
-
"There really isn't any such thing as instinctive shooting"
Here we go again :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes there is such a thing as instinctive...its a term used to describe a form of aiming that relies on hand and eye cordination with no conscious sighting reference point to where it seems 'instinctive like'. That's how it was described back in the day. It was never meant to mean the literal term of the word.
Although there are many now a day that claim the literal meaning to diss the aiming system that it doesn't exist....mostly those folks that don't shoot instinctive, or can't shoot instinctive. Once again, miss using a term to mean something other that what was intended by our fore fathers.
I couldn't gap shoot my way out of a barn from the inside, but I sure aint gonna claim it don't exist just becasue I can't shoot that way.
-
Terry, I shoot that way, but it's a learned ability; I didn't spring from the womb with a bow in my hand. Everyone aims, somehow, someway. You can give it any name you want, it's ok with me. I refer to myself as an instinctive shooter, because I don't use a regimented aiming system, but no one pokes and hopes their way into the spot or the kill zone. JMHO, Paul.
-
Paul...I didn't say it wasn't a learned ability...it is, using hand and eye cordination. Again, you are using the literal meaning of the word 'born from the womb' and that was not the intended use of the term instinctive shooting.....again, it 'seems' instinctive because you are using the ability you were born with via hand/eye cordination, that was the intent.
Nor have I ever said folks should poke and hope their way to the target....that would be a ridiculous statement.
Being that this is a Trad Bowhunting forum, I'm going to use the terms as they were intended by our fore fathers.
-
I like the term, myself. I just wanted to clarify things; I don't want someone thinking that it's some mystical ability that just happens one day if you go out and shoot enough. But I agree, the term implies the use of your natural ability, hence "instinct." Paul.
-
I do think it pretty mystical really.....its quiet amazing what the body and mind can do, and hard to explain at times. I think its mystical when you are so into a hunt, and so focused on the animal and the next thing you know your fletching disappears in the exact spot you are aiming at....and you never even remember drawing the bow.
Have you seen 'The Age Old Miracle' on the PowWow?
-
I've got a tape measure if anyone needs one.. :goldtooth: I can't seem to make up my mind between the two shooting styles so I shoot split vision.
-
This ole boy definitely does not want to get into a tape measure contest. . .if you get my meaning.
-
Instinctive is real. Of course we instinctive shooters use a sight picture and a reference system. But it is incorporated into the unconscious, or barely conscious act of shooting as we apply all attention on the spot. So it becomes an element of form and concentration, not an attention to the process of aiming, or calculating, or holding to get the aiming part right. When you get there, it certainly seems mystical. "Dang! that works!"
I basicly draw a line with my arrow, so the arrow is lined up under the spot in my peripheral vision. So it's a part of drawing the line. I'm looking along the arrow as I put my whole concentration on the spot, usually the center of the kill zone. When I shoot my best - (a mystical experience) everything but the spot seems to disapper, and all I see is the arrow going right to the spot, often a group of them in a snuggle-puppy group, all touching. Not because I'm particularly good at it. I'm convinced anybody can do it. I'm a clutz!
But, you have to give up on the idea and process of aiming, and lose all concentration on reference points. Even for different distances.
Like throwing from 3rd base to 2nd, or first, or home - you just do it.
Aiming is for target shooting. Instinct shooting is for hunting. But you can hit a bottlecap at 20 yard on purpose, instinctively.
Like John Shultz says, it doesn't matter if you use gap, split vision or instintive, if your form is right you won't be far off at 50 yards.
Here's an instinctive group at 18 yards what I call instinctive swing draw snap shooting.
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/groundhunter/BB73SDSn18y2080416GRP2.jpg)
Cost me a nock!
If the video works, here's the form and shooting rythm.
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/groundhunter/th_BB73SDSn18y20804162.jpg) (http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/groundhunter/?action=view¤t=BB73SDSn18y20804162.flv)
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/groundhunter/th_Wesley85SDSn18y208041642shots.jpg) (http://s98.photobucket.com/albums/l264/groundhunter/?action=view¤t=Wesley85SDSn18y208041642shots.flv)
Pick a spot, swing up and shoot it.
After the myst clears, I often recall an imgage of my hand floating in front of me with an arrow arching slightly above it to the spot. Perhaps my mind is using the hand and arrow as a reference. But, I'm not thinking about the gaps or refernce points. Just pulling a line, and boring my attention on the spot from before I start the swing.
Try it for hunting, as the game may not give you more than 2 seconds.
-
Originally posted by GroundHunter:
I basicly draw a line with my arrow, so the arrow is lined up under the spot in my peripheral vision. So it's a part of drawing the line. I'm looking along the arrow as I put my whole concentration on the spot, usually the center of the kill zone. When I shoot my best - (a mystical experience) everything but the spot seems to disapper, and all I see is the arrow going right to the spot, .
I normally run from these type threads :D
Groundhunter just described my aiming method...which I always called gap shooting!
-
Originally posted by GroundHunter:
I basicly draw a line with my arrow, so the arrow is lined up under the spot in my peripheral vision. So it's a part of drawing the line. I'm looking along the arrow as I put my whole concentration on the spot, usually the center of the kill zone. When I shoot my best - (a mystical experience) everything but the spot seems to disapper, and all I see is the arrow going right to the spot, .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I normally run from these type threads
Groundhunter just described my aiming method...which I always called gap shooting!
The same thought went through my mind except I thought split vision. :biglaugh:
-
'zackly! A rose by any name is a rose.
We have got to the essence of the thing, whether we call it instinctive, gap or split vision.
It's good to see that we are all describing the same thing as the semantics have, for me, lead to many side trails in my quest for the essence, the grove, that becomes consistent reliable shot placement in hunting situations.
-
"Groundhunter just described my aiming method...which I always called gap shooting!"
And a fairly apt description of my aiming method...which I always called split vision.
We can all run now;).
TM
-
Dang, I posted before I read Chris' post. At least a few of us are on the same page here:).
TM
-
Originally posted by Terry Green:
Originally posted by Diamond Paul:
I am strictly an instinctive shooter with trad bows, and I wonder if I will see any noticeable difference between the DAS and a good wood bow with this style of shooting? Thanks, Paul Pickering.
I can see from a previous post that you do use the term :thumbsup: [/b]
Yea...I sometimes I think he often confuses himself ;)
Instinctive Aiming does exsist...just as I, Terry and many others have been describing for years ;)
Ray ;)
-
Well, I have to use terms that are readily used and understood. If I said I used a system that involved lots of shooting at different distances so that my mind developed a computer printout of the proper sight picture at each distance, would that make it better for you? That's what instinctive shooting really is, but the standard terminology is much quicker to type and say. Speaking of confused, have you ever heard the one about the pot calling the kettle black. . . ?
-
Sure...most everyone knows that song...and is there something specific you want to say Paul?
"If I said I used a system that involved lots of shooting at different distances so that my mind developed a computer printout of the proper sight picture at each distance, would that make it better for you?"
No...because you are missing some key factors that will either make it instinctive or a just any one of the other aiming techiniques.
There's more to it than what you're explaining, which is obvious why you have missed the boat.
Ray ;)
-
Ray, please don't ever personally address me or respond to me directly ever again. I would like to be able to remain a member here. Direct enough? Thanks, Paul.
-
When I was about twenty and bought my first bow, I had no mentors. The guy at Bart's Sport World gave no advice, other than setting my nock on a brand new string and selecting my arrows.
Then I read some archery books, began to shoot at makeshift targets, and kinda settled in to a groove. I didn't use sights because nobody showed me how, so I started to shoot where I looked.
I used the bow off and on during the 70s, and didn't pick it up again until a few years ago. Then I read forums like this, tried a few tips, and mainly shot and shot and shot arrows until I started hitting what I looked at.
I discovered that I could switch from a 48 amo bow to a 60 amo, a 60 pound draw to a 50, and as long as I used matching arrows, I could hit where I looked with all of them.
The instinctive shooting seems to stay with the shooter, and once you shoot a couple of arrows from a new bow, you automatically adjust to hit what you are looking at.
It is hard to describe this in writing, it just clicks when you get ready to shoot. When your mind wanders, so does the arrow.
What I like about this forum is the polite discussion of this art.
-
Paul,
Me addressing you directly isn't going to get your membership revoked...that would be silly ;)
If you want me to stop addressing you...than stop going around saying there's no such thing as instinctive aiming. If you're the one saying it...you're the one I and a few others are gonna address.
Comments like yours only cause confusion and creates controversy...when there's no need for either one.
Most of us who have been shooting instinctively...knows it exsists...and knows what it means when someone uses that word to desrcibe an aiming techinique....just as when someone describes a very attractive person as 'hot' ;) Many of us will be more than happy to explain it to you. If you're not sure what it means...just ask.
Ray ;)
-
Ray, I asked you politely not to address me directly. Please, I know it's hard for you to do this, but be a man and respect my request. I've seen enough of your posts on the other site to know that you enjoy antagonizing people. Unless you wish to do that face to face, please don't do it at all. Thanks, Paul.
-
Thread took a weird turn...
-
Yes, and for my part, I apologize. Paul.
-
Paul,
I don't enjoy antagonizing people. I try to avoid it unless they start it first. So before you make assumptions about me...it would be best you ask first...and I would have no problem discussing this with you face to face ;)
Ray ;)
-
zinndl,
Instinctive Aiming has many of it's advantages in hunting situations...when a hunter doesn't have time to conscouisly analize distance and/or analize their aiming techinique...which is why many bowhunters believe it to be a superior aiming techinique for hunting.
But in my personal opinion...Gap and Split Vision rank pretty high up there as effective aiming techiniques for hunting also...maybe not so much for hunting pheasants but definitely deer.
Some archers even use String and Face Walking to hunt with and can make it very effective.
It really boils done to mastering your techinique. The more you master it...the more it can become instinctive like and the quicker you can execute a shot.
If speed and accuracy is your primary goal when targets are close...I would highly recommend instinctive aiming.
Ray ;)
-
There is NOTHING really mystical about aiming Instinctively...unless we are discussing how it feels. Any part of it's techinique can be explained scientifically.
With that being said...there's nothing wrong with having it feel magical or mystical when an archer makes a great shot...no matter what aiming techinique an archer is using.
Ray ;)
-
Whump Sez: Zinndl are your arrows grouping high--low or all over the place? If you are just shooting over everything which is a common problem with people learning to shoot instinctive on close targets---back up until your arrows are falling into the center spot. This will give your minds eye a place to start. Then you can move forward or backward and shoot some more. If you are constantly changing distance it is harder for you to visualize the arc of the arrow going to the target and you will be on a mission that will never end. I have a friend that can shoot in almost complete darkness and hit targets with uncanny accuracy , instinctive shooting does exist and can be done. :notworthy: Hunt safe.
-
Good advice, Whump!
Ray ;)
-
Originally posted by Diamond Paul:
I am strictly an instinctive shooter
Originally posted by Diamond Paul:
There really isn't any such thing as instinctive shooting.
-
Terry, there really isn't in the literal sense of the word. It's a learned behavior, just like learning to hit a ball, throw a ball, shoot free throws, etc. No one is good at it at first. You may use your instinctive abilities when you do it, but you only get good at it by learning from mistakes and correcting them. It is the accepted lingua franca of the realm, however, and a term understood by everyone, i.e,, "no calculated, regimented system of aiming and knowing where my arrow will hit; look at the target and shoot." I don't use my arrow as a reference, I'm not consciously aware of a gap, I don't string or face walk, and have no sight on the bow. This method is, for better or worse, known generally as shooting instinctively. That doesn't mean I can't acknowledge it for what it really is: a method of aiming using a mental sight picture at different distances reinforced over time and through dilligent practice. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not magic, and it certainly has limitations in terms of consistently shooting well, or a least grouping arrows well. No one shooting "instinctively" is going to beat an Olympic archer at 90 meters, just ain't gonna happen. But, I think that the mental sight picture can be trained to be just as effective at close ranges, in terms of practical hunting accuracy, as anything else, perhaps more so in some cases. So, yes, I still say that, after the first arrow, there is no such thing in fact, but we call many things by terms that are not factually correct, and If we wish to have discussions using common terms, then we have to use those terms. Ray, send me your address. Paul.
-
DP,
When the word 'instinctive' is used to describe something...it often means 'instinct like'.
It does NOT have to be an instinct for something to be instinctive.
Ray ;)
-
Look, I don't want to argue about this. All I wanted to do was maybe help someone who might not understand how this type of shooting works gain a better understanding. I said it before, I'll say it again: I like the term myself. It has a certain romantic, mystical flair to it, but the way one becomes good, or perhaps adequate might be better, at it is nothing mystical at all. Your mind does the gapping subconsciously, instead of your eye/mind consciously doing the gapping. I am not going to argue about it any more, or worry about how you or anyone else wants to define it. However anyone shoots is fine with me, always has been. Paul.
-
DP,
I'm sure you have helped out many people and I'm sure you will continue to. Your description of of instinctive aiming...is pretty much spot on...but I and many others believe you're doing a diservice to those you're trying to teach by saying it doesn't exsist one moment and than claiming you use it the next.
You obviously understand what Instinctive Aiming means. If you can desribe it like you do...it exsists. It's pretty much the same definition that most of us here use.
A French Horn is neither French...nor a Horn...but many musicians know exactly what it is and continue to call it by it's name. The same should be held true for instinctive aiming to eliminate the confusion.
If someone wants to argue that a person is born with the ability right out of the womb to aim instinctively and there is nothing to learn...I definitely would support you and anyone else if you decided that you wanted to clear that up for them ;)
Ray ;)
-
In other words...tell people what it does mean...don't tell them it doesn't exsist at all because it doesn't fit a portion of the definition you believe it should adhere to when another portion of the definition can and does fit.
All some of us are trying to do is eliminate the confusion over such a controversial aiming techinique when there really doesn't need to be all this confusion or controversy over a silly aiming techinique.
Ray ;)
-
I just saw you other post Paul, since I don't know anything about shooting a bow, I'll butt out of the shooters forum.
Yeah, I removed it.
-
DP,
What address do you want...email...home...and why?
Ray ;)
-
Ray, don't be disingenuous. I said I was done arguing, let it go. I apologize for bad sportsmanship on my part. Terry, don't worry about it, I'm done posting. Thanks, Paul.
-
You've got issues Paul if you're getting upset over this. I've been nothing but straight forward and honest with you. You really need to stop with your poor assumptions!
Ray ;)
-
Originally posted by BLACK WOLF:
DP,
When the word 'instinctive' is used to describe something...it often means 'instinct like'.
It does NOT have to be an instinct for something to be instinctive.
Ray ;)
When I started shooting, 1960-61, the NFAA had only 2 classes, Freestyle ( with a sight) and "Instinctive". I shot in PA and they did the same. It was called "instinctive" class up until about 1970 when it was changed to "barebow" class. I am self taught, never shot an arrow from a bow with a sight, and still have a tough time conveying my shooting method/s to others. In shooting 20 feet to 80 yards, I use a couple different types of shooting, but all of them for the most part are based on instinctive shooting. I taught my present wife to shoot in the "barebow" class for PSAA field rounds & 3-D in 1987, but she picked up her own method of shooting which is probably more instinctive than mine. She became one of only 3 barebow women in PA in the AA or top class. We both shoot only traditional equipment again for the last 3-4 years. My point being that there are different ways for each of us to use our instincts to shoot well, but it's sometimes dificult to explain it to someone who doesn't. Ray does the best job at explaining instinctive shooting IMHO. Bill G.
-
Instinctive. I think when you try to aim at any moving target as you would on the archery range, when that target does move it messes up concentration.
You want to practice your instinctive shooting under actual hunting conditions, go bowfishing.
-
Why would you ever want to AIM? you might hit what your aiming at.
-
King,...instinctive aiming IS aiming. Its just subconscious aiming instead of concsious.
-
Terry, you are to easy my friend :smileystooges:
What is my conscious mind doing while my subconscious mind is aiming? :knothead:
I like to ready, firer, aim. (just kidding)
I just look at what or where I want my arrow to strike and try and not get in the way.
After a few thousand arrows the flight is grooved into my brain, whether it's sub, or conscious mind I have no idea.
The best analogy I have ever thought of, is the deliverance a Baseball infielder will through a baseball ( if he's at third base he will not through it at the same line of sight as he would if it was a bunt and he was half way to first base)
He does not think about how much he has to put on it, he just chucks it, making all of the necessary adjustment in his brain.
The first few times he might miss or through it wide, but after a few tries, he's got it, and can through the ball from any where on the infield and hit the first baseman.
Just my 2 cents for what it's worth.
-
I think Byron Ferguson explains well. Find your gap at certain distances. That gives you positive feedback for your subconscious to absorb for future shots. As you progress you gradually pay less & less attention to the arrow. But really, the arrow is out in front of your eyes, so it is kinda in your vision, you just don't use it consciencly, but subconscienc, as it was trained by it's own observance.
Also Ron LeClair said in Masters of the Barebow, Vol. 1 that he uses all of the systems, depending on the shot situation, allthough jhe said he tries to use just the system of concentration on the spot(instinctive?)
Howard Hill used what he called the spit vision method, what we now call gap shooting. He used this system consciences all of his life, so it must have a lot of merit. He was a great shot & very succesful hunter.
-
Originally posted by bihunter:
Howard Hill used what he called the spit vision method, what we now call gap shooting. He used this system consciences all of his life, so it must have a lot of merit. He was a great shot & very succesful hunter.
Split and gap aren't the same thing.
-
King......good post. ;)
Aaron.....I agree, they are not the same, least from what I'ver read and heard about the two different aiming methods.
That's why its so important for folks to not miss represent terms as it causes confusion and strife.
BTW....HH also shot a lot of animals instinctive.
-
Originally posted by Terry Green:
King......good post. ;)
Aaron.....I agree, they are not the same, least from what I'ver read and heard about the two different aiming methods.
That's why its so important for folks to not miss represent terms as it causes confusion and strife.
BTW....HH also shot a lot of animals instinctive.
Your exactly right,Terry.
Gap is when the arrow point is actually used as a reference with respect to the target.Say,held so low at 20 yards, a bit higher at 30,perhaps dead on at 40 or 50.Simplified,but that's the concept.
I've tried it and could never really get it.
I,however, do shoot split-vision.Figure I did it all my life and didn't know it had a name.All it is is I am focusing on the spot I wanna hit,and yet I am still seeing my shaft in my periphery as a sort of reference.But it is done so sub-consiously and quickly that someone could infer that I am shooting strictly by instinctive method alone.And instictive is involved.It's a pretty deadly method that is the bee's knees for me.Some shoot and never are aware of seeing their arrow.That's cool,too.Alotta ways to skin this cat.The cat's gonna hate all of 'em,but you still end up with a naked cat.
-
Originally posted by Kingwouldbe:
I just look at what or where I want my arrow to strike and try and not get in the way.
After a few thousand arrows the flight is grooved into my brain, whether it's sub, or conscious mind I have no idea.
And there are some on here that will tell you that is wrong.That it shouldn't take a few thousand arrows shot to reach that goal.
I see what you're saying and pretty much agree.Plus,so what if it takes repetitive shooting to get where you wanna be ?If you like to shoot,then it's really a non-issue. :D
-
Aaron,
I don't want to argue for arguements sake.
Maybe we can discuss this more in depth so we can all come to a more mutual understanding of the different aiming terms to promote...as Terry mentioned...to help eliminate some of the confusion and strife regarding aiming techiniques.
These are the definitions I've found for Split Vision and Gap as I understand them.
Most aiming techiniques are defined by what the eyes and mind are focusing on.
Gap - the eyes and mind focus on both the target and the gap created between the arrow tip and the target and the archer consciously adjusts the gap according to the distance of the target.
Split Vision - it's like combining Point of Aim with Gap. A predetermined spot is picked out to place the arrow tip on for a particular distance while splitting the focus between that spot, the arrow tip and the target. It's nearly identical to Gap but differs because of what the archer is focusing on. If the Split Vision archer was just focusing on the gap and the target...it would be Gap but he is also focusing on that predetermined spot.
It basically shows the transition some archers like myself have made going from learning Point of Aim in the beginning to Gap and eventually Instinctive.
It's all based on what you focus on and how you focus on it.
Ray ;)
-
I think the important thing to remember is that in Howard Hill's day the word gap wasn't invented yet. About 30 seconds ago I reread, for the 1000th time, Chapter 5 in "Hunting the Hard Way". I really hate to type but if you want me to quote from that chapter, I will be happy to, or you can read it yourself, assuming of course, that you all have the book
-
With all the variations of each aiming method its very hard to get accurate definitions...take gap for example...I use gap much like Ray defined :
"Gap - the eyes and mind focus on both the target and the gap created between the arrow tip and the target and the archer consciously adjusts the gap according to the distance of the target."
Except, my focus is on target, with my subconscious seeing and setting gap, at the arrow point...others use the gap between the arrow and their eye at the riser...theres even a few with high anchors, that set gap at the nock end of the arrow...some use a point 3-4'' from the point end to calibrate target, due to anchors too high to see the actual point....ohh and what about the many guys, whose focus is on the gap itself, not the target or point ?
Good luck with getting a hard and fast definition...as theres several varations!
:D
-
Rod,
"Except, my focus is on target, with my subconscious seeing and setting gap, at the arrow point."
That sounds like you are aiming instinctively to me based on your words used when you adjust the gap subconsciously and 100% focus and concentration is on the target.
I believe whether an archer gaps off the arrow point or the riser consciously...it's still Gap shooting because a gap is consciously being adjusted without a Point of Aim reference that also could be used like with Split Vison.
Personally, my main aiming techinique is Gap. I shoot off a sight picture gaping off of my arrow and riser similar to how a apature sight works.
I adjust my gap consciously but I couldn't tell you exactly what it is for a particular distance...except for my Point On distance.
My Gap style aiming techinique is almost instinctive...but not quite. I'm still relying on my conscious mind to see the gaps and consciously feel and make the adjustments.
When I no longer consciously adjust my gaps and completely allow my subconscious to adjust them...my Gap aiming techinique will have than evolved into purely aiming instinctively where I rely more on proprioception and muscle memory...which I often use when I'm shooting at moving and aerial targets.
Ray ;)
-
"proprioception"-wow, I think my wife did that when she gave birth to our daughter.
I don't know what I do and I think I'm glad. I don't pay the arrow point any attention at all. I am concerned with arrow alignment with my peripheral and I focus very hard on a spot.
-
Black Wolf,
Again I find myself in agreement with you. Could it be that we were brothers in a past life?
Explaination of our way of shooting often gets in the way. I just point my bow hand at what I want to hit, and focus on the thing I want to hit. When I trust what God has given me, I hit the object, or I am very close.
I am not skilled enough at instinctive shooting to consistantly hit targets beyond forty yards, not yet.
On the other hand, I don't shoot game at those distances, and have retired from Field Archery Twenty years ago.
I am willing to bet, that a person could become skilled enough to shot instinctively at those distances. I am not the greatest shot, but game is in serious trouble if it gives me an unobstructed shot thirty five yards and under. While I perfer twenty five and under, they would be hurtin for certian.
-
Scott,
We're brothers right now! ;)
I definitely believe that a person could become skilled enough to shot instinctively at those distances...but it would take more time and dedication than what the average person has to achieve that.
Ray ;)
-
Physical movement (walking) is a learned response and with practice, and trial-n-error, or ups and downs, walking becomes automatic or instinctive. We are blessed with the ability to relearn instinctive abilities or a series of movements to " walk again" after one of life's curve balls. A shoulder injury may alter our instinctive shooting ability however, an altered form, or style, or muscle recruitment be learned to once again bring about the perfect arrow flight to the intended target. It is a wonder and a blessing to shoot a bow and arrow with traditional equipment by whatever method or God given ability that helps to reach our goals and adventures. Aim with a purpose, be your best, knowing excellence is not perfection but the joy of being your best, today (for we do not know what tomorrow will bring). Enjoy shooting.
-
I don't read past where it might apply to me but isn't it CRAZY how we can't even ID a shooting form in this minority of bowshooting. I'm just beginning to understand the different shooting styles of using a wooden bow without sights and I even think I understand what I do and why but a'int it a hoot when these posts come up about how and why and what works best-when? I'm sure I've started to gap shoot with my 55lb bow during 3d shoots BUT that is not what I want to perfect! I hunt!
-
Imagine shooting a rifle from a bench rest that consistently gets great groups. Then imagine if the sights were randomly changed every other shot without the shooter's knowledge. No matter how good his aiming ability, he wouldn't get very good groups.
Aiming and shooting a bow is a little like this. Our minds gain experience from every shot. However, if your form is different every shot, it's like changing the rifle's sights without the shooter knowing.
If you want to hit what you are aiming at, you have to first develop consistent form. If your form is not consistent, you are just confusing the magnificent aiming computer in your head.
You will learn accuracy much faster if a particular sight picture results in the same point of impact each and every time.
To do this you need to develop good form. What is good form? Good form means that the arrow flys with exactly the same trajectory every time.
Over the thousands of years that humans have been using bows, we've learned that there are specific techniques of form that work better for most archers in most situations. You don't have to use them. You can re-invent the wheel. You just have to be consistent. There are plenty of books and videos that cover these techniques.
Gap, instinctive, POA, split vision, etc. - it really doesn't matter as long as it works for you. And none of them will work if you're not getting consistent arrow trajectory through consistent form.
Hope this helps,
Allen
-
Spot on AllenR!
Ray ;)
-
Something I am starting to notice is that 3 under shooters tend to think of themselves as gap shooters more often than split finger shooters do. This is probably because the arrow and gap is more prevalent in a 3 under shooters site picture. Shooting split finger my "gap" at 20 yards is so far in the dirt that I dont even notice it and would have a hard time using it if I tried. Now out at 40-50 yards when I am closer to point on I tend to think of my self as a gap shooter.
-
Tom A,
I would have to agree. Now...I'm not saying this is true for everyone...but I would guess that there are definitely some archers, who think they are aiming Instinctively, who are actually Gap Shooting...especially those archers that try to get the arrow closer to the eye by shooting 3 under.
Does it really make a difference to me....whether an archer is Gap Shooting or aiming Instinctively? NO...NOT ONE BIT.
My ONLY concern regarding aiming techiniques are to help clarify the definitions to help eliminate any confusion when someone is teaching it or trying to learn it.
Ray ;)
-
Whatever works best for you is best. That's just all there is to it. You can't kill them if you can't hit them. I suspect lots of folks figure their aiming technique is the best for bowhunting - and also I suspect they don't all have the same aiming technique they're thinking is best. And oddly enough, they're all right about what's best even though we're talking about different people thinking different techniques are better. There's no "easiest", "most accurate" or "best" per se.
I'd wager that most pure instinctive shooters aren't able to shoot better by gapping and I'll bet a bunch have tried it. There are no free lunches and no one thing is harder, easier, more impressive, less impressive, more effective, less effective than another independent of the shooter any more than "one size fits all shoes" would actually fit everyone equally well.
-
Some people have a fasination living in La La Land ;)
The simple reality of it all is this...you take some people who have never shot a bow and teach them how to shoot...the majority if not all...will have an EASIER time learning to be accurate by teaching them a conscious aiming techinique such as Gap, Split Vison, Point of Aim or using a pin sight when compared to trying to teach them to aim Instinctively.
The FACT is...Instinctive Aiming is the HARDEST aiming method to master to achieve consistant accuracy with shot after shot...especially at longer distances...and once it has been mastered...it can be a very effective aiming techinique similar to the others...and in some cases...even more so.
So the reality is...the DIFFERENT aiming techinques are NOT the same. There are EASIER and HARDER aiming techinqiues to learn to achieve quicker and more consistant accuracy with.
Another reality is...there are also EASIER techinques to use for specific circumstances such as...long distance target shooting, aerial shooting, moving targets, NFAA 300 rounds, close targets that require a quick shot and the list goes on.
All a person needs to do is do some research without letting bias, insecurities or prejudice control their thought process...and the facts will become clear.
Ray ;)
-
What people are living in La La Land?
Gap, instinctive, POA, split vision, instinctive gap - whatever - it really doesn't matter as long as it works for you. And none of them will work if you're not getting consistent arrow trajectory through consistent form.
I think it's a mistake to assume any one of those aiming techniques is hardest, easiest, more or less effective etc., independent of the archer. We're not all clones.
-
Actually...it's a mistake to assume that they are all equal....without any of them having advantages and disadvantages...especially when there is evidence to prove otherwise.
By researching what the general population achieves...will indicate which aiming techiniques are in FACT harder or EASIER to master...which takes into consideration...we are not all clones.
Ray ;)
-
Sorry, Black Wolf, I was just agreeing with Allen and should have put "quotes" around that because that's what he said earlier in this thread and I thought he was spot on just like you said he was. I wouldn't have responded if I'd have known you'd changed your mind about that, Ray. I'm not interested in arguing with you.
So, you're right, of course and let's just pretend I didn't say anything at all. Cheers.
-
If you are refering to this quote AllenR made - "Gap, instinctive, POA, split vision, etc. - it really doesn't matter as long as it works for you. And none of them will work if you're not getting consistent arrow trajectory through consistent form."
I still totally agree with that...unless you're taking into account close distance and a bigger target...than I've seen guys with less than consistant form hit aerial target after aerial target by aiming instinctively at close distance.
I just don't agree that all aiming techiniques are created equal.
I believe there are inherent advantages and disadvantages to each one but it's up to the archer to do the research to find out what they are and than find out what they can or can't do with them.
If you want to pretend something...go right ahead...but I personally don't like to pretend anything...especially when it comes to archery ;)
Ray ;)
-
I think we actually agree, Black Wolf, but it's hard to tell with all the disagreement going on. I agree the archer has to determine it for himself. That's why I don't tell archers what's necessarily going to be best for them; because I do agree. I'd sure hate to see how things would go if we really disagreed on this, LOL.
-
LOL...we've always agreed on certain aspects of archery...but as true as that is...it's also true that we disagree on many aspects regarding aiming techinqiues...especially regarding instinctive aiming ;)
Ray ;)
-
So if it's different strokes for different folks, I'd argue the HARDEST way for any particular individual is the WRONG way for that individual.
Best,
Martin
-
Originally posted by Martin Farrent:
So if it's different strokes for different folks, I'd argue the HARDEST way for any particular individual is the WRONG way for that individual.
Best,
Martin
What may be right for you...is NOT necessarily right for someone else.
There are many reasons why each one of us choose to do what we do.
Some people like more of a challenge. Some people like to make things easier. For whatever reason an archer chooses to aim...it's going to be a personal one...and the EASIEST choice will not always be the right choice.
If ultimate accuracy was the only criteria to base a choice on an aiming techinque...than we would all probably be using sights.
So if a person is going to be so closed minded that they can't see out of their own box...they'll never understand why some people make certain choices over others.
The only time an aiming system is really right or wrong...is if it isn't producing the specific results an individual archer may have. Than it's time to look into the other options or re-examine something they may or may not be doing correctly.
I've never worried why or why not a person chooses an aiming techinque. I could care less...unless they are asking my opinion on what aiming techinique may be best suited for their goals.
I've always been more concerned about teaching the facts about the aiming techiniques so an archer can be better guided in making a decision that is more applicable to their specific goals, personality and ability.
Ray ;)
-
Originally posted by BLACK WOLF:
What may be right for you...is NOT necessarily right for someone else.
I thought I just implied that, Ray. D'ya think I should've implied it a bit louder or something?
Yeah, and some people choose options because they find them harder. Well okay, so they do. It's cool. Some find instinctive harder and some find stringwalking harder and some of those that find the one harder than the other actually prefer it 'cos it's harder and some prefer the easier option... so we're all different, and nothing's actually harder for everyone, or easier for everyone. Hope you can agree with this because my brain's hurting a bit. ;)
So I'll revise my earlier statement to say this: Personally, I like the options that come most naturally to me. And I generally find them, though usually after some experimenting with the alternatives. And after that, I don't bust a single neuron wondering whether they're challenging enough. I just work on using them and improving.
Best,
Martin
-
Martin....I thought that's what you said as well.
-
Terry,
I think I left an unintentional loophole for disagreement in what I thought was a pretty uncontroversial statement - by assuming that people were looking for the method that came most naturally to them. So Ray pointed out that some people actually prefer the style they find hardest and most challenging. I suppose he's right. So I rephrased my original comment for good measure and 'cos it's late over here in Europe. :)
Best,
Martin
-
OK...uh...then....I agree with both of ya. :D
-
Originally posted by Martin Farrent:
so we're all different, and nothing's actually harder for everyone, or easier for everyone. Hope you can agree with this because my brain's hurting a bit. ;)
I 100% agree ;)
So I'll revise my earlier statement to say this: Personally, I like the options that come most naturally to me. And I generally find them, though usually after some experimenting with the alternatives. And after that, I don't bust a single neuron wondering whether they're challenging enough. I just work on using them and improving.
Best,
Martin [/QB]
Now that's what I'm talkin' about! ;)
I just disagree when someone makes a closed statement that there are no advantages or disadvantages with the different aiming techiniques under specific circumstances when there is evidence to prove otherwise....which is also saying that non are easier or harder. There are all the same...which is something I disagree with.
How can a good instructor accurately guide a student in choosing an aiming techinque based on the student's goals, if they believe all the aiming techinques are equal with no inherent advantages or disadvantages?
Do you think it would be wise to suggest that a student who wants to compete in FITA tournaments take up Instinctive Aiming?
I sure don't ;)
If someone wants to say that Instinctive aiming has been the easiest aiming techinque for THEM SPECIFICALLY to master, I don't have a problem with that. It's when they won't acknowledge that based on research the evidence proves that Instinctive Aiming for the majority in regards to quickly developing consistant accuracy...IS IN FACT...HARDER TO MASTER.
Ray ;)
-
Life should be about the process. All we really have is this one particular moment in time. Nothin else exists... it's either over or hasnt happened yet.
I love the feel of a lively bow in my hand, the flight of the arrow, and hitting my mark. I get lost in it all. There is no place I feel more at peace in the moment than with my bow in the woods.
My opinion is that choosing an aiming system makes it all about the end result and takes away from the process. I practice because I love to shoot and so I do it alot. the more I shoot, the more my brain picks up on every little nuance and my shooting becomes increasingly instinctive. I dont have to think of ANYTHING aside from the spot I intend to hit. My mind and body does everything else for me.
Now this can be accomplished over time by aiming as well. But the mental process is still there. I believe it takes LONGER to become instinctively proficient using aiming techniques because there are more conscious mental processes that one must, through practice and over time, have move to a subconscious.
Who cares you say, as long as you getter done? Well, the joy of instinctive traditional bowhunting is in the experience of the bow becoming a natural extension of the man and facing an animal in his natural environment. Equals. The man has the benefit of intellect and reason, while the animal has the benefit of instinct and far superior senses.
The more technology we utilize and the more we look to increase the odds in our own favor, the less traditional is our experience.
I would encourage anyone who is beginning in trad archery to NOT stand in front of a target... to NOT aim... and to THINK as little as possible. Further, I recommend choosing a bow that is physically light enough that it can be carried all day long without even being aware that its in your hand, aside from the joy of it. I also recommend a bow that has a grip that fits the hand so perfectly that there are no noticeable pressure points. It should be an extension of you. A part of you. Ive never had a bow that I didnt have to carve at a bit to fit me perfectly.
I recommend that you resist the urge to shoot more than one arrow at any given target from the same distance. The more you change up the distances and positions and settings the better.
The first time I hunted the open tundra was a real eye opener. There is NOTHING to use as a point of reference. The brain is a wonderous thing. We dont realize how much it takes in. One day we were shooting our way across the tundra to reach a river. We were taking turns picking spots, usually these littel cotton ball things that sit atop little stems. At about the same time, we realized that we were shooting 60 and 80 yard shots and hitting what we were looking at. That wouldnt happen in the woods at home. Too many distractions for the brain to totally focus enough at those kinds of distances.
The point is that only by getting out in the woods and shooting with the distractions, do we force the brain to pick up all the points of reference and use our depth percetion to begin to develop the unconscious calculations the brain makes for us, instinctively. By putting the time in where I want to be anyway, it just becomes second nature. You look at a spot, draw, and hit it.
I just cant see shooting 6 arrows at a time at a twenty yard target for that tight group, and that readily translating into proficiency in the field.
Just my opinion. Sorry for the long rant.
-
Im talking bowhunting. The only competition I have any experience with is 3D shoots. And the majority of those have been set up at unknown distances. In those cases more often than not, we have trounced most compound sight shooters. Most, not all.
I know nothing of shooting for score. I guess that could go without saying huh? LOL!
-
:wavey:
-
Ray,
You're exactly right...that IS what Instinctive shooting basically is.
It's simple hand and eye coordination controlled through the subconscious with allot of conscious concentration placed on the target.
Ray ;)
-
What ever we want to call it and what ever our brains and eyes tag onto for references, whether we consciously or unconsciously acknowledge these things it is still pretty much instinctive. I am reminded of the fellow who shot three under and claimed he didn't see the arrow and tried to convince me that I would be a better shooter if I shot like him. I was already a better shooter than him, I think the big one that we have not hit on is that if we shoot the same bow and same arrow for a long time our built electronics can fine tune our conditioned aiming, whatever we want to call it. Personally, I do better if I stay away from big changes in arrow weights and sight window variations, like Grizzly sticks to cedars and longbow to recurves.
-
I just went out back to shoot and started looking real hard at the tip of my arrow. Problem is, I don't want to hit the tip of my arrow.
So I just looked at the 4" chunk of styrafoam coffee cup that I pinned to the target with a twig, and that's where the tip of my arrow hit.
I couldn't do this in the womb, and it sure ain't as easy as plinking tin cans with a Daisy, but I thought that was the whole point of shooting a bow and arrow.
Isn't that what our dad's called it, shooting a bow and arrow?
-
I've cleaned this one up, and am putting it back. It was a good infomative thread worth keeping.
-
After reading this thread I've come to the conclusion that Instinctive shooting is about how you aim not how you draw or how long you hold at full draw.(?) I keep my eye on the point I want to hit from the beginning of my draw and even before I draw. When I reach full draw (anchor point)I am letting the arrow fly.
Stupid question: If I hold at full draw and still only look at the target is that still instinctive?
-
Yes.
-
Junction hunter,
Exactly! How you draw or how long you hold has more to do with your form than aiming...and as Tom A answered your question...I also agree.
What determines which aiming techinique an archer is using is primarily based on what the conscious mind is consciously aware of and focusing on while aiming.
Ray ;)
-
Originally posted by BLACK WOLF:
Junction hunter,
Exactly! How you draw or how long you hold has more to do with your form than aiming...
I would use the word 'style' instead of 'form' in the above statement. You can hold long or short and not have good form....or pre point or swing draw and still have bad form.
-
Yea...'style' would definitely apply and might be a little more appropriate but when target form is explained...that does often include stance, body position and type of draw...not just shoulder and arm alignment, IMO from I've researched.
As long as the meaning is conveyed...which was to explain how an archer's draw and hold at anchor really has little to do with their aiming techinique....it's all good ;)
I would also add...in some cases...the longer an archer does hold at anchor the more the mind is tempted to consciously use things within their vision to adjust their aim.
Ray ;)