Is there a name for how I shoot?

[BLACK WOLF]

As far as the use of the word 'instinctive' as it relates to archery...maybe you just need to except that it's been used for quite some time and applies to many aspects of archery instead of trying to rename it...IF you truly want to stop any bickering    

Ray    

[Martin Farrent]

I was actually joking when I spoke of avoiding bickering about instinctive, Ray. You're assuming a sinister spirit my post didn't contain.    

If you'd asked, I would have told you that my casual comments earlier on only concerned the notions of 'conscious' versus 'subconscious' referencing - or 'aware' versus 'unaware' or whatever (seems the words will never be used properly anyway). It's all just a question of degree and doesn't matter much, when you consider my shoelace analogy. Things one does frequently become almost automatic, like rolling a cigarette or picking up a cup. They are initially all learnt 'consciously'. With practice, one can later pay less attention to them. Doesn't seem worth a theory of body orientation or a label to me. And certainly not worth an argument. Take swimming, for example. Do you badly need a label for the fact that you don't need to consider every stroke when swimming, because you learnt it 30 or 40 years ago? Would you get all heated up about it being 'mindless', or whatever you wanted to call it?


Best,

Martin

[BLACK WOLF]

Well...hmmmm...let's see...there's the butterfly, breast stroke, dog paddle, backstroke, freestyle, sidestroke, Trudgen and crawl to name a few of the different swimming techiniques.

Each has a specific name and a specific description to communicate what exactly is happening so that someone can teach it and someone else can learn it.

Archery is no different...there's Point of Aim, Gap, Split Vision, Face Walking, String Walking and Instinctive to name a few.

What basically seperates each one as a unique and different way to aim a bow and arrow...is what the archer is consciously focusing on.

It's as simple as that...there's no need to try and make things more confusing.

Each aiming techinique has been given a name and description.

And by the way...I don't need to assume anything about you. If you noticed I had smiley faces after my comments too to indicate my intensions    

Ray  

[Martin Farrent]

Originally posted by BLACK WOLF:
Engraining his form so that he does the same thing every time and achieves good consistant arrow flight...IS GOOD FORM.

Not so sure about this one either, Ray.

For one thing: How do you notice "good consistent arrow flight" at close distance to a blank bale, as you advocate?

If there were a target face, there would at least be (albeit minimal) feedback. But at a blank bale, one has to know what one is striving for - there are no visual indicators of success like arrow flight or impact point.

Best,

Martin

[BLACK WOLF]

Originally posted by Martin Farrent:
For one thing: How do you notice "good consistent arrow flight" at close distance to a blank bale, as you advocate?

If there were a target face, there would at least be (albeit minimal) feedback. But at a blank bale, one has to know what one is striving for - there are no visual indicators of success like arrow flight or impact point.

Best,

Martin [/QB]

I always use a bareshaft to check for good consistant arrow flight and to work on form.

When trying to engrain form to the point it becomes instinctive...I personally don't like shooting at a target...because it can destract me from my goal by shifting some of my concentration to the target rather than the aspect of my form I'm trying to work on.

Ray  

[Martin Farrent]

Originally posted by BLACK WOLF: When trying to engrain form to the point it becomes instinctive...I personally don't like shooting at a target...because it can destract me from my goal by shifting some of my concentration to the target rather than the aspect of my form I'm trying to work on.

Okay Ray, it appears we're on the same planet.

I was suggesting that a target would at least provide more feedback than simply shooting at a blank bale, without even knowing the object of the exercise. But since you do now acknowledge that you work on aspects of form, it seems you agree that one should know what one is attempting to achieve in some detail. Which is what I said: GOOD form is the object. Not merely bale practice ad nauseam, as often recommended and perhaps unintentionally suggested by yourself.

Actually though, zinndl, I think bale practice is probably a poor remedy in your particular case. You can bale-work on relaxing your release, but I guess the problem is too strong a focus on aiming. So once that aspect re-enters your shooting, the bale work will have achieved very little (because it excluded the actual problem). You actually need to shoot at targets a lot, I'd say, and work out a way of relaxing your mental attitude to aiming. That will probably be a thing between you and yourself - i.e. psychological and different for every one of us.

That said, however, one of the reasons I gave up the 'pointing' aiming method you describe is that it's sometimes hard to see that line down the arrow into the spot. It's a pretty sensitive sight picture, which can undermine confidence and lead to over-focus. The stringwalking sight picture, for example, is much simpler and thus more solid.

Best,

Martin

[Martin Farrent]

Double post occurred while editing the above, so I deleted the content here. Sorry, M.

[Martin Farrent]

Just thought I might add this, zinndl:

You'll often get the standard advice to "work on your form" when you post any kind of problem, and working on your form can never be a bad thing (when done properly). But form isn't everything.

As an example: If you were gapping, and your gaps were simply wrong, working on form would solve nothing... it could even lead to compensation and compromise good form to make the bad gaps work.

And if you have a mental problem at some stage of the shot cycle, working on your form will possibly boost your overall confidence, but little else. Look at it the other way round: If the problem actually were form, working on the psychology of the shot process would hardly solve it, right? Various ailments require various cures, and the bale ain't aspirin.

Best,

Martin

[zinndl]

Thanks to all for all the great info and help