Trad form vs Olympic form

[FrankM]

Seems to me they are different. Olympic shooters seem to have a more upright stance, almost like their whole body is inline, not two parallel lines like in the form clock.

[moebow]

Frank,

This is a really difficult question to answer in a short response.  Here is my "take" on it.

First, the formal target shooters are setting up for the greatest chance for an absolutely repeatable shot.  Hence the upright stance (foundation the same every time),  They are striving for the best alignment in the draw and shot as they can get (depending on their personal form theory).

Second, what (or whose) "trad form" are you using as a comparison?  There is much more variation in trad simply because many are self taught, or follow one of the "gurus" in trad archery.  Many try to adapt to a known or perceived need in the hunting field.  Sometime that is real and sometimes just speculation.

Third, what is YOUR definition of form?  What are you looking at as you make a comparison.  Just the overall person/package OR are you looking for movement, bone on bone alignment and execution -- the "little stuff?

I contend that IDEALLY form is form.  The relation between the "power unit" (arms & shoulders) and the "control unit" (head/eyes) CAN be the same in both types of application but many times the trad shooter is much more "casual" about it.

Minor things like stance and posture, or where the hand is on the face at full draw (side of face OR under the jaw) are things folks key in on rather than the underlying structure of the shot.

There are going to be a million ways to answer this question and there is no "easy" way to answer.  To me, form is form, but that depends on what one defines as form.  My definition was really given above: hands, arms, shoulders and head relations or positions, overall movement of the same.  NOT necessarily body posture & stance.

You mention Terry's form clock.  While it MAY not LOOK like a top formal target shooter, it really is VERY good and many target archers would do well to emulate what he shows there.  To the untrained eye it may LOOK different, but only because that eye MAY NOT be seeing the important aspects.

Arne

[FrankM]

Thanks Moebow, I'm untrained but getting ready to set up at least one private lesson to go over form. I wanted to get my "talking points" squared away. It'll be much easier to figure out issues in person. You can't ask on a forum, "Do you squeeze your back muscles like this, or like that?".  LOL.

[moebow]

If you are going to a trained (read that as a USA Archery certified coach) expect to be standing up straight, head erect.  The theory is that will allow you to concentrate on the form and movement and to get the feel of bone on bone and back tension.

If you are going to an accomplished trad instructor, that may not be what you see, it just depends.

In either case, take a light draw weight bow if you have one.  I'd be interested in your "take a ways" and impressions after your lesson.  Remember that your lesson will not instantly make you a better shooter.  You will get the tools required to become a better shooter by applying what you learn.

Arne

[tracker12]

I think most shooters would be better served to take lessons from a target archery coach.   Then adapt to the different positions that hunting situations will put you in.  I guess the only real conflict would be if you want to use the three under high anchor.

[McDave]

If you plan to hunt with a trad bow, I think your best bet is to go to a trad archery instructor who has both a proven record as an instructor and a proven hunting record.  Which doesn't mean he can't be an instructor who may also teach Olympic style shooting, as long as he is also capable of teaching hunting archery skills.  Going to an Olympic style instructor to learn traditional hunting archery would be like going to a classical piano teacher to learn to play jazz.  Classical piano would improve your basic piano skills, but you would have to relearn a lot of things if you really wanted to play jazz.

It also strikes me as being kind of like when I was in high school, back before the Civil War, some teachers wanted me to take Latin, which would help me if I wanted to study Spanish or any other romance language.  Possibly true, and some may still disagree, but my feeling then and now is that if you want to learn Spanish or French, you should study Spanish or French, not Latin.

[FrankM]

Finding a trad instructor might prove difficult. This person shoots 3d mostly. Has some trophys. There's Lionheart Academy, a so-called mideavel school. Performance Archery, Bow n Arrow Shop and Willow up in Escondido are mostly compound shops.

[McDave]

Rod Jenkins travels around to various parts of the country to put on workshops.  Rick Welch also does that to a lesser degree.  You're right, I've never heard of them holding one very close to San Diego or Sacramento for that matter, so you generally have to travel to attend one.  It's a very enjoyable experience, but you do have to have the time and means to travel.

Most places have people around who have been doing this for a long time, have gotten pretty good at it, and are willing to spend some time with you.  I would imagine San Diego is no exception.  Most trad archers are largely self-taught, which means there will be a greater variation in their styles than those who are formally taught in Olympic archery.  Some of these variations you might like, and some you might not, so in the absence of formal instruction by a pro, you should explore as many alternatives as you can find to see which suits you best, such as Arne Moe's videos, Terry Green's form clock, and all the different styles demonstrated in the Masters of the Bare Bow series

[TSP]

Trad (hunting) style and the form it employs certainly is different from olympic (target) style...and it's not just a physical difference.  

Few people familiar with barebow hunting with archery gear would argue that one of the best ever ambassadors for traditional style archery was Howard Hill.  Yet, on another popular chat site Hill was recently accused of being a person that should not be emulated, a 'propaganda artist', and 'morally bankrupt'.  "Calling Hill a good archer is like calling Hitler a good leader", said the poster.  Worse yet, others actually supported the concept and ridicule primarily to disparage hunting style in favor of their self-professed 'correct' version of what archery should be...the never-ending calculated pursuit of drilling arrow after arrow into the same hole on a paper target.  This is not in any way reflective of what MOST of us support as an approach for promoting the particular style we favor.  But this IS what it has come to with regard to the lack of respect by some shooters.

In some sectors hunting style is being attacked and eroded by the very ranks that grew from it.  People were shooting arrows to survive, feed and protect themselves long before they were arguing over scored points on a target face.  It seems that some of us are not only forgetting from whence we came as a group, but how to respect what (and who) came before us.  

I applaud those who resist trad bashing and practice archery form and purpose the way it was for thousands of years.  Dying breed or not, it's an admirable pursuit worth preserving and protecting.

[ChuckC]

TSP... as a devils advocate, like him or hate him, Hitler took a hurting nation and very nearly conquered all of Europe and more ( lots more). He got a very lot done and the people followed him.

That sounds like a very good leader.  Of course, WHAT he got done and HOW he did it is not something I'd like to follow.

That jives right into this comment.  There are many ways to look at something and perceive it.
To some, it is a wonderful idea and to others it is terrible.  It can be both, depending upon your background and point of view.

I think we have almost always had a separation and a struggle between what I will call field archery and what I will call hunting archery.  They are two very different ( but in some obvious ways very similar) things.  Depending upon your place, your view of the game, one might be good, while another, in another place, may disagree,
ChuckC

[McDave]

Yes, "your view of the game" sort of reminds me of an experience I had in a fly fishing store not too long ago. I was looking for some new flies to take on a backpacking trip with me. I wanted to make sure I had barbed hooks, so I asked the clerk where the barbed hook flies were. He said, "We only sell barbless hooks here. We don't believe in killing the fish."  I said, "Sorry, I believe in killing the fish and eating them, not torturing them for the fun of it."  I doubt that we'll ever see eye to eye.

[TSP]

ChuckC, I don't want to pirate this thread with side issues beyond comparisons of form, but in response to your defense of a Hitler/Hill comparison I'm guessing that millions of war families and survivors would disagree with your assessment, perhaps to the level of defining such a comparison as an insulting abomination of reality, history and common sense.  That it (the poster's comment) was offered to promote personal bias against traditional archery makes the drawing of such similarities even more discreditable.  

But returning to the main point, when it comes to comparisons of archery form there is much more to it than just the technical aspects of stance, style, gear and objective.  Much more.

[ChuckC]

I did not defend him nor did I compare the two.  Only pointed out what should be obvious.  There are two  (or more) sides to every story.  Where you stand when it is told influences greatly how you hear or see it. That's all.

ChuckC

[McDave]

I have read a great deal about Howard Hill, and everything I have read indicates that he was a man of honor and integrity who had no political aspirations whatsoever.  He did promote his considerable archery skills, but to my knowledge he never claimed anything he couldn't back up.  Any comparison between Hill and Hitler is asinine, and could only be made for the purpose of provocation.  His hunting ethics reflected his times, which are not our hunting ethics now.  I am getting a little tired of people trying to measure historical figures against ethical standards that did not exist at the time.

[FrankM]

Most definitely agree. His world was a different world.

[Rob DiStefano]

hill?  hitler?  geez.   lock down time.