Anyone else can't shoot paper well?

[forestdweller]

Originally posted by Trenton G.:
I am terrible at paper shooting. Unfortunately, the only target I have I share with my dad and brother, both compound shooters, and it is covered with dots. I can't shoot at it worth a darn, and I'm just as, if not more likely to hit a dot on the other side of the target than the one that I'm aiming at. Shooting 3D animals is much easier, and stumps even easier. Paper and dots just confuse me and get in my head. I don't know why. It's always another weapon in my dads arsenal of arguments against trad bows when he watches me try and hit a paper dot, but I keep shooting anyways.

I think the problem is that when we shoot paper we are trying to shoot a 2D object which is terrible if you are shooting instinctive.

There are day's when I can chase nocks no problem and shoot fist sized groups from 30 yards.

Nocks are a dot as well but they are 3 dimensional which means they have contrast with their background.

I can shoot tennis balls, soccer balls, and pick out spots on stumps without issue. These things are all 3 Dimensional with plenty of contrast though so it's easy to "lock on" to them and differentiate them from everything else and make a good accurate shot.

I noticed yesterday that the main issue is that there is nothing to "lock" onto since it's just a 4 inch by 4 inch piece of flat paper with no contrast or anything sticking out of.

When you hunt animals they have plenty of things on them that pop out such as their hair, specific parts of their body, and the whole animal itself.

It actually reminds me of photography in that sense that if you took a camera and tried to lock onto focus with something that is flat and 2 Dimensional like a wall it's very hard to acquire focus most of the time and a lot of your shots will end up out of focus. Now if you go to focus on a tennis ball or a piece of bark on a stump or anything 3 Dimensional it will acquire focus right away.

Since our eyes operate very closely to that of a camera lens I think that's the reason why shooting paper is so much more difficult for the instinctive shooter that does not consciously aim using their arrow point. When we see an object that is 3 Dimensional which will naturally have lots of contrast we can lock onto it without any effort.

When shooting a piece of paper I just see blue and white and there's no specific point that's popping out so in essence most of us instinctive archers are more than likely focusing on just the flat colors themselves since we do not rely on our arrow point as a reference which leads to terrible paper accuracy and we have nothing to lock onto besides two colors.

I'm shooting a spot target at the moment (only 4's and 5's) and shooting 3 arrow groups so I'm not really shooting the true NFAA so to be fair I don't know how I'd do with the full size target with white in the middle and more blue in the 3, 2, and 1 ring but I doubt it would be much better than 200 at best due to the reasons that I mentioned.

I'm done with the snap shooting crap though I'm going to do some long distance shooting and focus on my form. Every time I shoot paper now I start tinkering and change something and resort to shooting this Howard Hill snap shooting style which for me does not work beyond 15 yards and is an inferior way to shoot in my opinion.

[KeganM]

Forest,I felt the same way when I started paper and had many of the same problems: flinching, changing my tempo, changing my style, looking to alter my gear for better scores, etc. None of it helped. I would put one in the 5 and then miss the whole target on the next one.

It's entirely mental. There are bowhunters who can shoot 260+ instinctively using their hunting rigs. I've shot one of my highest scores ever instinctively, a 262 with a longbow. It can be done! It's not easy, and of course you don't have to do it, but it's certainly possible if you work for it.

Has nothing to do with two or three dimensional targets or aiming styles. Just the gray stuff upstairs. You'll get there, just try to relax and shoot every arrow like you're shooting a tennis ball!

I'm nothing special and if I can do this anyone can!

[newhouse114]

I seem to be stuck on a 256 as a high score on the NFAA face. I've shot that with 4 different bows. I usually shoot in the mid 240's (until you throw me into a densly packed tournament) with my hunting rig, 65 lb whip and 835 gr doug fir arrows. I still throw arrow occasionally. Like yesterday, 2 fives, 2 fours, and one arrow completely off the paper! Ended up with a 244 for the round. It is not a matter of "trying" to change things while shooting, but trying to figure out what you did differntly when an arrow goes haywire.

[forestdweller]

Originally posted by KeganM:
Forest,I felt the same way when I started paper and had many of the same problems: flinching, changing my tempo, changing my style, looking to alter my gear for better scores, etc. None of it helped. I would put one in the 5 and then miss the whole target on the next one.

It's entirely mental. There are bowhunters who can shoot 260+ instinctively using their hunting rigs. I've shot one of my highest scores ever instinctively, a 262 with a longbow. It can be done! It's not easy, and of course you don't have to do it, but it's certainly possible if you work for it.

Has nothing to do with two or three dimensional targets or aiming styles. Just the gray stuff upstairs. You'll get there, just try to relax and shoot every arrow like you're shooting a tennis ball!

I'm nothing special and if I can do this anyone can!

Hey Kegan thanks for the suggestions and encouragement brother! I'm going to wait until I get a new target in and am going to order some full sized NFAA 300 targets that have the 3 ring, 2 ring, and 1 ring as well with a darker blue contrast.

The one that I was shooting was a lousy print out that only had the 4 or 5 ring (a 5 spot) and each time I missed it, it would cause me to get discouraged.

I feel like if I shot the full target face with 5 arrows per end instead of 3 my score will go up by that alone.

I did some shooting today before my allergies got too bad and felt deadly out to 40 paces just focusing on my form.

Hopefully when the weather breaks for good over spring and by the time I get a new target and proper NFAA 300 faces I can work on getting that score up.

   

Originally posted by newhouse114:
I seem to be stuck on a 256 as a high score on the NFAA face. I've shot that with 4 different bows. I usually shoot in the mid 240's (until you throw me into a densly packed tournament) with my hunting rig, 65 lb whip and 835 gr doug fir arrows. I still throw arrow occasionally. Like yesterday, 2 fives, 2 fours, and one arrow completely off the paper! Ended up with a 244 for the round. It is not a matter of "trying" to change things while shooting, but trying to figure out what you did differntly when an arrow goes haywire.

Shooting 240's with a bow that heavy is VERY impressive. That's some damn good shooting!

[KeganM]

The single spot is a lot easier on traditional shooters. Not only does it give you more room to "map" your patterns, but it also lets your mind find the sight picture faster.

Another thing that helped me was working my way back. I would shoot half-rounds at 10 until I could shoot at least 120 points, then I'd shoot from 13 yards the next time. Stay there until I hit 120 and continue.

Keep after it; it's only a matter of time before you're destroying the 5 ring!

[Dan bree]

Howard hill snap shooting inferior . .!    Mr. Hill did not snap shoot  he shot fast with a definite anchor . And was one hell of a shot . He said .boys make up your mind  whither you what to shoot targets or hunt because the two don't mix

[Dan bree]

Howard hill snap shooting inferior . .!    Mr. Hill did not snap shoot  he shot fast with a definite anchor . And was one hell of a shot . He said .boys make up your mind  whither you what to shoot targets or hunt because the two don't mix

Originally posted by Dan bree:
Howard hill snap shooting inferior . .!    Mr. Hill did not snap shoot  he shot fast with a definite anchor . And was one hell of a shot . He said .boys make up your mind  whither you what to shoot targets or hunt because the two don't mix

You're right about HH being a fast but "controlled" shooter.  

He was wrong about target shooters.  There's way too many successful hunters that also shoot targets.  Times and shooters have changed. IMO, I doubt he could hold a light on the 3D range with some of the shooters of today.

[forestdweller]

Originally posted by Dan bree:
Howard hill snap shooting inferior . .!    Mr. Hill did not snap shoot  he shot fast with a definite anchor . And was one hell of a shot . He said .boys make up your mind  whither you what to shoot targets or hunt because the two don't mix

I don't know of anyone that "snap shoots". It's a misnomer. I prefer to call it fluid shooting in which there is no pause at full anchor which is the way Hill shot most of the time in the videos that I have seen if him shoot. His shooting style was rhythemic and relaxed and had a lot of style and flair due to that.

He was contradicting himself if he said that because he was very very successful in target shooting and hunting.

 

Originally posted by Jim Casto Jr:
 

Originally posted by Dan bree:
Howard hill snap shooting inferior . .!    Mr. Hill did not snap shoot  he shot fast with a definite anchor . And was one hell of a shot . He said .boys make up your mind  whither you what to shoot targets or hunt because the two don't mix

You're right about HH being a fast but "controlled" shooter.  

He was wrong about target shooters.  There's way too many successful hunters that also shoot targets.  Times and shooters have changed. IMO, I doubt he could hold a light on the 3D range with some of the shooters of today. [/b]

You can't compare Howard Hill to today's ILF Olmypic FITA barebow setups with cut past center arrow shelves, carbon arrows, and glass and carbon laminated limbs paired with fast flight strings.

It's like comparing someone using a set of wooden golf clubs from the 50's to someone using modern graphite clubs and modern golf balls designed with high tech engineering.

Howard Hill used bows made out of natural materials for most of his shooting career meaning self bows and bamboo backed bows. He also used wooden arrows and did not shoot using an arrow shelf, he shot off the hand using linen bow strings.

He would be competing in the "primitive" class now a day's and I have no doubts in my mind that he'd smoke the competition.

[YosemiteSam]

The shot is the shot.  What's different is only what is happening between your ears.  Unfortunately, that's the most important part.  I think a lot of folks also go down to sub 40# rigs to help with the physical demands.

I don't shoot indoor competitions.  The couple times a year I do 3D, I don't bother to keep score.  My boys are with me and it's about having fun.  Keeping score focuses me on the score, not having a good time.  I start comparing myself to others better or worse than me instead of just chatting with fellow archers who enjoy the sport.  Others love the competition & that's good for them.  I may decide to try to up my game one of these years.  But for now, I prefer to keep it light.  Also, I have a self-imposed 20-yard limit for hunting but most 3D around here averages about 25-30 yards.  I "goof off" at 3D matches by imposing rules on myself like "no standing shots on turkeys" to replicate hunting better.  It doesn't help my score any but, again, it isn't the point for me.

To your credit, Ishi reportedly couldn't hit a bullseye target worth anything yet lived in great part from his skill with a bow.  There's no law that says that you have to master paper to be a good shot in the field.  But it doesn't hurt.

...You can't compare Howard Hill to today's ILF Olmypic FITA barebow setups with cut past center arrow shelves, carbon arrows, and glass and carbon laminated limbs paired with fast flight strings...

You're right... and I didn't.  I have no doubt the shooters of today, shooting his style of bow would hand him his hat, save for his "trick" shooting--maybe.

[forestdweller]

Originally posted by Jim Casto Jr:
 

...You can't compare Howard Hill to today's ILF Olmypic FITA barebow setups with cut past center arrow shelves, carbon arrows, and glass and carbon laminated limbs paired with fast flight strings...

You're right... and I didn't.  I have no doubt the shooters of today, shooting his style of bow would hand him his hat, save for his "trick" shooting--maybe. [/b]

No way, on an unmarked distance course Howard would smoke em. Even today the guys shooting instinctive keep up with the string walkers on the 1 shot unknown distance courses.

[longbow fanatic 1]

Forest,

I'm not commenting on the discussion of "who would win? Howard Hill or ...." however, go to any national archery event and watch the archers. The best shooters are not "instinctive" archers. They're string walkers, gappers, feels right gaps...etal.
If you want to discuss one shot accuracy, let's look at IBO Trad Worlds. Who are the top instinctive archers? I'm not saying a truly instinctive archer can't be on the top podium or they aren't the best archer out there. It just takes a special person with special skills.

forestdweller,

You probably missed that Howard Hill was a gap shooter, huh?  

[forestdweller]

Originally posted by longbow fanatic 1:
Forest,

I'm not commenting on the discussion of "who would win? Howard Hill or ...." however, go to any national archery event and watch the archers. The best shooters are not "instinctive" archers. They're string walkers, gappers, feels right gaps...etal.
If you want to discuss one shot accuracy, let's look at IBO Trad Worlds. Who are the top instinctive archers? I'm not saying a truly instinctive archer can't be on the top podium or they aren't the best archer out there. It just takes a special person with special skills.

I think the reason why there is not many instinctive archers at the top podium because either the best guys are not showing up to the event anymore (like Rick Welch of whom dominated when he competed and he shoots instinctive) or people do not put in the time to get good shooting instinctive.

But guys like Rick have beaten GAPers and string walkers in competition.

   

Originally posted by Jim Casto Jr:
forestdweller,

You probably missed that Howard Hill was a gap shooter, huh?          

Howard Hill did not shoot GAP he shot split vision which is a form of subconscious shooting and for all purposes is the same as instinctive.

Howard Hill had no time to GAP shoot since he did not have time to set up the gap. In all of hos videos he draws continuously and never pauses at anchor to set the GAP.

Actually, any time you note the relationship of your arrow to the mark, you're gap shooting--no matter how fast or slow you do it.

Split vision is focusing on the mark while noting the arrow in relationship to it. A gap shooter by any other name is still a gap shooter.

[McDave]

Originally posted by Jim Casto Jr:
Actually, any time you note the relationship of your arrow to the mark, you're gap shooting--no matter how fast or slow you do it.

Split vision is focusing on the mark while noting the arrow in relationship to it. A gap shooter by any other name is still a gap shooter.

It's kind of a subtle difference.  Howard Hill, in his book   Hunting the Hard Way  stated that he was not an instinctive shooter, because he used a reference: the point of his arrow.  He went on to say that this reference was very important to him because it allowed him to make corrections in elevation for subsequent shots that would have been impossible using an instinctive method.  As we all know, he called his method split vision, not gap.

Gap and point of aim were in use at the time, and were available methods for him to use.  He consciously chose not to use them because of the reason previously stated by Forestdweller: he primarily wanted a method to use hunting, and felt that the calculations required to use the gap method would slow down his shooting too much, while providing little benefit because he was shooting at unknown distances.  I have enough respect for Howard Hill to think that he would not create his own name for an aiming system that already had a name, so rather than call his system gap or instinctive, I call it split vision, a system sufficiently different from both to deserve its own name.

I have had many discussions with Rick Welch, and consider him to be a friend and mentor.  He calls his system instinctive, but I can find no significant differences between his system and split vision.  Rick uses his sight picture as a reference, which includes not only his arrow tip, but whatever other parts of his sight window are visible in his peripheral vision.  Because he does not use a gap system, his shots are not quite as repeatable as they might be for someone who makes a conscious calculation of the gap, thus he generally limits himself to competitions where only one shot is taken from each shooting position.  He is certainly capable of shooting groups in a casual setting, and I have seen him do it, but prefers not to compete under those conditions.  For Rick, each shot is truly unique in his mind, influenced as little as possible by any memory of the previous shot taken.  He purposely avoids cognitive thoughts while he is in the process of shooting an arrow.  He looks at the target while being physically aware of what his body is doing as he draws and shoots the bow, all without consciously thinking in words.  Shooting for him is an experience, not the result of a calculation, which is why he calls it instinctive.

[reddogge]

McDave, has Rick Welch ever mentioned he mentally calculates the yardage before he shoots? I've never heard anyone mention this before.

There seems to be two schools of shooters out there and my little group has both. One groups mentally calculates the yardage and aims accordingly and the other doesn't care what the yardage is.

[McDave]

Originally posted by reddogge:
McDave, has Rick Welch ever mentioned he mentally calculates the yardage before he shoots? I've never heard anyone mention this before.

There seems to be two schools of shooters out there and my little group has both. One groups mentally calculates the yardage and aims accordingly and the other doesn't care what the yardage is.

His motto, which is prominently repeated on just about everything he produces, is "How far was it? Don't know; don't care."  So I guess he doesn't!

[Keb]

When I shot instinctive I cant shot paper that great.

When I gap I can

I think the 2 diff methods require diff practice.