Simply better

[LongStick64]

As I start to understand what I have read from Howard Hill, does it need to get more complicated, than draw, anchor, shoot ? I think that is the "secret" to Howard way of shooting. Why complicate the shot any more than that. Also I like what he says about making up your mind to be either a target shooter or hunter. I can't enjoy shooting a target on a bale, but toss a tennis ball around a field and I seem to lock in much better. Amazing how much better I shoot when the shot is less formal.

[newhouse114]

I shoot targets for one reason: MUSCLE MEMORY. I will shoot around 1000 arrows a week for a month before hunting season opens. When it is crunch time, my body knows what to do while my mind is staring at where I want my arrow to hit. I do not remember drawing my bow on my mule deer this year, I had no time to think about anything, he came bolting out of an aspen patch straight towards me, froze at 20 yards in a forward quartering position. Suddenly I was at full draw and anchored, and then the arrow was on the way. I don't remember the release either.

[mgf]

I shoot paper targets as a means of measuring my accuracy and precision. Sometimes you might think you're doing well until you actually measure your shooting in a quantifiable, objective manor.

While a stick bow is a simple device/tool, it's not necessarily all that simple to use well. That's the case with many "simple" tools...they require more knowledge/skill to actually use well.

As I understand it, Howard Hill preached FORM to his students. Read or listen to what John Schultz had to say about it.

Regarding having to decide whether you are a target shooter or hunter...lets look at some of the target shooters we know like Jimmy Blackmon or Dewayne Martin. They're world champion target archers who are also extremely successful hunters.

As far as I'm concerned, anything I shoot at is a target. To be sure, some targets are more fun than others, however, I intend to hit whatever it is that I'm shooting at.

Longstick, I think I should be able to "lock-up" i.e. properly execute the shot whether it's a tennis ball, NFAA 40 cm target, 3-D animal or a live game animal.

[mgf]

"Good form"...

While we can argue about what that really is I'm pretty sure I see certain aspects that are very common among "good" archers.

Anyway, good form isn't very complicated but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's easy to do or that you can do it.

It's true that a deer's lungs are larger than the 5 spot on an NFAA blue face. It's certainly possible to knock down a deer once in a while even if you aren't a very good archer. If that's all you're after then fine.

Still, it would be interesting to see a "keep-it- simple, grip-it and-rip-it" proponent to shoot a NFAA 290+ like Dewayne Martin or shoot an aspirin out of the air like John Schultz used to do.

Alternatively, they could demonstrate the simplicity of "draw anchor and shoot" by beating Dewayne on a 3-d course.

I've been working real hard at this for a while now. I even think I shoot pretty good. Apparently shooting a bow isn't simple enough for me because I still don't think I could touch Dewayne. LOL

[mgf]

I apologize for getting so long winded.

It's just that I don't think we attract many new stick-bow shooters by showing off our poor shooting...not that any one of us is necessarily responsible for attracting new people.

I also don't think we help new "traditional" archers much by oversimplifying what it takes to shoot really well.

[Diamond Paul]

LongStick:  It doesn't have to be complicated, that's true.  However, what seems relatively simple might not be so.  I think you are in for long-term frustration if you don't put some real study and work into the mechanics of shooting.  I come from a serious compound target shooter background, where accuracy is everything.  The guys I shot with wouldn't even bother to mention whether or not they shot a 300 on league night; we all just gave our X-counts.  300 was assumed.  If I shot less than 57 of them, I considered that a failure.  As such, I was always bothered when I came to trad and heard guys saying, "I can't shoot paper, but I can kill hair every time!"  When I saw them shoot, this statement seemed a lie, as they would hit every part, or no part, of a 3D animal except the chest.  If you can shoot, you can shoot.  If you can't hit a bull at a known distance, you are living in La-La Land if you think you are magically going to be able to hit an animal regularly at some unknown distance.  As someone else once said, "Animals are big targets."  I think people deceive themselves about accuracy because they luck up and hit a beach ball once in a while.  I once pulled back without thinking and drilled a copperhead right through the head in my yard; I then turned around and missed my deer target at fifteen yards.  A few random hits don't say much.  It has to be repeatable, and proper form is the only way to get there, IMHO.

[McDave]

As with all things, you have to be honest with yourself and let the results speak for themselves. If whatever you're doing isn't producing excellence, then you have to try other things until you find something that does.  This is true whether you enjoy the freedom of casual shooting and object to the structure of imposed form, or vice versa. What produces excellence for one person might be the wrong prescription for another.

True, Howard Hill taught proper form, but if you look at his videos, he didn't always practice it. Sometimes you will see him releasing inches away from his anchor, and other times you will see his hand fly away from his face. The only constant is the arrow hitting the center of his target. How was he going to teach that?  "Just relax, but be sure to hit the target?"  I think he realized that a student with no real natural talent for archery will benefit from following a structured set of rules and will get better than he would by just trying to relax and hit the target.  OTOH, someone who has a lot of natural talent will benefit more from exploring his or her own natural talent and discovering how best to use it. I'm sure that following a structured approach doesn't hurt anyone, talented or not, but a person with a lot of natural talent has to know when to leave the structure behind so as not to smother his natural gifts.

[mgf]

Good points Dave.

I wouldn't necessarily try to dictate what "good" form" is. My engineering background tells me that there's almost always more than one way to do a thing. I do think that most of us do better with some known starting point or base line.

Personally, I practice standing straight up and try to put every arrow in the same hole.

I'm a hunter so I know that hours of sitting in the cold, wearing heavy clothes and less than perfect shooting positions may bring about some form compromises or deviations.

I expect that my true hunting accuracy is something less than what I can do on a range under nearly ideal conditions.

The range is where I learn how...learn what form and process works for me, measure it and commit it to "muscle memory/habit. I attempt to learn the mental part of the game.

From there I go to shots that duplicate hunting conditions as closely as I can.

In the woods, I come as close as I can to what I do on the range.

I've missed my share of deer. Every which way that I've tried to analyze or assess those shots it always comes back to what I can or can't do on the range.

I don't get that many shooting opportunities and the law doesn't let me practice on deer in the off season. All I can do is try to learn to put an arrow anyplace I want it, whenever I want to and convince myself that I really CAN do it.

I tried the "other way" first and it got me a lot of missed that should have been hits.

[Diamond Paul]

Well said, McDave.  Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of natural talent, so. . .

[McDave]

Me either, Paul...

[Diamond Paul]

Arne's vids have helped me a bunch, though.  One thing I am good at doing is being open-minded to new ideas and accepting someone's teaching.

[LongStick64]

Guys I am not discounting formal target shooting but I also don't feel that approach needs to work for everyone to be successful. If I can hit a tennis ball at 20 yards is hitting a piece of paper at 20 yards any different ? I try to match my practice with how I hunt and make it fun at the same time. And more importantly I shoot with proper form that works for me. I don't grip it and rip it as implied. I draw smoothly, I anchor and I release. My point is I don't get absorbed by every nuance of the shot. That might work on the range but impossible in my opinion to do so in the woods. Again my approach is to simplify the shot to enable myself to shoot relaxed, make the shooting fun and develop skills I can translate easier in the field, all the while using solid form.

[mgf]

I apologize for the implication. A wise man once said "What works, works."

I guess I agree with the rest. There's no reason that practice shouldn't be fun or applicable. "Simplification", as long as it's appropriate, is usually a good thing.

The questions I ask myself is "how god do you really shoot?", "How much control do really have?"

I get "absorbed" in whatever I need to in order to get it to work.

[newhouse114]

I think you just reaffirmed my comments on why I punch a lot of paper. True, a range is different than hunting situations but the proper shooting form must be consistent. That is where muscle memory comes in. When an action is repeated the same way enough times, it becomes difficult to do other than repeat the physical process. If your mind isn't in the right place though, none of that matters.

[LongStick64]

I think you are missing something here...making shooting fun or changing the target does not mean eliminating form. I am big on form, just don't agree that form needs a target bale to give you results. I prefer that my shooting sessions are not about mathematics, gaps etc, but about developing a natural skill, a smooth shot sequence that doesn't force you to use mantras, clickers, gaps to get the results you want.
If shooting paper locks you in so be it, for me it's leaf, a chip of bark, a scurrying squirrel

[reddogge]

I do the same for fun in the yard with a judo point. However I feel you should become a multifaceted archer and be equally comfortable shooting targets, 3-D, running and flying game, etc.

Try a NFAA field, hunter or animal round for a humbling experience.

[McDave]

Longstick, I don't think anybody wants to use a mantra or a gap or a clicker.  I think most if not all of us started out just shooting, trying to develop the natural skill you describe. However, at some point, some of us wanted more accuracy than we could get that way, while others of us developed target panic and wanted to regain the accuracy we had lost.  Some lucky few, like my mentor Rick Welch, and possibly Howard Hill ("possibly" just because I wasn't fortunate enough to know him personally), managed to maximize their potential without ever having to add any complications.  You have my best wishes, along with everyone else who has had to augment his natural skills along the way, that you are able to enjoy archery on your chosen path.

[Diamond Paul]

I thought field was the easiest discipline with a compound, because there is no distance judging and the tension isn't as high as indoors, where dropping one X puts you out of the money, but anyone who shoots field with a trad bow and no sights has my respect; and my sympathy.

[reddogge]

We shot one hunter round last year and this year we shot a 1/2 hunter and 1/2 animal round. Very humbling to say the least, but fun. Intend to do some more but have to work on those gaps (over) the target for the 60-70 yarders.

[Diamond Paul]

I think you would almost need to be a gap shooter of some kind to shoot field; I can't imagine trying to do so shooting instinctively, although I'm sure some do.