Gap shooting or instinctive shooting, I have to make a decision

[freefeet]

Originally posted by BLACK WOLF:
An easy test to shed some truth on this topic is to shoot in total darkness at lazer pointers on the x ring of a NFAA 300 round target at different distances and positions and shoot 2 or 3 arrows per target....say 1 target at 5yrds.,  1 at 10yrds., 1 at 15yrds. and 1 at 20yrds. and score them...if you shoot as good or better in the dark than when the lights are on...I'll believe that you don't use any visual references...BUT...if you do...you have to admit that you are using visual references if you want to believe it or not.

I think your test is incorrect.

Since when did instinctive shooting become not using any visual references of anything?  I thought it was only about not using any visual references as regards the weapon's pointing?

I also think it is pretty impossible to judge the distance to a lazer dot in complete darkness.

And why the continuous need to try to rubbish other people's aiming abilities?

[BLACK WOLF]

freefeet,

I'm not trying to rubbish anyone's aiming abilities...so please don't take it that way.

I'm just trying to clarify terms, explanations and definitions founded on scientific principals to shed some light on some common misconceptions about the different aiming techiniques. That's all...nothing more...nothing less.

I'm not knocking anyone for their choice of aiming techinique. They are all good and each one has it's advantages and disadvantages under specific situations.

The great thing about the human mind and body...is that it can adapt to just about any situation and an archer can learn to make just about anything work. It's just that some are easier than others depending on the advantages concerning the specific circumstances.

Did you read any of those links I attached to a previous post?

If you did...it might help shed more light on what I'm trying to explain.

Ray  

[freefeet]

Originally posted by BLACK WOLF:
I'm just trying to clarify terms, explanations and definitions founded on scientific principals to shed some light on some common misconceptions about the different aiming techiniques. That's all...nothing more...nothing less.

Fair enough.

But why does someone concern themselves and demand scientific evidence for other's claims on how they believe they hit the target?

Why do people have to come up with experiments to prove other people wrong, experiments that take the whole subject out of context and therefore prove nothing of the claims they're trying to make?

You cannot experiment on something without affecting that which you experiment on.

Personally, i think that there are many ways of getting a projectile to a target.  Some animals rely on sound, some on vibration, some on touch, some on smell, some on taste, some on electrical currents, and some on various mixes of the above.  And we as humans have the ability to pick and chose which aspects of our senses we chose to use to direct our projectiles at our targets and hone those to our own personal liking.  No two people are the same.

If someone claims to me that God, The Force, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, makes their arrows hit the target, who am i to start demanding evidence and subjecting them to experiments to enter doubt into their minds?  If they hit the target, that's good enough for me to believe that they believe that.

Shooting any weapon is, afterall, more a belief thing than anything else.  How each person chooses to work with their beliefs within their own minds when shooting is entirely their own thing and should not be tampered with if they are hitting the target.

I've have shot guns since i was a child, everything from pistols to GPMG's, and one thing i've learned is that how someone aims is a very personal and subjective experience and for others to start throwing doubts into people's minds about how they aim a weapon, demanding objective evidence and subjecting them to all manner of experiments, is to my mind not a good thing at all.

I will leave you with this thought...  If you take an arrow and go into a completely dark room, then hold the arrow head between the fore finger and thumb of one hand and the nock between the forefinger and thumb of the other, you will know - if you have accurate spacial awareness of your own body - exactly where that arrow is pointing.  You do not need to visual the arrow at all (consciously or sub/un-consciously) to know this if your spacial awareness of your body is correct.

[Terry Green]

Taggart....you gotta pic the aiming method that fits YOU.  

Here's a start....

Were you an athlete in school or a calculus wiz?

[BLACK WOLF]

freefeet,

If you rather continue believing the way you do...don't let me stop you or convince you otherwise. You have the freedom to believe whatever you want...no one can force that upon you.

If it makes you shoot better...go for it.

I'm definitely not condemning you or passing judgement on you because of what you believe.

I'm just the type of person that rather share the facts than tell people that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists...unless he/she truly does exist  

But this really isn't like trying to prove God exists...because it can be easily tested.

Like I said...take the test I told you about and you will see how references within our periphial vision that make up part of our sight picture come into play in our subconscious when aiming...which can include the arrow, bow riser, your arm, your hand, a finger, etc. etc.

The way they come into play helps fine tune the aiming process of an Instinctive shooter which is also controled by the archer's muscle memory and proprioceptive ability.

Ray  

[BLACK WOLF]

Originally posted by Terry Green:
Taggart....you gotta pic the aiming method that fits YOU.  

Here's a start....

Were you an athlete in school or a calculus wiz?

Just as Terry implied...sometimes the aiming techinique will pick you based on your personality and genetics.

Someone who is more gifted as an athelete will probobaly pick up Instinctive Aiming quicker than others that are not...and someone who is more analytical or likes to problem solve...might be better off with Gap for example.

Whatever aiming method you choose...just also remember that if you set your mind to something and you pursue it with perseverence and passion...a person can often overcome the challenges that for some gifted people are easier to overcome and master.

We all have gifts. Just because some of us are not gifted athletically doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Our minds and bodies were created with nearly infinite potential.

Ray  

[freefeet]

Originally posted by BLACK WOLF:
I'm just the type of person that rather share the facts than tell people that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists...unless he/she truly does exist    

But this really isn't like trying to prove God exists...because it can be easily tested.

Like I said...take the test I told you about and you will see how references within our periphial vision that make up part of our sight picture come into play in our subconscious when aiming...which can include the arrow, bow riser, your arm, your hand, a finger, etc. etc.

To you the Flying Spaghetti Monster may not exist, but to someone in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (google it), that may be the only thing in their mind that does get the arrow accurately on target.  To them that is the fact.

Many sportsmen thank their relevant gods for their success because a lot of them do believe that it is a fact in their ability, and they shouldn't have to be questioned, tested or experimented on to prove their beliefs true and neither should someone believing they shoot instinctively.

And i really do not see how your test proves anything about instinctive aiming.  Instinctive aiming is not about shooting at a point of which you cannot judge the distance in surroundings you cannot see, it is simply not using your visual awareness to sight the weapon on the target.  Or is my understanding of instinctive aiming incorrect?

[BLACK WOLF]

freefeet,

A person who is secure in their beliefs will care less about if someone disagrees with them or if someone wants to test them.

I'm willing to discuss any topic with anyone...even if we disagree. It's healthy...as long as mutual respect is maintained and both people have learned not to take it personally.

You may not want to take the test...and you don't have to. I just think it would be an eye opening experience for you and anyone else who believes they aren't using a sight picture with visual references to some degree or another to position the weapon when they are aiming Instinctively.

You said - "...it is simply not using your visual awareness to sight the weapon on the target. Or is my understanding of instinctive aiming incorrect?"

From my perspective that is incorrect.

If you can see a target...you have visual awareness.

If can see something within your periphial vision such as your bow arm or arrow...you have visual awareness...even though you might not be consciously aware of it's presence or consciously using it. Just because you are not consciously using it...doesn't mean you are not subconsciously using it.

Again...the test is designed to indicate how an archer uses their eyes to fine tune their natural pointing abilty. The better an archer's hand and eye coordination is...the quicker and more accurate they are able to execute it.

An archer has to adjust their body in relationship to the target if they want to hit it and the way an archer adjusts can be based on muscle memory, proprioception, hearing and/or seeing.

Our vision is used more than just for depth perception and yardage estimation.

You can also test that by telling an archer exactly how far the lazer target is and have them shoot it in the dark....by eliminating the need for yardage estimation.

Ray    

[McDave]

"Many sportsmen thank their relevant gods for their success because a lot of them do believe that it is a fact in their ability, and they shouldn't have to be questioned, tested or experimented on to prove their beliefs true and neither should someone believing they shoot instinctively."

I think you may be unclear as to why people read and post in this forum.  There are no doubt a large number of people who just want to shoot their bows however they shoot them, and don't want to be bothered by conflicting theories or opinions.  More power to them!  But I doubt if any of them would be interested in participating in this forum, where theories and opinions about ways to shoot are what we enjoy doing.

On the other hand, your point about shooting at a laser point where you have no way of judging the distance is a good one, I think.  Inherent in instinctive shooting is that we have some means of judging distance.  Our binocular vision would be able to make some determination as to the distance of a laser point, out to maybe 10 yards, after which the convergence of our eyes doesn't change much.  Beyond 10 yards, I think you would need some other visual references in order to shoot accurately instinctively or any other way, if you didn't already know the distance to the laser point.

For me, instinctive shooting means that we don't consciously use an aiming device, whether it be the tip of the arrow or anything else.  Whatever our mind puts together from the environment and our visual picture of the target in order to guide the elevation of our bow arm is all a part of instinctive shooting, as far as I'm concerned.

[BLACK WOLF]

An archer can get very consistantly accurate while shooting at a target at a fixed distance and position through repeatitive motion that gets stored within our muscle memory/motor memory...which is why some archer's can get very accurate while shooting in the dark at one specific target at a specific distance and position.

Ray  

[BLACK WOLF]

Originally posted by McDave:
For me, instinctive shooting means that we don't consciously use an aiming device, whether it be the tip of the arrow or anything else.  Whatever our mind puts together from the environment and our visual picture of the target in order to guide the elevation of our bow arm is all a part of instinctive shooting, as far as I'm concerned.

Totally agree  

Ray  

[freefeet]

Originally posted by McDave:
I think you may be unclear as to why people read and post in this forum.  There are no doubt a large number of people who just want to shoot their bows however they shoot them, and don't want to be bothered by conflicting theories or opinions.  More power to them!  But I doubt if any of them would be interested in participating in this forum, where theories and opinions about ways to shoot are what we enjoy doing.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to imply that people shouldn't be putting opinions and theories forward and discussing them.  I was trying to say something else, but i can see why it probably got taken the wrong way having read it.  Writing isn't my strong point sometimes.

 

Originally posted by McDave:
For me, instinctive shooting means that we don't consciously use an aiming device, whether it be the tip of the arrow or anything else.  Whatever our mind puts together from the environment and our visual picture of the target in order to guide the elevation of our bow arm is all a part of instinctive shooting, as far as I'm concerned.

I fully accept your definition as well.

To Black Wolf...

So ok, we can practice at 10 yard targets for a month and then turn the lights off.  But we still have a memory issue as a variable which isn't there when shooting normally.  Some people can remember things very well, others can't.  How do you conclude anything when you can't measure the memory variable within your test?

Then we have the issue of darkness itself as a variable.  When we go into darkness it is automatic that our other senses become more acute.  Our hearing will start to hear things that we don't hear when it's light, we will notice smells we didn't notice before, tastes, touches and our spacial awareness will be different.  All these things can disturb us, and once again, the effect any of these has on any one individual is unmeasurable as a variable within your test.

Even if the room is in complete silence when we do this test, complete silence in the dark can be an issue for a lot of people, it's when we normally go to sleep and people's brains will start to do things that they normally wouldn't if it had remained light.  Once again, you cannot measure this variable within each individual within your test.

Some people become anxious in the dark to varying degrees, and anxiety will certainly throw your aim off.  How would you measure the anxiety variable?

What i'm trying to say is that there are simply too many variables out of our control acting upon our conscious and subconscious minds by switching the lights off.  And as we are supposed to be testing our subconscious minds this is an experiment that cannot deliver any conclusion.

My point i'm trying to make is that if someone is hitting their targets then it would be foolish to take this test and then drawer the conclusion that you are implying if they don't hit the target, because they simply cannot draw that conclusion from the result.  And if they did draw that conclusion and it was wrong then what then happens to their shooting after that as they go away believing something about their aiming that isn't true?

As i said earlier, shooting any projectile is a matter of belief.  We believe it will hit the target when we release the projectile from the weapon because we believe in whatever we believe about our aiming method to get it there.  If we start drawing the wrong conclusions about that belief because we don't consider that there are numerous variables that can skew the results of said test then we are entering problems in my opinion.

[BLACK WOLF]

freefeet,

You said - "I do not use any visual reference on any weapon i am using when shoot instinctively. It is not that i am not aware that i am doing it, it is that i am completely aware that i am not doing it."

First off...your hand is on the weapon and your arm is attached to it...so if you're not using the arrow or anything else on the bow...you have to be using the hand, finger, arm or something else within your periphial vision...like I previously said as part of your visual reference.

Like I said...an archer gets good at shooting at a target in the dark set at one distance and one position through motor memory...but when you set up multiple targets up at different distances and different positions like in the real world when hunting or 3D competitions...that motor memory is challenged and the eyes need to come into play to use the references subconsciously to fine tune the aiming process.

I have yet to see an archer shoot better in this test than with the lights on...myself included others who have claimed they don't visual reference anything while aiming...consciously or subconsciously.

Why do you think the term 'hand and EYE coordination' plays into this?

What is it about our eyes that aids our ability to hit objects with arrows?

Again...if you want to believe your not using any visual references to aid yourself while aiming your bow...feel free to keep on believing that...but I will always explain the facts on why that isn't true. The only time it doesn't apply is if you are blind, blindfolded or shooting in total darkness.

Ray  

[Terry Green]

Originally posted by CTaggart:


As far as stirring the kettle, I certainly  do not  mean for a heated discussion.

At this point there's arguing just to be arguing, and not addressing the topic starter's questions at all.