Question: Stance and Distance

[J-KID]

I began to contemplate the relationship between stance and distance (I might have originally read about it somewhere) a number of years ago and I must have gotten sidetracked as I did not follow through with my research to a conclusion.  An unknown injury that caused a numb, tingly arm sidelined me for about 4 months earlier this year.  When I began shooting again in June I got up to speed fairly quickly at 20 yards or less but was a mess beyond 20 yards.  I recalled the distance/stance relationship and gave it a try.  Bam!  I was right back where I had previously been at the longer distances.  I was recently helping someone who was having difficulty with consistency beyond 18 yards and I recommended that he open his stance considerably and BAM! he reported that his groups tightened up at 25 yards to about what he was doing at 15 yards before.

Now I'm not saying this will work for everyone, but I'd suggest if you are having problems at longer distances you give it a try.  I've noticed that if I open my stance as the distance progresses, even to point where the feet are parallel to the target at long distances (say 50 yards), there is a decided increase in consistency.  Any ideas as to why?

Now the Question:  I have some ideas as to what might be responsible for this complementary relationship between stance and distance but I would appreciate your insights.  If you have any ideas I'd like to hear them.  I'll probably run some experiments to test some hypotheses once I have a few to work with.

[sleepyhollow]

More straight forward vision ?

[njloco]

I shot today with two guys that were brothers, they both shot with a pretty open stances and drew only to there chin, that was there anchor point. They shot very consistent. Didn't seem that longer distance affected them at all. They both shot light weight bows, 45# and 37#.

[J-KID]

Our perception of distance is highly reliant on the specific way in which the image of the target enters and lands on the receptive field in the back of the eye (called retinal disparity).  A closed stance aligns the head in a way that diminishes this effectiveness.  As one's stance opens up the head typically turns more toward the target which enhances depth perception.

At close range this is not much of an issue for two reasons.  First, the image disparity is greater which allows accurate calculations even if the image is not entering at an optimal angle.  And second, the trajectory of the arrow is less critical.

As distance increases, there is less disparity and accurate calculation becomes more difficult, especially if the image is entering the receptive area at an angle.  Also, we now have the added problem of increased trajectory.

Research has shown that subjects facing an object are good at accurately guessing distances out to 40 yards.  After that distance accuracy begins to quickly diminish.  When we turn our heads at an angle, accuracy drops proportionately.

An analogy would be the old 35mm camera lens.  Focusing (depth) is easy (large movements of the focus ring) at close ranges and becomes increasingly more difficult (more minute chances of focus ring are required) as distance increases until one reaches a distance where "infinity" is hit and all images beyond that point are in focus.

Did I explain that well?

[Zog]

Jay,

Can you describe what you mean by open stance?

Thanks

[reddogge]

A square stance is when both feet are on an imaginary line to the target.  An open stance is when the back foot is on the line and the front foot is left of the line (RH shooter).  A closed stance is back foot on the line and front foot is right of the line.

Hope that helps.

[J-KID]

Closed stance has your toes on this line | (line is facing target)
Full open stance toes on this line --
Partial open stance toes on this line \\