Instinctive, or aiming for hunting

[Scott J. Williams]

Black Wolf,
     Again I find myself in agreement with you. Could it be that we were brothers in a past life?  

Explaination of our way of shooting often gets in the way.  I just point my bow hand at what I want to hit, and focus on the thing I want to hit.  When I trust what God has given me, I hit the object, or I am very close.  

I am not skilled enough at instinctive shooting to consistantly hit targets beyond forty yards, not yet.

On the other hand, I don't shoot game at those distances, and have retired from Field Archery Twenty years ago.

I am willing to bet, that a person could become skilled enough to shot instinctively at those distances.  I am not the greatest shot, but game is in serious trouble if it gives me an unobstructed shot thirty five yards and under.  While I perfer twenty five and under, they would be hurtin for certian.

[BLACK WOLF]

Scott,

We're brothers right now!  

I definitely believe that a person could become skilled enough to shot instinctively at those distances...but it would take more time and dedication than what the average person has to achieve that.

Ray  

[Steve Evans]

Physical movement (walking) is a learned response and with practice, and trial-n-error, or ups and downs, walking becomes automatic or instinctive. We are blessed with the ability to relearn instinctive abilities or a series of movements to " walk again" after one of life's curve balls. A shoulder injury may alter our instinctive shooting ability however, an altered form, or style, or muscle recruitment be learned to once again bring about the perfect arrow flight to the intended target. It is a wonder and a blessing to shoot a bow and arrow with traditional equipment by whatever method or God given ability that helps to reach our goals and adventures. Aim with a purpose, be your best, knowing excellence is not perfection but the joy of being your best, today (for we do not know what tomorrow will bring). Enjoy shooting.

[Luckyned]

I don't read past where it might apply to me but isn't it CRAZY how we can't even ID a shooting form in this minority of bowshooting. I'm just beginning to understand the different shooting styles of using a wooden bow without sights and I even think I understand what I do and why but a'int it a hoot when these posts come up about how and why and what works best-when? I'm sure I've started to gap shoot with my 55lb bow during 3d shoots BUT that is not what I want to perfect! I hunt!

[AllenR]

Imagine shooting a rifle from a bench rest that consistently gets great groups.  Then imagine if the sights were randomly changed every other shot without the shooter's knowledge.  No matter how good his aiming ability, he wouldn't get very good groups.

Aiming and shooting a bow is a little like this.  Our minds gain experience from every shot.  However, if your form is different every shot, it's like changing the rifle's sights without the shooter knowing.

If you want to hit what you are aiming at, you have to first develop consistent form.  If your form is not consistent, you are just confusing the magnificent aiming computer in your head.

You will learn accuracy much faster if a particular sight picture results in the same point of impact each and every time.

To do this you need to develop good form.  What is good form?  Good form means that the arrow flys with exactly the same trajectory every time.  

Over the thousands of years that humans have been using bows, we've learned that there are specific techniques of form that work better for most archers in most situations.  You don't have to use them.  You can re-invent the wheel.  You just have to be consistent.  There are plenty of books and videos that cover these techniques.

Gap, instinctive, POA, split vision, etc. - it really doesn't matter as long as it works for you.  And none of them will work if you're not getting consistent arrow trajectory through consistent form.

Hope this helps,
Allen

[BLACK WOLF]

Spot on AllenR!

Ray  

[Tom A]

Something I am starting to notice is that 3 under shooters tend to think of themselves as gap shooters more often than split finger shooters do. This is probably because the arrow and gap is more prevalent in a 3 under shooters site picture. Shooting split finger my "gap" at 20 yards is so far in the dirt that I dont even notice it and would have a hard time using it if I tried. Now out at 40-50 yards when I am closer to point on I tend to think of my self as a gap shooter.

[BLACK WOLF]

Tom A,

I would have to agree. Now...I'm not saying this is true for everyone...but I would guess that there are definitely some archers, who think they are aiming Instinctively, who are actually Gap Shooting...especially those archers that try to get the arrow closer to the eye by shooting 3 under.

Does it really make a difference to me....whether an archer is Gap Shooting or aiming Instinctively? NO...NOT ONE BIT.

My ONLY concern regarding aiming techiniques are to help clarify the definitions to help eliminate any confusion when someone is teaching it or trying to learn it.

Ray  

[Papa Bull]

Whatever works best for you is best.  That's just all there is to it.  You can't kill them if you can't hit them.  I suspect lots of folks figure their aiming technique is the best for bowhunting - and also I suspect they don't all have the same aiming technique they're thinking is best.  And oddly enough, they're all right about what's best even though we're talking about different people thinking different techniques are better.  There's no "easiest", "most accurate" or "best" per se.

I'd wager that most pure instinctive shooters aren't able to shoot better by gapping and I'll bet a bunch have tried it.  There are no free lunches and no one thing is harder, easier, more impressive, less impressive, more effective, less effective than another independent of the shooter any more than "one size fits all shoes" would actually fit everyone equally well.

[BLACK WOLF]

Some people have a fasination living in La La Land    

The simple reality of it all is this...you take some people who have never shot a bow and teach them how to shoot...the majority if not all...will have an EASIER time learning to be accurate by teaching them a conscious aiming techinique such as Gap, Split Vison, Point of Aim or using a pin sight when compared to trying to teach them to aim Instinctively.

The FACT is...Instinctive Aiming is the HARDEST aiming method to master to achieve consistant accuracy with shot after shot...especially at longer distances...and once it has been mastered...it can be a very effective aiming techinique similar to the others...and in some cases...even more so.

So the reality is...the DIFFERENT aiming techinques are NOT the same. There are EASIER and HARDER aiming techinqiues to learn to achieve quicker and more consistant accuracy with.

Another reality is...there are also EASIER techinques to use for specific circumstances such as...long distance target shooting, aerial shooting, moving targets, NFAA 300 rounds, close targets that require a quick shot and the list goes on.

All a person needs to do is do some research without letting bias, insecurities or prejudice control their thought process...and the facts will become clear.

Ray  

[Papa Bull]

What people are living in La La Land?

Gap, instinctive, POA, split vision, instinctive gap - whatever - it really doesn't matter as long as it works for you. And none of them will work if you're not getting consistent arrow trajectory through consistent form.  

I think it's a mistake to assume any one of those aiming techniques is hardest, easiest, more or less effective etc., independent of the archer.  We're not all clones.

[BLACK WOLF]

Actually...it's a mistake to assume that they are all equal....without any of them having advantages and disadvantages...especially when there is evidence to prove otherwise.

By researching what the general population achieves...will indicate which aiming techiniques are in FACT harder or EASIER to master...which takes into consideration...we are not all clones.

Ray  

[Papa Bull]

Sorry, Black Wolf, I was just agreeing with Allen and should have put "quotes" around that because that's what he said earlier in this thread and I thought he was spot on just like you said he was.  I wouldn't have responded if I'd have known you'd changed your mind about that, Ray.  I'm not interested in arguing with you.

So, you're right, of course and let's just pretend I didn't say anything at all.   Cheers.

[BLACK WOLF]

If you are refering to this quote AllenR made - "Gap, instinctive, POA, split vision, etc. - it really doesn't matter as long as it works for you. And none of them will work if you're not getting consistent arrow trajectory through consistent form."

I still totally agree with that...unless you're taking into account close distance and a bigger target...than I've seen guys with less than consistant form hit aerial target after aerial target by aiming instinctively at close distance.

I just don't agree that all aiming techiniques are created equal.

I believe there are inherent advantages and disadvantages to each one but it's up to the archer to do the research to find out what they are and than find out what they can or can't do with them.

If you want to pretend something...go right ahead...but I personally don't like to pretend anything...especially when it comes to archery    

Ray  

[Papa Bull]

I think we actually agree, Black Wolf, but it's hard to tell with all the disagreement going on.  I agree the archer has to determine it for himself.  That's why I don't tell archers what's necessarily going to be best for them; because I do agree.  I'd sure hate to see how things would go if we really disagreed on this, LOL.

[BLACK WOLF]

LOL...we've always agreed on certain aspects of archery...but as true as that is...it's also true that we disagree on many aspects regarding aiming techinqiues...especially regarding instinctive aiming  

Ray  

[Martin Farrent]

So if it's different strokes for different folks, I'd argue the HARDEST way for any particular individual is the WRONG way for that individual.

Best,

Martin

[BLACK WOLF]

Originally posted by Martin Farrent:
So if it's different strokes for different folks, I'd argue the HARDEST way for any particular individual is the WRONG way for that individual.

Best,

Martin

What may be right for you...is NOT necessarily right for someone else.

There are many reasons why each one of us choose to do what we do.

Some people like more of a challenge. Some people like to make things easier. For whatever reason an archer chooses to aim...it's going to be a personal one...and the EASIEST choice will not always be the right choice.

If ultimate accuracy was the only criteria to base a choice on an aiming techinque...than we would all probably be using sights.

So if a person is going to be so closed minded that they can't see out of their own box...they'll never understand why some people make certain choices over others.

The only time an aiming system is really right or wrong...is if it isn't producing the specific results an individual archer may have. Than it's time to look into the other options or re-examine something they may or may not be doing correctly.

I've never worried why or why not a person chooses an aiming techinque. I could care less...unless they are asking my opinion on what aiming techinique may be best suited for their goals.

I've always been more concerned about teaching the facts about the aiming techiniques so an archer can be better guided in making a decision that is more applicable to their specific goals, personality and ability.

Ray    

[Martin Farrent]

Originally posted by BLACK WOLF:
What may be right for you...is NOT necessarily right for someone else.

I thought I just implied that, Ray. D'ya think I should've implied it a bit louder or something?

Yeah, and some people choose options because they find them harder. Well okay, so they do. It's cool. Some find instinctive harder and some find stringwalking harder and some of those that find the one harder than the other actually prefer it 'cos it's harder and some prefer the easier option... so we're all different, and nothing's actually harder for everyone, or easier for everyone. Hope you can agree with this because my brain's hurting a bit.    

So I'll revise my earlier statement to say this:  Personally, I like the options that come most naturally to me. And I generally find them, though usually after some experimenting with the alternatives. And after that, I don't bust a single neuron wondering whether they're challenging enough. I just work on using them and improving.

Best,

Martin

[Terry Green]

Martin....I thought that's what you said as well.