high vs low anchor point pros and cons?

[kevshin21]

So I know a bunch of people that have really low anchor point (index on jaw/chin area). Is there a advantage to that compared to an high anchor point (cheek bone) I tend to have a high anchor point so that the shaft of the arrow is in my peripheral and it works for me, but I was afraid that there are certain drawbacks when I hit farther shots. Should I try to "relearn" or relocate my anchor point to the chin?

[moebow]

Depends on what you want to do.  Lowering your anchor really only effect your "point on" distance.  The Olympic style shooters shoot up to 90 meters (about 100) yards and the low anchor gives them that longer capability.  Most of us don't need to do it but it's not wrong either.

Bottom line is do what works best for you and your style of shooting.

[NBK]

I agree with moebow and would add; use the anchor point that "feels" most comfortable and natural (while allowing proper alignment) because in the moment of truth, i.e. shooting at a big buck, your body is more apt to come to that natural anchor.

[BobCo 1965]

The lower anchor is more biomechanically efficient. However, the higher anchor gives you a better sight picture to aim of you are using a gap style method.

It's all give and take pretty much across the board as to which methods you choose to use in archery in general.

[mahantango]

Like everyone says, kinda depends on what you want to do and your  facial/hand structure. Basically, the lower your anchor, the greater the difference between your line of sight and the trajectory of the arrow, thus the longer your point-on distance. Great for longer distance field shooting, not so much for average hunting distance shots. Especially if you shoot gap. I shoot sort of split vision, definately using the arrow point in my peripheral vision as a aiming referance. I anchor high, on my cheekbone with the nock about 1/2" below my eye and my point-on distance is 20yds. A good, repeatable, bone on bone anchor which what it's all about. Yesterday I put a stalk on a groundhog in tall grass. Got to about 20-25 yds. when I ran out of cover. Waited until he was facing the other way, raised up on one knee, drew to anchor, put the point of my Grizzly BH between his shoulders and center-punched him. Paced off to 22yds. For me, a high anchor/closer point-on really simplifies hunting-range shots, one less thing for me to goof up at the moment of truth.

[Diamond Paul]

Originally posted by BobCo 1965:
The lower anchor is more biomechanically efficient. However, the higher anchor gives you a better sight picture to aim of you are using a gap style method.

It's all give and take pretty much across the board as to which methods you choose to use in archery in general.

That's about right.  It's easier to incorporate proper back tension with the lower anchor, and your point-on distance increases.  It makes it harder to shoot instinctively or gap because the arrow is so far from your eye, though.  Oly archers have sights, so it doesn't matter.  Too high an anchor will definitely give you problems with using back tension and getting a clean release, so you have to find a happy middle ground.  If you go to 3-under, you can use a lower anchor and still have your arrow as close to your eye as you do with a split-finger high anchor.